Eglinton-Crosstown Corridor Debate

[Darwinkgo]

I guess a question to all you subway nuts out there:

If it runs as often as a subway, as fast as a subway, in a tunnel like a subway, and can carry close to the same amount of people as a subway, why is buying subway rolling stock and having transfers at the end of the tunnel better than buying LRT rolling stock and running through onto the in street section?

I fail to see the disadvantages of the LRT option in the above situation.

 

[kettal]

^^^^


The problem is that right now we have the politicians agreeing on the Provincial and Federal levels to help pay for these projects. The problem is if we don't invest in subways now we won't see a subway ever on this line for the next 20-30 years, or maybe never? They'll throw every excuse in the book, "We don't have the money", "We have to raise taxes", "taxpayers outside of the city won't benefit", "it will be too costly to convert the LRT and reroute people in the meantime", etc, etc.

So lets invest in something that can handle traffic for the next 20-30 years. LRT's are a great idea and there are parts of the city than can benefit from them. But lets not kid ourself that a mass network of LRTs is the solution to our transit problems.

I have every confidence that the Eglinton LRT will meet demand as designed, until at least 2050.

 

[CodeMonkey]

I guess a question to all you subway nuts out there:

If it runs as often as a subway, as fast as a subway, in a tunnel like a subway, and can carry close to the same amount of people as a subway, why is buying subway rolling stock and having transfers at the end of the tunnel better than buying LRT rolling stock and running through onto the in street section?

I fail to see the disadvantages of the LRT option in the above situation.

Down sides of LRTs is that it still subject to intersection traffic and delays that can occur at these intersections such as accidents. Another one is snow, LRT themselves can handle the snow, however the issue is trying to convince people who use their cars to give it up to wait at a bus style stop in the winter when snowing compared to underground with no snow. Although this may not be consider a issue, it won't get people out of their cars and reduce traffic on the soon to be reduced lanes on Eglinton to handle the LRTs. The LRTs will never reach full speed or near subway speed as they are design to have more stops in between even thought subway top speeds are slower than most LRTs top speeds.

The problem with tunnelling it is that they can save money just building it now to LRT specs, however it will be a nightmare to expand the tunnels once the demand for a subway is needed.

I have every confidence that the Eglinton LRT will meet demand as designed, until at least 2050.

Didn't they say the same thing about the SRT when it was being built.

The question is, do you build the line now with only have to deal a small amount of passenger delays or wait till the LRT reaches capacity to then close down the line down for some time to begin conversion and be stuck with another SRT to LRT conversion style of delay? Because even if they build the tunnel section to subway specs they still have to remove the surfaces connections for awhile to build the remaining subway tunnel.

 

[Dan416]

The thing about LRT is that if you run it like its a subway, it ends up being more expensive than subway because subway cars are actually cheaper than LRVs.

 

[kettal]

Down sides of LRTs is that it still subject to intersection traffic and delays that can occur at these intersections such as accidents. Another one is snow, LRT themselves can handle the snow, however the issue is trying to convince people who use their cars to give it up to wait at a bus style stop in the winter when snowing compared to underground with no snow. Although this may not be consider a issue, it won't get people out of their cars and reduce traffic on the soon to be reduced lanes on Eglinton to handle the LRTs. The LRTs will never reach full speed or near subway speed as they are design to have more stops in between even thought subway top speeds are slower than most LRTs top speeds.

Be creative. How about a Tim Hortons across the street where you can wait in comfort, with a screen telling you exactly how long until the next train arrives?

Didn't they say the same thing about the SRT when it was being built.

The only capacity problem with SRT is that it's impossible to buy new vehicles. This won't be a problem with LRT as it is an open standard

The question is, do you build the line now with only have to deal a small amount of passenger delays or wait till the LRT reaches capacity to then close down the line down for some time to begin conversion and be stuck with another SRT to LRT conversion style of delay? Because even if they build the tunnel section to subway specs they still have to remove the surfaces connections for awhile to build the remaining subway tunnel.

