Transit City Plan

[nfitz]

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.

Using what interest rate? How much extra cost will you sustain now, for little to no future savings.

Perhaps in 2100 it will cost $2-$3-billion. And a metropass might be $5000 a month. But if you look at the Sheppard conversion cost, it was only $500-million to convert to LRT - and much of that was the cost of making the tunnels bigger. Eglinton already has the bigger tunnels. Apart from the portals (which presumably would be part of a tunnel extension), the primary cost would be new track, new power supply, raising the platforms (unless we've invented low-flor HRT by then), and extending the stations. Nothing is as costly as making the tunnels bigger. And raising the platforms is a lot cheaper than reducing them (at Sheppard). Much of the work could be done during active service - even to the point of having a 3-car low-floor and high-floor platform in each station, so the only shutdown would be for track, and power replacement.

I can't imagine a proper cost analysis would show that it makes sense to build something now, to save a few dollars in 40-80 years ... maybe.

For every project like the Bloor Viaduct, where it paid off, there are many, many projects where $ was spent on infrastructure that was never used, or only partially used. The Gardiner lanes east of Leslie that stopped in mid-air. The Yonge platform at Queen Street. The passenger terminal at Mirabel airport. The overpasses along the 720 Autoroute in Montreal near the 25, that were about 40 years old before they were ever used, and had to be rebuilt. Some of the overpasses for the Gardiner in Scarborough.

 

[fanoftoronto]

Perhaps in 2100 it will cost $2-$3-billion. And a metropass might be $5000 a month. But if you look at the Sheppard conversion cost, it was only $500-million to convert to LRT - and much of that was the cost of making the tunnels bigger.

$500 million to convert a 5.5 kilometre line. Not a 10 kilometre line, like Eglinton is going to be. Second, it's not gonna be done now, so add the inflation costs.

Whatever the cost savings, it's still gonna be saved. If it doesn't cost too much more to build it now, then why not?

For every project like the Bloor Viaduct, where it paid off, there are many, many projects where $ was spent on infrastructure that was never used, or only partially used. The Gardiner lanes east of Leslie that stopped in mid-air. The Yonge platform at Queen Street. The passenger terminal at Mirabel airport. The overpasses along the 720 Autoroute in Montreal near the 25, that were about 40 years old before they were ever used, and had to be rebuilt. Some of the overpasses for the Gardiner in Scarborough.

But we do know that it's going to be used!! Metrolinx proposes to run 3 car LRV trainsets from day 1. Running 4 car HRT trains in their place isn't going to be such a waste. The trains aren't going to run empty. I would accept if Toronto was facing decline (like Montreal was when Mirabel was built) but Toronto is not declining.

 

[Rainforest]

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.

Either option has pros and cons.

Note hovewer that demand partly depends on the configuration of surface routes. In the worst case scenario: no much money for further transit expansion, plus gasoline skyrockets and many people are forced to switch to transit, plus TTC has difficulties paying for diesel fuel; the Jane - Don Mills subway (even if this is all we can afford at this point) will be more handy. You can run branches of bus routes (notably, Lawrence) to the termini and reduce the total number of buses needed in service. With lower-capacity LRT, you could try to do that as well, but the limit is closer.

Also, there is no guarantee that the LRT will get extended to Jane to Pearson in future. There will be competing priorities for transit funding. In that case, the LRT option leads to better connectivity in the east only, Don Mills to Kennedy. This is useful, but I don't think it justifies downsizing capacity on the central part of Eglinton.

If the saving from choosing LRT over subway was more substantial, then perhaps LRT would be better choice - since we could afford to build parallel routes (Lawrence LRT or Midtown Crosstown GO) in the near future. But this is not the case.

Btw, thanks for the suggestion to look at Eglinton panels for ridership projection hints; I'll try to interprete them.

 

[rbt]

But we do know that it's going to be used!! Metrolinx proposes to run 3 car LRV trainsets from day 1. Running 4 car HRT trains in their place isn't going to be such a waste. The trains aren't going to run empty.

The plans I've seen show 2-car LRV trainsets with a simple expansion to 3 (knock-out wall) and a less simple expansion beyond 3 being possible. Did I read them incorrectly?

http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/eglinton_crosstown_lrt/index.htm

Sections 8 through 11 show tunnel components.

