BurlOak
Senior Member
Who's talking about the SRT conversion and extension? That's an entirely different project, with a different set of goals, and an different budget. It doesn't have anything to do with Eglinton, and would be built regardless of what happened with Eglinton.
Many people on this forum have suggested connecting Eglinton to SRT. It actually will be connected but not for revenue service. In terms of budget, it is all part of the +/- $8B that is part of Phase 1.
Except that the TTC and Metrolinx have done the studies, and you haven't. Now, if you go ahead and commission a study that would indicate that you aren't just pulling numbers out of thin air, it may be worth talking about.
Actually Metrolinx did the study when Ford proposed the connection of SRT with Eglinton as part of his Memorandum of understanding. I think the number was over 10,000 per hour, and that was without a DRL. And making the line elevated as opposed to underground will do nothing to reduce this number
And as for transfers, you have to transfer at some point. It isn't feasible for every single commuter to have a subway line from his office to his house. At some point you need to build in a transfer to a mode or series of modes that carry smaller loads more efficiently, be it LRT, streetcar, bus or jitney.
I am sure most SRT passengers are forced to transfer at Kennedy. The number of passengers approaching Kennedy from the SRT is probably well over half of all passengers getting on the B-D at Kennedy. I think the ridership on SRT was well above 5000 per hour. If we can get these people off of the B-D (where the majority invariably transfer at Yonge - and not Pape, since it will be difficult and expensive to convert Pape into a major interchange station) and onto the top of the DRL, it would well be worth it.
]
I am not suggesting the Eglinton line needs to head to the downtown to everyone's office, I am just suggesting that it not stop at a location where ridership is still very high. I thought about continuing the ECLRT along Eglinton to Kinsgston Road, but the ridership is so much higher on the SRT that it obviously must continue toward STC.
"Improve the performance" is a pretty vague target to aim for. How are they improving it, exactly? Shorter walks for customers? Reduce traffic congestion on the streets above? They are building underground stations at those two locations for a variety of reasons, but "improve the performance" was not one that came up.
To me, having high numbers of passengers (at DM and Kennedy) exiting the ECLRT at grade would cause disruptions to vehicle traffic, but it would also cause problems for passengers switching from the median to the underground line. I agree that performance is a vague term, but it is obvious what performance improvements are when you see them.
As for your numbers, considering the median cost of tunnelling a line seems to be in the region of $250mil/km including stations while the cost of an in-median line is around 1/5th of that, I'd like to know how you manage to think that they can build another 5km for only another $500mil.
Actually, I think the cost of the burred part of ECLRT is closer to $350M. Using your numbers, the in-median LRT is about $50M /km (although I think every single Transit City line is actually much more than that), The means an elevated line would have to come in at about $150M /km to add up to the $500M. Vancouver did this for a line that was 60% buried and 40% elevated.
I think you are still referring to the Ford plan. Even Ford, I believe, said that the line should be buried or elevated. The fully buried option was pursued just to prove that the "Ford" concept was prohibitively expensive.
Then, despite all this what-if-ing, there is the final, and most important question: where would you get this money to make it happen? And is the TTC going to be responsible for the additional maintenance costs of the line? Remember, that $8.4bil has to go to all of the projects - Sheppard East, Finch West, converting the SRT and the Eglinton Line, not to mention buying the equipment and building the maintenance facilities. There isn't an infinitely deep bucket of loonies at the end of a rainbow with which to keep adding and adding to the scope of projects.
If the extension of the tunnel from Laird to Don Mills going to be free. Presumably, Metrolinx will say that the extra expense was needed to make the line "perform better". Then the money will have to be found, either by simplifying the design of some stations, or utilizing the soon to be announced Metrolinx funding options, or deferring the highly controversial SELRT. Maybe the Province, or the City, can kick in this small amount. Although the maintenance costs of the elevated stations (note there would be no additional underground stations) would be a bit higher than the in-median stops, but ridership would also be significantly higher.