News   Jul 24, 2024
Nature and Artifice
 85     0 
News   Jul 23, 2024
UrbanToronto Webinars — All Aboard: How New Transit Will Change the GTA
 590     0 
News   Jul 23, 2024
10 Prince Arthur Tops Off in Yorkville
 640     1 

Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

andrewpmk said:
Real LRT in Calgary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZqVBqYsmLs

If LRT on Eglinton or elsewhere does not resemble this, then I am opposed to it. Elevated is better of course.
Click to expand...

I didn't watch the entire video, but it appears that the Eglinton ROW is narrower.

From Black Creek to McCowan is 25 km. There is 1.5km from Brentcliffe to near Don Mills that is very easy to locate on the South side of the road. Don Mills and Kennedy would be underground regardless of whether the Ford plan or Transit City is considered.

This leaves a 5.5km stretch from near Don Mills to Kennedy that is in dispute. Transit City wants this in the median, Ford wants it burried (at a cost premium of $2B), but elevated is not talked about. Using the $100M cost that other jurisdictions seems to achieve, it would cost $500M more. This is the number that should be debated. Is it worth spending $500M on a 25km line to make it fully grade separated.
 
Last edited:
Solid Snake said:
Was it that report?
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/project...lintonScarboroughCrosstownUpdate_Feb72012.pdf

Underground has more benefits than at grade and would attract double the ridership justifying subway. That report is February 2012 and they do mention that it would complement the Bloor-Danforth line.

So by offering an alternative to riders by offering them a shorter travel time to have access to rapid transit by decreasing their travel time on the bus is bad???

Nope, I think my understanding on the topic is more than fine
Click to expand...

Metrolinx' own reports have stated quite clearly that the vast majority of the ridership increase on Eglinton is existing riders from the existing subway line that already goes to Kennedy Station. Those riders would not save any time nor are they getting an alternative to a bus under Ford's plan. Not extending the SRT means that a large number of riders would spend more time on a bus than they will under the Transit City Plan and have a longer trip overall.
 
Perhaps I am reading that report incorrectly but those ridership stats seem really low. How is it possible that can project to 2050 and be accurate? Today i just heard that Ford had hidden a report that came out that showed that the job growth at North York Centre had only gone up 1000 in 30 years (not sure about the years) when they had projected 50,000 jobs and that was the whole reason for the push for Sheppard subway- and to eventually unite with Scarborough by subway. Of course Ford would want to hide that. Proves that subway should never have been built.

So really can we be sure these projections for Eglinton will be correct. I do not hold out much hope. Ridership could be way higher or again way lower
 
Here's what a modern elevated structure would look like:

Miami Metrorail:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Miami,+FL,+United+States&hl=en&ll=25.795003,-80.215065&spn=0.00881,0.01207&sll=43.668474,-79.808142&sspn=0.226488,0.386238&oq=mia&hnear=Miami,+Miami-Dade,+Florida,+United+States&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=25.794998,-80.215104&panoid=ZICG6w-Wrkh2ZLe6iD5gsw&cbp=12,356.59,,0,4.24

Note that the street the structure is built upon is narrower than Eglinton East's ROW. At stations, though, the structure would be large and possibly unsightly.

Number 3 Road, Richmond, BC, Canada Line

The Canada Line mini-metro system should have a similarly wide structure to a light rail line, the structure is to the side of the road, hence stations can be more attractive at ground level.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Richmond,+BC&hl=en&ll=49.176008,-123.136573&spn=0.003198,0.006035&sll=25.794994,-80.215108&sspn=0.008848,0.01207&oq=Rich&hnear=Richmond,+Greater+Vancouver+Regional+District,+British+Columbia&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=49.176241,-123.13659&panoid=P7CJ4UbvDINvKDJAI8BYjA&cbp=12,8.03,,0,7.84

Elevated structures would be cheaper than deep-bored subway, but note that #3 Road's ROW is largely occupied by the transit route. It'd be fine for Eglinton, except it would remove 2 car lanes unless the road allowance was widened through expropriation. This was the segment with a BRT median before construction started.
 
Well, I am quite ok with the idea of putting Eglinton entirely underground if they interline it with SRT - again on the basis of eliminating that additional transfer (and it will probably eliminate the rationale for BD extension). I think the current focus should be on ending the inappropriate use of transit resources that is the Sheppard line, which simply can't be justified by ridership numbers.

What impact will extending Eglinton all the way to YYZ has on ridership (can't seem to find the BCA for it, is there even one)? If those figures are good, we should be expediting that extension over Sheppard and Finch.

