Toronto's and Province's New 12.4B Eglinton/SRT/Sheppard Plan

[TransitPolicyChanger]

Grade-separated does not necessarily mean underground through. A trench (like the one on the Yonge line between Rosedale and Davisville) would cost only marginally more than at-grade. Why spend so much on infrastructure that will meet the demand for 20 years, when we can spend only a fraction more on infrastructure that will be good for the next 75+ years?

I just don't see why people are so insistent on in-median when there's a perfectly good transit corridor RIGHT BESIDE IT that can host a multitude of different transit options that DON'T involve ripping up all of Eglinton Avenue. It just makes no sense to me.

I don't disagree with your thinking ... but I just think this stretch is another Sheppard Ave. and I would think the general thought is we can't build a subway there because its overkill and in this area it is the same. People complain about transfers, but maybe ending the LRT at Jane is the right decision, then we can go with something gweed knows a lot about, BRT. Would construction of a busway here be of better use? Yes people in this area no longer get the "one seat ride" but it may not be the biggest deal.

My argument is not in-median vs trench or tunnel, its really will this stretch become another Sheppard subway?

 

[gweed123]

You keep saying "marginally more" over and over but that doesn't make it true. What's your definition of marginally more? 5% higher? 10%? 15%? Or 75%? 125%?

Would a trenched Richview be cheaper than a bored tunnel? Absolutely. Could the additional cost versus the old at-grade option be outweighed by the higher quality service it enables? Quite possibly. But I don't think you do the proposal any favours by jumping to the conclusion that excavating several kilometers of corridor 20-plus feet down and building overhead bridges for cross-streets is going to be a couple of extra pennies on the dollar.

(Not disagreeing with the idea that the corridor is worth protecting, by the way. Just suggesting we shouldn't oversell this.)

I don't know the exact number, but I would imagine the trench would be somewhere between $90 and $100 million/km. That's realistically not that far off from the $60 to $65 million that the in-median sections of Transit City are costing. In my view, that extra expense is worth it to deliver higher quality transit in the short term, and a better long-term infrastructure investment.

I don't disagree with your thinking ... but I just think this stretch is another Sheppard Ave. and I would think the general thought is we can't build a subway there because its overkill and in this area it is the same. People complain about transfers, but maybe ending the LRT at Jane is the right decision, then we can go with something gweed knows a lot about, BRT. Would construction of a busway here be of better use? Yes people in this area no longer get the "one seat ride" but it may not be the biggest deal.

My argument is not in-median vs trench or tunnel, its really will this stretch become another Sheppard subway?

The stretch itself is not unlike Sheppard, but where it's coming from and where it's going to is what makes it so important. In the east, you have midtown, and in the west you have Pearson and the Mississauga Transitway. All of those can be seen as pretty significant trip generators.

And in the short term, I don't disagree with the idea of running BRT. In fact, I'd be very open to building an at-grade Transitway through the Richview corridor right now, and then trenching it for LRT once the funding and demand is there. If nothing else, this would ensure that the corridor is not usurped by another form of development (or a firesale by a bonehead mayor). It would provide MT a second link to the TTC subway system (the TTC may even be able to get MT to pay an on-going subsidy for it, much in the way Vaughan is paying for the maintenance of the TYSSE in Vaughan), and it would be a major funnel for a lot of buses in the west end of the City. It would also act as a good gauge of how much demand is actually there. But most importantly, it would be a quick and relatively inexpensive transit infrastructure investment, and even if it were to start planning next year, would probably still open concurrently with the ESLRT.

 

[Amy Rose]

Isn't most of the Richview corridor pretty much sold off or am I missing something?

 

[EnviroTO]

I don't know the exact number, but I would imagine the trench would be somewhere between $90 and $100 million/km.

Is the expensive part of going underground the roof and filling the dirt back in, or is it moving utilities, digging and shoring, concrete, tracks and electrical that is the expensive part? What is this estimate of 90-100M$/km for a subway in a trench and $60-65k$/km based on? I'm not sold on your figures. Considering the common elements of trackbed, tracks, and electrical and major construction works being the difference I just don't see how the LRT in an existing graded roadway is almost the cost of a grade separated option.

 

[Justin10000]

Is the expensive part of going underground the roof and filling the dirt back in, or is it moving utilities, digging and shoring, concrete, tracks and electrical that is the expensive part? What is this estimate of 90-100M$/km for a subway in a trench and $60-65k$/km based on? I'm not sold on your figures. Considering the common elements of trackbed, tracks, and electrical and major construction works being the difference I just don't see how the LRT in an existing graded roadway is almost the cost of a grade separated option.

Why even bother make the claim if the poster does not even have numbers to back it up? There is no way digging a trench is not much more expensive than laying down a ROW in the middle of a roadbed. I would say trenching is marginally cheaper than tunneling, and hence why it does not seem to be a popular option. I do not know of any system that has built a line in a trench in North America. The Dallas LRT may come to mind, but that's it.

