[innsertnamehere]

I forget where, but there is a pdf floating somewhere around the internet that explains why torontos subways as so expensive. something to do with wide trains, requiring larger TBMs, long stations, and high labour costs that can be associated with any developed nation. just be happy we aren't paying over a billion a km like new york is for the 7 line extension. and don't point to madrid, as they "bought in bulk" so to speak. the only city that has a current subway extension being built that we can really compare toronto to is washington, and I think their costs are similar to ours.

 

[gweed123]

You have a point here.

However, this seems to apply to all transit construction in Toronto, not just subways. The per-km cost of LRT lines, even the (mostly) surface Finch West and Sheppard East, also skyrocketed before the construction even started.

The cost of SRT upgrade and extension (as ICTS) was quoted quite high as well; in the range of $1.4 - 1.7 billion for the 11-km line, 6 km of which already exist and would just need to be upgraded for bigger vehicles.

Yeah, you know something is wrong when an SRT revamp + extension (total of 11km) is $1.4 billion, meanwhile Vancouver is building 10.9km of completely new line for the same cost (Evergreen Line, $1.4 billion).

In order for the math to completely equate, the cost of conversion needs to be equal to the cost of building the line from scratch. Obviously that isn't the case, otherwise what's the point of keeping the existing alignment? So either Toronto is getting hosed, or Vancouver has found the Holy Grail of cost-effective transit construction.

Same technology. Same degree of grade separation. Similar suburban operating environment. Yet Toronto is getting 5km of new line and 6km of revamped line for the same cost as Vancouver's 11km of new line.

 

[ssiguy2]

But if the Eglinton Line had smaller stations it could use those savings towards elevation and the long term operational costs {which the TTC is always bitching about in regards to not having enough} would be much lower as the line could be automated. The trains would be faster, cheaper to run, much more reliable, and despite having smaller stations would have higher capacity.

Contrary to popular belief I am a supporter of LRT in general but LRT the way the rest of the planet builds it not Toronto. LRT did not make a comeback in NA because it looks pretty but rather it was an affordable alternative to heavy subway construction but Toronto has negated this. Toronto is paying subway prices for LRT. LRT itself is not the problem but rather value for the dollar. Toronto has choosen a subway price tag system with none of the speed, reliablity, and capacity it entails.
In choosing LRT for Eglinton when it included such a large underground system is like paying for a Beemer but getting a Chevy.

It's not that LRT is bad but rather the poor return on investment that they will get out of it. $6 billion is a massive amount of money and Toronto could esaily double it's subway system if those funds went elsewhere.

 

[Rainforest]

Yeah, you know something is wrong when an SRT revamp + extension (total of 11km) is $1.4 billion, meanwhile Vancouver is building 10.9km of completely new line for the same cost (Evergreen Line, $1.4 billion).

In order for the math to completely equate, the cost of conversion needs to be equal to the cost of building the line from scratch. Obviously that isn't the case, otherwise what's the point of keeping the existing alignment? So either Toronto is getting hosed, or Vancouver has found the Holy Grail of cost-effective transit construction.

Same technology. Same degree of grade separation. Similar suburban operating environment. Yet Toronto is getting 5km of new line and 6km of revamped line for the same cost as Vancouver's 11km of new line.

Yes, I ask same questions to myself, and cannot find a good explanation.

 

[Rainforest]

But if the Eglinton Line had smaller stations it could use those savings towards elevation and the long term operational costs {which the TTC is always bitching about in regards to not having enough} would be much lower as the line could be automated. The trains would be faster, cheaper to run, much more reliable, and despite having smaller stations would have higher capacity.

It would be faster and slightly more reliable.

The rest is questionable. Elevated stations would cost more to maintain than surface stops, offsetting the savings from smaller stations on the underground portion.

Smaller stations + automated running may support higher present capacity, but will have lower capacity limit in future. With larger stations, you can introduce ATO for the central section later on when the need arises, and add short-turn trains to support the frequency; no need to rebuild the stations. With small stations, the capacity will be capped by the station size. Frequency cannot increase indefinitely, due to both the operational constraints and the time needed for the passengers to clear the platforms.

 

[sixrings]

It would be faster and slightly more reliable.

The rest is questionable. Elevated stations would cost more to maintain than surface stops, offsetting the savings from smaller stations on the underground portion.

