JayBeeGooner
Active Member
Thanks. I am an advocate for reasonably close stop spacing (500-800metres), but these stops are far to close. Residents on Ferrand can easily walk to Don Mills.
|
|
|
sixrings
Senior Member
nfitz
Superstar
Parker's off the deep end. Council has already clearly voted on this. And both Metrolinx and the TTC have shot him down already.
What's bizarre, is his opinion on this seems to be opposite they way he voted both at TTC and at council, if I remember correctly.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Councillor John Parker "is urging the provincial transit agency to switch to a subway instead". (of LRT)
The problem seems to be that Parker realizes that something is wrong with the current ECLRT plan, but does not have the proper information to propose something better. Many Councillors seem to be in the same boat (i.e. Stintz and DeBaeremaeker with the One City plan and Ford and company with the tunnelled ECLRT to Kennedy), but for whatever reason nothing was changed.
rbt
Senior Member
I don't disagree that it's dumb but here is a rather interesting (and likely very false) quote from Metrolinx:
"Metrolinx disputes Mr. Parker’s assertion that his idea is more affordable because LRT vehicles, designed to run on the surface, are more expensive. On a per-kilometre basis, according to the transit agency, a tunnelled LRT still costs less than a subway."
I expect what they really mean is that 90m stations are cheaper than 150m stations.
canmark
Active Member
Parker comes out sounding like a right-wing American politico nut by talking about God's intentions:
rbt
Senior Member
If God intended us to run LRT underground; God would have given us the ability to create grand underground tunnels and stations, and portals to tracks on the surface so that LRT could navigate both domains.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Is there some type of Provincial or Federal law that all subways must have 150m stations. Maybe it is a requirement when calculated using Newtoninan physics.
I think the statement reads ok. Parker says that LRT cars are more expensive than subway - which is not disputed as incorrect. Metrolinx makes no mention of this, and just states that LRT, overall is cheaper - without offering any reasons.
The answer is it really depends on the project.
LRT is more expensive to tunnel than subway because of the wider diameter required for the overhead canary.
LRT is less expensive to elevate than subway because of the presumably lighter loads the structures need to support.
LRT is cheaper to build at-grade than subway, because, well, you can't really build a subway at-grade without any grade separations at intersections.
The subway vs LRT relations over which is "more expensive" depends on how much of each of those 3 the project involves. If you're building an all-tunnelled LRT, yeah it'll be more expensive. If you're building an all at-grade LRT, yeah it'll less expensive.
rbt
Senior Member
No. There's no requirement that they have 5 minute or better frequencies either. Many places run 15 to 20 minute frequencies, particularly during off-peak periods.
When the general Toronto public thinks subway, they think of the Yonge or BD lines, both in frequency and capacity.
If you gave them a subway like the short Bay Street section of Queens Quay (up to 15 minute frequencies, fairly unreliable to predict service, short trains, small station with stairs and no ability to buy passes or tickets), they may not be very happy despite being underground.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
If the line was automated using complete grade separation the stations themselves could be half the size of what Metrolinx is building them as and still have higher capacity.
Also LRT elevation is not cheaper than standard subway and more expensive than SkyTrain or m monorail. Yes, the support structures are less expensive due to the lighter weight of the vehicles but those costs are negated by having to build much taller overhead catenary connections. SkyTrain doesn't have that issue as the vehicles are as light as LRT but don't require those overhead connections and of course elevated monorail is the cheapest of the all.
I love how, again, Metrolinx doesn't even consider the option and time and money savings of elevation from DM to Kennedy. Also, even with these 2 fewer stations there are still too many along the line and the line should avergae one stop per km.
Also LRT elevation is not cheaper than standard subway and more expensive than SkyTrain or m monorail. Yes, the support structures are less expensive due to the lighter weight of the vehicles but those costs are negated by having to build much taller overhead catenary connections. SkyTrain doesn't have that issue as the vehicles are as light as LRT but don't require those overhead connections and of course elevated monorail is the cheapest of the all.
I love how, again, Metrolinx doesn't even consider the option and time and money savings of elevation from DM to Kennedy. Also, even with these 2 fewer stations there are still too many along the line and the line should avergae one stop per km.
nfitz
Superstar
In theory, though only what somewhat. The actual tunnelling costs are only a fraction of the project price. The first tunelling contract that has been awarded for Eglinton is only $320 million for the 6.2 km from Black Creek to near Eglinton ($51.6 million/km). That would be 12.4 km of tunnel, given the twin tunnels, and two drives (one from near Black Creek to the Eglinton West-Allen station box and the second from Eglinton West-Allen to the Yonge-Eglinton station box).
There are other factors, such as the cheaper cost for the overhead catenary, compared to the more complex 3rd rail system, the track having less loading requirements, and even the back-up signalling system (presuming that ATC is the primary system), which is much simpler on the current underground streetcar segments compared to the expensive system in the subway.
The experts are saying that overall that tunnelled LRT is cheaper. I wouldn't immediately assume they are wrong without doing a detalied analysis.
JayBeeGooner
Active Member
What is the point of building for highest capacity, if a line won't ever reach that limit? This idea that lines should be built to the highest capacity is just an excuse to waste money needlessly.
k10ery
Senior Member
What's "dumb", the Metrolinx plan? If they can speed up the line and eliminate a couple of middle-of-nowhere stations for the same cost, then why not?
This seems to me like the test case of whether we can do good transit planning through a provincial agency, instead of leaving it to smallminded local councillors like Parker.
BurlOak
Senior Member
You seem to be misunderstanding what ssiguy2 was saying - not sure if it was deliberate. He says (I hope I am not putting words in someone elses mouth) that smaller stations (which will be less expensive) would have a higher capacity. He was not trying to achieve the highest capacity. He is actuallly proposing spending less money on stations than the LRT plan. If all 12 underground stations were reduced in size - would the savings offset the additional costs of elevating the line through Scarborough? I am not sure, but it I would not be surprised if the overall cost was less.