Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[nfitz]

Please no.
Seriously, Toronto is at least double that of Brussels in population.

All current subways should stay subways.
Crosstown should have been a subway.
DRL should be a subway.
SRT should have been expanded, or built as a subway.

With a finite of tax dollars available, it sshould go to projects that will move the most people as efficiently as possible.

Please yes!

What moves the most people on Sheppard, for the most efficient use of dollars, is LRT. If they converted the existing tunnel to vehicles that would allow the line to be extended, travel times would remain the same between Don Mills and Yonge. In Scarborough, for the $4.5 billion that is being proposed to extend the subway 3 stations, you could instead build a 50-station LRT network and have $1 billion left over - with higher projected ridership.

The King streetcar carries more riders than Line 3 and Line 4 combined!

 

[TOareaFan]

Please yes!

What moves the most people on Sheppard, for the most efficient use of dollars, is LRT. If they converted the existing tunnel to vehicles that would allow the line to be extended, travel times would remain the same between Don Mills and Yonge. In Scarborough, for the $4.5 billion that is being proposed to extend the subway 3 stations, you could instead build a 50-station LRT network and have $1 billion left over - with higher projected ridership.

The King streetcar carries more riders than Line 3 and Line 4 combined!

Maybe people just need to see the central/underground part of the Crosstown in operation to convince people that that conversion makes sense

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Maybe people just need to see the central/underground part of the Crosstown in operation to convince people that that conversion makes sense

I really think this is most likely.

 

[sixrings]

Please no.
Seriously, Toronto is at least double that of Brussels in population.

All current subways should stay subways.
Crosstown should have been a subway.
DRL should be a subway.
SRT should have been expanded, or built as a subway.

With a finite of tax dollars available, it sshould go to projects that will move the most people as efficiently as possible.

So in summary your argument is because we only have a "finite amount of tax dollars available" we should only build subways subways subways! I don't think that exactly makes the most sense if any sense at all.

 

[steveintoronto]

With a finite of tax dollars available, it sshould go to projects that will move the most people as efficiently as possible.

Which is "Regional Rail" according to cities considerably larger than Toronto, and *vastly* more sophisticated and developed transit systems.

Do the terms "Paris RER" and "Crossrail" ring any bells?

And Brussel's tram system dwarfs that of Toronto. If you really want to get into population comparisons, Toronto comes out with the shitty end the stick, no matter what they ate.

The Brussels tram (or streetcar) system is a transport system in Brussels, Belgium. It is one of the ten largest tram systems in the world, carrying some 123.5 million passengers in 2012. In 2013, the Brussels tram system consists of 19 tram lines (three of which – lines T3, T4 and T7 – qualify as premetro lines).Sep 15, 2015

Trams in Brussels, Belgium 2015 - YouTube

A premetro is a tramway or light railway which includes segments built to rapid transit standards, generally as part of a process of conversion to a metro-standards railway usually by the construction of tunnels in the central city area.

Premetro - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premetro

History
The first city to carry a portion of a streetcar line through the city center in a tunnel was Marseille, France, in 1893, with its Noailles subterranean station (see Marseille tramway). It was initially operated by horse-drawn wagons. The next prominent example was the Tremont Street Subway (1897) in Boston, today part of the MBTA Green Line. These early tunnels were intended solely to reduce streetcar congestion on surface streets, not for later conversion to metro service.[2]Several early streetcar tunnels, including the Steinway Tunnel and East Boston Tunnel, were later converted to metro operation. However, the small loading gauge, tight curves, and steep grades of the streetcar tunnels required smaller metro cars than otherwise desirable.[2]

The modern premetro concept began in 1960s Germany, as rising traffic congestion due to auto ownership led to the construction of new transit systems. Rather than building costly metro lines immediately, some cities built only the downtown tunnels. They could be used by existing tram lines in the short term, with the intention of full metro conversion later - hence "pre-metro".[3] The idea spread to other European countries in the 1970s, especially Belgium, where such systems were explicitly named premetros.[3]
[...]

New Scientist:

[...continues at link...]

https://books.google.ca/books?id=xgKLfKjjft8C&lpg=PA699&dq=&pg=PA699&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[W. K. Lis]

Maybe we should use "gold paint" on the Crosstown light rail vehicles livery?

From link.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Please yes!

What moves the most people on Sheppard, for the most efficient use of dollars, is LRT. If they converted the existing tunnel to vehicles that would allow the line to be extended, travel times would remain the same between Don Mills and Yonge. In Scarborough, for the $4.5 billion that is being proposed to extend the subway 3 stations, you could instead build a 50-station LRT network and have $1 billion left over - with higher projected ridership.

The King streetcar carries more riders than Line 3 and Line 4 combined!

King is like 3* as long as both lines and I have no doubt that everyone here believes that there should be a subway on King (or Queen). We shouldn't touch Sheppard until we know exactly where Relief Line north will terminate, it might be better to extend the subway part of the way to Victoria Park if that alignment is chosen.

 

[ssiguy2]

Eglinton should have been grade separated from the beginning and the huge at-grade sections with it's large number of stops will greatly slow the system down, reduce frequency ability, and be less reliable. It will also be more expensive to run than a grade separated system because it can't be automated. It's the worst of all possible worlds.

 

[nfitz]

Maybe we should use "gold paint" on the Crosstown light rail vehicles livery?

I thought it looked pretty good on the Flexitys in Vancouver on the Olympic Line.

 

[Hopkins123]

Eglinton should have been grade separated from the beginning and the huge at-grade sections with it's large number of stops will greatly slow the system down, reduce frequency ability, and be less reliable. It will also be more expensive to run than a grade separated system because it can't be automated. It's the worst of all possible worlds.

At least there's still opportunities to prevent the Etobicoke section of the Crosstown from becoming a glorified streetcar. I pity Scarborough, it got screwed again.

 

[nfitz]

Eglinton should have been grade separated from the beginning and the huge at-grade sections with it's large number of stops will greatly slow the system down, reduce frequency ability, and be less reliable.

The line is costing $5.3 billion. It was orginally estimated that grade-separating it would add 50% to the cost ... there's no way that an addtiional $2.6 billion would be justified.

Large number of stops? There are only 10 at-grade stops. And only 6 at-grade stops in Scarborough and 2 in East York where cars have to cross the tracks.

At least there's still opportunities to prevent the Etobicoke section of the Crosstown from becoming a glorified streetcar. I pity Scarborough, it got screwed again.

Stop spacing are much further apart on this rapid transit line than a downtown streetcar line.

Where Scarborough is getting screwed is replacing the entire Line 3 (which has 6 stations) with a single subway station at Scarborough centre. For that $3.5 billion cost, Scarborough could have 3 rapid transit lines with 50 stops. Including 9 stations on the still grade-separated Line 3!

I'm not sure why people are advocating for building 1 subway station with lower ridership than the originally 50-stop LRT network!

 

[44 North]

The line is costing $5.3 billion. It was orginally estimated that grade-separating it would add 50% to the cost ... there's no way that an addtiional $2.6 billion would be justified.

But if it utilized Line 3 and prevented SSE (~$3bn) there'd be some justification.

 

[Streety McCarface]

The line is costing $5.3 billion. It was orginally estimated that grade-separating it would add 50% to the cost ... there's no way that an addtiional $2.6 billion would be justified.

Large number of stops? There are only 10 at-grade stops. And only 6 at-grade stops in Scarborough and 2 in East York where cars have to cross the tracks.

Stop spacing are much further apart on this rapid transit line than a downtown streetcar line.

Where Scarborough is getting screwed is replacing the entire Line 3 (which has 6 stations) with a single subway station at Scarborough centre. For that $3.5 billion cost, Scarborough could have 3 rapid transit lines with 50 stops. Including 9 stations on the still grade-separated Line 3!

I'm not sure why people are advocating for building 1 subway station with lower ridership than the originally 50-stop LRT network!

But there's room for a viaduct on Eglinton, it didn't have to be tunneled. I doubt it would be more than 2 billion dollars for that 8km section. The line would be able to run with 4 car subway trains had they built a viaduct, meaning fewer potential capacity constraints, the addition of automation, saved time, no risk of traffic light issues, fewer complaints from drivers (even though they need to shut up regardless), and fewer stops (shorter trips) should have been studied with that additional cost. I remember reading a report that detailed that the majority of traffic, had it interlined with the existing Line 3, would be traveling between Kennedy and Eglinton Yonge, meaning grade separation should have been justified then.

 

[BurlOak]

The line is costing $5.3 billion. It was orginally estimated that grade-separating it would add 50% to the cost ... there's no way that an addtiional $2.6 billion would be justified.

Actually, the estimate was that the FWLRT and SELRT money would be used to grade separate it - with $500M left over for the Sheppard subway. FWLRT was $1.2B and SELRT was $1.0B. Thus, the premium was $1.7B, or 32%.
And that was before they explored cost savings.

But there's room for a viaduct on Eglinton, it didn't have to be tunneled. I doubt it would be more than 2 billion dollars for that 8km section. The line would be able to run with 4 car subway trains had they built a viaduct, meaning fewer potential capacity constraints, the addition of automation, saved time, no risk of traffic light issues, fewer complaints from drivers (even though they need to shut up regardless), and fewer stops (shorter trips) should have been studied with that additional cost. I remember reading a report that detailed that the majority of traffic, had it interlined with the existing Line 3, would be traveling between Kennedy and Eglinton Yonge, meaning grade separation should have been justified then.

Maybe this
http://www.neptis.org/publications/.../solution-scarborough-impasse-scarborough-wye
or
https://skytrainforsurrey.org/2012/...uing-this-technology-and-not-lrt-on-eglinton/

The cost premium could have easily gone below $1B - even lower if they planned it properly from the start.

But if it utilized Line 3 and prevented SSE (~$3bn) there'd be some justification.

Yah,
It looks like we decided to save a few hundred million in order to spend $3B+.
Penny wise pound foolish.

 

[nfitz]

Actually, the estimate was that the FWLRT and SELRT money would be used to grade separate it - with $500M left over for the Sheppard subway.

They were also estimating back then that Eglinton would cost 2 or 3 billion. It's disingenuous to mix old and new costings simultaneously in this attempt to make transit poorer in Scarborough.

We need to improve transit in Scarborough for more people, rather than your scheme that would improve it for a few people, but screw more in Scarborough than it helps. Scarborough deserves far better than this crazy scheme to close most of the Line 3 subway stations - especially as the anti-transit Progessive Conservatives government has now indefinitely deferred the Lawrence East GO station that was going to be at location of the current Line 3 Lawrence East station.