Palma
Senior Member
You mean LRT from Yonge to Weston
|
|
|
He was referring to the physical design, not the technology. Technology in this case is irrelevant. Same as how the Tremont Street Subway in Boston runs the Green Line LRT, yet it's still called a subway, because it's underground.
nfitz
Superstar
I mean the subway that's being built from Yonge to Weston. Who knows what, if anything, they will run in the subway.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
You know why I love coming to this site?..............because every week there is a new plan announced to talk about.
Dan416
Senior Member
Just as much as I love that we argue about the definition of the word "subway" on a regular basis.
Anyway, personally I'd like to see the whole Eglinton line built. I couldn't care less if the SELRT never happens.
However I'd really like to see the SRT replaced with a subway extension to STC.
Agreed on all counts, but the more and more I think about it, Sheppard-McCowan as the terminus makes so much more sense than STC.
daka_x
New Member
Recycling the SRT technology (now modernized) would have cost less or the same as LRT
I don't know if anyone has seen this yet, but there was some research/advocacy group from the other side of Canada that actually conducted their own study of the technology choice for the Crosstown LRT and found the choice of LRT technology more expensive than a rebuild of the Scarborough RT to more modern standards and the building of the Crosstown LRT under the same (but since-improved) technology. Apparently it would've saved the same amount of money (that moving some of the LRT at-grade would have) or more to switch the technology choice, because of a specific in the diameter of the tunnels.
"The compromise is SkyTrain: Toronto should be pursuing this technology and not LRT on Eglinton" at SkyTrain for Surrey
Everything makes sense, and it looks like these guys do know their stuff.
I don't know if anyone has seen this yet, but there was some research/advocacy group from the other side of Canada that actually conducted their own study of the technology choice for the Crosstown LRT and found the choice of LRT technology more expensive than a rebuild of the Scarborough RT to more modern standards and the building of the Crosstown LRT under the same (but since-improved) technology. Apparently it would've saved the same amount of money (that moving some of the LRT at-grade would have) or more to switch the technology choice, because of a specific in the diameter of the tunnels.
"The compromise is SkyTrain: Toronto should be pursuing this technology and not LRT on Eglinton" at SkyTrain for Surrey
Everything makes sense, and it looks like these guys do know their stuff.
Voltz
Senior Member
If this was accurate I'm sure Bombardier would have made it loud and clear, in either case the TBMs have been ordered and I believe the tunnel liners have as well so there is no changing anything now.
rbt
Senior Member
This is true UNTIL you extend it on either end.
If the line is to be built out from Malvern on the east to Pearson Airport in the west; LRT is billions cheaper (capital wise) than the other options.
If the line stays exactly as planned today, with no expansions at all, then LRT is not the cheapest option. Basically, the expensive chunks are being completed now and we can do the cheap portions later pretty much on a 2% property tax hike which lasts a 10 year period (after 10 years property taxes drop 2% again).
JayBeeGooner
Active Member
Wow. Skytrain for Surrey clearly does not have a biased judgement towards Skytrain technology.
waltthizzney
New Member
Lol... has anyone been to surrey.... its low density farm land, why on earth they want a raised or buried sky train is beyond me considering there are a million ways to put streetcars in within the flat land, wide streets and strip malls... prob a case of little man syndrom
BurlOak
Senior Member
I thought most (all) of the extension to Malvern was being planned as grade-separated already. Thus, no extra expense.
In the West, the article talks about the space adjacent to Eglinton and how it could be used along with how the Western terminal (over 401 and through YYZ) need to be elevated regardless of technology. Vancouver built the elevated/buried Canada Line for about $100M/km. I would guess the extra cost of elevating this line through Etobicoke would be a few hundred million (4 or 5?) and not billions.
JayBeeGooner
Active Member
If the line is extended past Malvern, it won't have to be grade-seperated. Considering the only reason it's grade-seperated to Malvern is the TTC is recycling the old SRT plans, it's very likely the grade seperation will end at Malvern.
sixrings
Senior Member
To be fair where would it be extended to.. Malverns the end of North Eastern Toronto.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
I have been saying this for years.
LRT is the most expensive option out there due to the extra large tunnels needed and mostly due to switching the SRT to LRT.
Most of the cost of the SRT switch to LRT is due to all the stations having to be comppletely redone due to having to "raise the roof" due to the extra height needed to accomodate LRT. It will be more expensive than much higher capacity subway/metro, SkyTrain, or monorail which just require track work changes. SkyTrain would require no changes at all and have the extra savings of not having to build a totally new LRT storage and maintenance centre.
Due to lack of grade separation at grade LRT will be, by far, the slowest, least reliable, lowest capacity, lowest service level of all the optional systems.
LRT is the most expensive option out there due to the extra large tunnels needed and mostly due to switching the SRT to LRT.
Most of the cost of the SRT switch to LRT is due to all the stations having to be comppletely redone due to having to "raise the roof" due to the extra height needed to accomodate LRT. It will be more expensive than much higher capacity subway/metro, SkyTrain, or monorail which just require track work changes. SkyTrain would require no changes at all and have the extra savings of not having to build a totally new LRT storage and maintenance centre.
Due to lack of grade separation at grade LRT will be, by far, the slowest, least reliable, lowest capacity, lowest service level of all the optional systems.