I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying that two of the stations will have to become walking transfers to an above-ground station while the old tunnel gets connected to the new tunnel? You're probably right, but that only needs to be done once the new tunnel is nearing completion, and can be completed in a month. The rest of the system should function as normal, but with turn-backs.

But that won't happen until 2050, so I wouldn't worry too much about it now.

 

[CodeMonkey]

Be creative. How about a Tim Hortons across the street where you can wait in comfort, with a screen telling you exactly how long until the next train arrives?

Why does that sound like a accident waiting to happen?

But take into account that people are lazy, its a sad stereotypical fact but its true. One can argue that one can get their coffee from a Tim Hortons and not wait for out in the cold or deal with crowds or try to see a small display to see if there LRT from afar if they take their car and move around at any time. The LRTs are subject to stop lights and so is their car. Traffic accidents in intersections can close down the line because they can't do turn around, but their car can.

So why do people use the Subways? Same rules can apply: cold, crowds and times, So why then? Because its fast and out of the way of other cars. LRTs may have some ROW but its still stuck dealing with people who block intersections when its their turn to cross. Or car crashes when someone was texting while driving and didn't see the red. So if the LRT's are subject to the same traffic conditions? What's the point?

The only capacity problem with SRT is that it's impossible to buy new vehicles. This won't be a problem with LRT as it is an open standard

The main problem with the ICTS between the MKI and the MKII is when they switch hands and Bombardier redesign them to be bigger and trying to say within the original MKI design. But what's the differences anyways on open technology if we keep going to Bombardier to make everything?

Every other company we bought from for trains was either privatized and absorbed into Bombardier or bought out and absorbed into Bombardier. You have to admit open standers mean nothing when the TTC still buys from Bombardier.

The problem with LRT standers are, that there really isn't any. Some manufactures are now looking at making embedding third rail LRT's with in the next 10 years and 20 years after that they'll probably stop manufacturing overhead power LRTs because its too costly to keep producing.

 

[Fresh Start]

Your inflation rate isn't appropriate. You seem to be using the Consumer Price Index instead of a rate that is appropriate to the construction industry. Steel, concrete, and fuel costs have both increased much, much, faster than Consumer Price Index.

In your example, you have an inflation rate of just under 2%. This is much, much lower than the actual rate. If you use the MTO Tender Price Index you will see that from Q4 1996/1997 to Q4 2008/09 that the index has increased from 106.94 to 213.22 - that's an inflation rate of over 5.9%.

Using an appropriate index, Sheppard increases from $155.6 million/km in 1997 to $310 million/km today.

You're being intellectually dishonest. If Sheppard's numbers are considered too outdated to source than certainly the other figures I that calculated (those for STM's Laval extension completed all of two years ago) are not.

Quebec uses the same building materials as we do and has similar wage rates. Using your own sourced data, we can observe that the rate of annual increase has gone up from 5.9% Q4 2006/2007 to 12.28% Q4 2008/2009, a difference of 7.19%. However, the following fiscal year Q4 2009/2010 the inflation rate is actually slated to decrease by 3.01%, meaning that inflation will have gone up only 4.18% since the Laval extension was completed.

Using that figure of 4.18%, the cost to build the Laval extension has inflated from $154.5 million/km in 2007 to $161 million/km by 2010. Multiply this by 24 kilometres and we get $3.863 billion. But let's entertain for a nanosecond the notion that I'm being way too generous and go with your high-end inflation rate of 5.9%. We wind up with it being $163.6 per kilometre to build subways or $3.927 billion for a subway the length of one that would span from PIA to the DVP.

That cannot be far off from reality because the completely underground metro extensions planned for Anjou, Longueuil and Laval- 20 kilometres worth- are slated to total in-between $3-$4 billion and completed by 2020. What say then a route like Eglinton where roughly half the total line could be done above-grade?

