Eglinton-Crosstown Corridor Debate

[Second_in_pie]

^^ Canada line would only be slightly less expensive than subway, and frankly I wouldn't have a problem with it. The Canada Line cars have almost the exact same dimensions as subway, and the platforms were built so trains could be expanded close to subway length.

But then again, why would we buy a totally new rolling stock that's basically the same once we're already using subway extensively? Instead of making everyone else seem like subway freaks, you make yourself sound blatantly anti-subway. "Canada line isn't called a subway, so I'm totally okay with it even though it's basically the exact same thing as a subway."

As for Eglinton not coming anywhere near to 15 000 pphpd, I can't believe that at all. Eglinton West would intercept all the bus routes that now normally go to the B-D and I don't think it's too much to find even a 50% bus interception. Since the B-D gets well over 25 000 pphpd, that puts Eglinton dangerously close to capacity with Canada Line technology, and well over LRT. I know there's no definitive ridership study, but we're not going to get that form the TTC unless they get pressed to reevaluate the corridor.

Arguably an Eglinton subway line would go well beyond the Weston-Leaside parameters. The airport is too important a destination to say that a bus connection to a subway being built primarily to provide a direct link between it and the rest of the city is suffived enough. I'd also think a one-kilometre extension east from Leslie to Don Mills is inconsequential especially when elevated overlooking Lord Seaton Park is a possibility.

I think that starting with a Jane-Don Mills subway would be good, since it gives a quick relief to the central part of Eglinton, which is where the big bus bottlenecks and low speeds are.
Once that's done, or even before it's finished, they should start on the western portion to Pearson. It wouldn't take much more time than a LRT, but it'd be much, much more useful. If they really need to alleviate bus traffic on Eglinton (either east or west) before the Subway's extended, they could just paint some bus lanes on the quite large road. It's in no way a better service than LRT, but it'll increase speeds and allow busses to operate more efficiently while the subway gets built/extended.

 

[kEiThZ]

Actually, I'd be happy with Canada Line type service on Eglinton. The goal is grade-separate transit that's fast. What worries me about Eglinton is the risk of tieing the at-grade and below-grade portions. Otherwise, even the LRT tunnel is great.

 

[Darwinkgo]

^^^

Canada Line Underground Stations are only 50 meters long. They are not expandable beyond that easily. With often enough trains you can run 15,000 pdh, saving a huge amount of station building. If you can run the standard TTC rolling stock without drivers or guards so you can lower operation costs and have short headways that allows you to have short stations then fine, run the same cars.

Of course, a tie in between lines to allow train interchange would be exceedingly expensive, so it should be avoided. A new yard or expansion would be needed anyways, so why not build a new yard.

I just fear when people say subway, they mean 120 - 160m platforms with bus transfer facilities which both aren't really needed.

 

[Rainforest]

Sorry. However I find it difficult as to how I'd attain an in-depth study on Eglinton done as a subway line, since the TTC refuses to conduct such a study. A RTES would've been nice. Giambrone himself claims a 31km long Eglinton subway would cost between $6-8 billion. Assuming the higher figure is closer to reality, I'm still in the right ballpark to assert $4 billion for roughly half that distance (the core of the line from Brentcliffe to Martin Grove- 16kms). Assuming we could do the rest via elevated guideways on both ends to PIA and OSC or DVP (Richview could also be on an above-grade track) this significantly lowers what the cost to build Eglinton actually could be.

Your estimate is skewed: the $8 B estimate probably combines the more expensive central tunneled section, and the cheaper outer sections that would be at grade or elevated. But than you assume half the cost for half the length, even though that section includes all of the central tunnel.

I'd estimate this way:

Central section - 10 km, at least $300 M per km (which is consistent with Spadina extension). Total $3 B.

At-grade sections: Richview and part of East York - 6 km (?), $150 - 200 M per km. Total $0.9 to 1.2 B.

Elevated sections: remaining 8 km, don't know how mush should it cost per km. Assuming it is somewhat, but not dramatically, cheaper than tunnel: $200 - 250 per km. Total $1.6 to 2.0 B.

Rolling stock and (possibly) new yard: assume $0.5 to 1 B.

Combined for the 24-km section from Pearson to Don Mills: $6 to 7.2 B.

 

[Ansem]

Your estimate is skewed: the $8 B estimate probably combines the more expensive central tunneled section, and the cheaper outer sections that would be at grade or elevated. But than you assume half the cost for half the length, even though that section includes all of the central tunnel.

I'd estimate this way:

Central section - 10 km, at least $300 M per km (which is consistent with Spadina extension). Total $3 B.

At-grade sections: Richview and part of East York - 6 km (?), $150 - 200 M per km. Total $0.9 to 1.2 B.

Elevated sections: remaining 8 km, don't know how mush should it cost per km. Assuming it is somewhat, but not dramatically, cheaper than tunnel: $200 - 250 per km. Total $1.6 to 2.0 B.

