Eglinton-Crosstown Corridor Debate

[kEiThZ]

It's not my assessment. It was the professional, detailed and thorough study conducted for the 2011 plan, the last good plan to be made for metro, and it considered all options without bias!

You can't take the plan piecemeal. If you want to praise the portion that's relevant to Eglinton then you have to accept that the portion of N2011 that applies to Sheppard is equally valid. As for Transit City, it's nearly completely discarded with Network 2011 altogether.

I am all for trying to adhere as closely to the plan as possible. I am even willing to accept LRT on Eglinton if a subway is absolutely not possible. But that cannot happen if the other portion of the plan (a true northern crosstown route) is not in place.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

According to this (updated Sept'09). The Eglinton line will cost $3.7 billion including vehicles (though I don't know why they are accounting for it this way, or why they didn't have a separate budget for vehicle purchase. There's no way to tell how much $/many vehicles have been allocated to the route this way). Still even with $3 billion and a high $300 million per km pricetag for subways, still gives us a good 10 km of subway.

 

[kettal]

According to this (updated Sept'09). The Eglinton line will cost $3.7 billion including vehicles (though I don't know why they are accounting for it this way, or why they didn't have a separate budget for vehicle purchase. There's no way to tell how much $/many vehicles have been allocated to the route this way). Still even with $3 billion and a high $300 million per km pricetag for subways, still gives us a good 10 km of subway.

I guess it's good then that 10 km of subway light rail is being built.

 

[Whoaccio]

According to this (updated Sept'09). The Eglinton line will cost $3.7 billion including vehicles (though I don't know why they are accounting for it this way, or why they didn't have a separate budget for vehicle purchase. There's no way to tell how much $/many vehicles have been allocated to the route this way). Still even with $3 billion and a high $300 million per km pricetag for subways, still gives us a good 10 km of subway.

That's weird. The document you posted claims the budget is "under revision" when, from what I've seen, it's already been "revised" upwards to 4.6b for quite some time. ("The estimated cost is 4.6 billion. All construction and completion dates are subject to receiving environmental and other approvals. Final costs will be determined in the coming months by Metrolinx and the City of Toronto"). This of course implies something in the vicintiy of 150m$/km. We are verging on Scarborough RT territory.

I think the TTC just rehashed an older FAQ sheet.

 

[Darwinkgo]

The price is likely changing since the scope is changing. The line originally did not include the extension to the airport (to my knowledge it only allowed for a future extension), and it was never definite where the tunnel portals would be (how long the tunnel would be) and whether the last stations on the tunnels would be big bus transfer stations ala subway. There is a reason the budget isn't done, the EA is not done.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

That's weird. The document you posted claims the budget is "under revision" when, from what I've seen, it's already been "revised" upwards to 4.6b for quite some time. ("The estimated cost is 4.6 billion. All construction and completion dates are subject to receiving environmental and other approvals. Final costs will be determined in the coming months by Metrolinx and the City of Toronto"). This of course implies something in the vicintiy of 150m$/km. We are verging on Scarborough RT territory.

I think the TTC just rehashed an older FAQ sheet.

Thanks for the link. We are venturing into subway scale costs here but only getting an LRT.

I don't think that a subway is an absolute necessity along Eglinton but if we are going to spend the money we might as well get the best mode. It's no different than buying a car, you can't afford the $60 000 BMW so you look at a Chev or Ford only to find that they cost upwards of $50 000+. Do you buy the "affordable" Chev/Ford or go back to the BMW because the cost differences are so small. I say go back to the BMW.

 

[nfitz]

For the 10-km of subway along Eglinton yes, we are in subway scale costs ... tunnel costs are similiar; rolling stock costs are similiar, if not more. We save a bit on stations and signaling. Given that section is in the $3-billion range, you have to look at the cost of the 20-km of LRT by itself, to compare that to other options. So it's not so much $4-billion verus $8-billion; it's $1.6-billion verus $5-billion.

