News   Nov 08, 2024
UrbanToronto Industry Updates: City of Toronto’s Rental Housing Push, Ontario Market Forecasts, and December's Buildings Show
 744     0 
News   Nov 08, 2024
Tricon's Birch House Welcomes Residents to the Canary District
 1.1K     4 
News   Nov 08, 2024
News Roundup for November 8, 2024
 569     0 

New Transit Funding Sources

Eglinton West has an existing ROW for grade-separated line (Richview Corridor), the central portion must be underground, while it would connect not only to an elevated SRT but also a below-grade Mississauga Transitway. To even consider a partially on-street light rail line for this corridor is simply just daft.
 
doady said:
Eglinton West has an existing ROW for grade-separated line (Richview Corridor), the central portion must be underground, while it would connect not only to an elevated SRT but also a below-grade Mississauga Transitway. To even consider a partially on-street light rail line for this corridor is simply just daft.
Click to expand...

+1. It's creating an artificial constraint on the future operability of the line.

One of the other things that was mentioned in my chat with a Metrolinx Planner is the relatively low per km cost of the elevated guideway for the ARL. According to the Metrolinx website, the cost for the station at Pearson plus the 3km spur is a contract of $128.6 million. That's ~$43 million/km! Now I understand that the construction environment isn't the same as Eglinton (beside a highway vs down the middle of a major suburban arterial), but still. This figure should still give 2nd thought to those who think that elevated will be significantly more expensive than the current at-grade option. Yes, no doubt it will be slightly more, but only slightly (in transit dollars terms).
 
44 North said:
Shit. That's amazing.
Click to expand...

It is a pretty incredible value, isn't it? We hear so much about inflated transit construction prices in Toronto, but then you have something like this and you think "wow, that's a pretty damn good price for something like that".

Even with a doubling in per km construction costs, it would still be worth the extra ~$20 million/km to elevate Eglinton East.
 
Damn right it would be. The "subways in the suburbs" debate is 40 years old. GO Urban and elevated RT was the realistic conclusion. IMO there's no better place to continue what the SRT failed to kickstart than along Eglinton East.

Scarboro gets an RT connection, affordable rapid transit is utilized, anti-"streetcar" crowd is hushed, and virtually no NIMBY residents to complain about elevated along the route. It's win-win any which way you look at it.
 
gweed123 said:
It is a pretty incredible value, isn't it? We hear so much about inflated transit construction prices in Toronto, but then you have something like this and you think "wow, that's a pretty damn good price for something like that".

Even with a doubling in per km construction costs, it would still be worth the extra ~$20 million/km to elevate Eglinton East.
Click to expand...
Is it? That doesn't include any of the design/vehicle/property aquisition cost. That's the kind of costs where tunnels are $50-million per kilometre. An extra $20 million/km to elevate Eglinton East? That doesn't even pay for the extra cost of the elevated stations - let alone the track!
 
nfitz said:
Is it? That doesn't include any of the design/vehicle/property aquisition cost. That's the kind of costs where tunnels are $50-million per kilometre. An extra $20 million/km to elevate Eglinton East? That doesn't even pay for the extra cost of the elevated stations - let alone the track!
Click to expand...

The vehicle cost for the ARL is $75 million. Factor that in to the 3km spur cost (which would inflate it even higher than what it should be), that's still only $67 million/km. That construction contract also includes the station at Pearson.

And besides, things like vehicles, design, and property acquisition costs would already be factored into the ~$60 million cost of the at-grade LRT. It's not like you're going to need any extra vehicles, or any additional property acquisition because you decide to build it above the centre of the road instead of in the centre of the road.

As for the additional costs of elevated stations, I found this from Wikipedia about the Canada Line: "A future station at Capstan Way (No. 3 Road and Capstan Way) in Richmond was originally planned, but was cancelled in March 2009. Pinnacle International and Concord Pacific, the developers of the Sun Tech City project couldn't fund the $15 million required to build the station."

By my count there would be 5 elevated stations on Eglinton East (Wynford, Bermondsey, Victoria Park, Warden, and Birchmount). Assume $20 million/station (a generous inflation based on what's above), and that's an extra $100 million. It's 5.75km from Kennedy to where it would go underground just east of Don Mills. That's $17.4 million/km in added cost to build the 5 elevated stations. Of course, then you need to factor in the money saved by not building 9 at-grade stops. Not sure exactly what an at-grade stop costs.

Given how much it's costing to build the elevated guideway into Pearson, it's reasonable to assume $20-30 million more per km than at-grade LRT is a pretty reasonable estimate.
 
Last edited:
Elevation also is significantly cheaper to build and the underground stations are cheaper than underground LRT with any non-grade separated sections. This is because any technology that runs along any portion of a street whether using ROW or not has, at a maximum, headway of every 3 minutes per direction and even that is REALLY pushing it.

Vancouver's Canada Line stations were built too small as far a si was concerned but even so they 50 meter Canada Line stations still have higher capacity that Eglinton's 100 meter stations as the trains can run every 90 seconds and are wider standard Metro cars.
 
gweed123 said:
As for the additional costs of elevated stations, I found this from Wikipedia about the Canada Line: "A future station at Capstan Way (No. 3 Road and Capstan Way) in Richmond was originally planned, but was cancelled in March 2009. Pinnacle International and Concord Pacific, the developers of the Sun Tech City project couldn't fund the $15 million required to build the station."
Click to expand...
Hang on ... apples to oranges. Their trains on the Canada line are only 40 metres long. Our trains alone will be 90 metres long! Surely that alone doubles the cost.

And what about Pharmacy Road?

And what about the extra construction costs because of location. The Airport link is across fields and industrial areas, with good access. Eglinton would be in the middle of the road?

Also the Canada line opened in mid-2009. That's (at least) 11 years earlier than Eglinton. A inflation rate of 2.6% is generous? And yet 4% is more typical in that sector over the long-run.

How much is Centennial College station costing? That would be more indicative.
 
nfitz said:
Hang on ... apples to oranges. Their trains on the Canada line are only 40 metres long. Our trains alone will be 90 metres long! Surely that alone doubles the cost.

And what about Pharmacy Road?

And what about the extra construction costs because of location. The Airport link is across fields and industrial areas, with good access. Eglinton would be in the middle of the road?

Also the Canada line opened in mid-2009. That's (at least) 11 years earlier than Eglinton. A inflation rate of 2.6% is generous? And yet 4% is more typical in that sector over the long-run.

How much is Centennial College station costing? That would be more indicative.
Click to expand...

I found this on it: http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/scarborough_rapid_transit/epr/chapter2e.pdf, but I can't seem to find any cost estimates anywhere. If I find any I'll post it as an edit to this.

LNahid2000 said:
Pharmacy is 400m from Victoria Park. Does there really need to be a station there?
Click to expand...

Especially if the station is placed on the east side of Victoria Park.
 
From Macleans
But what the city’s not doing this time around is even more telling. Historically, transit expansion starts with politicians drawing hopeful lines on a map and then trying to find ways to pay for those lines. This has led to decades of transit fiascos as plans got drawn, redrawn, hacked to bits and then finally half-built.

So now, the city is taking a smarter tack: It’s starting with asking how taxpayers are going to pay for transit, while deferring talk about what exactly that money would pay for. It’s counterintuitive—all stick, no carrot—but it makes a great deal of sense.
Click to expand...
Um, I don't know how the author could get this so wrong. Just as before we have a plan first - The Big Move - and now we're looking at ways to pay for it. We know exactly where this money trying to be raised it going for. Hell it's one of the main selling points of any new taxes: that money won't be just put into a pot but towards listed projects (well 75% of it!)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top