Eglinton-Crosstown Corridor Debate

[kettal]

Subway could be built faster than the LRT

I'd love to know how you arrived at this conclusion.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I'd love to know how you arrived at this conclusion.

They're already building a majority of the subway in the current plan. If they just have to build it an extra 3 km and not have to do the rest of the building, certainly they'll be able to save money and time.

 

[EnviroTO]

Grade separated LRT goes the same speed as a subway. There are only two differences between the two: (a) a subway handles greater capacity, and (b) LRT can run at grade on the street. Any argument for a subway should deal with capacity concerns, and any argument for an LRT should be about how a transfer is reduced by running on the street beyond the grade separated portion of the route. When an argument goes beyond these basic facts it sounds like people are either "LRT groupies" or "subway fanatics". A subway is not better than an LRT. An LRT is not better than a subway.

Sheppard was built as a subway because somebody thought subways were better. The ridership on the route can be handled by LRT and if it had been built as an LRT the ride from Yonge to Victoria Park wouldn't require a transfer.

On Eglinton we have the opportunity to build things right. Building a subway from Leaside to Weston Road would force people to transfer to a bus to get the airport or transfer to a bus to get to Don Mills. By building LRT, since the capacity can handle the expected ridership, people can transfer onto the Eglinton Line and not need to transfer again to get to the airport. They get all the benefits that a subway would provide on the grade separated portion and then continue in their own lanes to the airport.

SUBWAY
= large capacity
= electric
= fast due to being fully separated from road and pedestrian traffic

LRT WITH GRADE SEPARATION
= medium capacity
= electric
= fast due to being fully separated from road and pedestrian traffic

LRT WITHOUT GRADE SEPARATION
= medium capacity
= electric
= reliable medium speeds by having own traffic lane
= can continue as LRT WITH GRADE SEPARATION reducing transfer

Why put more capacity than required and add transfers to a route if not required?

If Sheppard East LRT is made to arrive at platform level and the Eglinton is constructed at LRT, I would not be surprised if someday the Sheppard subway is converted to LRT because people will see how small the differences between grade separated LRT and subways really are.

The SRT should be replaced with subway because (a) subway capacity IS required on the Bloor-Danforth line, and (b) the expensive aspect about building a subway is building a grade separated ROW so replacing the SRT with a subway means reducing a transfer more than it means significantly increasing costs.

If the Sheppard East LRT tunnel was going to have underground stations on it at Consumers or Victoria Park then it would make sense that whatever mode of transport used from Yonge to Don Mills was also used to serve those underground stations.

The cost of a subway is grade separation. If the budget only supports grade separation for a part of a route then use LRT but design the tunnels to be upgrade ready. If the budget supports grade separation for an entire route or capacity concerns force it then build subway.

 

[EnviroTO]

They're already building a majority of the subway in the current plan. If they just have to build it an extra 3 km and not have to do the rest of the building, certainly they'll be able to save money and time.

Nonsense. LRT on the surface is always faster to built than subway. With an LRT in the street they really only have to dig down, place track, and pour cement. Subways are heavier and construction includes these steps and many more.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Grade separated LRT goes the same speed as a subway....
...If the budget supports grade separation for an entire route or capacity concerns force it then build subway.

Ok, now that just makes you sound like a "LRT groupie." It's true that grade separated LRT is just as good as subway in terms of speed. And if Eglinton was totally grade separated but still LRT, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Even if it was totally grade separated west of Don Mills, I'd be (reasonably) happy even though it'd be LRT.

Long term, capacity issues might point towards subway. In fact, I think that they should be looking at how many riders Eglinton'll divert of the B-D and how many new riders it could attract, cause it has the capacity to divert a good 75% of the B-D's bus traffic, and could get similar walk in ridership to the B-D due to all the high density traffic. But let's not argue about capacity; it's all about speed right now.

So we're in agreement that LRT and subway, if both are grade separated, have almost identical speeds. I said before, if Eglinton called for total grade separation, I'd take it. But it doesn't, and it in no way recognizes prime grade separation opportunity a whole 7 km along the Richview corridor and the speed advantages it could bring.

So assuming that capacity wasn't a concern and assuming that they actually grade separated the entire line, here's my question: why do it LRT? If the separation is the same, and the stations are the same, why don't they just build subway so worry about future capacity issues can be laid to rest? Just like on Sheppard, they could use smaller trains and build knock out walls in the stations so it can easily be expanded for future higher capacities.