 

[gweed123]

Is the expensive part of going underground the roof and filling the dirt back in, or is it moving utilities, digging and shoring, concrete, tracks and electrical that is the expensive part? What is this estimate of 90-100M$/km for a subway in a trench and $60-65k$/km based on? I'm not sold on your figures. Considering the common elements of trackbed, tracks, and electrical and major construction works being the difference I just don't see how the LRT in an existing graded roadway is almost the cost of a grade separated option.

I'll admit it, I don't have the exact numbers, I was just talking in ballpark.

And as soon as you start going tunnel, you need to think of things like support columns, emergency exits (which are much more extensive in a tunnel than a trench, for a trench it's just a staircase on the side of the trench), ventilation, fire prevention and fire access, lighting, etc. All of these things are not as big of a factor with a trench compared to a tunnel, even if that tunnel is cut and cover.

Is it more expensive that an at-grade option? Absolutely. However, it's not so much more expensive that it may not be worth the additional investment.

 

[Asterix]

I don't know the exact number, but I would imagine the trench would be somewhere between $90 and $100 million/km. That's realistically not that far off from the $60 to $65 million that the in-median sections of Transit City are costing.

While others have brought up questions with respect to your trench cost imaginings, I'm wondering about your in-median costs.

Is this $60 to $65 million/km JUST for building the media and putting in the electrical infrastructure?

I was under the impression the TC plans incorporated items not explicitly required for the LRT but part of a general streetscape plan.

Are they planning to bury hydro wires while they are tearing up the street? What about replacing water mains or sewers? Upgrading sidewalks and otherwise beautifying things?

I get the impression you are comparing a bar-bones trenching operation with a major street upgrade project. Saying the cost of your preferred option is something you "imagine" it to be certainly does help make the case.

 

[gweed123]

I would say trenching is marginally cheaper than tunneling, and hence why it does not seem to be a popular option. I do not know of any system that has built a line in a trench in North America. The Dallas LRT may come to mind, but that's it.

See previous post for my rationale on cost. And really? No systems at all? Try Toronto and Ottawa. Nearly half of the original Yonge line is built in a trench. Significant portions of Ottawa's Transitway are built in a trench, and an LRT trench along the Richmond-Byron corridor is being considered for the West LRT extension.

The main reason why a lot of cities don't have trenches is not because of cost, it's because of land availability, expropriation costs, and resale value. If you're going to be expropriating land, you want to make sure that you get some money back from it by being able to develop on top of it. Not many cities have dedicated transit corridors directly adjacent to a major avenue, therefore they have to make their own (which inflates costs due to expropriation). The Richview corridor is a unique circumstance whereby the corridor already exists, no expropriation necessary.

It was done with the original Yonge extension because at that point in time the city could expropriate whatever it damn well wanted and it was ok. They trenched north of Bloor because it was significantly cheaper than tunnelling. The dollar amounts may have changed since then, but I would venture to say the ratio between trench cost vs tunnel cost hasn't changed that significantly. They both share common materials (concrete, steel, etc), and both share similar engineering requirements.

Calgary's new West LRT extension is also being trenched in a couple locations (specifically 37th St and 69th St).

 

[M II A II R II K]

And if you trench, there's always the option to cover it up later to then become underground.

 

[gweed123]

While others have brought up questions with respect to your trench cost imaginings, I'm wondering about your in-median costs.

Is this $60 to $65 million/km JUST for building the media and putting in the electrical infrastructure?

I was under the impression the TC plans incorporated items not explicitly required for the LRT but part of a general streetscape plan.

Are they planning to bury hydro wires while they are tearing up the street? What about replacing water mains or sewers? Upgrading sidewalks and otherwise beautifying things?

I get the impression you are comparing a bar-bones trenching operation with a major street upgrade project. Saying the cost of your preferred option is something you "imagine" it to be certainly does help make the case.

Why does this matter? Are they going to build a bare bones LRT along Eglinton West, without doing any streetscaping or utilities relocation? No. They're going to do streetscape improvements, and make it a "nice avenue". So a bare bones estimate of what the at-grade LRT could cost isn't really fair, because that wouldn't be what they're building. By contrast, a trench with concrete walls doesn't really need extensive streetscaping, and the utility relocation only really happens at cross-streets, and is included in the costs of building the overpasses. The extent of the streetscaping for a trench would be a berm between the trench and the road (of which the berm would likely be just the topsoil that was stripped from the trench excavation), with a few trees planted on it.

And the $60 to $65 million is the average per km cost of the at-grade portions of the Transit City lines.

 

[gweed123]

And if you trench, there's always the option to cover it up later to then become underground.

