dowlingm
Senior Member
Got another $2bn jingling in your pockets?
|
|
|
Hopkins123
Senior Member
Some things are more worthwhile than obsessing over every last penny something costs.
One stop is not enough. If we forego putting TTC transit in the Stoufville GO corridor (because I think SmartTrack will suffer a quiet, uneventful demise), then the need for additional subway stops becomes all the more salient. Finch East is the busiest bus corridor in the city, so taking the line a few kilometres further north would be a worthwhile endeavour.
And there's opportunity for TOD at the Danforth, Lawrence, Sheppard and Huntingwood stop locations, in addition to Scarborough Centre. A north-south rapid transit spine through Scarborough takes many passengers away from feeding into the Yonge Line, as such we're not overloading the system.
Thus I think if we present the evidence correctly, Toronto could convince the Feds to invest more.
dowlingm
Senior Member
Which is an acceptable point of view if you don't take opportunity cost into account. There are high priority asks for the $2bn, and for the $3bn too - especially since the $3bn already triggers otherwise deferrable costs not included in the SSE headline number, such as resignalling, a new fleet and a new yard.
syn
Senior Member
Which suburban centres?
Warden Station opened nearly 50 years ago.
Kipling and Kennedy opened 36 years ago.
Why haven't these areas developed beyond anything more than suburban nodes in the many decades since these subways opened?
The Network 2011 plan was based on suburban growth projections that never materialized. Most of the growth continued to happen in the downtown core. Even after building the Sheppard Subway line, that corridor still hasn't seen anywhere near the kind of growth they were hoping for.,
A few well placed LRT lines would be a lot more beneficial for growth in Scarborough than a 6km, one-stop vanity subway that offers less coverage than the current RT.
I guess all we can hope for now is that the city comes to it's senses or the entire thing is built above ground.
Rainforest
Senior Member
I wouldn't be very surprised if the Sheppard station comes back, as a result of vote-shopping during the next provincial elections. That would be a relatively affordable way to appeal to the constituents living north of 401. The extra cost would be in the range of $700 million; the province could pony up $350 million and coerce the city into paying the other half.
I believe that the Sheppard station would make a lot of sense from the network perspective, even if vote-shopping is the immediate motivation for its comeback. Buses coming from the north, and from the north-east / Malvern, would not need to take the busy 401 bridges / underpasses to reach the subway terminus.
Although I'd be happy to see the Lawrence East and Brimley / Eglinton stations built, that's not likely to happen. John Tory is content with connecting the Lawrence East corridor to the SmartTrack / RER station, and serving the Brimley / Eglinton area with the Eglinton East LRT. And, there isn't enough local interest to make those stations an election issue.
Regarding the extension from Sheppard to Finch, I don't think it can be built, or even should be built. That section would cost an extra billion or so, for a very low ridership volume, likely no more than 2,000 or 2,500 riders per hour in the peak direction. Finch East may be a very busy bus corridor, but most of the trips in that corridor start and end well west of McCowan. For those relatively few riders who will want to transfer from the Finch East route to Scarborough Subway, it would be much cheaper to send either the buses or the Finch East LRT line down McCowan to the Sheppard terminus.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
The cost of extending Line 2 north if 401 to sheppard has actually escalated quite a bit. I don't remember how much, but the cost was quite insane. Definitely more than $700 Million.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
LRT is not just about ROW.
It should have subway-like spacing, TOTAL priority at all intersections meaning railway crossing barriers and not just some coordinated lights that still have to stop for crossing traffic and left-hand turns. It means speed limits above the current 50/60 along arterial routes, make us of existing rail/hydro ROW, and not using it as a replacement for a local bus but then expect it to go any faster.
This is all what led to the demise and unpopularity of TC. Toronto's TC was not designed as rapid transit but rather for improved transit. Toronto already has great local service it's the rapid transit that it sorely lacks. It's called the need for speed. People want to get from A to B as fast as humanely possible. People don't take connecting transit to a subway so they can take in the lovely underground scenery, smell the armpit of the person beside them who hasn't bathed in 2 weeks, or because they know they will get a seat in an uncrowded train. They go out of their way to take a subway because it is fast and reliable.
