Metrolinx: Five-in-Ten Plan

[Rainforest]

LRT meets the projected ridership. If it was LRT built underground completely with stations the size required to handle 6-car trains similar in capacity to a subway there would be no savings, the cost would be higher than a subway, BUT they are building smaller stations which are NOT capable of handling 6-car subway trains without significant expense and they are running portions of the line at grade which DOES give them significant savings. The fact that they are building stations the size they are with completely low platforms, not the mixed height platforms seen in pre-metro systems like Brussels, tells me there is no real plan to upgrade to subway ever and it is probably just as likely that a Lawrence-Dixon LRT would be built.

If there was significant saving, I would not object to Eglinton LRT.

The problem is that the current cost projection is 6,065 million for the truncated 20-km line, or 303 million / km, even though only 11 of these 20 km are tunneled.

Metrolinx cost projections are in "escalaed dollars" so they take into account inflation. Yet, those 303 million / km are too close to a subway cost, given that the line is to open in 2020 and the bulk of construction expenses should be incurred before that.

At that price, it makes more sense to build subway.

With an Eglinton LRT to subway upgrade the cost of expanding the stations and the disruption of service would likely be unpalatable for a capacity improvement which doesn't significantly improve service when compared to a Lawrence Dixon LRT which not only increases east-west capacity but also serves a new route. When given the option of greater coverage with nearly equivalent service OR less coverage with greater capacity I think greater coverage wins.

Indeed, Lawrence LRT could provide the needed capacity as well as expand the coverage. The problem is at that kind of costs, we'll never see Lawrence LRT.

Note that Lawrence LRT would have to include significant tunneling as well. For sure, 5 km from Bathurst to the eastern boundary of Glendon campus would have to be tunneled; and the portion between Lawrence / Jane and the beginning of Dixon Rd is problematic, too.

 

[hbl33]

Indeed, Lawrence LRT could provide the needed capacity as well as expand the coverage. The problem is at that kind of costs, we'll never see Lawrence LRT.

Note that Lawrence LRT would have to include significant tunneling as well. For sure, 5 km from Bathurst to the eastern boundary of Glendon campus would have to be tunneled; and the portion between Lawrence / Jane and the beginning of Dixon Rd is problematic, too.

Costs aside, would the Lawrence LRT be entirely underground? I really doubt there is possibility of tunneling through Bridle Path. If it did so, it can save time but at the same time miss the communities which could use another touch of LRT.

Refering to my fantasy TTC map, I'd have LLRT underground from Weston; the route veers toward southbound Bayview with a portal to aboveground to Bennington Heights.
From Bayview at a railway corridor a LRT line would be directed to Thorncliffe and follow along Don Mills until it meets Lawrence.
At meeting Lawrence, it will continue following its path to Morningside Mall.
Beyond Glendon, I think an surface can still suffice it.
On Dixon portion, due to wideness of a road, separate LRT lane can do to the reach of Airport.
Of course, the grade might need to be separated upon arrival at YYZ.

 

[EnviroTO]

At that price, it makes more sense to build subway.

Without seeing the Metrolinx price for an Eglinton 20km subway line how do you know that significant savings were not realized. If it is $6B for 11km of tunnel and 9km of surface, maybe it is $5B for the tunnel and $1B for the surface section and a full subway would be $9B. The savings of $3B would pay for significant at surface LRT projects.

 

[Rainforest]

Without seeing the Metrolinx price for an Eglinton 20km subway line how do you know that significant savings were not realized. If it is $6B for 11km of tunnel and 9km of surface, maybe it is $5B for the tunnel and $1B for the surface section and a full subway would be $9B. The savings of $3B would pay for significant at surface LRT projects.

OK, I don't know the project cost breakdown. But if your suggestion holds, it would imply 5,000 / 11 = 454 million/km for the Eglinton LRT tunnel, versus 320 million/km for TYSSE HRT tunnel completed only 5 years earlier. Note that the TYSSE HRT tunnel would have finished 6-car stations (Eglinton, at most roughed-in for 6 cars).

I find it hard to believe.

Rather, I wonder about the effect of costs that are not proportional to mileage. For example, how much does a portal cost? Eglinton LRT will have 4 portals east of Yonge (1 at Laird, 2 around Don Mills Stn, and 1 near Kennedy); a subway would have none (if fully underground) or at most two (if it runs elevated through Golden Mile).

How much does the LRT carhouse cost? (Although, I don't know whether Wilson yard is large enough to add trains for Eglinton subway, or a new yard would have to be built.)

 

[W. K. Lis]

When the Prince Edward Viaduct (Bloor Street Viaduct) was built and completed in 1918, they built a lower deck for future high speed streetcars. When the Bloor-Danforth Subway was built and completed in 1966 (48 years later), they used that deck for heavy rail. Same purpose.

Too bad the Leaside Bridge didn't have a lower deck, when it was built in 1927. Would have been useful for the Don Mills LRT, should it ever come.

A lot of rough-in work should be included in all the tunnels and infrastructure being built, for future changes, just in case.

 

[nfitz]

Too bad the Leaside Bridge didn't have a lower deck, when it was built in 1927. Would have been useful for the Don Mills LRT, should it ever come.

