Napoleon
Active Member
That's what the UP express planners useThat's fine, as long as it is not a Poisson distribution (rare random events)
|
|
|
drum118
Superstar
I thought I would post this for the folks who want elevated lines as the picture says a 1,000 words.
SAN DIEGO Union Tribune reports that it will cost $13 million to relocate utilities to build the Metropolitan Transit System [MTS - "San Diego Trolley"] extension from Old Town north to the upscale seaside resort of La Jolla and the University of California-San Diego campus:
<http://tinyurl.com/ozf57cw>
"SD paying $13M to clear trolley path
City sewer, water customers must cover cost to move utilities along La Jolla extension route
By David Garrick
4 p.m. Aug. 18, 2015
Rendering of a proposed 'Mid Coast Corridor' trolley station with elevated tracks, outdoor platforms and stairs. This is an image for the Executive Drive station. Courtesy SANDAG
SAN DIEGO — San Diego officials say the city’s water and sewer customers must cover the $13 million cost of moving pipes, casings and other structures in the pathway of the San Diego Trolley’s 11-mile La Jolla extension.
The city will also provide five pieces of property valued at $3.5 million to allow construction of trolley stations and maintenance areas along the nearly $2 billion line, which is scheduled to begin operating in 2020.
The city’s contributions are part of four agreements the City Council approved in late July with the San Diego Association of Governments, a regional planning agency scheduled to begin construction of the La Jolla extension next year.
Council members said the land and utilities work are appropriate contributions for the city to make to a crucial addition to the region’s transportation network.
“The importance of the trolley extension to University City can’t be overstated,” said Council President Sherri Lightner, whose district includes the northern portion of the new line. “This shows the city and the region are doing our part to increase transit ridership and reduce the strain on our roadways.”
The nine-station line, which will run from Old Town to UTC mall mostly along Morena Boulevard, will connect the trolley for the first time to UC San Diego and large employment centers nearby, allowing more people to commute by mass transit.
Councilman Todd Gloria said the project might not be possible without the city’s contribution.
Previous license agreements between the city and railroad operators gave San Diego essentially no choice regarding the utilities work, said James Nagelvoort, San Diego’s director of public works.
“We have assets that are within the right-of-way of the railroad tracks and double tracking that need to be relocated,” Nagelvoort said. “The railroad has prior rights, so it’s our legal responsibility to pay the cost of relocating those water and sewer assets.”
Those costs could force the city to raise water and sewer rates, which are based on how much it costs to serve the city’s 275,000 customers, including construction projects.
Ratepayers are already facing a proposed 17 percent hike in January based on higher costs for imported water and the city’s plan to begin building facilities that can recycle sewer water into drinking water.
Moving water and sewer pipes and other structures to make way for the main light-rail track to La Jolla will cost just under $4 million. But an additional $9 million is required to move such structures that are within the path of a second parallel track planned for heavy-rail trains, including Amtrak and freight trains.
The five pieces of land the city will donate, which total 8 acres, were valued at $3.5 million to $3.6 million recently by an independent appraiser, city officials said.
Two of the pieces are a 1.9-acre parcel slated to become the Tecolote Road station and a 2.1-acre parcel slated to become the Balboa Avenue station.
Other stations on the line will be the Old Town Transit Center, Clairemont Drive, Nobel Drive, the Veterans Administration Medical Center, UCSD East/Voigt Drive and UCSD West/Pepper Canyon. Construction will include a bridge over Interstate 5 into UCSD.
Officials said design work for the project is 65 percent complete, with construction expected to begin early next year. Design work for the utilities relocation is 95 percent complete, with construction expected to begin shortly.
The federal government is expected to cover half the project’s nearly $2 billion cost with a transit administration grant, said John Haggerty, who is overseeing the project for SANDAG.
The other half will be covered by Transnet, the county’s half-cent sales tax surcharge for transportation projects. Haggerty said the contribution from Transnet could be reduced if state grants or other funding sources are secured.
