Update 1, April 15, 2009: Although the original Transit City report gave Pearson Airport as the western terminus of the Eglinton line, the cost estimate only covered the portion to Renforth. Approximately 3 km of additional construction are required to bring the line right into the airport, and the cost of this was not included in the 2007 estimate.
The underground section of the line was originally planned to lie between Keele and Laird Drive, but this may be expanded west to Jane and east to Don Mills (except for the river crossing). This additional tunnelling is included in the recently announced cost estimate.
Original article:
Today’s Globe & Mail contains an article by Jeff Gray about the constantly escalating estimates for the Eglinton “LRT” line. Gray cites the original estimate of $2.2-billion in 2007 compared with $4.6-billion figure included in the recent McGuinty funding announcement. Nobody quite seems to know why the cost has doubled in two years.
Back when Transit City was announced, the numbers were in 2007 dollars. There is some debate about whether the cars for the line were included, but it is my understanding that the original demand and fleet estimates were on the low side. This will bump up both the fleet and carhouse costs in later figures.
By the time the TTC’s 2009 Capital Budget was prepared in late 2008, more detailed estimates for all of the lines were available including discrete costs for construction, vehicles and maintenance facilities. The cost for Eglinton was now close to $3.7-million 2009 dollars of which $2.6-billion was for construction, $774-million for vehicles and $317-million for a carhouse. Comparing to the 2007 announcement, one might reasonably assume that there was no provision for vehicles or carhouses in the original Transit City estimate.
When we reach a point of actually announcing funding, that necessarily must be in actual, as-spent dollars appropriate to the time when a project is actually built. Eglinton will stretch out from now until about 2016, and some inflation can be expected in the interim. $1-billion, however, is a lot of inflation.
There have been two different numbers cited for the amount of underground construction. Originally, it was to be about 10km from Keele to Laird Drive (the east end of the old residential section of Leaside). In practice, the line may go underground further west, and a good argument can be made for an underground junction at Don Mills with whatever is eventually built in that corridor. Whether this is factored into current estimates, I don’t know, but the occasionally-cited figure of 13km of tunnel would roughly account for these extras.
According to Gray, the Premier’s announcement used Metrolinx figures, and who knows what technology Metrolinx was studying for their estimate. Metrolinx obsesses on a high-speed link across the city to the airport when, in fact, there are many other destinations along Eglinton now and in the planned future. This is rather strange considering that Metrolinx was given the task of solving gridlock in the GTA, and the last time I looked, driving to the airport was not the primary location of this problem.
Even thinking of the airport as a regional hub, we need more than one trunk line to get people out of their cars. Unlike the Yonge Subway, the Eglinton line will not have its demands neatly clustered along the line itself, but will depend on connecting services along its length. It cannot be the transit equivalent of the 401 without a complementary network of frequent surface routes acting as “off ramps”.
Whether the “old” Metrolinx board will last long enough to consider the detailed analysis of this corridor remains a mystery. If, like the SRT study, the Metrolinx evaluation shows that LRT has a better business case than an RT line, this will be rather embarrassing for those who would stuff an RT line, complete with infrequent, inconvenient stops, down our throats.
Meanwhile, the second round of public consultation is a mystery, and the Eglinton Project’s website has not been updated since October 2008.
Steve Munro 
If the tunneled portion of Eglinton extends all the way to Jane, is there a real need for the Jane LRT to go anywhere south of Eglinton? It could just be a branch line, say to provide the extra service that a subway tunnel allows for from Don Mills westward.
Steve: I have always expected that’s what would happen with Jane given the problems of the narrow right of way and comparatively low demand on the south end of the line. However, changing the map this early in the game would be premature as there are other pieces to fit in. One could equally argue that the Don Mills Service could come in at the east end to supplement the Eglinton trains, presuming that the DRL comes up to Eglinton. The problem in both cases is that the demand on Eglinton will require two-car trains (60m) and this influences the design on the surface portions of any branch lines.
LikeLike
It’s funny how history repeats itself. Though I wasn’t born at the time wasn’t it back in the early 80’s people were discussing about what technology to use on what is now the Scarborough RT … I guess ICTS won that battle.
Steve: Another wonderful example of enlightened provincial interference in transit planning for Toronto.