EDIT: As for your second post, do you even understand what I'm talking about? I'm saying that the LRT is already being build to subway standards underground between Keele and Laird, so a Jane-Don Mills subway would only be an extra 3 km of true subway that needs to be built. When you consider that you wouldn't have to build the rest of the surface LRT past Jane and Don Mills, the Jane-Don Mills subway would get built faster than the LRT.

 

[nfitz]

Building a partial subway wouldn't be "imposing" a transfer at all. Sure, there might be a transfer while the LRT wouldn't have any, but people wouldn't be unhappy about it. They'd probably be quite glad that they have a subway to transfer to.

They probably WOULD be glad. But answer the question ... if there was no savings in time (actually a loss of time, as the subway trains wouldn't be as frequent, and lost time doing a transfer), no capacity issues, and money that could be saved in the short-term ... what is the benfit.

This is all about short term benefits vs. long term gain. Obviously, the LRT would have more short term benefits than subway.

Okay ... what is the long-term benefit?

That's not to say that a subway wouldn't have any short term benefits; it'd have plenty, and it'd have advantages over LRT if it went from Jane to Don Mills (the LRT would only be going to Keele and Laird, which means the RT part of Eglinton wouldn't be connecting and supplementing the planned LRTs.)

I'm not sure what the benefit here is ... the only benefit is that the tunnelled section would be a bit longer? Whose to say that the LRT terminus wouldn't still be at Brentcliffe and Keele ... it's not like there's the $700-million extra sitting around ...

Subway could be built faster than the LRT

Why? I'd think the lack of a complex signalling system, along with smaller stations, etc., would go the LRT being faster to build.

... and it'd extend true RT coverage further than LRT.

What is "true RT coverage"? If the LRT and subway have the same speeds, and the LRT runs more frequently, how is it not just as RT as the subway?

But the real obvious benefits come when the subway gets extended again, which could easily be 5 years after it's first finished.

But that would only happen if the loading exceeds 10,000 peope per hour per direction or so west of Keele or east of Brentcliffe. Given that they estimate the loading to be less than 5,400 peope per hour per direction at the busiest point on the line, in 2031; why would the suddenly have 10,000 people? Particularly as the busiest point in the line is likely close to Yonge, where the capacity of the LRT is closer to 15,000 with the grade separation.

An extension to Martingrove or Pearson in the west would have obvious, obvious benefits over a LRT that'd get finished less than 10 years earlier.

The entire line is scheduled to be completed in 2018. The demand estimates for 2031 are no where near subway. What are these "obvious, obvious" demands before 2028?

 

[EnviroTO]

Ok, now that just makes you sound like a "LRT groupie." It's true that grade separated LRT is just as good as subway in terms of speed. And if Eglinton was totally grade separated but still LRT, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Even if it was totally grade separated west of Don Mills, I'd be (reasonably) happy even though it'd be LRT.

If the whole thing is grade separated it should be a subway. An LRT offers almost zero benefits (perhaps marginal energy cost savings) when everything is grade separated.

When it is only partially grade separated then LRT makes sense because the in the time it takes to get off a vehicle, walk to the transfer spot, wait for a different vehicle, and board an LRT would have made much more progress along the route. Add to that the inconvenience to the traveller, especially those going to the airport, with belongings they need to gather up and carry for the transfer.

Long term, capacity issues might point towards subway. In fact, I think that they should be looking at how many riders Eglinton'll divert of the B-D and how many new riders it could attract, cause it has the capacity to divert a good 75% of the B-D's bus traffic, and could get similar walk in ridership to the B-D due to all the high density traffic. But let's not argue about capacity; it's all about speed right now.

Long term forecasts are unreliable. We have capacity issues in this city right now which we can focus on. The speed issue is solved by grade separated LRT and not requiring a transfer increases the speed at which a person will take to get to the airport. Only if the budget permits building the whole route from Yonge to the Airport as a subway should any of it be built as a subway.

So we're in agreement that LRT and subway, if both are grade separated, have almost identical speeds. I said before, if Eglinton called for total grade separation, I'd take it. But it doesn't, and it in no way recognizes prime grade separation opportunity a whole 7 km along the Richview corridor and the speed advantages it could bring.