Exactly. Although I think most likely what would happen is that they would deck over strategic locations along the route to turn it to parkland, similar to what they did immediately north of Summerhill. It would most likely be in short enough stretches that they don't require more extensive fire exits, and short enough that they don't require adding in extensive ventilation equipment.

 

[Asterix]

Why does this matter? Are they going to build a bare bones LRT along Eglinton West, without doing any streetscaping or utilities relocation? No. They're going to do streetscape improvements, and make it a "nice avenue".

I would think it matters if you want to genuinely compare apples to apples.

If the reason the in-median cost is expected to be a lot closer to your imagined trench cost is because they will be doing a lot of non-LRT specific activities, then it doesn't help make the argument that 'for just a little bit more money they could put the line in this wonderful trench'.

Why would streetscaping also be considered if a trench was built? If they want to bury hydro wires and pretty-up sidewalks when they build the LRT, then why wouldn't they also want to do that if they were digging a trench next door?

Either those extra costs should be included in your trench imaginings or should be excluded from your in-median comparisons if you are trying to argue for a cost-benefit for trenching over in-median.

 

[gweed123]

I would think it matters if you want to genuinely compare apples to apples.

But that's not what it is. You were trying to compare a stripped-down in-median LRT proposal to a relatively bare-bones trench proposal. That may be all well and good for an apples to apples comparison, but that's never what's going to get built. They aren't going to just plop an LRT down in the middle of Eglinton and ignore the servicing, curb, sidewalk, and street greenery relocation. If they had left a green median wide enough to accomodate LRT (see: Ottawa, just east of Barrhaven Town Centre, they built a roadway with a 10m wide grass median specifically for in-median LRT), then you would have a point. But that isn't the case. A complete rebuild of Eglinton Ave is a necessary component of the in-median proposal, whereas it isn't for the trench.

If the reason the in-median cost is expected to be a lot closer to your imagined trench cost is because they will be doing a lot of non-LRT specific activities, then it doesn't help make the argument that 'for just a little bit more money they could put the line in this wonderful trench'.

Uhh yeah it does. You can't just say "oh well this money isn't directly related to the LRT, therefore it isn't being spent as part of this project". If the impotus for doing that work is the LRT, then it's part of the LRT project. That's like saying "we're widening out a highway from 2 lanes to 4 lanes divided, so we need to build a new service road for the existing buildings fronting onto that highway that would no longer have access. But that service road isn't actually part of the highway, so it doesn't count towards the budget". It doesn't work that way.

Why would streetscaping also be considered if a trench was built? If they want to bury hydro wires and pretty-up sidewalks when they build the LRT, then why wouldn't they also want to do that if they were digging a trench next door?

Because it isn't necessary as part of the trench. There's nothing about the trench that forces you to rebuild the sidewalk on the opposite side of Eglinton Ave. With the in-median LRT, the roadway is being widened, so you don't really have a choice as to whether or not you need to move the sidewalk or move/bury hydro poles (unless you want them in the middle of a lane, not exactly advisable).

Either those extra costs should be included in your trench imaginings or should be excluded from your in-median comparisons if you are trying to argue for a cost-benefit for trenching over in-median.

In general, you're right. But I'm referring specifically to this scenario. In this scenario, the trenching streetscaping is optional, in the in-median scenario, it's mandatory (well, the trees and such aren't, but things like sidewalk, hydro pole, and sewer relocation is).

 

[Justin10000]

See previous post for my rationale on cost. And really? No systems at all? Try Toronto and Ottawa. Nearly half of the original Yonge line is built in a trench. Significant portions of Ottawa's Transitway are built in a trench, and an LRT trench along the Richmond-Byron corridor is being considered for the West LRT extension.

I meant LRT systems, my mistake.
The Yonge Subway runs in a wide open cut. I would not consider that to be a trench. This is what I consider a trench:

This is the Alameda Corridor Rail Trench in L.A.

The main reason why a lot of cities don't have trenches is not because of cost, it's because of land availability, expropriation costs, and resale value. If you're going to be expropriating land, you want to make sure that you get some money back from it by being able to develop on top of it. Not many cities have dedicated transit corridors directly adjacent to a major avenue, therefore they have to make their own (which inflates costs due to expropriation). The Richview corridor is a unique circumstance whereby the corridor already exists, no expropriation necessary.

If the land is available, why would a city spend the money to excavate the trench, build the walls, bridges, and other necessary infrastructure? Makes little sense to me especially if you're going to cover it up again. It's essentially cut and cover, and tunneling has advanced enough where it's not that much more expensive than C & C. Just tunnel under the land with a TBM, and sell the land to developers if inclined. I can understand covering over parts of existing trenches and open cuts, but even then you may not use all the available airspace. Looking at the above picture, there is no way a trench is "marginally cheaper" than just leveling the land, laying the tracks, and associated systems. Cost is definitely a reason for avoiding trenching, especially if the land is available.