People can rightfully blame Ford for TC's demise but the reality is that it was never particularly popular because it was completely disjointed and would be no faster than a bus in it's own lane. People wanted rapid transit and TC doesn't fit the bill by the way it was designed.
It should have subway-like spacing, TOTAL priority at all intersections meaning railway crossing barriers and not just some coordinated lights that still have to stop for crossing traffic and left-hand turns. It means speed limits above the current 50/60 along arterial routes, make us of existing rail/hydro ROW, and not using it as a replacement for a local bus but then expect it to go any faster.
This is all what led to the demise and unpopularity of TC. Toronto's TC was not designed as rapid transit but rather for improved transit. Toronto already has great local service it's the rapid transit that it sorely lacks. It's called the need for speed. People want to get from A to B as fast as humanely possible. People don't take connecting transit to a subway so they can take in the lovely underground scenery, smell the armpit of the person beside them who hasn't bathed in 2 weeks, or because they know they will get a seat in an uncrowded train. They go out of their way to take a subway because it is fast and reliable.
People can rightfully blame Ford for TC's demise but the reality is that it was never particularly popular because it was completely disjointed and would be no faster than a bus in it's own lane. People wanted rapid transit and TC doesn't fit the bill by the way it was designed.
RyLucky
Active Member
ssiguy, I'm not sure what you are saying, but what I think you intended to say is: "ROW alone does not make LRT rapid. Station spacing is also important. Transit City failed to emphasize travel speed because stations were too close together. LRT is no better than BRT."
Perhaps what's more important than whether something is considered "LRT" or "Subway" are metrics like passenger-kilometres (or passenger miles), ridership, headways, capital costs, etc., because these tell us how well a system is providing access, connecting citizens to opportunities and each other, unlocking land values, reducing congestion, and providing happiness (whatever that is) to citizens and visitors. Isn't that the point of rapid transit anyway? Speaking of "rapid", this is another tricky term to define. Typically, if we build our systems assuming people will walk up to a certain distance (say, 800m), then logically we often say we get the most value spacing stations at 1.5-1.6 km. It is these station spacings with a separated ROW that limits travel speed - not technology!
Want a system that is truly "rapid", space stations far enough apart to achieve those 80-100 km/h top speeds. Of course, this highly limits accessibility and you are going to build more track to serve fewer people. I agree with ssiguy that an EXPRESS subway or LRT route with 4-5 km spacing would be useful in the GTA. However, there is an economic theory of transit that first a region needs to provide network access. I think Eglington should have had stoptrein and sneltrein - 4 tracks. By the way, the Crosstown LRT is about the same distance as Den Hague to Rotterdam with about the same population density, so why didn't we copy what worked for them?
What about ridership limitations? Is it true that "heavy rail" (i.e. Metro or Subway) can carry more people than LRT? The limiting factors, again, are nothing inherent to the technology, but rather the ease of loading/unloading, station length, car configuration, etc.
The kind of rolling stock makes a difference, but mainly because of the limitations regarding what each can handle with regards to grade changes. LRVs can handle unlimited 6-7% grades, which makes them versatile in hilly locations and in locations where it is useful to switch from below-grade to grade to above-grade. This can be very useful when we are trying to achieve a flat station immediately before a steep climb, and might save us millions of dollars of digging or give us more choices. Toronto's Subway has a 1,495 mm gauge; Montreal's Metro, Vancouver's Skytrain, and Calgary's C-train has 1,435 mm gauge; so there is really no difference in ultimate capacity so long as stations can be extended, cars connected and reconfigured, and equivalent headways achieved. Again, it is the other features such as automation, grade separation, weather, and station length that limits headways and capacity; not necessarily the rolling stock technology.
When it comes to rolling stock, it's not the weight that counts (HRT, LRT), it's how you use it.