AoD
 
Last edited:
The interlining with the SRT is the reason i was more in favour of EGLINTON being grade seperated then Sheppard. Now maybe they are simply going to extend the danforth line to STC which eliminates the need for interlining but we dont know that yet.
 
sixrings said:
The interlining with the SRT is the reason i was more in favour of EGLINTON being grade seperated then Sheppard. Now maybe they are simply going to extend the danforth line to STC which eliminates the need for interlining but we dont know that yet.
Click to expand...

Danforth to STC would be both cheaper than undergrounding Eglinton and higher capacity.

You could terminate Eglinton at Kennedy, build Danforth to STC, and have enough left over for Finch LRT.
 
rbt said:
Danforth to STC would be both cheaper than undergrounding Eglinton and higher capacity.

You could terminate Eglinton at Kennedy, build Danforth to STC, and have enough left over for Finch LRT.
Click to expand...

Extending the Bloor-Danforth to STC will also be important if the first phase of the DRL is only running to Pape.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
rbt:

Is it cheaper? I am under the distinct impression that undergrounding BD from Kennedy to STC will cost more than 1.9B.
Click to expand...

I remember going to the initial "what do we do with the SRT" meeting where the initial findings were presented.

IIRC, I was on the order of $1.1B for 2 stations (Lawrence and SCC). $1.9B may be right as it has been 5 or 6 years since that estimate was made. This was when the target date for the rebuild was to be completed by 2013.

I recall Scarborough councillors at the time having issues with eliminating the Ellesmere and McCowan stops. The city was expecting to pay for the upgrade without provincial funding so price was also a big factor and they were expecting the SRT to be EOLd essentially this year.

Mark II, the chosen option at the time, was going to be a 6 month service outage and something like a $400M conversion at that time; we've learned that both those numbers were overly optomistic. We also have some funding from the province to work with so we will be increasing the city's capital debt load.

Anyway, you can take $700M off the SRT rebuild if it becomes a straight demolition instead of a rebuild. There may be a 5 year gap in rail based service at the SCC.

So, $1.9B transferred from undergrounding Eglinton West to the Danforth extension instead and $700M remains which is relatively close to Finch's pricetag.
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Well, I am quite ok with the idea of putting Eglinton entirely underground if they interline it with SRT - again on the basis of eliminating that additional transfer (and it will probably eliminate the rationale for BD extension). I think the current focus should be on ending the inappropriate use of transit resources that is the Sheppard line, which simply can't be justified by ridership numbers.

What impact will extending Eglinton all the way to YYZ has on ridership (can't seem to find the BCA for it, is there even one)? If those figures are good, we should be expediting that extension over Sheppard and Finch.

AoD
Click to expand...

So you'd like to what? Mothball Sheppard? Convert it to LRT? (which was costed at $600 million by Metrolinx)

It really doesn't sound like you have a solution for Sheppard at all.
 
It's better to ALRT the line, and have a direct route to Union, and those that need to use the BD line can transfer at Kennedy Junction.
 
ssiguy2 said:
People constantly state that if the system is completely grade separated then technology doesn't matter but on the contrary is matters a great deal. The cost of an underground system for all the 4 possible technologies are about the same but LRT stations have to be larger to accomodate the same number of passengers as Metro, monorail, or SkyTrain.
Also, and this is a biggie, the SRT conversion to lightrail {and I actually called the Crosstown office to verify it} will be far and away the most expensive. Why?.............because unlike the other 3 technologies LRT requires a higher clearance due to the overhead catenary lines. This is one of the reasons why the SRT to LRT conversion is going to be both expensive and time consuming. The LRT will require the "raising of the roof" of all the stations which Metro, m0onorail would not wjile just continuing as
SkyTrain would be the most cost effective.
This is why I strongly against any total grade separation using LRT..........it is going to cost much more than the other options due to the massive station renovations that will be needed. That is why the conversation about technology matters a great deal.
Click to expand...

TTC seemed to realize this in a 2006 report that showed lower costs and much less disruption.

http://www.toronto.ca/srtstudy/pdf/srt-strategic-plan-report.pdf

but when they decided on the one solution fits all transit model (everything LRT), they change the recommendation from Skytrain (Mark II) to LRT. Another factor was the refusal to consider anything but at-grade median for the East part of Eglinton. If all of Eglinton was interlined with the SRT - the order for vehicles would have been large enough that it would have achieve enough economies of scale.
 
CC:

Sorry, sinking good money into a project of dubious benefit when there are other more worthy priorities is a solution in search of a problem.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top