It was done with the original Yonge extension because at that point in time the city could expropriate whatever it damn well wanted and it was ok. They trenched north of Bloor because it was significantly cheaper than tunnelling. The dollar amounts may have changed since then, but I would venture to say the ratio between trench cost vs tunnel cost hasn't changed that significantly. They both share common materials (concrete, steel, etc), and both share similar engineering requirements.

The Yonge Line was not in a trench, it was a open cut. A wide open cut. The gradient north of Bloor cuts through the ancient shoreline, so it was either tunnel, or save money and keep the line in open cut. But it's not a trench. The Ottawa Transitway between Bayview and Tunney's Pasture is a trench. That's for certain.

I should point out, I am not against trenching as means of grade-separation where appropriate. But there is absolutely no way it is marginally more expensive than surfacerail and siginificantly cheaper than tunneling. It's simply cut and cover without the roof, and Cut and Cover is still pretty expensive. And disruptive.

 

[gweed123]

I meant LRT systems, my mistake.
The Yonge Subway runs in a wide open cut. I would not consider that to be a trench. This is what I consider a trench:

This is the Alameda Corridor Rail Trench in L.A.

Personally, I consider certain types of open cuts to be trenches. If it is open to the air and depressed from the surrounding grades on both sides for the purposes of grade separation, it's a trench. The only portion of the open section of the Yonge line that I don't consider a trench is the section across from the cemetery, between St. Clair and Davisville. I don't think this qualifies as a trench because the grade of the tracks on the east side is actually higher than the grade of the adjacent street for the most part. Really the main difference between what you would consider and open cut and a trench is the fact that the side walls are vertical and concrete vs angled and grassed. They both involve excavation, and they both involve building bridges over the corridor.

If the land is available, why would a city spend the money to excavate the trench, build the walls, bridges, and other necessary infrastructure? Makes little sense to me especially if you're going to cover it up again. It's essentially cut and cover, and tunneling has advanced enough where it's not that much more expensive than C & C.

It is cut, but without the cover. And as I mentioned earlier, there are a lot of extra costs associated with the cover part that you don't get with the cut part (enhanced fire protection and exits, ventilation, etc).

Just tunnel under the land with a TBM, and sell the land to developers if inclined.

If the revenue generated from selling the land is greater than the difference in cost between trenching and tunnelling, then yes. But unless you're doing this through land with extremely high property values and the opportunity for significant density, I doubt that would be the case. On Eglinton West, you're not going to get your money back by selling the land to develop mid-rise apartments with the occasional 30 storey condo.

I can understand covering over parts of existing trenches and open cuts, but even then you may not use all the available airspace. Looking at the above picture, there is no way a trench is "marginally cheaper" than just leveling the land, laying the tracks, and associated systems. Cost is definitely a reason for avoiding trenching, especially if the land is available.

In the scenario you describe, no. But again, the choice isn't between doing a trench and levelling the land, laying the tracks, etc. It's between digging a trench and completely ripping up and redesigning a major arterial roadway. If the choice is between at-grade through the Richview corridor and trenched through the Richview corridor, then of course the at-grade would be cheaper.

The Yonge Line was not in a trench, it was a open cut. A wide open cut. The gradient north of Bloor cuts through the ancient shoreline, so it was either tunnel, or save money and keep the line in open cut. But it's not a trench. The Ottawa Transitway between Bayview and Tunney's Pasture is a trench. That's for certain.

Boils down to definitions in that case, and I explained my rationale for it above. But yes, the Transitway between Bayview and the Ottawa River Parkway (and between U of O and the Rideau River btw) is definitely a trench, which is being upgraded to be an LRT trench. It has also seen the tallest residential building in Ottawa spring up directly beside it.

I should point out, I am not against trenching as means of grade-separation where appropriate. But there is absolutely no way it is marginally more expensive than surfacerail and siginificantly cheaper than tunneling. It's simply cut and cover without the roof, and Cut and Cover is still pretty expensive. And disruptive.

Again, it depends on the scenario you're comparing it to. If it's trench in empty field vs at-grade in empty field, you're right. But if it's trench in empty field vs at-grade through the middle of an arterial that will need to be completely redesigned, that may be a different story. It won't be equal, but it may be close enough to warrant it as a serious alternative, especially when you factor in the plus of complete grade separation.

And with regards to disruption, which is more disruptive: trenching through a green corridor, and causing disruption at cross streets, or ripping up/redesigning an entire major arterial roadway? We all saw the kind of havoc that happened on St. Clair during that upgrade.

And for what it's worth, I'm not opposed to doing at-grade through the Richview corridor either, I just don't think it's necessary to rip up and rebuild an entire avenue when there's a perfectly good transit corridor sitting right beside it. An at-grade LRT or BRT route through those lands would be fine with me as well.