News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 2.4K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 616     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 1.2K     1 

B.C. Unveils Huge Transit Plan

I wonder if something like Vancouver's Canada line system would be worthwhile in Toronto. The cost to the taxpayer was, what, 79m/km? That is absurd! We are going to be paying the same price for glorified streetcars along Sheppard. I guess it isn't as high capacity as the full blown six wide body car subways Toronto uses, but I can't help but feel that it is still a much better deal at less than 20% of the per/km cost of the Spadina extension. Instead of building the DRL as uber-subway, build it like this. Crowding could be ameliorated by building relief lines for the relief line. Given how much cheaper the Canada line is than anything that happens here, we could almost afford a Queen subway AND a rail corridor subway.
 
No complaints from me. Besides, I am sceptical of the argument that the somewhat smaller physical profile of the CL versus the Toronto subway standard really makes that much difference. At the end of the day you are still tunneling and excavating large underground structures. How much of a gap could our wider trains and longer platforms really account for?

I agree, also, that our trains are ridiculously wide. If Berlin, Madrid, and Paris can get by with vehicle envelopes 1/3 smaller, surely we can too.
 
Actually Canada Line trains are a full 3.0m wide (they're not linear induction MKIIs and are made by Rotem (Hyundai), not Bombardier).
It's the train length - at 42m (about 2 TTC subway cars) (with platforms maxing out at 50m for insertion of a middle car) that reduces the station and tunnel construction cost. It impacts tunnel costs because you don't need as long a straight flat section of track for the station - so the tunnel could be cut & cover and can follow the contours of the geography. Longer platforms would probably have required a bored tunnel and deeper station excavations.
Ultimate build-out capacity on the Canada Line (full 50m platforms) is only 15,000 ppdph. Skytrain (with 80m platforms and narrower trains) has a higher ultimate capacity (close to 25-30,000 ppdph) because of its longer trains.
 
Last edited:
allabootmatt said:
No complaints from me. Besides, I am sceptical of the argument that the somewhat smaller physical profile of the CL versus the Toronto subway standard really makes that much difference. At the end of the day you are still tunneling and excavating large underground structures. How much of a gap could our wider trains and longer platforms really account for?

I agree, also, that our trains are ridiculously wide. If Berlin, Madrid, and Paris can get by with vehicle envelopes 1/3 smaller, surely we can too.
Click to expand...

The CL stations are only 1/3 the length of a toronto subway station, and are narrower as well. Underground stations on a transit line are a large chunk of the lines construction cost, so I would say it does make a significant difference in cost. Much if the underground track on the CL was built using the cheaper Cut and Cover method, that also allowed for shallower stations.


The cost of the CL was not as low as some seem to think, It was more than $100 million per KM, including the cost that the private sector was paid to keep out of government books, but still needs to be paid for.
 
Info on the new MKII SkyTrain cars (for the Expo Line and Millennium Line) from TransLink's blog.
It includes a video with all of the announcement messages.

http://buzzer.translink.ca/index.php/2009/05/improved-interiors-for-the-new-skytrain-cars/

If the SRT is renovated, I would expect the SRT MKIIs to resemble these updated MKIIs (better than a low floor LRV?)

One seat on one side, two seats on the other side, grab bar the length of the car.
img_0080.jpg


LED route maps:
img_0123.jpg


img_0088.jpg
 
Last edited:
^ probably because the ART trains will only run on the Expo and Millennium lines. The station dots on the map look like they will light up, like those on HK's MTR and a few of the NY subway lines, so it's reasonable that the map only shows the two lines that the trains are actually running on. Notice that West Coast Express (usually considered "rapid transit" in other TransLink maps) is also not included.
 
Yeah, that's what we figure, too.
Since these trains will come into service a few months before the Canada Line does it would be confusing to show a transfer before the line comes into service - a new overlay showing the Canada Line (as a transfer point or as an unlit line) will be installed when the Canada Line comes into service.
 
God, what I wouldn't kill to replace the TTC with TransLink.
 
Mark II

Looking at the interiors of the new Mark IIs for Vancouver....

I quite like them.

Particularly:

The pothole/recessed lighting adds some real warmth and class.

I really prefer the perpendicular, front-facing style seating, reminds me of real trains. (Bench seats seem so cattle-car'ish)

I also notice the seats are padded. Hello TTC, cush for the tush! :D
 
Northern Light said:
Looking at the interiors of the new Mark IIs for Vancouver....

I quite like them.

Particularly:

The pothole/recessed lighting adds some real warmth and class.

I really prefer the perpendicular, front-facing style seating, reminds me of real trains. (Bench seats seem so cattle-car'ish)

I also notice the seats are padded. Hello TTC, cush for the tush! :D
Click to expand...

Got to say those colours are pretty ugly, hopefully that's not the final version ...

Front facing seats suck, period. They're fine if you're alone but I love the TTC seating we have now, a lot better when you want to talk with someone.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top