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

[waltthizzney]

Lol... has anyone been to surrey.... its low density farm land, why on earth they want a raised or buried sky train is beyond me considering there are a million ways to put streetcars in within the flat land, wide streets and strip malls... prob a case of little man syndrom

 

[BurlOak]

This is true UNTIL you extend it on either end.

If the line is to be built out from Malvern on the east to Pearson Airport in the west; LRT is billions cheaper (capital wise) than the other options.

If the line stays exactly as planned today, with no expansions at all, then LRT is not the cheapest option. Basically, the expensive chunks are being completed now and we can do the cheap portions later pretty much on a 2% property tax hike which lasts a 10 year period (after 10 years property taxes drop 2% again).

I thought most (all) of the extension to Malvern was being planned as grade-separated already. Thus, no extra expense.

In the West, the article talks about the space adjacent to Eglinton and how it could be used along with how the Western terminal (over 401 and through YYZ) need to be elevated regardless of technology. Vancouver built the elevated/buried Canada Line for about $100M/km. I would guess the extra cost of elevating this line through Etobicoke would be a few hundred million (4 or 5?) and not billions.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

I thought most (all) of the extension to Malvern was being planned as grade-separated already. Thus, no extra expense.

If the line is extended past Malvern, it won't have to be grade-seperated. Considering the only reason it's grade-seperated to Malvern is the TTC is recycling the old SRT plans, it's very likely the grade seperation will end at Malvern.

 

[sixrings]

If the line is extended past Malvern, it won't have to be grade-seperated. Considering the only reason it's grade-seperated to Malvern is the TTC is recycling the old SRT plans, it's very likely the grade seperation will end at Malvern.

To be fair where would it be extended to.. Malverns the end of North Eastern Toronto.

 

[ssiguy2]

I have been saying this for years.

LRT is the most expensive option out there due to the extra large tunnels needed and mostly due to switching the SRT to LRT.
Most of the cost of the SRT switch to LRT is due to all the stations having to be comppletely redone due to having to "raise the roof" due to the extra height needed to accomodate LRT. It will be more expensive than much higher capacity subway/metro, SkyTrain, or monorail which just require track work changes. SkyTrain would require no changes at all and have the extra savings of not having to build a totally new LRT storage and maintenance centre.

Due to lack of grade separation at grade LRT will be, by far, the slowest, least reliable, lowest capacity, lowest service level of all the optional systems.

 

[datamouse]

Lol... has anyone been to surrey.... its low density farm land, why on earth they want a raised or buried sky train is beyond me considering there are a million ways to put streetcars in within the flat land, wide streets and strip malls... prob a case of little man syndrom

It's the 12th largest municipality in the country and the 2nd largest in BC.

 

[CDL.TO]

It's the 12th largest municipality in the country and the 2nd largest in BC.

And Brampton's the 9th largest in the country. Doesn't mean that it makes sense to build a Skytrain there.

Gross population is meaningless. Question is, does it have the density and trip generators to justify an expansion of higher-order rapid transit?

Of the 12 largest municipalities in the country, only 4 have fully-grade-separated rapid transit and Surrey is one of them.

 

[daka_x]

Gross population is meaningless. Question is, does it have the density and trip generators to justify an expansion of higher-order rapid transit?

I know that it is growing really really fast (i.e. compared to the rest of their metro)

 

[BurlOak]

And Brampton's the 9th largest in the country. Doesn't mean that it makes sense to build a Skytrain there.

Gross population is meaningless. Question is, does it have the density and trip generators to justify an expansion of higher-order rapid transit?

Of the 12 largest municipalities in the country, only 4 have fully-grade-separated rapid transit and Surrey is one of them.

I agree with density - but not the density of the entire municipality, but of the specific area where the transit is. I am not sure about your comment on size. Beside Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal - Laval and Longueuil and Vaughan and Burnaby and NewWestminster and Richmond, along with some de-amalgamated municipalities in Montreal (I think), have (or soon will have) grade separated transit.

