News   Sep 13, 2024
Catching Up With Construction of CIBC SQUARE's North Tower
 2.7K     0 
News   Sep 13, 2024
Minor Variance for Sugar Wharf Phase 2 Comes With Major Changes
 2.9K     4 
News   Sep 13, 2024
UrbanToronto Webinars: Exploring Affordable Housing Development in the GTA
 748     0 

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

Voltz said:
I would also prefer the west section of the LRT built in the Richview ROW, but it may not necessarily be best for the corridor, they may have plans to sell much of that land for medium or high-density development. Building a LRT in a trench through the middle of that area would prevent that from happening.
Click to expand...

No, I say build it in the Richview lands, in a trench, and passing under the roads rather than idling at stoplights. When development magically comes, they can deck over the trench, creating - wait for it - a subway!
 
ShonTron said:
No, I say build it in the Richview lands, in a trench, and passing under the roads rather than idling at stoplights. When development magically comes, they can deck over the trench, creating - wait for it - a subway!
Click to expand...

That really is the best solution, the TTC can call it "light rail" (as in the Docklands mold), Metrolinx can call it "metro". Everyone gets what they want.
 
ShonTron said:
No, I say build it in the Richview lands, in a trench, and passing under the roads rather than idling at stoplights. When development magically comes, they can deck over the trench, creating - wait for it - a subway!
Click to expand...

If I am not mistaken, that is similar to how the BLoor-Danforth and Yonge lines were built, isn't it? It just boggles my mind that the TTC insists on building the LRT down the middle of the street.
 
Given that this was one of the most memorable items of McGuinty's recent funding announcement, I thought it would be worth resurrecting this thread. The most obvious question to ask is what the hell happened? The project hasn't even started yet and the price has risen more than 100% with very little discernible change in project scope. The average cost of the line is now about 150m dollars per km. To compare to my favorite example of public transit the Canada Line is being built at a cost of 80m per km, completely grade separated and involving a major river crossing and complex urban tunneling.

Which all begs the question, what happened?
 
From Steve Munro's comments:

Steve: The original figures were low, and the line didn’t go all the way to Pearson. If we assume $300M/km for the 10km underground portion, that’s $3B alone. The remaining 20km cost $1.5B, or $75M/km. I suspect that the tunnel will be built to subway standards to keep those who believe LRT will never work assuaged that it could always be converted. I know these are “back of the envelope†calculations.
 
If it can be built to Subway standards why not make it a subway???
 
The LRT costs seem to be about $67-75 mil per KM for the at grade lines. I remember when Transit City came out some of the advocates were saying that $30 mil per KM for LRT was a high estimate (so that it would be a credible and wouldn't go over budget) and that it was much better than paying $100 mil a KM for subway. These days they are saying subways cost $300 mil / KM and an Eglinton subway would cost $9-10 billion.
 
Last edited:
If LRT is going to be $75 million/km and subway would be $100 million/km, then I'd rather build 3/4 of the line and build it as subway. But that's just me.
 
Eglinton should be a subway line period. Pearson-Kennedy wouldn't have to be tunneled full length either. The sections between the airport and Martin Grove; and Don Mills and Victoria Park could be at- or above-grade thus lowering expenses.
 
lordmandeep said:
If it can be built to Subway standards why not make it a subway???
Click to expand...

I don't know exactly what type of tunnel they will build, but I could see them tunnelling to support a subway - but with the following differences:

The "canal" would be level or shallow (where the subway is powered) - and much smaller subway stations with fewer entrances. This would probably save a fair amount of money. Problem is that if they do decide to convert it - they would have to shut it down for a significant amount of time just when traffic is peaking - which would make it difficult to convert.

I would prefer them spend the extra several billion dollars and make it a complete subway now.
 
Amphibius said:
Eglinton should be a subway line period. Pearson-Kennedy wouldn't have to be tunneled full length either. The sections between the airport and Martin Grove; and Don Mills and Victoria Park could be at- or above-grade thus lowering expenses.
Click to expand...


Rail Line To Pearson Airport One Of Four Major Transit Projects That Will Forever Change Toronto

It's finally going to happen - a way for you to get to Pearson International Airport by subway. It's part of a huge transit funding announcement made on Wednesday that will forever change the way you get around in the city.

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_33401.aspx
 
station spacing

Has there been any preliminary reports of what the station spacing will be like for the underground portion? Will it be closer to subway spacing?
 
As well as Station Spacing I wonder how they are going to accomodate fare collection on the underground portion. Will they have manned stations where an attendent will make sure fares are paid or will the operator of the LRT itself make sure fares are paid like he/she would like a regular street bus or streetcar.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top