Rolling stock and (possibly) new yard: assume $0.5 to 1 B.

Combined for the 24-km section from Pearson to Don Mills: $6 to 7.2 B.

Elevated is supposed to be half the cost of subway and at grade should cost even less....

 

[Rainforest]

Elevated is supposed to be half the cost of subway and at grade should cost even less....

Interesting. If the difference is so big, why does not TTC utilize that for Spadina extension? Part of the line could be at grade, either through the former Downsview Airport land or via the hydro corridor. North of Steeles, it could be elevated - over some industrial lands and 407.

 

[unimaginative2]

^^ Canada line would only be slightly less expensive than subway, and frankly I wouldn't have a problem with it. The Canada Line cars have almost the exact same dimensions as subway, and the platforms were built so trains could be expanded close to subway length.

Only slightly less expensive than subway? Recall that the Canada Line is over 18 km long and cost governments $2 billion.

You're right about the car dimensions being the same as Toronto subway cars, but the platforms are much shorter. They will make up some of the capacity difference with high-frequency automated operation.

 

[nfitz]

Only slightly less expensive than subway? Recall that the Canada Line is over 18 km long and cost governments $2 billion.

Given that it's a PPP with a concession period, the cost to the initial cost to the government isn't necessarily comparable to the construction cost.

 

[Darwinkgo]

Given that it's a PPP with a concession period, the cost to the initial cost to the government isn't necessarily comparable to the construction cost.

Government paid $2.054 billion, concessionaires paid $200 million (plus any cost overruns if any). If ridership reaches 100,000 weekday average, there is no top up yearly funding to the line from government.

No reason Toronto couldn't put in a similar agreement for Eglinton.

 

[nfitz]

No reason Toronto couldn't put in a similar agreement for Eglinton.

None at all ... it might well save some money. And given that construction tenders of late have been coming in a bit lower than estimates, then there could be savings ... unless something radical happens before the construction is tendered that would push up construction costs in Toronto ... like increased oil prices, or a sudden very large project - such as what might happen if we were to win the Olympics ... or Pan-Am games.

 

[Darwinkgo]

None at all ... it might well save some money. And given that construction tenders of late have been coming in a bit lower than estimates, then there could be savings ... unless something radical happens before the construction is tendered that would push up construction costs in Toronto ... like increased oil prices, or a sudden very large project - such as what might happen if we were to win the Olympics ... or Pan-Am games.

Calgary tendered a 8 km line recently and included in the contract transferring all the surplus land the city had assembled around stations to the bidder in addition to the design, build, so the bidder could offset some of the costs. All the bids came in below the $564 million dollar estimate (not including land and vehicle cost) .

 

[officedweller]

Government paid $2.054 billion, concessionaires paid $200 million (plus any cost overruns if any). If ridership reaches 100,000 weekday average, there is no top up yearly funding to the line from government.

No reason Toronto couldn't put in a similar agreement for Eglinton.

For the Canada Line, InTransitBC (concessionaire) put up $750 Million. The concessionaire had to find additional funding due to increased construction costs. Government payments to the concessionaire under the original fixed price contract remained the same.

Breakdown:

InTransitBC:..................$750 million
Federal Government:.......$450 million
B.C.: ...........................$435 million
TransLink:.....................$334 million
YVR Airport Authority:.....$300 million
City of Vancouver:...........$29 million

InTransitBC is owned by SNC-Lavalin, the Investment Management Corporation of B.C., and the Caisse de Depot et Placements de Quebec: $750 million.
The City's contribution was to build Olympic Village Station (on a City-owned future ToD site) now rather than in future.

 

[kEiThZ]

About $2.3 billion for 18 km. Still decent. $128 million/km for grade separated transit.

 

[Darwinkgo]

For the Canada Line, InTransitBC (concessionaire) put up $750 Million. The concessionaire had to find additional funding due to increased construction costs. Government payments to the concessionaire under the original fixed price contract remained the same.

Breakdown:

InTransitBC:..................$750 million
Federal Government:.......$450 million
B.C.: ...........................$435 million
TransLink:.....................$334 million
YVR Airport Authority:.....$300 million
City of Vancouver:...........$29 million

InTransitBC is owned by SNC-Lavalin, the Investment Management Corporation of B.C., and the Caisse de Depot et Placements de Quebec: $750 million.
The City's contribution was to build Olympic Village Station (on a City-owned future ToD site) now rather than in future.

Ahh, the concessionaire amount disparity seems to be between the investment up front and the total 35 year investment, since they list construction costs as $1.5 billion. http://www.canadaline.ca/files/docs/information_bulletin_no_9.pdf

 

[unimaginative2]

Interesting that their stations cost $29 million while ours are costing, what, $300 million now? Sure they're shorter, but one tenth the cost?