 

[Darwinkgo]

For the 10-km of subway along Eglinton yes, we are in subway scale costs ... tunnel costs are similiar; rolling stock costs are similiar, if not more. We save a bit on stations and signaling. Given that section is in the $3-billion range, you have to look at the cost of the 20-km of LRT by itself, to compare that to other options. So it's not so much $4-billion verus $8-billion; it's $1.6-billion verus $5-billion.

It is amazing how many people on here fail to make the distinction here. Thanks for your post.

 

[Whoaccio]

Why should it be distinguished? This isn't being billed as three separate projects, but one continuous "crosstown" line. Taking an average cost of that is totally fair. If the average cost of something that is 2/3rds glorified bus route approaches something like the SRT, which at the very least doesn't stop at red lights, then people are right to wonder what the hell is going on.


I think it probably should be broken up into three separate sections (West, Central, East) which would free us from the idea that we need a 30km milk run across Eglinton. That's not the project though.

 

[nfitz]

Why should it be distinguished? This isn't being billed as three separate projects, but one continuous "crosstown" line. Taking an average cost of that is totally fair. If the average cost of something that is 2/3rds glorified bus route approaches something like the SRT, which at the very least doesn't stop at red lights, then people are right to wonder what the hell is going on.

Who on earth would ever make a decision based on average cost ... surely any decision would be based on marginal cost!

 

[Whoaccio]

Marginal cost of what?

If we built another Eglinton Crosstown LRT, the marginal cost would be 4.6b. If we built a theoretical Eglinton Crosstown subway, the marginal cost would be 8 odd billion.

Marginal cost just measures the cost of adding another unit, what that unit is is subjective. We were told that by adding a unit of "Eglinton Crosstown LRT", we would have costs significantly lower than the costs of, say, adding an "Eglinton Crosstown ICTS." That is not the case, apparently.

The marginal cost of adding a km of at-grade-LRT would be something like 70m, but a km of at grade LRT isn't the same thing as a 30km "crosstown" LRT. Surgically dividing the line to play around with numbers is fun and all, but at the end of the day we are talking about one unique project.

 

[nfitz]

Marginal cost of what?

The additional 20-km of LRT track. If you build it as LRT it would cost about $1-billion to $1.3-billion. If you build it as subway it would cost $5-billion to $7-billion.

Building the entire thing as subway would cost an additional $3.7 to 6-billion. And for that you could build the Don Mills, Jane, and Scarborough Malvern LRT lines instead. And perhaps Lakeshore and Lawrence at the high end of the estimate.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'll admit subway costs more but I take issue with such straight line analysis. Surely when you build 20-30 km of subway there will be costs savings that arise from economy of scale. Admittedly, I am not expert enough to quantify this, but I highly doubt that the savings would be zero.

 

[Darwinkgo]

I'll admit subway costs more but I take issue with such straight line analysis. Surely when you build 20-30 km of subway there will be costs savings that arise from economy of scale. Admittedly, I am not expert enough to quantify this, but I highly doubt that the savings would be zero.

It won't be zero, but it also won't be above 5%. 10 km is already quite a substantial underground line.

If you built subway the whole length, but built stations 2 km apart instead of 1 km apart you could start to realize big savings, especially if you built no special bus transfer facilities beyond sidewalk cut outs. I still think the line has a strong chance of being an ICTS project to keep operating costs low and reduce tunnel bore diameters, reducing cost again.

With an automated system you can build shorter platforms due to higher available frequency which shaves even more station costs.

Wasn't there media rumbling that Metrolinx wanted the line to be ICTS, whereas the city wanted LRT?

 

[nfitz]

Surely when you build 20-30 km of subway there will be costs savings that arise from economy of scale. Admittedly, I am not expert enough to quantify this, but I highly doubt that the savings would be zero.

There might be some savings (on the purchase of boring machines, management costs), but I think they'd be extremely minimal. The big expenses (tunelling, concrete, track, construction labour, stations, signalling, land aquisition, rolling stock) would be based on a unit length.