News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.9K     0 
ssiguy2 said:
Yes I know the central part will be underground as it should be but the rest should have been elevated. The CT has too many stations both at grade and underground adding to the costs for little return. Also the underground stations themselves had to be made significantly larger than needed than if the system was grade separated because the system will suffer from much lower frequency capacity.

Miller proclaimed that LRT would offer the best of both worlds.......... high capacity, high frequency but lower costs and faster construction than subway but as Torontonians are quickly realizing instead it offers the worst pf both world.............high costs, lower capacity, less frequent service, less reliable but coming in a subway costs and timetables.
Click to expand...
It might not be cheaper per say, but it would be more cost efficient relative to the service you're getting. The Eglinton Line will have the same hourly capacity as the Canada Line so a lot of money could've been saved building smaller stations, and that money could've been spent elevating the line in the east. Same capacity, while being way faster and way more reliable service, not much more expensive.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
The real orthodoxy buster here is the notion that P3 is by default better and cheaper, and transfers risks from the government to the private sector. Pretty much none of that had happened in this case.

AoD
Click to expand...
Perhaps transferring all the risk to the private sector, specifically the GC was always a stupid and impossible thing to do, especially when cost overruns are largely caused by things like unknown utilities and traffic control, things Metrolinx should have always taken the risk for.
 
ARG1 said:
It might not be cheaper per say, but it would be more cost efficient relative to the service you're getting. The Eglinton Line will have the same hourly capacity as the Canada Line so a lot of money could've been saved building smaller stations, and that money could've been spent elevating the line in the east. Same capacity, while being way faster and way more reliable service, not much more expensive.
Click to expand...
When the Yonge Subway opened in 1954, they thought that after the initial passenger rush, they'll be using 2 (Gloucester) car trains. Never happened. They started with 4 (Gloucestor) car trains, growing to 4 (Montreal Locomotive Works and Hawker Siddeley) car trains minimum. Now 6 car trains used on Line 1 are too short.
 
W. K. Lis said:
When the Yonge Subway opened in 1954, they thought that after the initial passenger rush, they'll be using 2 (Gloucester) car trains. Never happened. They started with 4 (Gloucestor) car trains, growing to 4 (Montreal Locomotive Works and Hawker Siddeley) car trains minimum. Now 6 car trains used on Line 1 are too short.
Click to expand...
Sure, but that's not a problem that wouldn't occur on Eglinton. When I say max capacity, I mean max capacity. Eglinton can't exactly run 90 second headways due to the at grade segment (Good luck integrating at grade segments where the LRVs can get stuck behind streetlights into 90 second headways), and as a bonus Eglinton is now forever stuck with low floor vehicles, and since most of the line is tunelled, you can't replace it with heavy rail in the future like they did with the Yonge and Bloor Streetcars, so the vehicles themselves will forever be stuck with worse standing space and worse internal circulation.
 
ARG1 said:
Sure, but that's not a problem that wouldn't occur on Eglinton. When I say max capacity, I mean max capacity. Eglinton can't exactly run 90 second headways due to the at grade segment (Good luck integrating at grade segments where the LRVs can get stuck behind streetlights into 90 second headways), and as a bonus Eglinton is now forever stuck with low floor vehicles, and since most of the line is tunelled, you can't replace it with heavy rail in the future like they did with the Yonge and Bloor Streetcars, so the vehicles themselves will forever be stuck with worse standing space and worse internal circulation.
Click to expand...
I mean, we could spend another 20 billion dollars to build a Lawrence Crosstown to relieve the poorly designed Eglinton Crosstown
 
Signs up at Science Centre!

IMG-4518.jpg

IMG-4520.jpg

IMG-4522.jpg
 
Streety McCarface said:
Perhaps transferring all the risk to the private sector, specifically the GC was always a stupid and impossible thing to do, especially when cost overruns are largely caused by things like unknown utilities and traffic control, things Metrolinx should have always taken the risk for.
Click to expand...

Is it though? It was sold to be a smart move, and I am sure Toronto isn't *that* unique.

ARG1 said:
Sure, but that's not a problem that wouldn't occur on Eglinton. When I say max capacity, I mean max capacity. Eglinton can't exactly run 90 second headways due to the at grade segment (Good luck integrating at grade segments where the LRVs can get stuck behind streetlights into 90 second headways), and as a bonus Eglinton is now forever stuck with low floor vehicles, and since most of the line is tunelled, you can't replace it with heavy rail in the future like they did with the Yonge and Bloor Streetcars, so the vehicles themselves will forever be stuck with worse standing space and worse internal circulation.
Click to expand...

Nothing prevents you from elevating (or even tunnelling) the remainder portion of the existing line that is currently at grade.

AoD
 
jelbana said:
The main problem with Yonge isn't that it is at capacity. Instead, it is the lack of alternate lines built over the last 40 years. Most of the ridership comes from feeder buses from the east. I think @ARG1 is correct, building more grade separated lines of smaller station size but higher frequency is the way forward. Especially because it increases network coverage at cheaper cost.
Click to expand...

Except the incremental cost of building a new line is *much* higher (nevermind the political friction of starting a new one), and that new lines are invariably extended where existing capacity will be soaked up - just look at Yonge - even RL/OL couldn't negate the need to increase capacity of the existing line.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Is it though? It was sold to be a smart move, and I am sure Toronto isn't *that* unique.



Nothing prevents you from elevating (or even tunnelling) the remainder portion of the existing line that is currently at grade.

AoD
Click to expand...
I really hope that happens sooner than later, although that leaves the question of what we do with Eglinton East. Should we fully grade separate that as well or do we make that a separate line?
 
ARG1 said:
I really hope that happens sooner than later, although that leaves the question of what we do with Eglinton East. Should we fully grade separate that as well or do we make that a separate line?
Click to expand...
If the eastern portion gets grade-separated I think they would ideally run Eglinton as a separate line at least until it congested enough it needs its own grade separation project, but see no reason why some trains couldn't through run from line 5 to EELRT and vice-versa
 
jelbana said:
The incremental cost of building additional lines is insanely higher only in Toronto. Vancouver over the past few decades proves it not to be the case, and Montreal recently with REM is also showing promise. Let alone the rest of the world which is successful at building a network of metro lines rather than being capable of only extending the few over-capacity lines it has into the suburbs.
Click to expand...

Is it because they aren't insanely high just because of sizing - or because they adopted other cost saving measures (elevation, reusing existing infrastructure, etc)?

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top