Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Still there's the opportunity cost of building a 10 km LRT tunnel when for nearly the same amount of money you could build a 10 km subway.
|
|
|
Eglinton-Crosstown Corridor Debate
- Thread starter Dan416
- Start date
nfitz
Superstar
You could indeed build a subway from Keele to Brentcliffe for about the same $ (though if it came to that, surely it would be 13.5 km from Jane to Don Mills Road ... and that's an extra $700-million or so right there). But then you would have to change to LRT to travel towards Kennedy, or from Jane towards Pearson ... and I'm sure it would work relatively well.
Though I don't see the point, given that the travel times are the same, the LRT would provide more frequent service than subway, and there's every indication that LRT would easily meet demand.
kettal
Banned
Except such a plan offers very few benefits. Most riders wouldn't even know whether they were in a LRT or a subway.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
It's about deploying dollars in the most effective way possible. If we are up nearing subway costs then we shold probably build subways.
We've established that crosstown trips will make up an immaterial percentage of Eglinton trips, and that most will be heading for Yonge to head (we assume) downtown. If we also make the following assumptions 1. that ridership at the East and West ends will be very low as well 2. that the two end points will be connection points for significant N-S transit routes (Jane LRT/future ARL/future DRL in the West, and Don Mills LRT/future DRL in the east). Then the conclusion is that riders in the central core will get better service with a subway (with a marginal cost increase) and that riders at the ends will have numerous options at the transfer points so that they might be able to actually take a more direct route to their destination. So much so that the transfer wouldn't be such an inconvenience after all.
Ex. A rider travelling from East of Don Mills on the current proposal will still have to transfer onto the busy Yonge line to head downtown. If we build the Eglinton subway and the DRL up to Eglinton-Don mills the rider will have the opportunity to take still only one transfer but onto a less congested and more direct route to their destination.
Otherwise we need to find ways to reduce the cost of the Eglinton LRT
jwill
Active Member
Comparing the cost (or potential cost) of Eglinton to the SRT is way off the mark. The SRT spends most of its route paralleling a railway corridor, and thus doesn't incur the land costs and construction difficulties that Eglinton would have (outside of Richview). More importantly, SRT runs along a flat piece of land. Eglinton crosses several ravines (Mimico, Don, Humber, and a couple smaller ones).
That gets very expensive. Either you need to have a very deep tunnel underneath the rivers requiring deep and therefore expensive stations, or you need to bridge across the ravines which require expensive bridges and necessitate a lot more work in moving the TBMs across the valleys.
All of that means Eglinton will be at the high end of subway (or LRT) construction costs.
That gets very expensive. Either you need to have a very deep tunnel underneath the rivers requiring deep and therefore expensive stations, or you need to bridge across the ravines which require expensive bridges and necessitate a lot more work in moving the TBMs across the valleys.
All of that means Eglinton will be at the high end of subway (or LRT) construction costs.
nfitz
Superstar
We should certainly make sure that conversion to subway in the future is possible - for that our grandchildren will thank us. But if LRT can handle the load for the forseeable future, why not simply run the LRT through the tunnel, rather than creating two extra interchange points?
I just don't see the benefit to having the 10-km piece as subway now? You seem have the conclusion that those that just use that portion will have a "better service with a subway"; but how is this? If the capacity can be met with LRT, the speeds are the same, and the LRT comes more frequently, why is subway better service?
kEiThZ
Superstar
If they have no problem imposing two transfers on Sheppard from end to end, what makes Eglinton so different or special that transfers must be avoided at all costs? I'd be less opposed to LRT if they were genuinely building the thing as convertible to subway down the road. However, they already seem to be compromising on that pledge. I'd like to see the tunnel extended westwards though....and the Richview corridor be put to good use. This is an unparalleled opportunity to build grade-separated transit to support high density. There aren't too many chances like it in the city. It'd be a real shame if they pass it up.
Last edited:
Voltz
Senior Member
It will satisfy a few peoples ego's
nfitz
Superstar
I don't think it should be avoided at all costs; just that extra cost shouldn't be spent to impose it.
Sheppard would be better if the subway was converted to LRT ... and if were trying to avoid transfers at all costs we would do that ... however the $650-million or so that has been estimated to make the conversion would make it cheaper to leave in place, and build the LRT on top!
I'm convinced that straight opposition to these projects is a waste of time and resources; but if we were to strategically campaign on some very limited issues such as protecting for future conversion, then that might have some value ... for our grandchildren at least.
On the other hand, if they go too narrow with the tunnel, it only precludes the use of the stock of subway cars used on the BD and YUS lines - there's plenty of subway lines in the world that use much smaller trains, that would easily fit down the LRT tunnel; Montreal and some of the London lines for example.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Satisfy a few peoples ego's what?
People are also assuming that the surface sections won't negatively affect service in the tunnel, which, given the TTC's history, is a not-trivial leap of faith. The problem isn't LRT in a tunnel, it's a streetcar ROW connected to LRT in a tunnel.
nfitz
Superstar
If you were planning to run the Spadina subway down into the Spadina streetcar, and run streetcar on the existing track from Harbourfront up to Downsview (pretend for a minute that they connect), then I could see your point.
Eglinton in suburbia with traffic lights every 500 metres is not Spadina in the core with lights every 100 metres.
The TTC has excellent history running well-spaced service on the existing subway lines; clearly they would have to do this on Eglinton (and the other TC routes). Look on the bright-side; they might actually learn a few tricks to apply to the non-TC routes.
leopetr
Active Member
Exactly. They are still leaving unexcavated flat sections for platform extension, right? There's nothing preventing us from running trains exactly the same length as on the Yonge and Bloor lines down the Eglinton line in the future. There's plenty of low-floor, overhead-powered vehicles with comparable specs.
nfitz
Superstar
They should - whether they will or not. It doesn't even have to be unexcavated, as long as it can be excavated at a future point. I don't Willowdale station on the Sheppard line was excavated; and I think they excavated North York Centre station when they retrofitted that in.
kettal
Banned
Who is "they"? I don't think any sane person would say "let's make three transfers on Sheppard!" if we were starting Sheppard with a clean slate. Eglinton is a clean slate.
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
Building a partial subway wouldn't be "imposing" a transfer at all. Sure, there might be a transfer while the LRT wouldn't have any, but people wouldn't be unhappy about it. They'd probably be quite glad that they have a subway to transfer to.
This is all about short term benefits vs. long term gain. Obviously, the LRT would have more short term benefits than subway. That's not to say that a subway wouldn't have any short term benefits; it'd have plenty, and it'd have advantages over LRT if it went from Jane to Don Mills (the LRT would only be going to Keele and Laird, which means the RT part of Eglinton wouldn't be connecting and supplementing the planned LRTs.)
Subway could be built faster than the LRT, and it'd extend true RT coverage further than LRT. But the real obvious benefits come when the subway gets extended again, which could easily be 5 years after it's first finished. An extension to Martingrove or Pearson in the west would have obvious, obvious benefits over a LRT that'd get finished less than 10 years earlier. If they want a short term solution to still provide a better service on Eglinton (I'm not saying it's even near the level that LRT could provide,) they could just paint some bus lanes until the subway's extended again.
It may not be the shock of sudden transit expansion that TC would provide, but it's how things are done with transit. It's how New York did it, how London did it, and even how we did it.