 

[ssiguy2]

Just because Toronto doesn't think a city of half a million should have grade separated transit doesn't mean the rest of the planet doesn't. Thank god most cities don't think that way or rapid transit would never get built. Fact is Miss/Bramp/York should have had grade separated transit decades ago. If they would have made it a priority then those areas would not have the amount of sprawl they have today. It would have created TOD, higher transit ridership, and workplaces would have also been drawn to the transit corridor.

Except for a little 8 km York extension, Toronto has essentially stopped building true rapid transit. By 2015 the mass/rapid transit network of Toronto will have grown by 22km in the previous 30 years.......a shockingly embarrassing stat. The once admired TTC now no longer ranks in the world's 50 biggest metro/subway systems and not even in the top 30 busiest.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Just because Toronto doesn't think a city of half a million should have grade separated transit doesn't mean the rest of the planet doesn't. Thank god most cities don't think that way or rapid transit would never get built. Fact is Miss/Bramp/York should have had grade separated transit decades ago. If they would have made it a priority then those areas would not have the amount of sprawl they have today. It would have created TOD, higher transit ridership, and workplaces would have also been drawn to the transit corridor.

Except for a little 8 km York extension, Toronto has essentially stopped building true rapid transit. By 2015 the mass/rapid transit network of Toronto will have grown by 22km in the previous 30 years.......a shockingly embarrassing stat. The once admired TTC now no longer ranks in the world's 50 biggest metro/subway systems and not even in the top 30 busiest.

Judging by the millions or billions of dollars that is spent on freeways, arterial roads, and parking, transit gets very little. Just look the cost and the short years of planning to put in the wide arterial roads with three lanes in each direction, left turn lanes, and adjoining parking lots and how quickly they pop up along with the new subdivisions in Barrie or Milton. All without planning to get any kind of rapid transit (even if only a bus rapid transit) without going into long decades of arguments to put them in.

 

[drum118]

Turning lanes should be remove or not built at all as they take up too much land.

I saw next to no turning lanes or the so call excess lane in the centre of the road in Europe.

Cities in Europe don't care how many lights a driver has to wait to make a turn as that land can be used of development, bikes or wider sidewalk.

Finding arterial roads over 2/4 lanes is hard to do.

I was in a part of Mississauga a few days ago for a new area and the waste of space for roads was unbelievable. If the road width was reduce, more development could had taken place to increase the very current load density higher.

It is a massing how much road space there is outside of the 2/4 hours for peak service that is wasted and adds millions to infrastructure cost to rebuild them down the road.

I found it interesting to see bus only lanes in many cities, considering headway was every 10+ minutes and something you will not find in NA. Cities in NA are not prepared to have bus/transit lanes unless service is under 5 minutes. There were a few of these lanes that saw service every 5 minutes or less with some being trunk lines for branch lines.

 

[11th]

I have been saying this for years.

LRT is the most expensive option out there due to the extra large tunnels needed and mostly due to switching the SRT to LRT.
Most of the cost of the SRT switch to LRT is due to all the stations having to be comppletely redone due to having to "raise the roof" due to the extra height needed to accomodate LRT. It will be more expensive than much higher capacity subway/metro, SkyTrain, or monorail which just require track work changes. SkyTrain would require no changes at all and have the extra savings of not having to build a totally new LRT storage and maintenance centre.

Due to lack of grade separation at grade LRT will be, by far, the slowest, least reliable, lowest capacity, lowest service level of all the optional systems.

The thing is, they want the new LRT storage and maintenance facility, since they claim they will need those for future expansion of the yet to be built LRT network. They talked about future extensions when they built Sheppard, and look what happened.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

Just because Toronto doesn't think a city of half a million should have grade separated transit doesn't mean the rest of the planet doesn't. Thank god most cities don't think that way or rapid transit would never get built. Fact is Miss/Bramp/York should have had grade separated transit decades ago. If they would have made it a priority then those areas would not have the amount of sprawl they have today. It would have created TOD, higher transit ridership, and workplaces would have also been drawn to the transit corridor.