SAN DIEGO Union Tribune reports that it will cost $13 million to relocate utilities to build the Metropolitan Transit System [MTS - "San Diego Trolley"] extension from Old Town north to the upscale seaside resort of La Jolla and the University of California-San Diego campus:
<http://tinyurl.com/ozf57cw>
"SD paying $13M to clear trolley path
City sewer, water customers must cover cost to move utilities along La Jolla extension route
By David Garrick
4 p.m. Aug. 18, 2015
SAN DIEGO — San Diego officials say the city’s water and sewer customers must cover the $13 million cost of moving pipes, casings and other structures in the pathway of the San Diego Trolley’s 11-mile La Jolla extension.
The city will also provide five pieces of property valued at $3.5 million to allow construction of trolley stations and maintenance areas along the nearly $2 billion line, which is scheduled to begin operating in 2020.
The city’s contributions are part of four agreements the City Council approved in late July with the San Diego Association of Governments, a regional planning agency scheduled to begin construction of the La Jolla extension next year.
Council members said the land and utilities work are appropriate contributions for the city to make to a crucial addition to the region’s transportation network.
“The importance of the trolley extension to University City can’t be overstated,” said Council President Sherri Lightner, whose district includes the northern portion of the new line. “This shows the city and the region are doing our part to increase transit ridership and reduce the strain on our roadways.”
The nine-station line, which will run from Old Town to UTC mall mostly along Morena Boulevard, will connect the trolley for the first time to UC San Diego and large employment centers nearby, allowing more people to commute by mass transit.
Councilman Todd Gloria said the project might not be possible without the city’s contribution.
Previous license agreements between the city and railroad operators gave San Diego essentially no choice regarding the utilities work, said James Nagelvoort, San Diego’s director of public works.
“We have assets that are within the right-of-way of the railroad tracks and double tracking that need to be relocated,” Nagelvoort said. “The railroad has prior rights, so it’s our legal responsibility to pay the cost of relocating those water and sewer assets.”
Those costs could force the city to raise water and sewer rates, which are based on how much it costs to serve the city’s 275,000 customers, including construction projects.
Ratepayers are already facing a proposed 17 percent hike in January based on higher costs for imported water and the city’s plan to begin building facilities that can recycle sewer water into drinking water.
Moving water and sewer pipes and other structures to make way for the main light-rail track to La Jolla will cost just under $4 million. But an additional $9 million is required to move such structures that are within the path of a second parallel track planned for heavy-rail trains, including Amtrak and freight trains.
The five pieces of land the city will donate, which total 8 acres, were valued at $3.5 million to $3.6 million recently by an independent appraiser, city officials said.
Two of the pieces are a 1.9-acre parcel slated to become the Tecolote Road station and a 2.1-acre parcel slated to become the Balboa Avenue station.
Other stations on the line will be the Old Town Transit Center, Clairemont Drive, Nobel Drive, the Veterans Administration Medical Center, UCSD East/Voigt Drive and UCSD West/Pepper Canyon. Construction will include a bridge over Interstate 5 into UCSD.
Officials said design work for the project is 65 percent complete, with construction expected to begin early next year. Design work for the utilities relocation is 95 percent complete, with construction expected to begin shortly.
The federal government is expected to cover half the project’s nearly $2 billion cost with a transit administration grant, said John Haggerty, who is overseeing the project for SANDAG.
The other half will be covered by Transnet, the county’s half-cent sales tax surcharge for transportation projects. Haggerty said the contribution from Transnet could be reduced if state grants or other funding sources are secured.
salsa
Senior Member
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Honestly elevation of Eglinton east is fine
CDL.TO
Moderator
I think Vancouver has shown us that they key is to elevate over to one side of the road, not over the median. That way you don't need those awful pedestrian overpasses.
sixrings
Senior Member
Agreed... Its fine for Eglinton west as well... They should have just elevated both ends and connected it to the SRT and been done with it. Fords' plan was dumb simply because it was the most expensive option underground. Other than that it wasn't as dumb as people made it out to be, and I'm not even a Ford fan.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Actually, I think the underground option was similar in cost to some of the proposed Scarborough Subway plans, depending on the route.
The Billion dollar question is who opposed the elevated option. Ford always talked about staying out of traffic. The Fords were the ones who proposed a monorail for downtown - monorail of course means elevated. I suspect that all Ford wanted was to get the Eglinton line away from traffic. He did not care (or know about) details such as type of grade separation or vehicle type. In all my search, I could not find out who opposed the elevation.
