Transit City Plan

[nfitz]

If they extend the tunnel to Jane and Don Mills, then it can work (but would cost even more).

Isn't the plan to have the portal already near Jane? In the East there would only be a single traffic light between the portal and Don Mills road. If they thought about it carefully, they could design the LRT between the 2 portals each side of Leslie so that the tracks were south of the roadway, and there was no interference with traffic. Sadly this type of creativity seems to be lacking at TTC.

 

[Dan416]

Sadly this type of creativity seems to be lacking at TTC.

The most perceptive thing I've heard you say all year.

 

[fanoftoronto]

Isn't the plan to have the portal already near Jane? In the East there would only be a single traffic light between the portal and Don Mills road. If they thought about it carefully, they could design the LRT between the 2 portals each side of Leslie so that the tracks were south of the roadway, and there was no interference with traffic. Sadly this type of creativity seems to be lacking at TTC.

The west portal is to be east of Keele street, bringing it to Jane street will cost more than the Province is willing to spend. The east portal is just plain dumb. If Don Mills station is to be underground, then tunnelling to that point will not cost more but will be very useful in the long run if ATO is implemented in the underground LRT.

And I think I know why the tracks are always in the centre of the roadway: To bring the "European" style TOD to the region.

 

[Rainforest]

^ Any segment without full grade separation (even if interference from traffic lights is minimal) prevents the use of ATO and that reduces the max frequency somewhat.

Of course, they can use ATO and limit it to the tunnel. But if the tunnel does not reach major transfer points, then the short-turn branch running in the tunnel will not provide enough relief for the long-haul branch.

 

[EnviroTO]

If they thought about it carefully, they could design the LRT between the 2 portals each side of Leslie so that the tracks were south of the roadway, and there was no interference with traffic.

Except for the Celestica off-ramp. They should get rid of the off-ramp though if they are going for a less suburban and more pedestrian feel.

 

[nfitz]

Except for the Celestica off-ramp. They should get rid of the off-ramp though if they are going for a less suburban and more pedestrian feel.

Presumably they can just stay south of that ... but that highway ramp for one business really doesn't make much sense these days.

 

[SlickFranky]

The east portal is just plain dumb. If Don Mills station is to be underground, then tunnelling to that point will not cost more but will be very useful in the long run if ATO is implemented in the underground LRT.

It confuses me too. It doesn't even seem like a cheap place to build ROW. Sure, things start to space out more east of laird, but there's still a rail underpass, then the elaborate ramp system overpass at that business park (Celestica?), then right back underground? If they're willing to invest in the future expansion contingency, they should probably do the same here and account for the DRL's effect. Thankfully the TBM starts out west, so there's plenty of time to correct this.

 

[GenerationW]

If we accept projections as is, then we'd have to accept 3 different modes on Eglinton.

A subway from Don Mills to Weston and buses (for now) at the ends -- where do I sign up?

 

[Dan416]

A subway from Don Mills to Weston and buses (for now) at the ends -- where do I sign up?

I'd go for that too. But that's not what I meant. I meant there are projections showing Eglinton should be BRT. There are also projections showing HRT is necessary. There are also projections showing LRT would be sufficient.

I would TAKE the subway from Weston to Don Mills. But I understand the concept behind having the whole thing one line from Pearson to Kennedy with no transfer.

I do think they should expand the underground portion to at least Weston and Don Mills, regardless of technology chosen.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I still maintain that it makes no sense to go for LRT just because it gets the job done in one swoop (which it won't, if you look at the current plan.) Looking at the B-D, it's not all bad to leave the ends of the lines as transfers and just expand it later. In fact, that's how transit works and is how every other transit system in the world got built.

 

[Dan416]

I still maintain that it makes no sense to go for LRT just because it gets the job done in one swoop (which it won't, if you look at the current plan.) Looking at the B-D, it's not all bad to leave the ends of the lines as transfers and just expand it later. In fact, that's how transit works and is how every other transit system in the world got built.

I agree with you. But I see what the thought process behind Eglinton is and it has some logical sense to it. Unlike say, Sheppard East or whatever the eff they're doing with the SRT, who really knows anymore. Eglinton ridership is very hard to predict. The LRT won't be overloaded from the first day, and depending how busy it is, we can always cut things off at the tunnel and just switch the tunnel to subway (since it'll be built for that). Since they've planned for it, I imagine a shutdown wouldn't be extended and maybe could be done at night. But even still, conversion could be years away.

At the same time, it does seem kinda silly to build an LRT for 80-90% of the cost of HRT.

 

[nfitz]

At the same time, it does seem kinda silly to build an LRT for 80-90% of the cost of HRT.

With about 20 km of surface rail, and 10 km of subway, the price shouldn't be about 80-90% of HRT. Running HRT from Pearson to Kennedy won't cost an additional 20%. It would add an additional 80% to 100% depending on your unit costs.

I'm not sure how you get only 20% - but it doesn't pass the sniff test.

 

[fanoftoronto]

With about 20 km of surface rail, and 10 km of subway, the price shouldn't be about 80-90% of HRT. Running HRT from Pearson to Kennedy won't cost an additional 20%. It would add an additional 80% to 100% depending on your unit costs.

I'm not sure how you get only 20% - but it doesn't pass the sniff test.

I think what he means is build an HRT subway from Jane until Don Mills. The costing for an LRT subway and HRT subway is extremely similar given that LRT needs a wider tunnel and HRT needs longer stations. We can have LRT from either ends, one that goes to Kennedy station and one that goes to the airport.

 

[nfitz]

I think what he means is build an HRT subway from Jane until Don Mills. The costing for an LRT subway and HRT subway is extremely similar given that LRT needs a wider tunnel and HRT needs longer stations. We can have LRT from either ends, one that goes to Kennedy station and one that goes to the airport.

I thought LRT cost and subway cost were closer than 80 to 90% for same length ..

Anyways this gets down to the "Do you build stubways" question. Everyone seems to think that Yonge to Don Mills on Sheppard is too short, and if it was only going to Don Mills, and then LRT, that we'd have been better off if the LRT ran in the tunnel instead of subway. But on Eglinton with it only going to Don Mills, that's okay?

I'm just not sure what you gain. If you go subway and LRT, you have slower travel times (with the interchange) and less frequent trains. With just LRT you have more frequent trains, quicker journeys, more convenience, and double the capacity than is forecast for the foreseeable future.

 

[fanoftoronto]

Anyways this gets down to the "Do you build stubways" question. Everyone seems to think that Yonge to Don Mills on Sheppard is too short, and if it was only going to Don Mills, and then LRT, that we'd have been better off if the LRT ran in the tunnel instead of subway. But on Eglinton with it only going to Don Mills, that's okay?

Actually it's more of subway from Yonge to Don Mills, then buses is dumb. I've always been pro LRT in Sheppard (and Finch for that matter).

I'm just not sure what you gain. If you go subway and LRT, you have slower travel times (with the interchange) and less frequent trains. With just LRT you have more frequent trains, quicker journeys, more convenience, and double the capacity than is forecast for the foreseeable future.

What you gain is money saved in the long run. If say, in the future (30-40 years) demand exceeds LRT limits, then retrofitting the stations for HRT means added cost along with hassle for the user since the line will have to be closed for many months. Spending $3-4 billion on an LRT tunnel now only to spend another $2-3 billion on retrofitting the line in the future doesn't seem like good planning.