 

[fanoftoronto]

That was what was originally planned, but Metrolinx is planning to run 3 car consists every 3 minutes in the tunnel

http://www.metrolinx.com/Docs/Events/Rob_Prichard_Presentation_TBOT170510.pdf

Page 23

 

[SlickFranky]

Whatever the cost savings, it's still gonna be saved. If it doesn't cost too much more to build it now, then why not?

You're answering an unknowable question with way too much certainty. Long term investment is a tricky business. No one can predict when this level of demand will exist, or if it will ever exist. Nor can we predict how much it will cost when the upgrade might be needed.

For all we know construction costs could plummet due to breakthroughs in material sciences, or robotics, or who-knows-what-else. Maybe new lines on Don Mills and Jane reduces this line to 5 minute service. Maybe the newly covered Allen transforms the area into the next NYCC, and 6-car HRT is needed by 2040. Maybe vacuum tunnels are the latest craze, and the mayor won't stand for anything less. Maybe an earthquake demolishes half the city in 2022. I'm obviously getting a little ridiculous, but the fact is we can't predict anything this complex and malleable over that kind of timespan.

 

[Voltz]

That was what was originally planned, but Metrolinx is planning to run 3 car consists every 3 minutes in the tunnel

http://www.metrolinx.com/Docs/Events/Rob_Prichard_Presentation_TBOT170510.pdf

Page 23

That doesn't say they will do three car trains from day one, train length will probably be decided when it opens based on demand, there would be no reason to make that decision now and have it set in stone.

 

[Dan416]

You're answering an unknowable question with way too much certainty. Long term investment is a tricky business. No one can predict when this level of demand will exist, or if it will ever exist. Nor can we predict how much it will cost when the upgrade might be needed.

For all we know construction costs could plummet due to breakthroughs in material sciences, or robotics, or who-knows-what-else. Maybe new lines on Don Mills and Jane reduces this line to 5 minute service. Maybe the newly covered Allen transforms the area into the next NYCC, and 6-car HRT is needed by 2040. Maybe vacuum tunnels are the latest craze, and the mayor won't stand for anything less. Maybe an earthquake demolishes half the city in 2022. I'm obviously getting a little ridiculous, but the fact is we can't predict anything this complex and malleable over that kind of timespan.

You'd think technology would have already advanced to a point where we could build subways with robots. But alas, that's not the case. I sure hope someday in the future, this continual escalation in the costs of subway building stops or better yet reverses.

 

[fanoftoronto]

You're answering an unknowable question with way too much certainty. Long term investment is a tricky business. No one can predict when this level of demand will exist, or if it will ever exist. Nor can we predict how much it will cost when the upgrade might be needed.

For all we know construction costs could plummet due to breakthroughs in material sciences, or robotics, or who-knows-what-else. Maybe new lines on Don Mills and Jane reduces this line to 5 minute service. Maybe the newly covered Allen transforms the area into the next NYCC, and 6-car HRT is needed by 2040. Maybe vacuum tunnels are the latest craze, and the mayor won't stand for anything less. Maybe an earthquake demolishes half the city in 2022. I'm obviously getting a little ridiculous, but the fact is we can't predict anything this complex and malleable over that kind of timespan.

First off, even if the costs plummet or rise or whatever, the money is still saved!! If it cost to build HRT subway or LRT subway is the same, then why not go for the option that offers more capacity. I agree completely with the inability to predict what can happen in the future, but we have to build thinking that the city grows. If everyone was afraid an earthquake demolishes the city or some new technology is going to result in the scrapping of previous technology, we can never progress.

If you say that the demand is not present right now, I would kindly direct you to the Sheppard line. 5.5 kilometres, 8 years after opening, it now carries more than 300% the amount carried before the subway opened. And the LRT in that corridor expects 30 to 40% the demand that is expected on the Eglinton LRT!! If the Sheppard subway runs packed in peak hours, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to think the Eglinton LRT will run packed as well very soon.

And if you say that there arises a needless transfer, I would like to remind you of the transfer that is planned at Jane, where the LRT stops.

 

[rbt]

If the Sheppard subway runs packed in peak hours...