There may be opportunity for grade separation but there are also costs which will not provide significant benefit. Currently there are almost no intersections on Eglinton in the Richview corridor and the plan will reduce the time spent at stop lights even further. There is little that would prevent a LRT from moving along at a good clip in that area so the benefits of grade separation, especially if there is stop light priority, are minimal.

So assuming that capacity wasn't a concern and assuming that they actually grade separated the entire line, here's my question: why do it LRT? If the separation is the same, and the stations are the same, why don't they just build subway so worry about future capacity issues can be laid to rest? Just like on Sheppard, they could use smaller trains and build knock out walls in the stations so it can easily be expanded for future higher capacities.

They aren't grade separating the whole line. It they were then it wouldn't make sense to do it LRT. The potential capacity issues can easily be dealt with by upgrading to a subway which wouldn't require closing the route for any significant amount of time. They could easily install subway power during night closures and raise platform heights (since such work is not strucural) quickly over the period of a month.

EDIT: As for your second post, do you even understand what I'm talking about? I'm saying that the LRT is already being build to subway standards underground between Keele and Laird, so a Jane-Don Mills subway would only be an extra 3 km of true subway that needs to be built. When you consider that you wouldn't have to build the rest of the surface LRT past Jane and Don Mills, the Jane-Don Mills subway would get built faster than the LRT.

The speed of building a subway is determined by boring machines, grading, and hauling dirt away, the speed of building something on the surface is determined by how many subcontracts you have broken the work into. When building a tunnel or building the various teams need to work together and coordinate their schedules because people can't have access to the area they are working on until the other team makes it available. When you are working in the middle of the street nothing really gets in your way so if the city broke up an LRT ROW contract into multiple parts then each team could be delivering new track at the same time. Working in an existing ROW which is already graded will always be quicker.

 

[kettal]

So assuming that capacity wasn't a concern and assuming that they actually grade separated the entire line, here's my question: why do it LRT? If the separation is the same, and the stations are the same, why don't they just build subway so worry about future capacity issues can be laid to rest?

Who wants to grade separate the entire line? There will never be a case for extending an Eglinton subway through Scarborough, at least not in any of our life times. You're building in a permanent transfer and bottleneck for no good reason.

EDIT: As for your second post, do you even understand what I'm talking about? I'm saying that the LRT is already being build to subway standards underground between Keele and Laird, so a Jane-Don Mills subway would only be an extra 3 km of true subway that needs to be built. When you consider that you wouldn't have to build the rest of the surface LRT past Jane and Don Mills, the Jane-Don Mills subway would get built faster than the LRT.

The surface sections will be built concurrently with the tunnel. Maybe even at both ends at the same time. It won't take any longer time.

 

[Ansem]

Subway could be built faster than the LRT

took 5 years to build Union to Eglinton

In Montreal in 4 years and a half they built

-half of the orange line
-The yellow line
-Half of the green line
-the artificial Island of Notre-Dame Island: ÃŽle Notre-Dame is an artificial island built in 10 months from 15 million tons of rock excavated for the Montreal Metro in 1965
-Expo 67

4 years and a half and in 1967

 

[Fresh Start]

On Eglinton we have the opportunity to build things right. Building a subway from Leaside to Weston Road would force people to transfer to a bus to get the airport or transfer to a bus to get to Don Mills. By building LRT, since the capacity can handle the expected ridership, people can transfer onto the Eglinton Line and not need to transfer again to get to the airport. They get all the benefits that a subway would provide on the grade separated portion and then continue in their own lanes to the airport.

Arguably an Eglinton subway line would go well beyond the Weston-Leaside parameters. The airport is too important a destination to say that a bus connection to a subway being built primarily to provide a direct link between it and the rest of the city is suffived enough. I'd also think a one-kilometre extension east from Leslie to Don Mills is inconsequential especially when elevated overlooking Lord Seaton Park is a possibility.

Much of the ROW though Etobicoke could also be elevated. It may devalue the land somewhat in terms of future development but the longer we debate that fact, the more likely the properties will gradually be sold off to private owners; killing whatever potential we had for utilizing the Richview corridor for transit usage. Given the complexity of the alignment chosen for ECLRT into Pearson, it's not looking so absurd now to recommend a direct path into the airport via subways with fewer, more node-oriented stops.