LikeLike
Steve,
Your mention of the fact that the announced Eglinton line is 3 km longer than the original proposal, thanks to the new line going into the Airport rather than stopping at Renforth, intrigues me. I suspect that a significant part of the increased costs are here.
I’ve heard that space for an LRT station is being built beneath the new T1 terminal; can you confirm this? If so, that would save a little money, but how do we handle the approach? Running the line up from Renforth and Eglinton, avoiding the airport property (and runways) until we get to the terminal strikes me either as a very circuitous route, or we’re going underground. And if we’re tunnelling underground, that’s 13 km of tunnelling that we’re looking at, rather than just 10, correct?
Steve: I know that the airport is making provision for an LRT station, but the details of the approach are still being worked out. At least part will have to be underground and this adds to the total mileage of tunnel construction.
LikeLike
Why would a grade-separated, automated Eglinton Line need to be ICTS like some posters are suggesting? I would guess it would be more like the Canada Line.
Steve: Dare I suggest that Bombardier would like an untendered contract on the guise that this was an “extension” of the existing Scarborough RT?
LikeLike
Just to make it clear, I am not employed by Bombardier or a union member of the CAW. In fact, I hate Mr. Hargrove and his successor. When one walks on the main street of St. Thomas, Windsor and Oshawa. I have visited all these communities during 2009. The devestation of deindustrialization cannot be written in words. As Canadians, do we want to turn Thunder Bay into Flint, Michigan? I watched Michael’s Moore Roger and Me. I do not want the same to happen in Ontario.
An automated system provides operation flexibity. For example, let say at 9PM, a Raptors game ended. 45000 fans leave at the same time, of course not everyone used the same line to get home. However, this would create a spike in demand. With an automated system (like the JFK trains), someone in a control room can release trains in storage for revenue service. Since everything is automated, no extra labor cost is needed to provide the extra service.
Another situation is that it can provide frequent service all the time. Right now the TTC reduces the service of the ICTS at night time. With a fully automated system, a maintanence crew can break a 4 car trainset into 2. The computer can run these shorter train at a more frequent intervals. This improves customer safety since there is less time waiting at the platform.
To be fair, there is nothing preventing trams from being automated. But there is no will in Toronto to run trams on a guideway.
Yes, the energy efficiency of a LIM is not as high as a rotary motor. No one aside from Bombardier knows which mode is more efficient. There is no measures like MPG numbers for trains unfortuately. However, energy efficiency is measured by the sum of many factors. A tram’s body will always weight more since it is not a monocoque design. On the Bombardier Flexity trams, if the tram is involve in an accident, only the affected section needs to be replaced. On an ICTS MkII car, the body is similar to a monocoque aircraft design. One hit and the whole body must be replaced. All trams are design to withstand some forces of a crash, since it is operated in mixed traffic, which makes it heavier.
I have not even talk about the savings in air conditioning and interior lighting. The ICTS train that Toronto will be ordering will have LED lighting inside. This will represent at least a 60% savings over regular flouresant lighting. Anyways, Mr. Wightman, it is good that we are having this discussion. I just wish the nice people at Metrolinx quibble over details like we do.
Steve: One point here: LED lighting can be installed on any vehicle. It is not proprietary to ICTS. If the TTC specified candles in cut glass lanterns, Bombardier would supply them. One major issue with LEDs is to ensure that we get properly colour balanced light, not the blue junk that’s installed at St. Andrew Station. Lighting technology made huge strides in past decades, and we should not go back to poor colour spectrums just because it is this week’s version of “green technology”. The look and feel of a car has a lot to do with making the TTC feel like a welcoming place. Bad lighting sets the wrong sort of mood by looking cheap and univiting.
LikeLike
Benny Cheung Says:
April 16th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
“I have not even talk about the savings in air conditioning and interior lighting. The ICTS train that Toronto will be ordering will have LED lighting inside. This will represent at least a 60% savings over regular flouresant lighting. Anyways, Mr. Wightman, it is good that we are having this discussion. I just wish the nice people at Metrolinx quibble over details like we do.”
Please do talk about the savings in air conditioning and lighting. What is it about the Mark II ICTS or ART cars that allows them to be lit and air conditioned for less than a tram? Wait; I know they are smaller and carry fewer people than a tram therefore they do not need as much lighting and air conditioning. Whatever system you put in one vehicle will fit into the other; there is no basic difference in the design that affects the amount of insulation or lighting required. If we leave out the windows you get rid of one of the biggest heat loss and entry points but who would ride the cars.