Decades ago, Brampton and Mississauga were not the size they are today. Both cities were largely undeveloped land. I lived in Brampton, near Hwy 7(Now Bovaird Dr.), and I was a 5 minute walk from two rock quarries, and a brick factory. We could take a 10 minute drive to pick fruit! Now it's all houses. I am not a planner, but weren't Brampton and 'Sauga planned as T.O.D, and commuters would funnel into the core via GO Transit? So, I do not see where there is justification for building grade separated transit in Peel, other than the Bloor extension to the Square One area? Brampton and 'Sauga need frequent bus service with LRT along Hurontario. Brampton Transit seems to be doing an OK job, MiWay is pretty bad(in my opinion), I do not what happened. MiWay used to be good.


W.K. Lis brings up a great point about the length of time it takes to build a road compared to a transit project. It's ludicrous. I remember reading Brampton planning some sort of higher order transit(Zum) when I was in my 20's! I am in my mid 30's now. Took over a decade to build a limited stop bus service in mixed traffic! Brampton needed the service years ago. The Mississuaga busway is another good example. I read about the busway in the 90's!

Except for a little 8 km York extension, Toronto has essentially stopped building true rapid transit. By 2015 the mass/rapid transit network of Toronto will have grown by 22km in the previous 30 years.......a shockingly embarrassing stat. The once admired TTC now no longer ranks in the world's 50 biggest metro/subway systems and not even in the top 30 busiest.

TTC is ranked 38th, and is the 3rd busiest in North America behind NYC and Mexico. And the city will add 52 km by 2021.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_systems_by_annual_passenger_rides

 

[Rainforest]

I don't know if anyone has seen this yet, but there was some research/advocacy group from the other side of Canada that actually conducted their own study of the technology choice for the Crosstown LRT and found the choice of LRT technology more expensive than a rebuild of the Scarborough RT to more modern standards and the building of the Crosstown LRT under the same (but since-improved) technology. Apparently it would've saved the same amount of money (that moving some of the LRT at-grade would have) or more to switch the technology choice, because of a specific in the diameter of the tunnels.

"The compromise is SkyTrain: Toronto should be pursuing this technology and not LRT on Eglinton" at SkyTrain for Surrey

Everything makes sense, and it looks like these guys do know their stuff.

I read the report, and have doubts about its credibility:

1) In the second paragraph, they make a frivolous claim that "The at-grade switch would have impacted the entire line’s operating speeds and add 20 minutes (a nearly 50% increase!) to the end-to-end trip travel time."

In reality, the central section is in the tunnel either way. The debatable section between Brentcliffe and Kennedy is 9 km long; will take about 23 min (at 23 kph) for surface alignment versus 16 min (at 34 kph) for tunnel or guideway. The difference is 7 min, not 20.

Even if we add the future section west of Jane, about 8 km to Hwy 27, the combined difference will be 13 - 14 min, not 20.

2) The statement that ART trains can run at 110 kph is irrelevant; streetcars can run at the same speed, and good old buses can run much faster on a highway. In the city conditions, the operation speed depends on the stop frequency and acceleration / decelaration; theoretical top speed has little effect.

3) Equally irrelevant are their statements about the 56,000+ pphpd capacity that both subways and ART can reach, based just on the train load and frequency. In reality, such volumes will hit other constraints: stairs, escalators, exits etc. Yonge subway line will undoubtfully choke if it tries to handle that kind of demand; no way an ART system with 80-m platforms will handle it.

4) Their claim of lower operating costs due to the driverless operation of a fully graded line does not account for the higher maintenance costs of fully graded stations.

Finally, they believe that the smaller tunnel diameter and hence the lower cost of the tunneled section can offset the cost of grade separation on other sections. That might be true, but they did not provide any cost estimates to support it.