 

[Fresh Start]

If they have no problem imposing two transfers on Sheppard from end to end, what makes Eglinton so different or special that transfers must be avoided at all costs? I'd be less opposed to LRT if they were genuinely building the thing as convertible to subway down the road.

Of course there is no logical answer to why there's this opposition; other than an intense and irrational disdain for subway technology which the public is already accustomed to using and associates most with fast, reliable long-distance travel through the 416.

The Mississauga Transitway was proposed way back when with the intent of connecting to an Eglinton subway line. Ideally such a connection via interlining could've provided a credible alternative for commuters coming in from Square One trying to get downtown as opposed to a lengthy jaunt on the 1/20/26/76 and then along the Bloor-Danforth. Dare I ask, just how many people will be as equally attracted to boarding a partial road-median LRT line stopping multiple times before arriving at Eglinton West Stn? Transfers are apart of daily life in the region, but at least we can try to make these transfers less inhospitable. On the east end of the Eglinton corridor too, there'd be a transfer if we chose subways, but that area has far less of a demand or commanding trip-generator at the end calling for greater than BRT which costs far less than LRT to implement and can be operational relatively quick.

 

[Fresh Start]

Stop saying this. It undermines your argument. Unless you can come up with an in-depth study by experts that analyzes the route, your "$4 billion" is just a fantasy number.

Sorry. However I find it difficult as to how I'd attain an in-depth study on Eglinton done as a subway line, since the TTC refuses to conduct such a study. A RTES would've been nice. Giambrone himself claims a 31km long Eglinton subway would cost between $6-8 billion. Assuming the higher figure is closer to reality, I'm still in the right ballpark to assert $4 billion for roughly half that distance (the core of the line from Brentcliffe to Martin Grove- 16kms). Assuming we could do the rest via elevated guideways on both ends to PIA and OSC or DVP (Richview could also be on an above-grade track) this significantly lowers what the cost to build Eglinton actually could be.

Also remember, we live in the same country as Montreal/STM, whom is capable of building 20 kms of new subway by 2020 for $4 billion itself. So either the TTC is hyperinflating the costs or throwing in a bunch of miscellaneous things such as the purchase of new vehciles, building new storage yards, dual tunnel-bores mandate, tunneling vs. bridging over riverbeds & highways, etc. when making their assessments.

 

[rbt]

Also remember, we live in the same country as Montreal/STM, whom is capable ...

... of underestimating costs significantly (6 fold increase for their last subway extension from initial estimates contract to completion) for every major project they have ever undertaken?

Do not look at STM numbers for the future and assume they will remain that way. It is reasonable to compare against their historical costs for completed projects and compare to TTC projects underway at the same time.

 

[nfitz]

Also remember, we live in the same country as Montreal/STM, whom is capable of building 20 kms of new subway by 2020 for $4 billion itself.

Why do you think STM is capable of building 20 km of new subway? STM hasn't built any subway since the 1980s; the provincial government handed over metro construction to AMT years ago. Secondly, there's little indication that they are going to construct much ... it's all political talk and more studies. Thirdly, the combination of narrower trains and tunnels, and favourable geology results in being able to put both tracks in a single tunnel which is considerably cheaper. Fourthly, they blew the cost estimate on the Laval subway so badly that there was a provincial enquiry into the cost overuns.

 

[Darwinkgo]

Also remember, we live in the same country as Montreal/STM, whom is capable of building 20 kms of new subway by 2020 for $4 billion itself. So either the TTC is hyperinflating the costs or throwing in a bunch of miscellaneous things such as the purchase of new vehciles, building new storage yards, dual tunnel-bores mandate, tunneling vs. bridging over riverbeds & highways, etc. when making their assessments.

Different geology, different cost base, smaller tunnel diameter. Also, it is important to make full cost analysis - that is how the TTC ended up with a contract for new streetcars but no money for a maintenance facility.

Remember Canada Line did all that you say: new vehicles, storage yard, dual tunnels, fully grade separated at a cost of 2.05 billion for 19 km and change.

With capacity needs not projected for pass even 10,000 pdh, Canada Line standard of design for 15,000 pdh is more than enough.

Of course, I am sure the subway nuts would do nothing but complain about a line like the Canada line being built along eglinton anyways..