This is purposfully done to minimize operating expenses. 30 years after launch, Sheppard might be running 90 second headways and we will be considering knocking out the temporary walls to go to 6 car trains.

Dumb question, but is it known that LRT will be lower capacity? A 4-car LRV consist is about the same length; ATO will be installed for the tunnelled component (as you note, the tunnel may be extended). Is the width of the LRV significantly different from a T1? Would a 4 or 5-car consist have the same or better capacity as say standard Piccadilly train?

I fully realize street-ready LRV's are more expensive than something which isn't street-ready; just as the Toronto Rockets have the cost of being weather proof (something Montreal doesn't need to deal with). Is there any actual capacity difference once stations and trains are fully built out to 500 foot?

If there is no real capacity difference, then there isn't an issue. Once the entire Eglinton route is tunnelled (based on actual required capacity) then we will simply stop buying street-ready LRV and will simply have a low-floor HRT using a pantograph. HRT using pantographs are becoming increasingly common.

 

[fanoftoronto]

Dumb question, but is it known that LRT will be lower capacity? A 4-car LRV consist is about the same length; ATO will be installed for the tunnelled component (as you note, the tunnel may be extended). Is the width of the LRV significantly different from a T1? Would a 4 or 5-car consist have the same or better capacity as say standard Piccadilly train?

I believe the maximum operating capacity of a 5 car LRV trainset with ATO is 20k per hour (I did not calculate this, I read this from another post).

In contrast, a 6 car T1 trainset without ATO is at 30k per hour. With ATO, that will increase to 40k per hour. And yes, the LRV is smaller in width than the T1.

 

[nfitz]

You'd think technology would have already advanced to a point where we could build subways with robots.

The people who tunnelled the first tube subway tunnels probably think the TBMs are robots!

 

[rbt]

I believe the maximum operating capacity of a 5 car LRV trainset with ATO is 20k per hour (I did not calculate this, I read this from another post).

Whelp, if you assume an LRV will hold 150 persons per car comfortably (a reasonable normal loading standard without knowing the exact vehicle chosen); we get:

150 persons per car * 5 cars per train * (60 * 60 / 90 = 40) trains per hour = 30,000pphpd

Crush capacity would be a bit above that.

If the train has open gangways and 2 cabs per train (one for each direction) then capacity per car may be higher.

Somehow I expect to be long retired before the tunnel reaches capacity and I have at least 30 more working years ahead of me.

 

[fanoftoronto]

Whelp, if you assume an LRV will hold 150 persons per car comfortably (a reasonable normal loading standard without knowing the exact vehicle chosen); we get:

150 persons per car * 5 cars per train * (60 * 60 / 90 = 40) trains per hour = 30,000pphpd

Crush capacity would be a bit above that.

If the train has open gangways and 2 cabs per train (one for each direction) then capacity per car may be higher.

Somehow I expect to be long retired before the tunnel reaches capacity and I have at least 30 more working years ahead of me.

I stand corrected! But the only problem is that LRT costs much more than subway cars and running 5 cars with ATO increases the total number of LRV's required. To put this in perspective, the TR unit cost is around $3 million, but the unit cost of the new LRV's that the TTC is buying is around $6 million. And I don't know about the availability of low-floor HRT, or any other option, though.

 

[Rainforest]

Whelp, if you assume an LRV will hold 150 persons per car comfortably (a reasonable normal loading standard without knowing the exact vehicle chosen); we get:

150 persons per car * 5 cars per train * (60 * 60 / 90 = 40) trains per hour = 30,000pphpd

Crush capacity would be a bit above that.

If the train has open gangways and 2 cabs per train (one for each direction) then capacity per car may be higher.

Somehow I expect to be long retired before the tunnel reaches capacity and I have at least 30 more working years ahead of me.

This should be possible; perhaps, even 170 persons per car and 34,000 pphpd.

However, this will require:

1) Full grade separation, at least between Jane and Don Mills - both for 5-car trains and for the use of ATO. This is not a bad idea, but is not guaranteed; and if done, would drive the cost even higher than the present 6,065 million.

2) Even then, if they are building stations for 3-min headways with 3-car trains, will they be suitable for the passenger volumes brought by 1.5-min headways with 5-car trains? This is a big question for major interchange stations like Eglinton West and Eglinton/Yonge.