News   Nov 22, 2024
National Housing Day: City of Toronto and Riverdale Co-op Open Affordable Homes
 384     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
Bauhaus Condos Rising in Toronto's Old Town
 822     4 
News   Nov 22, 2024
49-Storey Waterfront Tower Proposed at Spadina and Queens Quay
 2.1K     6 

Eglinton East LRT | Metrolinx

robmausser said:
I was told a couple years ago that about 90% of asphalt that's being laid is recycled from old roads. Has that changed and if it hasn't then why would the cost go up relative to oil price.
Click to expand...
afransen said:
Recycling replaces the aggregate, not the bitumen/oil.
Click to expand...

This article from 2016 suggests that recycling in new pavement tops out at 40% (maximum permissible under some municipal contracts)

That includes recycled motor oil and up to 20% recycled aggregate/pavement.

I'm not sure if there's been any change in the last 5 years.

The last time the government put the Aggregate strategy out for consultation, the environmental movement was seeking a provincial minimum for recycled content in pavement of 20-30%
 
Oh my folks . . .
Steve X said:
The Canada Line was built with cut and cover for the entire tunnel. That was deem unacceptable. So they resorted to deep tube tunneling with massive excavation stations. That drove up the price since they are digging 4 times as much dirt. Plus the MSF is triple the size.

GTA soil conditions also sucks.
Click to expand...
This is false, a significant part of it (everything North of Olympic Village) was bored with TBMs
Steve X said:
Yes if that was the point. Soil condition might cause the project to cost more here but it won't be doubled. The LRT does have a slightly higher capacity if Citadis Spirits are used.

The way how the Canada Line was built is widely unpopular leading to a major lawsuit. It killed many business just like covid-19 use doing. It'll have an effect on more opposition in future projects if this approach was taken.
Click to expand...
rbt said:
~2004 pricing isn't particularly relevant without an inflation adjustment. Construction prices across the continent for everything (roadways, buildings, transit, sewer, etc.) have nearly tripled since then.

The original 7.4km of Yonge subway was built for $67M; that's not something which can be repeated today either.
Click to expand...
1) Construction inflation is an issue, but we aren't building the same thing so the playing field as the OP says is not even.

2) You talk about how disruptive construction for the Canada Line was and how methods of construction have been banned (I doubt that given they were considering cut and cover for the Broadway Subway), I just want to point out that cut and cover may well be less disruptive than boring and lots of stations like Eglinton, how many years has construction been (because of the fact that boring and large stations take longer), Canada Line was a few years - Eglinton is coming up on a decade. Given the size of the construction sites too (laydown spaces run down the streets and are often really big) there is basically cut and cover level disruption anyways . . . seems that getting things done quickly would be wise.

3) The ultimate problem which OP thankfully brought up is station size and depth, TBM boring forces deeper (read larger) stations, costs are usually proportional to excavation volumes. Eglinton often has needlessly large stations (remember it has the same capacity as the Canada Line, I can see justification for big interchanges - but no idea why Laird etc need to be these massive u/g structures), there's also often needless secondary entrances. As you will see if you have ever used the Canada Line, it meets its fire requirements by having secondary exits but no secondary entrances - this means they can be far more minimal and don't need elevators or escalators and can be quite small (as we see with emergency exit buildings on TYSSE for example). If we were building tons of transit lines or for the busiest stations big boxes and lots of entrances make sense - but with the prices we pay the Vancouver approach is better. Build the minimum required on day 1, with room to add more space, faregates, escalators, and platform length down the road. If a new development pops up next to a station, in Vancouver they sometimes pay for the new entrance! The same could 100% be true in Toronto.
 
Quick EELRT Fantasy map I whipped up. I have a full description in Transit Fantasy maps but I thought it would be appropriate to post here too.
Branched Eglinton East LRT Map.png
 
afransen said:
Frequent stops really slow down the travel speed. Particularly for something like an LRT that makes all stops. A bus might be faster, off-peak.
Click to expand...
In theory that may be true. But so many busses are full these days that rarely does a bus not stop at a stop to either let someone on or off.

when I used to live at midland and finch the bus used to stop at maybe a third of the stops on the way to Yonge. By the time I moved out of Scarborough the bus was stopping at 95% of the stops and often it was standing room only.
 
afransen said:
Frequent stops really slow down the travel speed. Particularly for something like an LRT that makes all stops. A bus might be faster, off-peak.
Click to expand...
The night bus for Danforth is faster than the subway (anecdotaly) so early/late off peak is likely faster.
 
TorPronto said:
The night bus for Danforth is faster than the subway (anecdotaly) so early/late off peak is likely faster.
Click to expand...
I’m not doubting what you are saying. But what time is this bus running? I’m not saying it can’t ever be faster. But if 80% of the time the bus stops at almost all the stops then I think it’s less a deal then we’re making it.
 
sixrings said:
I’m not doubting what you are saying. But what time is this bus running? I’m not saying it can’t ever be faster. But if 80% of the time the bus stops at almost all the stops then I think it’s less a deal then we’re making it.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. It's that the bus *can* be faster
 
The TTC would most likely abolish a lot if not all of the bus routes running along Eglinton and Morningside today if and when this opens so cutting stops from the line even further would likely leave a lot of people even farther from reliable transit than they are now. Currently, there aren't very many stops that aren't at major roads or destinations (I count around 6) and i think that's a relatively good number.
 
KhalilHeron said:
The TTC would most likely abolish a lot if not all of the bus routes running along Eglinton and Morningside today if and when this opens so cutting stops from the line even further would likely leave a lot of people even farther from reliable transit than they are now. Currently, there aren't very many stops that aren't at major roads or destinations (I count around 6) and i think that's a relatively good number.
Click to expand...
I remember reading a pdf on this line and it was implied the 86/116 would be cut back to Eglinton and Kington Road. A bus loop at the site was also shown in the old SMLRT plans.
 
Coolstar said:
I remember reading a pdf on this line and it was implied the 86/116 would be cut back to Eglinton and Kington Road. A bus loop at the site was also shown in the old SMLRT plans.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing you mean cut back from Kennedy and not from their eastern terminuses. If so they could definitely cut west hill stop (and give the name to Lawrence/Kingston/Morningside station which would make far more sense but Falmouth and mason should probably stay. Assuming the 85 would now end at Malvern, if they had a new bus or branch of the 85 from Malvern to port union via Sheppard, and east ave or port union road they could also definitely cut murison and brenyon
 
sixrings said:
In theory that may be true. But so many busses are full these days that rarely does a bus not stop at a stop to either let someone on or off.

when I used to live at midland and finch the bus used to stop at maybe a third of the stops on the way to Yonge. By the time I moved out of Scarborough the bus was stopping at 95% of the stops and often it was standing room only.
Click to expand...
Being better than the bus only at select times is not a good standard. Ideally your "rapid transit" project should match the time or be faster than a bus, and if your 4 billion dollar infrastructure project is slower at many times, that is a major issue.
W. K. Lis said:
Not if the city changes the zoning along the route to intensify the density.
Click to expand...
Intensifying a corridor doesn't mean that the demand for longer distance travel diminishes. Now in the case of Eglinton East this is fine since longer distance travel will be covered by LSE (Scarborough-Malvern is one of the few Transit City projects that actually made a lot of sense), but in general LRTs in more suburban environments need to have much more spread out stop spacing, and using the intensification excuse doesn't really work since intensification is only to the benefit of the people who live in the area, and not the people who have to constantly travel through it.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top