I still have not seen your values for operating efficiency of the LIMs for accelerating or regenerative breaking. I don’t know about the effect of capacitors on acceleration but you still need to supply them with energy. I know that capacitors are used to reduce the power factor or inductive load on induction motors. This makes it easier for the inverter to commutate or shut off before it reverses the direction of the current through the motor. I have been looking all over the web for current efficiencies of single sided linear induction motors which is what the ICTS cars use. The high efficiencies are for double sided LIMs or tube LIMs which are great for firing high speed projectiles at a tank or catapulting F18’s off a carrier. Give me some current sources. Bombardier does not seem to give any values of specification on their web site like they used to.
With the tunnelled LRT under Eglinton it is possible to feed two or three surface lines into it and then run the underground section fully automated like the ICTS with 2 or 3 car trains you would be able have the same capacity as ICTS and then have the flexibility to run at grade mode at the ends where demand is lower. Anything you ICTS can do can also be done by conventional LRT if you run it in a controlled right of way with more efficiency and with more flexibility. And it would also run during a snow storm.
LikeLike
So i was doing some light research and the Canada Line in Vancouver only costed 1.9 billion dollars in 2003 dollars. That being said why is it almost costing triple that amount to build the eglinton line. Though inflation does play a marginal role. thats no excuse…………..whether ICTs or LRT I dont understand why a line should cost so much……..Ps if they do decide to go with ICTs………then there is no point of building a tunnel to subway standards that would just be a complete waste of money becasue ICTS already act very much like a subway…………..I cant wait till the Benefit Case Analysis comes out so we can but this debate to rest.
Steve: You must have been doing some very light research to miss the fact that the Canada line is only 19 km long with 16 stations. Let’s do some simple math.
The Eglinton line will be 31km long (or maybe 34 depending on whose numbers we are reading). That’s a factor of at least 1.63. Let’s assume that average year for estimating construction costs is 2013. That’s 10 years’ worth of inflation, which on a conservative 2% per year gives a factor of about 1.22. If we use 3% per year, this factor goes up to 1.34. This is not “marginal”.
So we started with 1.9-billion and we’re now up to 3.78-billion, assuming 2% inflation and correcting for the length of the line.
The Eglinton line will have better service than is planned for the Canada line, and this requires more vehicles, but as I don’t have comparative numbers I can’t adjust for this. The line will also have more stations because even the Metrolinx version will have them closer than the spacing in Vancouver. That’s an additional cost too. And finally, the cost estimate for Eglinton is based on deep bore tunneling, not cut-and-cover as was done in Vancouver. As an offset, some of the Eglinton line may be at grade, depending on the technology.
LikeLike
Another good reason for extending the Eglinton LRT tunnel to Jane is that it leaves room above ground for a bike path along Eglinton between Jane and Keele.
The City Council currenlty intends to extend the Eglinton West Path (which currently runs from Renforth to Jane) all the way to Bicknell Ave (which is near Keele), but I can’t see how they’d do it unless the street car runs underground. I doubt there would be enough room for both across the various bridges and underpasses in that area.
And a bike path is sorely needed in that area, since it is particularly bike-unfriendly.
LikeLike
The other day on my way home from school, I decided to take the Eglinton bus to Kennedy Station. Whether it’s lrt or icts, I was surprised to see the lack of transit oriented development along Eglinton between Victoria Park and Warden. All I saw was rows of big box stores with huge set packs for parking lots.
Doesn’t the Official Plan calls for more transit friendly development along this route? To cut things short I don’t know who to blame for the mess that’s developing along Eglinton. Smart Centre who develops these sites, The City of Toronto for allowing such development to take place on such prime land, or the OMB who most often has the final say. To tell you the truth riding along that part of Eglinton felt like I was in some suburban community like Brampton or Ajax.
Steve: Yes there are parts of Eglinton that are rather embarrassing, but on the bright side, remember that those big box stores are designed for a lifespan of maybe a decade. As the land becomes more valuable, using it for a parking lot ceases to be an attractive investment. And, yes, the Official Plan does encourage medium density development, not big box stores. I suspect anything there now was approved in the bad old days before the OP was implemented.
LikeLike