Urban Toronto - Powered by vBulletin
UrbanToronto News - the latest headlines
Canderel's Aura Condos at College Park Tests its Lighting Feature
ALSO

View Poll Results: Making the decision now, Feb/Mar 2012, What technology should be used for Eglinton?

Voters
41. You may not vote on this poll
  • LRT (Transit City)

    28 68.29%
  • ART (Mark II or other)

    8 19.51%
  • HRT (subway)

    4 9.76%
  • Other

    1 2.44%
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Eglinton Transit: What Technology should be used?

  1. #1

    Default Eglinton Transit: What Technology should be used?

    The Eglinton Transit line has already begun construction and there are still several options that could be considered.

    1. The original Transit City proposal is to have an in-median, at-grade LRT running from Brentcliffe Ave to just west of Don Mills. At Don Mills, it would be underground for the interchange with the Don Mills LRT, or DRL, whatever will be built. After Don Mills it would be run in-median, at-grade again until about Kennedy Road where it would go underground again. Note that the Eglinton, Scarborough-Malvern, and SRT (running through STC) would all terminate at this station.
    2. The Ford Proposal had the entire Eglinton portion from Brentcliffe to Kennedy Station underground, with the SRT portion (going to STC) running straight through to the Eglinton line.
    3. Based on many comments from this and other discussion groups, another viable option seems to exist, that is not discussed by any public leads. From Brentcliffe to Don Mills, the line could be on the South side of the road. This would require a new bridge over the Don River West Branch and a pair of tunnels through the CPR embankment. East of Don Mills, the possibility exists to elevate the line until it dips underground at Kennedy similar to the other proposals (or even stays at grade).
    4. Although the order has already been placed for LRT vehicles, the supplier, Bombardier can supply many types of vehicles so it still may be possible to alter the contract – although it may be too late at this time. Each technology has advantages and disadvantages.

    Based on the above, I have created several polls to see what the UT preferences are. I do not expect this thread to be long lived, but I am curious as to what the preferences are. Many arguments have been made in other threads on the various options, so I hope we do not repeat everything again here - keep your reasoning brief.

    This poll is on what technology to use.
    Last edited by BurlOak; 2012-Feb-26 at 10:17.


  2. #2

    Default

    I guess it depends on whether you think the line should be totally grade separated or not. If you believe it should run at grade then LRT is the only option. If the line is to be totally grade separated then you have a choice of any of those options as well as monorail.
    I support a totally grade separated route for Eglinton. Eglinton will not be just another route, it will be a trunk route and therefore must have the speed, reliability, frequency, and higher capacity that only total grade separation can offer.
    If the line is to be totally grade separated then the best option is ART with MK111 trains.
    Extending the SRT along Eglinton means the line can be automated, elevated cheaper than subway or LRT, will have high capacity and speed. The already existing stations will only need to be extended but not totally renovated. LRT will be the most expensive technology in this regard due to having to "raise the roof" on all the stations to accomodate the catenary wires. It will require very little down time of the SRT which is very important and will, of course, be the least expensive.
    It is also very important to remember that using ART means not having to build completely new train storage infrastructure. Yes, the SRT garage would have to be extended but that is still far, far cheaper and easier than having to build a totally new operational centre and new garage and maintenance facility.
    By simply updating some of the SRT stations and putting in the heating mechanisms and elevating from Kennedy to DM, more than enough would be saved for Ford's $650 million Sheppard funds with hundreds of millions to spare and would be the easiest to boot.
    If the city wants total grade separation, LRT is the worst possible option imagineable as it will cost more than subway, ART, monorail due to the SRT conversion yet will have the lowest capacity.

  3. #3

    Default

    Burl Oak...............
    I apreciate this thread and in many ways I think attechnology choice is the very first thing that should be resolved before anything else.
    The thing is that with a at grade route LRT is the ONLY option.
    As there is already a new poll which is asking if the line should be elevated, at grade, or underground which results in any at-grade option being LRT perhaps a better question {or perhaps a new poll should be done starting with "if the Eglinton line is to be completely grade separated" which technology would you prefer?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
    Posts
    6,560

    Default

    With an LRT, a light rail vehicle can get its power from 3 (4 if one considers battery or flywheel electrical storage for some stretches) different sources.

    1. conventional overhead catenary using pantographs
    2. third rail
    3. electromagnetic induction, which transfers energy without direct electrical connections


    Some LRT systems have used a combination of both catenary and third rail, but could add electromagnetic induction as another combination with catenary.
    W. K. Lis

  5. Default

    Its LRT, why do we need this thread? Honest question.

  6. #6

    Default

    Another pointless poll. It's such a waste debating technology on route.

    It's just an excuse for members to spew nonsense about their preferred technology choice.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Justin10000 View Post
    Another pointless poll. It's such a waste debating technology on route.

    It's just an excuse for members to spew nonsense about their preferred technology choice.
    I'd say better keep it here than let in spill over into the general and construction threads. At least here, the conversation is conveniently segregated so you can avoid it.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dunkalunk View Post
    I'd say better keep it here than let in spill over into the general and construction threads. At least here, the conversation is conveniently segregated so you can avoid it.
    I a way, that is why I created this poll.

    I put 2012 in the question as well just to stress that this is related to what we should do now.

    A few years ago, the result may have been different when different vehicles could be ordered, different holes bored, etc.

  9. #9

    Default

    ^ Yes, HRT could be the right choice if taken from the onset.

    Now the LRT-based construction has started, and it would be too risky to switch to another vehicle type. LRT has both pros and cons, but we'll have to mitigate the issue (capacity limit) by building additional lines in future.

  10. Default

    I voted Other.

    If it were being built completely grade separated I'd say HRT.

    If we have part of it in a median somewhere you'd have to use LRT.

    Of course having it run in the median anywhere is suboptimal, but if the funds are limited you do what you have to do.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •