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

[BurlOak]

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.

You are correct - my math is wrong.
The Eglinton and SRT was estimated at $6.5B - which was to be replaced at $8.2B. The $1.7B is correct, but this works out to 26%.

What was once a $6.5b project is now an $8.2b project and limited funds are available for other routes. There will be fewer stations because of their higher cost underground. Metrolinx states that although this version costs more, it “delivers greater benefits”.

https://stevemunro.ca/2012/02/08/metrolinx-contemplates-lrt-vs-subway/

 

[Steve X]

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.

With the TTC running it. Automate or not someone is gonna get paid sitting in the cab.

If they were to bury the line. I rather see the money go towards the Relief Line north and ending the crosstown at Don Mills. This whole subway idea for Scarborough isn't even getting the line to Sheppard and will never reach Malvern. Grade separation doesn't seem to get very far in this city.

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.

If they do it the Calgary way, it'll cost the same as a LRT with subway speed. Just plow through every at grade crossing with full priority. No one calls the C-Trains glorified streetcars.

 

[11th]

If they do it the Calgary way, it'll cost the same as a LRT with subway speed. Just plow through every at grade crossing with full priority. No one calls the C-Trains glorified streetcars.

The stations (outside of downtown) and high-level boarding also makes C-Train feels more like a metro; compare that to the outer section of Chicago's Brown line.

 

[Amare]

If they do it the Calgary way, it'll cost the same as a LRT with subway speed. Just plow through every at grade crossing with full priority. No one calls the C-Trains glorified streetcars.

Unfortunately it's the TTC running the Crosstown so they'll find every way possible to cripple the service with speed restrictions, slow orders, stop and proceeds, etc...

 

[W. K. Lis]

Unfortunately it's the TTC running the Crosstown so they'll find every way possible to cripple the service with speed restrictions, slow orders, stop and proceeds, etc...

So forget about safety? Go at full speed, slam on the brakes, open the doors, close the doors, and go on, ignore the bodies sticking out the doors.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

So forget about safety? Go at full speed, slam on the brakes, open the doors, close the doors, and go on, ignore the bodies sticking out the doors.

Ugh.

Because despite Calgary being referenced in the post you're responding to you think there's nothing between this nonsense and the TTC's terror of anything resembling rapid operation.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

So forget about safety? Go at full speed, slam on the brakes, open the doors, close the doors, and go on, ignore the bodies sticking out the doors.

This looks fun. Hopefully we can bring this to the TTC.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Unfortunately it's the TTC running the Crosstown so they'll find every way possible to cripple the service with speed restrictions, slow orders, stop and proceeds, etc...

The only people to blame for that are the electors in Toronto and Ontario. These are the consequences of austerity.

 

[BurlOak]

The only people to blame for that are the electors in Toronto and Ontario. These are the consequences of austerity.

However, I don't think Eglinton being in the median had anything to do with austerity. Some (i.e. the planner types) actually argued that in-median was better than grade-separated. Others wanted on-street just to be opposite to Ford.

 

[Rainforest]

However, I don't think Eglinton being in the median had anything to do with austerity. Some (i.e. the planner types) actually argued that in-median was better than grade-separated. Others wanted on-street just to be opposite to Ford.

It is hard to argue against the fact that building in-median is cheaper than building grade-separated.

What's "better" is an open question, and depends on the future demand that can't be accurately predicted today.

All the published predictions suggest that in-median will have sufficient capacity, if so, then in-median is probably "better" because it allows to take the line further for the same cost.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

However, I don't think Eglinton being in the median had anything to do with austerity. Some (i.e. the planner types) actually argued that in-median was better than grade-separated. Others wanted on-street just to be opposite to Ford.

I'll remind everyone that the decision to make Eglinton at-grade was made in 2007, back when the City was planning to build seven LRT lines with limited funding. In this context, grade separation was truly the only workable option, unless we were to cancel delivering transit to other parts of the city.

 

[BurlOak]

I'll remind everyone that the decision to make Eglinton at-grade was made in 2007, back when the City was planning to build seven LRT lines with limited funding. In this context, grade separation was truly the only workable option, unless we were to cancel delivering transit to other parts of the city.

Your right to some degree, but I still think Transit City was more about sprinkling so money across the city, and not about building proper transit and solving a transit need.

 

[Steve X]

However, I don't think Eglinton being in the median had anything to do with austerity. Some (i.e. the planner types) actually argued that in-median was better than grade-separated. Others wanted on-street just to be opposite to Ford.

It depends on who you speak to. Urban planners agree with Transit City and not with the C-Train model. It's easily accessible, fits within an urban realm and doesn't divide the street with an unfriendly railway in the middle.

I'll remind everyone that the decision to make Eglinton at-grade was made in 2007, back when the City was planning to build seven LRT lines with limited funding. In this context, grade separation was truly the only workable option, unless we were to cancel delivering transit to other parts of the city.

It wasn't just a transit plan as mostly everyone has made it so. There are many benefits to surface LRT as long as a higher order of transit priorities is implemented. Hopefully ML does it right.

One point was to build better transit to low income neighbourhoods (the ones that are forgotten or simply ignored cause some don't think they are important). The Scarborough subway is a good example. The richer people prefer subway and don't have to travel to Malvern. Poor Malvern doesn't even get a chance of an SRT extension with the subway extension in planning now. Yet many people agree it's right to do cause they don't pay as much taxes as the middle class. Not building a replacement for Lawrence East Station is another perfect example or ignoring the low income riders living just east of there along Lawrence. The whole Scarborough Subway Extension is designed to get the wealthier riders funneling north of STC to get on a faster subway and yet it seems like it's the right thing to do.

The second point of Transit City was to help develop those "Avenues" with more mid-rise development. Oppose to high rises at every subway station. This is controversial. Some don't even want those avenue developed.

Third is about accessibility and ease of access. It's way easier to access the platforms and there's no elevators to maintain. The cheaper way seems to be the better way.

 

[Streety McCarface]

It depends on who you speak to. Urban planners agree with Transit City and not with the C-Train model. It's easily accessible, fits within an urban realm and doesn't divide the street with an unfriendly railway in the middle.

Who said it had to be in the middle of Eglinton? They could have easily moved it to the side. I know urban planners like the design aspect of things, it's their job trying to make things look pretty and useable, but in the end, if you ask a traffic or even a civil engineer, they'll tell you that type of building will remove a functional aspect of the project. It's a balancing act, plain and simple, you either move people as efficiently as possible and sacrifice aesthetics (think subways or grade separation), or you make it pleasing in an urban sense but sacrifice speed and therefore efficiency. Both have their places, and I would argue that with the traffic we currently see on Eglinton (and with all future traffic we will see on Eglinton), the job of the crosstown should have been efficient movement of people, not an attempt at improving the appearance of the street. Finch, Kingston Road, and Jane on the other hand need the streetscape upgrades, and I can understand putting light rail there.

 

[MisterF]

Talking about planners and engineers like they're all united in their opinions is foolish. Both professions are highly subjective and you'll find a wide variety of opinions about any given topic among both groups. Planners don't necessarily disagree with the C-Train model, many of them are big fans of it and are critical of the Transit City model.