Perhaps what's more important than whether something is considered "LRT" or "Subway" are metrics like passenger-kilometres (or passenger miles), ridership, headways, capital costs, etc., because these tell us how well a system is providing access, connecting citizens to opportunities and each other, unlocking land values, reducing congestion, and providing happiness (whatever that is) to citizens and visitors. Isn't that the point of rapid transit anyway? Speaking of "rapid", this is another tricky term to define. Typically, if we build our systems assuming people will walk up to a certain distance (say, 800m), then logically we often say we get the most value spacing stations at 1.5-1.6 km. It is these station spacings with a separated ROW that limits travel speed - not technology!
Want a system that is truly "rapid", space stations far enough apart to achieve those 80-100 km/h top speeds. Of course, this highly limits accessibility and you are going to build more track to serve fewer people. I agree with ssiguy that an EXPRESS subway or LRT route with 4-5 km spacing would be useful in the GTA. However, there is an economic theory of transit that first a region needs to provide network access. I think Eglington should have had stoptrein and sneltrein - 4 tracks. By the way, the Crosstown LRT is about the same distance as Den Hague to Rotterdam with about the same population density, so why didn't we copy what worked for them?
What about ridership limitations? Is it true that "heavy rail" (i.e. Metro or Subway) can carry more people than LRT? The limiting factors, again, are nothing inherent to the technology, but rather the ease of loading/unloading, station length, car configuration, etc.
The kind of rolling stock makes a difference, but mainly because of the limitations regarding what each can handle with regards to grade changes. LRVs can handle unlimited 6-7% grades, which makes them versatile in hilly locations and in locations where it is useful to switch from below-grade to grade to above-grade. This can be very useful when we are trying to achieve a flat station immediately before a steep climb, and might save us millions of dollars of digging or give us more choices. Toronto's Subway has a 1,495 mm gauge; Montreal's Metro, Vancouver's Skytrain, and Calgary's C-train has 1,435 mm gauge; so there is really no difference in ultimate capacity so long as stations can be extended, cars connected and reconfigured, and equivalent headways achieved. Again, it is the other features such as automation, grade separation, weather, and station length that limits headways and capacity; not necessarily the rolling stock technology.
When it comes to rolling stock, it's not the weight that counts (HRT, LRT), it's how you use it.
smallspy
Senior Member
Want a system that is truly "rapid", space stations far enough apart to achieve those 80-100 km/h top speeds.
The subway doesn't reach those kinds of speeds except in only one or two locations on the system. The SRT doesn't achieve those speeds at all anymore. Does that mean that neither of those are "rapid transit"?
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
44 North
Senior Member
Toronto's Subway has a 1,495 mm gauge; Montreal's Metro, Vancouver's Skytrain, and Calgary's C-train has 1,435 mm gauge; so there is really no difference in ultimate capacity so long as stations can be extended, cars connected and reconfigured, and equivalent headways achieved. Again, it is the other features such as automation, grade separation, weather, and station length that limits headways and capacity; not necessarily the rolling stock technology.
I don't think gauge is a good way of gauging capacity. Toronto's subway gauge might be 60mm wider vs Montreal or Vancouver, but the floor width is 3.14m (10ft 4in). Compare that with Montreal (2.51m, 8ft 3in) or Vancouver/SRT (2.5m). So what if the wheels are two inches further apart when the passenger area is wider by over two feet. Though newer trains in Vancouver and Montreal have gotten niftier in that they've compensated the smaller floor width by having the car body curve outwards in a convex shape toward the roof.
To add to your post, a fundamental difference between standard LRVs and metro vehicles like our subway and ICTS is collision requirements (or I guess when it comes to procuring from BBD that'd be collusion requirements). An LRV is designed and overbuilt to be driven in roadways and to take hits from cars and trucks. Metro vehicles aren't really, and can get away with with lighter weight designs/materials. A bonus is that it can improve efficiency (e.g higher acceleration, less energy consumption). This is one of the reasons it was a headscratcher to replace the ICTS with LRVs. Ppl will prattle on endlessly about how fiscally wise it was to run Flexity Freedoms on a rebuilt SRT. But it wasn't at all. If we're going to spend $Billions tearing down the entire thing and rebuild every station (when we could've simply bought newer light metro rolling stock), we may as well extend the subway.