Smaller stations + automated running may support higher present capacity, but will have lower capacity limit in future. With larger stations, you can introduce ATO for the central section later on when the need arises, and add short-turn trains to support the frequency; no need to rebuild the stations. With small stations, the capacity will be capped by the station size. Frequency cannot increase indefinitely, due to both the operational constraints and the time needed for the passengers to clear the platforms.

every other day it seems i think about if it should be elevated or not... The extra money is definitely a factor... I guess my problem with elevating it as much as id like it done is that Id much rather see the Bloor line extended to STC as a subway and then we can get rid of the SRT altogether. Selfishly the other way I would spend the extra money is to make Eglinton get to the Airport. It really does come down to money. Which is why I am a TC supporter. It appears to be good value for the dollar minus the large tunneled section of eglinton but in that case there is not much you can do about it. As a disclaimer there is no way i am suggesting that TC should have been done before the DRL either. But as a suburban transit system which is not a bus it offers good value. What I would change though about TC was the stop spacing. In the suburbs there should be larger spacing between stops. Really stops should only be going at major intersections. It might cause a little longer of a walk to the LRT but it would end up being significantly faster. The best example I have of this is when I use to live at midland and finch I had two options of buses to take home. The regular Finch bus or the express bus. Sometimes the regular bus would be up to 10 minutes ahead of the express bus. But by the time I got to victoria park that express bus always caught up. Surface LRT will only be as fast as the stop spacing. (Id like to point out that I had a 10 minute walk home from where the express bus stopped but it was still worth it)

 

[Rainforest]

I guess my problem with elevating it as much as id like it done is that Id much rather see the Bloor line extended to STC as a subway and then we can get rid of the SRT altogether.

I agree that it is better to spend money on extending the Danforth subway to STC than on elevating the Eglinton line. It would be roughly same cost, but a more balanced network load distribution (more riders on the subway and less on Eglinton LRT).

What I would change though about TC was the stop spacing. In the suburbs there should be larger spacing between stops. Really stops should only be going at major intersections. It might cause a little longer of a walk to the LRT but it would end up being significantly faster.

That makes sense, at least on some of the proposed LRT routes. If we do build Sheppard LRT, then perhaps it should have stops once per concession (every 800 m) with a parallel bus, rather than the proposed 400 m spacing. The eastern part of its service area is so remote from the rest of the city, it needs a faster connection.

On the other hand, Finch West LRT with its proposed 600 - 700 m average stop spacing, should be OK. Many riders will only travel to Keele (Finch West subway), rather than to Yonge.

 

[BurlOak]

every other day it seems i think about if it should be elevated or not... The extra money is definitely a factor... I guess my problem with elevating it as much as id like it done is that Id much rather see the Bloor line extended to STC as a subway and then we can get rid of the SRT altogether. Selfishly the other way I would spend the extra money is to make Eglinton get to the Airport. It really does come down to money. Which is why I am a TC supporter. It appears to be good value for the dollar minus the large tunneled section of eglinton but in that case there is not much you can do about it. As a disclaimer there is no way i am suggesting that TC should have been done before the DRL either. But as a suburban transit system which is not a bus it offers good value. What I would change though about TC was the stop spacing. In the suburbs there should be larger spacing between stops. Really stops should only be going at major intersections. It might cause a little longer of a walk to the LRT but it would end up being significantly faster. The best example I have of this is when I use to live at midland and finch I had two options of buses to take home. The regular Finch bus or the express bus. Sometimes the regular bus would be up to 10 minutes ahead of the express bus. But by the time I got to victoria park that express bus always caught up. Surface LRT will only be as fast as the stop spacing. (Id like to point out that I had a 10 minute walk home from where the express bus stopped but it was still worth it)

I agree that cost if the key factor. I really would like to know what the extra cost of elevation would be. If I assume elevation costs $50M/km, track and electric cost $50M/km, and stations cost $50M each and the in-median cost is just the $50M/km, then the extra cost would be about $550M ($50M x 5 stations - Wynford, Bermondsey, Warden, Birchmount, Ionview - plus $50M/km x 6km). How much could be saved by not forcing short-turns at Don Mills - without the need for the extra platform - maybe $50M to $75M. How much could be saved by not having a separate station for the SRT, and not having an undergournd loop, and not requiring a deeper than needed ECLRT station since the SRT station is above it, and by recuding the underground amount by about 250m for the ECLRT from starting West of Kennedy to starting East of Kennedy - maybe $75M to $100M. How much could be saved by not converting Wynford into an at-grade intersection - maybe $25M to $50M. So what is the extra cost of elevating the ECLRT - maybe $400M.

