WislaHD
Superstar
As was streetcar tunnel vs. subway for a long time, I believe.
|
|
|
kEiThZ
Superstar
Everyone should remember that the last plan for the LRT terminated at Sheppard. They didn't even bother going to Malvern Town Centre. I said then and I'll say it now. If I'm getting on a bus anyway, then I'd rather have the subway and have one less transfer. Now if they'll bring back the full LRT plan (SLRT to Malvern, SELRT to Meadowvale) we'll talk....
Honest question here: What would be the cost of having Bombardier produce custom train sets for the SRT, so that no guideway modifications are required (ie: the Ellesmere tunnel)? Is that extra cost of creating custom vehicles > buying "off the shelf" Mark IIs or Mark IIIs and modifying the guideway to suit them? Bombardier owns the technology, after all.
I mean, the Toronto Rockets were a pretty custom job too. Creating an updated Toronto/GTA-specific ICTS train may open it up again as an option for other RT lines. I'm thinking the Kipling corridor in particular.
I mean, the Toronto Rockets were a pretty custom job too. Creating an updated Toronto/GTA-specific ICTS train may open it up again as an option for other RT lines. I'm thinking the Kipling corridor in particular.
coffey1
Active Member
Really? Please tell me more. There were no heated debates by Poltiicians on the heavy financial waste, technology & route?
The University Subway and the Spadina Subway were two completely different projects. The University Subway was really a coordinated project with the Bloor-Danforth Subway, to (stop me if there's a common theme here) reduce future pressure on Bloor-Yonge. Part of that was the interlining program.
Yes, the Spadina Subway was absolutely political, since the original alignment was west towards the Ex and then up Dufferin, but the University Subway was not.
sixrings
Senior Member
Sadly rob fords interlining makes more sense than this one stop plan. Wish we could revert and make eglinton east grade seperated.
nfitz
Superstar
That was what TTC approved in 2006. Using shorter modified Mark IIa's instead of Mark II.
At the time, the cost was assumed to be about the same for a 12-metre long Mark IIa as Vancouver's 17-metre long Mark IIs. So about a 40% premium. But not a particularly large fleet.
Though I don't know why the focus on the Ellesmere tunnel. There would only be minor alignment changes to use Mark II vehicles - it's the Kennedy station curve that can't handle, nor be easily modified for Mark IIs.
Ellesmere needs major modifications for LRT - not Mark II SRT.
Not sure why you'd use ICTS on any completely new route, rather than LRT.
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
You're proposing a social psych experiment here, right? Route it through the industrial wasteland between Kipling station and Sherway Gardens? See how long it takes for the locals to develop a chip on their shoulder that only more subway construction can remove?
I can see the merits of ICTS from Kipling Station to the airport. I could also see the merits of ICTS as an elevated line along Eglinton from Mount Dennis to the airport, on the premise that a transfer at Mount Dennis is OK if we intend to keep it as a transit hub (Its role as such loses a little once you assume Crosstown West is to be built). I'm having a little more trouble seeing it as useful on the longer north-south Kipling route, where an at grade standard LRT is doable and somewhat cheaper.
- Paul
Oh ok, I wasn't aware that's what a Mark IIa actually was. 40% premium isn't that bad then, especially when you compare that vs a total rebuild of the line to support LRT, or even worse, a 1 stop subway extension.
And yes, Kennedy Station is also an issue, although I would hope that the modifications for the SRT part could be made at the same time as truly integrating the GO platform into the station, since RER will drastically alter the flow patterns at Kennedy compared to present.
Not saying that it should be used, but right now it's kind of discounted immediately. Having updated vehicles that would work with TTC equipment would at least eliminate ICTS from consideration for reasons other than vehicles.
Haha, no, just throwing out an alternative. By Kipling corridor I meant N-S, not towards Sherway. The route I was contemplating would use the Kipling hydro corridor, connect to Renforth Gateway, replace the existing People Mover at Pearson, and terminate at Malton GO. The line would be free for anybody just going between terminals, but a TTC fare would be charged on exit at any station not at Pearson.
crs1026
Superstar
If we had built that route in the eighties, when it was first proposed, we would have never gone down the UPX route, and we'd have quite valuable transit to the airport employment areas. And perhaps we wouldn't have the we-they problems that we have today.
I hate the SRT, and if we had built both I suspect it would be a case of misery having company.... and we'd be debating how to replace two aging and inferior quality lines, instead of one.
Anyways, it's a very good route, one that deserves to be brought back to the table as an alternative to Crosstown West (where a busway really might suffice). In the interim, BC has perfected Skytrain, so the things that make SRT unpleasant can be avoided.
- Paul
dowlingm
Senior Member
Doesn't Soberman propose that every so often?
sixrings
Senior Member
44 North
Senior Member
Great question, great discussion, shows how dynamic transit planing can be, and I believe Nfitz has pointed to the right data that answers much of this.
Specific to the size/dimension of Mk1 and whether it can be reproduced (with or w/out LIM)...I think a lot of that depends on who you ask. The City says no (and IIRC even from last week's transit powwow Keesmaat was asked a similar question, with the answer being 'no, the trains and their parts are not made anymore, case closed'). I don't want to quote Michael Schabas since I generally don't care much for his expert opinions, but in the past he said otherwise. And that trains can be reproduced and made-to-order by manufacturers upon request - which is a common practice worldwide. I tend to agree with this, since it seems logical.
I don't think we should use LIM or hardcore proprietary components. But rebuilding trains with Mk1's dimensions and standard 3rd rail seems like something many companies would bid on if given the opportunity. And yes it would open a political can of worms if we decided to explore this option. But I think it really should've been shortlisted when we had the chance. Standard LRT used for TC is great too, since it allows for future in-median sections or sharing of parts/shops. But there's obviously drawbacks when used for something like the SRT, or on a fully grade-separated line. Costly vehicles, heavier vehicles, costly conversion of infrastructure, low floor (which in an of itself may give the appearance of less-rapid / non-subway like service), lower capacity...etc.
But no doubt the concept is great, and Ontario was fairly smart when it designed these medium-capacity vehicles as a solution for subways and RER-like commuter rail.
Exactly. And there were affordable options to allow for this Laird-Kennedy grade-separation. But this was doomed to fail since all the per km costing was done for underground-only.
There are a few subway projects I'd question, but if the option of TYSSE or YNSE was presented with no stations between Downsview-VMC or Finch-RHC - I'd obviously support the addition of stations. It's absurd to bypass so many people and such busy corridors. This new station-less SSE leads me to believe that it's purposefully being pushed so that it will fail. Obviously we'll demand a Lawrence station. But if it's included, then concluded the project is now too expensive and unbuildable, then we'll be right back to square one. Which is perhaps the hoped-for endgame?
nfitz
Superstar
You're not going to get main-line trains down the subway tunnel under Eglinton, and you're not going to get LRT vehicles running on the Kitchener GO line.
If you go to all the expense of running LRT alongside the heavy-rail track, why not instead just run it down Eglinton to Renforth station and up to the airport that way - as originally proposed?
CodeMonkey
Active Member
Modifying the stations and tunnels for the Mark II/III cars would have been quicker in the long run than converting the line to an LRT or the subway option, but what sold the city at the time was the fact the LRT option would be covered by the Province, not the city, so it was a no brainier.