Anyways, that Ford-McGuinty plan was very close to being great with only minor modification. I do not see any similar modification that can be made to the subway plan that would make it as good as that original plan could have been.
The Billion dollar question is who opposed the elevated option. Ford always talked about staying out of traffic. The Fords were the ones who proposed a monorail for downtown - monorail of course means elevated. I suspect that all Ford wanted was to get the Eglinton line away from traffic. He did not care (or know about) details such as type of grade separation or vehicle type. In all my search, I could not find out who opposed the elevation.
Anyways, that Ford-McGuinty plan was very close to being great with only minor modification. I do not see any similar modification that can be made to the subway plan that would make it as good as that original plan could have been.
sixrings
Senior Member
Well the Ford plan was on the table before the RT was planned to be buried. If people knew how much the RT conversion was going to cost they may have voted for Ford plan. The real crime was never considering elevated LRT.
robmausser
Senior Member
Perhaps Tory can be convinced to do an elevated line in the West, instead of Smarttrack?
This way it will still be seen as an "express" alternative to Smarttrack, whereas at-grade LRT is seen as being a slower alternative.
This way it will still be seen as an "express" alternative to Smarttrack, whereas at-grade LRT is seen as being a slower alternative.
crs1026
Superstar
Elevated seems like a no-brainer choice for crossing the low spots such as the Humber River Valley, similar to how the Bloor Subway crosses the same river. If built on the south side, it would have a lot of esthetic value across the Islington-Martin Grove stretch, especially compared to a center-of-road alignment. No one benefits by constricting auto traffic here - it's a major roadway that ties in to the 401/427.
Don't rule out the Fords getting heavily involved in any LRT plan, eventually. This is their home turf. Elevated gives all the benefits of underground, at lower cost (how much lower, I wonder?). Takes some wind out of their sails.
- Paul
44 North
Senior Member
You can't have opposition without proposition. In other words: nobody opposed elevated on Eglinton East for the reason that it was never proposed to begin with. All the costing, funds, and wording were for underground. There were only very brief murmurings of ELs in the media after the fact (which you and I have both posted in different threads). Had they actually costed or proposed ELs right from the get-go, there probably would've been up to $1bn in freed-up funds that could've gone toward any number of projects (but more than likely toward Ford's pet Sheppard extension).
As for the monorail plan... Doug was the guy that presented it, but it wasn't his plan. Rather an assortment of waterfront stakeholders and developers like Cityzen.
Agreed. But keep in mind the gruesome twosome are slow-witted incompetents who speak out of both sides of their collective mouths. They'll support elevated, but simultaneously support the NIMBYs opposing it.
Last edited:
BurlOak
Senior Member
I agree it was not close to a developed plan, but it gives an indication that it was probably not Ford who opposed the elevated line but the partner who made the compromise plan - Premier Dalton McGuinty.
I think I planned it for the north side from a portal East of Jane to just West of Kipling. Here it would go to the south side, to avoid some new townhomes and to more easily pass under the hydro corridor.
The key for the anti-elevated people is to always ask if people like elevated or underground. When they chose underground, then the comparison becomes cost of underground vs. on-street LRT. Never let elevated transit to be compared with on-street LRT or else people will pick elevated every time.
44 North
Senior Member
If you can find proof that an elevated Crosstown east was proposed, by all means speculate on why it was opposed (and who did the opposing). But since there was no proposition, there couldn't have been opposition.
Unless I'm wrong and there was an elevated Crosstown east proposed since its inception in MoveOntario2020 and Transit City? Was it ever mentioned in any of the Crosstown studies or EA? If it was, it would be news to me.
yin_yang
Active Member
so when is this line scheduled to open?
nfitz
Superstar
They've been throwing 2020 around for years, but the contract award a few weeks ago is a couple of years after it was supposed to be when they first started throwing 2020 around.
They've said that they'd be a new schedule come out after the financial close. And now that has happened (apparently at least - very bizarre that the contractor has announced to shareholders that they achieved financial close, but neither Metrolinx or Infrastructure Ontario have announced it), I'd think we'll have a date in a few months.
My money is on 2022.