It was apparently completed with enough structural steel to handle the then anticipated surface LRT extension to Leaside ... whether there is enough of this left after 2 major rehabs and widening is another question.

 

[drum118]

It was apparently completed with enough structural steel to handle the then anticipated surface LRT extension to Leaside ... whether there is enough of this left after 2 major rehabs and widening is another question.

There noting left to support LRT without removing 2 lanes of traffic.

 

[nfitz]

There noting left to support LRT without removing 2 lanes of traffic.

Has that been confirmed recently? The EA was supposed to answer that question, but it's moving very slowly. And by removing 2 lanes of traffic ... currently there is 6 lanes, removing 2 lanes of traffic will still leave 4 lanes of traffic (which seems plenty); or do you mean removing 2 lanes of traffic for the LRT tracks and another 2 for the weight (though how do they do that without completely rehabbing a just recently rehabbed bridge)?

 

[W. K. Lis]

There noting left to support LRT without removing 2 lanes of traffic.

I was thinking about the lower deck, like what they did with the Prince Edward Viaduct and the Bloor-Danforth Subway. Is there space for anything of decking under the current deck?

May have to do some heavy rebuilding if they do try to go underneath, but could be a possibility. May have to hand a couple of separate decks on each side, but I'm not an engineer (not even a train engineer).

 

[Justin10000]

Might be easier to just build a completely new bridge with bike lanes/pedestrian walkways.

 

[nfitz]

May have to do some heavy rebuilding if they do try to go underneath, but could be a possibility. May have to hand a couple of separate decks on each side, but I'm not an engineer (not even a train engineer).

Great photo - I seldom see it from underneath. That is an interesting design. I wouldn't be surprised if it could still handle LRT - particularly with a bit of reinforcing - which many not be that difficult with that design. Might be more cost effective than a brand new LRT bridge. I don't think going underneath is an option, and the clearance in the centre doesn't look like it's there. Looks a bit more substantial than your average road bridge though.

Makes me wonder if the one track down Pape, on track up Donlands solution, and just use the bridge might be feasible.

 

[Fresh Start]

A new bridge would be preferrable.

Have the DRL run in a straight line up Pape Ave. At the intersection of Pape and Milton Pl, Pape starts to take a sharp turn right, however Milton Pl continues in a straight north-south alignment. Following Milton Pl past Hopedale the street veers west slightly then ends in the Don Valley. Using a deep enough bore the subway could follow this path without much surface disruption. Using this low-lying bridge guideway, the line emerges roughly 20 feet above the DVP; allowing for enough height clearance for trucks to safely pass underneath and for the line to safely weave through the support columns of the Leaside Bridge. Continue at this elevation in a northeasterly direction to enter a portal at Milepost Pl where it peters out into wilderness. Continue in a stright line using cut-and-cover method underneath Milepost and Granstand Pl, then veer gradually though the school playground, straightening into an east-west position before arriving at the platform just west of Throncliffe Park Dr East. This would result in a Thorncliffe Park Station south of Overlea Blvd. but easy walking distance of most area apartment buildings, the school and East York shopping centre. From there, continue through this side road parallelling Overlea, which becomes a parking lot for Leaside Towers condominum.

The line then surfaces again on its own guideway paralleling the Hiscott Bridge crossing. The line gradually veers inwards over Seton Park to merge with Don Mills/Overlea/Gateway southwest of the school building on the SW corner. Flemingdon Park Station at the intersection. To straighten out and run up Don Mills Rd, the line continues northeasterly weaving throuh the Glen Valley high rises before entering the hydro corridor. Once in the hydro corridor, the line starts to curve back towards DM, running by the outer parking lots of Flemingdon Park Mall; then leveling into a north-south position by Gatwway Blvd N.

It might sound complicated on paper, but I feel that this would be the most feasible pathway the DRL could use in getting to Don Mills/Eglinton.

 

[nfitz]

A new bridge would be preferable.

If there was an infinite amount of money, sure. I really don't think this will ever be built unless we can ways to make the job cost more in the LRT range, than the subway range. And given the bridge is not used at capacity now, it's just crying out for being better utilized.

 

[Mapleson]

OK, I don't know the project cost breakdown. But if your suggestion holds, it would imply 5,000 / 11 = 454 million/km for the Eglinton LRT tunnel, versus 320 million/km for TYSSE HRT tunnel completed only 5 years earlier. Note that the TYSSE HRT tunnel would have finished 6-car stations (Eglinton, at most roughed-in for 6 cars).

I find it hard to believe.

The Toronto Construction Inflation Index (for residential buiding) from 2005 to 2010 is 23.9% according to StatsCanada. Industrial and commerical prices increased faster. A main driving factor being raw material price escalations. We're getting better environmental regulations, but it means more costs.

 

[nfitz]

The Toronto Construction Inflation Index (for residential buiding) from 2005 to 2010 is 23.9% according to StatsCanada.

The MTO Tender Price index increased 33.7% for the 4.5 years from 2004/2005 Q4 to 2009/2010 Q2. For the 4 full years from 2004/2005 to 2008/2009 it increased 41.6%. For the 10 full years from 1998/1999 to 2008/2009 it increased 82.6%.