Beyond this, there are additional cost and time savings that could be considered with the ECLRT/SRT being completely grade-separated, such as SkyTrain technology. You could consider cost savings by using smaller station for the entire line, although as stated before it may not be desirable to shorten these all the way to 40m as was done in Vancouver. If you want, you can add in the extra cost of grade-separating the ECLRT to YYZ instead of running (the Toronto portion) in-median (remember that the final portion to YYZ would have to be grade-separated regardless) - but remember to discount it to current dollars and include a timeframe that is beyond the next phase of Metrolinx priorities (i.e. maybe 20 years from now). It could be when all is considered that the cost of elevating is much less than $400M.

Extending the B-D to STC would be an extra $1.9B ($350M/km x 5.5km). Elevatating the ECLRT and connecting it with the SRT would be $1.8B ($400M extra for elevation + $1.4B for SRT conversion and extension). The ECLRT/SRT option would have a much superior reach - going to Centennial College and north of 401 (almost) to Malvern.

 

[BurlOak]

. . . but a more balanced network load distribution . . . .

I forgot about that. It would be much better to balance the load between ECLRT and B-D )) so not all the transfers happen at Yonge/Bloor, but also at Yonge/Eglinton. When the DRL is built, the transfers would be at Yonge/Bloor, Yonge/Eglinton, DRL/Pape and DRL/ECLRT.

 

[sixrings]

I think the number one benefit of converting the Eglinton line to elevated and a interlined line to STC would be that it would force Toronto to not do the DRL on the cheap and stop it at bloor but instead force them to stop the DRL at Eglinton.

But then I fear that the western portion will never get completed because then it would need to be grade separated as well which would add financially to the cost and other things would then take priority..

 

[gweed123]

I think the number one benefit of converting the Eglinton line to elevated and a interlined line to STC would be that it would force Toronto to not do the DRL on the cheap and stop it at bloor but instead force them to stop the DRL at Eglinton.

But then I fear that the western portion will never get completed because then it would need to be grade separated as well which would add financially to the cost and other things would then take priority..

I think elevated is actually the preferred choice for Eglinton West. It would allow the line to be built over the Richview corridor, while at the same time keeping the walking and cycling paths there in place. They also wouldn't need to do an extensive rebuild of Eglinton West, which would save a lot of money.

 

[drum118]

I think elevated is actually the preferred choice for Eglinton West. It would allow the line to be built over the Richview corridor, while at the same time keeping the walking and cycling paths there in place. They also wouldn't need to do an extensive rebuild of Eglinton West, which would save a lot of money.

I have stated in various EA reports as well at commissioners meetings that the Eglinton line should run along the north side elevated and doing a flyover of the roads. At the same time, a bike & pedestrians path can run along this elevated ROW. The roads slope now for making a flyover easier and cheaper to build.

The land on the north side of this ROW would be free up for development with walk-in access to the stations.

Traffic would be free to do their thing than this plan u-turn lane at cross road.

Other than the cost of beefing up the embankment for the ROW and path, is the cost of the flyover bridges. The bridges will cost about $10m each.

If you want to free up more of the Richview corridor land for development, you shift the current Eglinton Rd to the south along with the ROW. This would add more land to the north for development. Then you can bury it to allow development over it as a 4 lane road.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

I have stated in various EA reports as well at commissioners meetings that the Eglinton line should run along the north side elevated and doing a flyover of the roads. At the same time, a bike & pedestrians path can run along this elevated ROW. The roads slope now for making a flyover easier and cheaper to build.

The land on the north side of this ROW would be free up for development with walk-in access to the stations.

Traffic would be free to do their thing than this plan u-turn lane at cross road.

Other than the cost of beefing up the embankment for the ROW and path, is the cost of the flyover bridges. The bridges will cost about $10m each.

If you want to free up more of the Richview corridor land for development, you shift the current Eglinton Rd to the south along with the ROW. This would add more land to the north for development. Then you can bury it to allow development over it as a 4 lane road.

Except that the folks who would be buying townhouses at Widdicombe & Eglinton (see this link) for between $299,990 to $1,600,990, may object to having their southern view being an elevated structure.

 

[Thoughtless Miscreant]

That makes sense, at least on some of the proposed LRT routes. If we do build Sheppard LRT, then perhaps it should have stops once per concession (every 800 m) with a parallel bus, rather than the proposed 400 m spacing. The eastern part of its service area is so remote from the rest of the city, it needs a faster connection.

Is the east end of Sheppard is the most logical corridor for that high speed connection, though? I feel like improved service on the Stouffville line and an SRT extension to Malvern would do the job much better.

 

[gweed123]

Except that the folks who would be buying townhouses at Widdicombe & Eglinton (see this link) for between $299,990 to $1,600,990, may object to having their southern view being an elevated structure.

They're fronting onto a major arterial anyway. It's not like it was a nice quiet street before. I say "Tough. Deal with it.".