See what happens when we actually take it upon ourselves to do research on these matters and not be blindly led on by everything the TTC says as if it were scripture?

 

[Voltz]

That cannot be far off from reality because the completely underground metro extensions planned for Anjou, Longueuil and Laval- 20 kilometres worth- are slated to total in-between $3-$4 billion and completed by 2020. What say then a route like Eglinton where roughly half the total line could be done above-grade?

See what happens when we actually take it upon ourselves to do research on these matters and not be blindly led on by everything the TTC says as if it were scripture?

Why don't you think those preliminary cost estimates for the Montreal subways won't go up? From what I remember the costs for the laval extension went up significantly.

 

[Darwinkgo]

Down sides of LRTs is that it still subject to intersection traffic and delays that can occur at these intersections such as accidents. Another one is snow, LRT themselves can handle the snow, however the issue is trying to convince people who use their cars to give it up to wait at a bus style stop in the winter when snowing compared to underground with no snow. Although this may not be consider a issue, it won't get people out of their cars and reduce traffic on the soon to be reduced lanes on Eglinton to handle the LRTs. The LRTs will never reach full speed or near subway speed as they are design to have more stops in between even thought subway top speeds are slower than most LRTs top speeds.

The problem with tunnelling it is that they can save money just building it now to LRT specs, however it will be a nightmare to expand the tunnels once the demand for a subway is needed.




Didn't they say the same thing about the SRT when it was being built.

The question is, do you build the line now with only have to deal a small amount of passenger delays or wait till the LRT reaches capacity to then close down the line down for some time to begin conversion and be stuck with another SRT to LRT conversion style of delay? Because even if they build the tunnel section to subway specs they still have to remove the surfaces connections for awhile to build the remaining subway tunnel.

You didn't really answer my question. You answered why a subway was better than surface LRT, which we can all agree with. But you did not answer why subway rolling stock in the tunnel section was better than the surface LRT continuing in the tunnel section which would prevent transfers.

Seems to me your main argument is about the number of stations, which has nothing to do with technology choice.

You assume that going with subway will lead to a longer tunneled section, an assumption that seems highly unlikely.

 

[kettal]

Why does that sound like a accident waiting to happen?

But take into account that people are lazy, its a sad stereotypical fact but its true. One can argue that one can get their coffee from a Tim Hortons and not wait for out in the cold or deal with crowds or try to see a small display to see if there LRT from afar if they take their car and move around at any time. The LRTs are subject to stop lights and so is their car. Traffic accidents in intersections can close down the line because they can't do turn around, but their car can.

So why do people use the Subways? Same rules can apply: cold, crowds and times, So why then? Because its fast and out of the way of other cars. LRTs may have some ROW but its still stuck dealing with people who block intersections when its their turn to cross. Or car crashes when someone was texting while driving and didn't see the red. So if the LRT's are subject to the same traffic conditions? What's the point?

People don't plan their day around accidents that happen at any given intersection once in every 5 years. If they did, then nobody would drive.

Subway suicides are actually more common than your examples and they cause the same amount of disruption.

The main problem with the ICTS between the MKI and the MKII is when they switch hands and Bombardier redesign them to be bigger and trying to say within the original MKI design. But what's the differences anyways on open technology if we keep going to Bombardier to make everything?

Every other company we bought from for trains was either privatized and absorbed into Bombardier or bought out and absorbed into Bombardier. You have to admit open standers mean nothing when the TTC still buys from Bombardier.

The problem with LRT standers are, that there really isn't any. Some manufactures are now looking at making embedding third rail LRT's with in the next 10 years and 20 years after that they'll probably stop manufacturing overhead power LRTs because its too costly to keep producing.

The fact is, we can go to any train manufacturer in the world, and none of them will be able to make us a vehicle that can run on the SRT tracks.

This will never be the case with LRT, as our tracks are designed in a way that any manufacturer can build to.