RyLucky
Active Member
That's my point: whether something is LRT or subway doesn't effect its speed. Both can be rapid transit with adequate station spacing. The semantics of what "rapid" means doesn't matter as much as real metrics, and if you really want something to provide truly fast speeds, you'll need what we might call "express" with 4.5-5 km spacing.
Nice work on the bolded part. Also, I agree. I'd even go further and say that width alone isn't enough to gauge capacity. Adding more cars, reconfiguring seats, orienting stations around doors, and making platforms more accessible all add to capacity. For instance, compare line 1 to line 2. Same gauge, but Yonge has way more capacity.
Are you saying that metro rolling stock is lighter than LIGHTrail transit vehicles? Who knows what technology will come along, but what ever is lightest, safest, with the largest capacity, most accessible, can reliably climb the steepest grades, and is versatile enough to function below, above, and above grade (if track were to be extended) - THAT is what we should be investing in.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Subways are not as fast as people imagine.
Most of Line 2, the trains rarely go faster than about 40 km/k. Average speeds are less than 30 km/h.
Line 4, which is totally straight and has wide stop spacing, also has average speeds of less than 30 km/h.
The average speeds of the downtown YUS are even slower; perhaps slower than in-median light rail transit.
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Removing stops to allow for faster trains won't necessarily lead to faster trip times, because of two factors
Loading (dwell) times: Say you remove half the stations on the line. Each of the remainding stations will now have twice as many passengers boarding, and twice the dwell time in station. (Example is a simplification)
Bus travel time: Increase stop spacing from 1 km to 2 km, and speeds on the train might increase from 40 km/h to 60 km/h. But people now need to spend another 15 minutes walking or 5 minutes on the bus to get to the station. You've now made total trip times longer by removing stations.
44 North
Senior Member
Exactly, width is just one way of bumping capacity. I try to be a proponent of smaller, shorter subway trains and it's interesting to follow what other systems have done elsewhere or what we're doing here. With London's DLR and Vancouver's system they've rearranged seats and are moving towards open gangway vehicles similar to Line 1. But with Yonge, much of the 'added capacity' won't make much difference since some of the busiest stations are small and disjointed. "Yay, we squeezed more people in but created a catastrophe in-the-making. Kudos to us". So yeah I think a lot of the expectations of capacity are theoretical or only work on paper.
And another point related to the SRT replacement plan is capacity per metre of car length. A Flexity Freedom might create 'more capacity' over an upgrade in rolling stock, but I think people can get away with saying that only because the vehicles are longer than a simple vehicle replacement option. I believe because of things like an open gangway (which isn't achievable with a consist of standard LRVs) that we could get more ppl per metre length on something like an MkIII.
I'm not certain about that, and wouldn't mind more info. But I believe (per metre length) that a standard LRV would weigh in heavier than, say, a Toronto Rocket. But really both systems are great, and I support both. And a bonus of standard LRVs: we can extend the line in median if we choose to. Can't do that with a subway.
K, I think I did the (somewhat accurate) math to see the weight of our "heavy rail" and "light rail" vehicles. I used the length and width to get the area, then divided that into vehicle weight. Couldn't find the Flexity Freedom weight tho.
CLRVs are 38.6 square metres and 22,685kg (588kg/sq m)
Outlooks are 76.7m2 and 48,200kg (628kg/sq m)
T1s are 72.22m2 and 33,095kg (458kg/sq m)
TRs are 72.8m2 and 34,167kg (469kg/sq m)
I guess the takeaway is that the "light" vehicles are actually heavier than the "heavy" vehicles. This isn't a surprise seeing that 'light' tends to refer to the level of infrastructure used on the line, and not the actual vehicle weight.
Last edited:
RyLucky
Active Member
When it comes to weight, what might be more useful is their maximum inclines.
I forget the specs on the TTC Subway, but LRVs can climb 10% slopes, and 6% slopes indefinitely. That gives a lot of flexibility around restraints for longer level platforms and easier ascension to at-grade or above grade.
I forget the specs on the TTC Subway, but LRVs can climb 10% slopes, and 6% slopes indefinitely. That gives a lot of flexibility around restraints for longer level platforms and easier ascension to at-grade or above grade.