 

[nfitz]

You're being intellectually dishonest. If Sheppard's numbers are considered too outdated to source than certainly the other figures I that calculated (those for STM's Laval extension completed all of two years ago) are not.

Quebec uses the same building materials as we do and has similar wage rates. Using your own sourced data, we can observe that the rate of annual increase has gone up from 5.9% Q4 2006/2007 to 12.28% Q4 2008/2009, a difference of 7.19%. However, the following fiscal year Q4 2009/2010 the inflation rate is actually slated to decrease by 3.01%, meaning that inflation will have gone up only 4.18% since the Laval extension was completed.

Using that figure of 4.18%, the cost to build the Laval extension has inflated from $154.5 million/km in 2007 to $161 million/km by 2010. Multiply this by 24 kilometres and we get $3.863 billion. But let's entertain for a nanosecond the notion that I'm being way too generous and go with your high-end inflation rate of 5.9%. We wind up with it being $163.6 per kilometre to build subways or $3.927 billion for a subway the length of one that would span from PIA to the DVP.

Are you kidding me? This analysis is wrong in so many way! First of all there is no 2009/2010 Q4 number.

Secondly you can't inflate Laval construction from the end of construction to the present; that would only tell you how much it would have cost if it was finished now; not started now. To get the project in current $ you have to inflate the money spent each year to the current day; not the end point. To get how much it would cost in real$ starting today, you need to inflate from ... approximately the mid-point of that project, to the mid-point of the next project.

And then you fail to account for the significant geological and engineering differences between subway construction in Laval compared to Toronto. Their narrow trains, and geologic conditions allow for a single bored tunnel in competent bedrock, as opposed to our twin tunnels in unconsolidated materials!

Both the (cancelled) Eglinton West and Sheppard projects inflate to roughly $300-million a kilometre. Which shouldn't be surprised given it's pretty much the same geology, design, etc. as the Spadina and Yonge extensions, that are in the same ballpark.

And you have the gall to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty? Sir, I accuse you of naivete and ignorance!

 

[nfitz]

From what I remember the costs for the laval extension went up significantly.

It went up massively during construction ... about 3-times ... I can't find the reference right now, but we've discussed how much it went up before. Let's put it this way ... it went up so much that they called a provincial enquiry to investigate it.

Politics in Quebec is different than here. There, they lowball the project cost to get approval, while nod, nod, wink, wink ... everyone knows it will cost more.

Here Sheppard came in pretty much on budget.

 

[kettal]

or try to see a small display to see if there LRT from afar

Who said anything about a small display? How about a large plasma screen inside the tim hortons, which clearly displays the next arrival times of the next 5 trains...

 

[rbt]

It went up massively during construction ... about 3-times ... I can't find the reference right now, but we've discussed how much it went up before. Let's put it this way ... it went up so much that they called a provincial enquiry to investigate it.

I recall an article posted in the "Montreal to have the largest Subway system in Canada?" thread indicating it was a 6-fold increase in cost from the estimate. I cannot find the post though.


I did find this interesting quote as an argument for cost reduction Montreal Metro expansion:

http://www.lavalnews.ca/articles/TLN1601/bordeleauTLN160107.html

"Why not have a surface train like it's done in Chicago or in Toronto, as two examples, or even in Calgary?" he said. "A train is less polluting, it's less costly than underground. I think we could do something nice with that. And if we don't build one, we could use an existing one."

Of course, rubber tire trains make that difficult.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

It's a question of better dollars spent. Should we be spending $4.6 billion for a 30+km Crosstown LRT, which we've established will have a very small percentage of riders taking a crosstown trip vs spending the same amount of money on a ~14km subway that will serve a central core that needs good transit service the most; and augment that with BRT and incremental expansion.

At first I was resigned to the fact that an Eglinton subway wasn't exactly a priority corridor for a subway, but if we are spending subway dollars why not build a subway.

Obviously the extra transfers are a pain but termini have to be put somewhere.