Second_in_pie
Senior Member
I still don't understand it though. Why is Metrolinx pushing for ART when subway would be better suited for the route? It would require the same ROWs subway would, but Eglinton doesn't need the service frequency that requires ART, it just needs to be able to handle crush loads, which bigger subway cars and longer trains do better than ART.
I can think of only two reasons why they'd want it:
First of all, Miller&Friends have rather successfully established subway as holy ground that we are no longer worthy to tread on. ART would ease the blow, pretty much just because it's not called subway.
The second (and bigger) reason is that they're trying everything to save the SRT. Now this is a more serious offense that I'm pretty sure goes against much of what Metrolinx stands for. Stopping a subway 4 kilometers short of a major urban centre and growth node, and switching to another technology that's been crippled by the City's cowardice in the face of the Unions, as well as being showed to be severely hindered in certain weather. Not the best thing to do for an agency trying to promote transit, and manage connectivity and keep the municipalities in line when they're making a stupid mistake regarding transit.
So let's look at the facts; ART is still basically an orphan technology in Toronto. Put that on top of that the fact that the ART system that we have has to be replaced soon, and is an illogically placed line that was only created to test a new technology. ART is best suited to operate lighter loads but at significantly higher frequencies than subway. This results in an eventual lower capacity than subway, but it's useful in places that need high frequencies, such as Airports. The Detroit People mover is an excellent example because it needs to be fast and maintain very low headways due to the design of the people mover in question.
Also is the fact that ART's biggest pro is totally negated by the Unions. They would never allow driverless trains, and if the system continues to run like the SRT, the low headways that are the crown of ART is essentially nothing. The line is basically a lower-capacity subway, which has a higher capital cost for the cars (and I would assume system as well, but I'm not sure)
Finally, Eglinton is probably the worst place to put ART in the entire TTC network. It won't really need high frequencies, nor would it particularly require fast acceleration. It could at least be useful on Yonge (where high frequency and high acceleration would be really useful in the core,) or at least B-D, where high frequencies would assist the relatively large amount of walk-in traffic it seems to get. Eglinton just needs to be able to withstand the crush loads that our current bus>subway system provides, which can easily be maintained by traditional Subway. ART is currently an orphan technology, and we really have no need for it; why keep it when now is a perfect time to get rid of it?
Or maybe suggesting ART is a clever trick by Metrolinx:
"Can we pleeeeaseee have ART on Eglinton?"
"Ok, fine."
"Hahaha! What happened to street level LRTs being the right choice? ART is fine, yet when a subway would provide the exact same service, you immediately say no? Seems like someone just doesn't want the word "new subway" uttered in this city"
"Umm.... subway is obviously going to be several times as expensive as ART is. I mean c'mon! Nobody in Europe is building ART, it's obviously not hallowed enough to be expensive. Subway, on the other hand. That's being built all over Europe, it must be much too expensive for us"
EDIT: rbt, aren't the trains above ground on Eglinton limited in size? I'm pretty sure that overly long trains create a lot of issues when stopping at above ground stations, as well as at level crossings.
DOUBLE EDIT: Also, you mentioned the "small percentage of people going the entire way." Assuming the travel times aren't so horrendous that barely anyone in their right mind would take the LRT to Pearson, do you know how much of a demand there would be for a subway line there? First of all, there will be a lot of people wanting to go to Pearson on Eglinton. This leads to the second point, which is that a lot of people will have a strong disincentive to travel on Eglinton to Pearson due to the slow service it will provide outside the underground portion. If everyone wanting to get to Pearson by Eglinton actually took it, those 90m trains running every 5 mins might not actually be enough in the end. Of course, it's full potential wouldn't be realized with LRT, because it will be much too slow for most people, who would probably end up paying the premium for Blue22 (if they MUST take transit,) or probably just drive instead.
I can think of only two reasons why they'd want it:
First of all, Miller&Friends have rather successfully established subway as holy ground that we are no longer worthy to tread on. ART would ease the blow, pretty much just because it's not called subway.
The second (and bigger) reason is that they're trying everything to save the SRT. Now this is a more serious offense that I'm pretty sure goes against much of what Metrolinx stands for. Stopping a subway 4 kilometers short of a major urban centre and growth node, and switching to another technology that's been crippled by the City's cowardice in the face of the Unions, as well as being showed to be severely hindered in certain weather. Not the best thing to do for an agency trying to promote transit, and manage connectivity and keep the municipalities in line when they're making a stupid mistake regarding transit.
So let's look at the facts; ART is still basically an orphan technology in Toronto. Put that on top of that the fact that the ART system that we have has to be replaced soon, and is an illogically placed line that was only created to test a new technology. ART is best suited to operate lighter loads but at significantly higher frequencies than subway. This results in an eventual lower capacity than subway, but it's useful in places that need high frequencies, such as Airports. The Detroit People mover is an excellent example because it needs to be fast and maintain very low headways due to the design of the people mover in question.
Also is the fact that ART's biggest pro is totally negated by the Unions. They would never allow driverless trains, and if the system continues to run like the SRT, the low headways that are the crown of ART is essentially nothing. The line is basically a lower-capacity subway, which has a higher capital cost for the cars (and I would assume system as well, but I'm not sure)
Finally, Eglinton is probably the worst place to put ART in the entire TTC network. It won't really need high frequencies, nor would it particularly require fast acceleration. It could at least be useful on Yonge (where high frequency and high acceleration would be really useful in the core,) or at least B-D, where high frequencies would assist the relatively large amount of walk-in traffic it seems to get. Eglinton just needs to be able to withstand the crush loads that our current bus>subway system provides, which can easily be maintained by traditional Subway. ART is currently an orphan technology, and we really have no need for it; why keep it when now is a perfect time to get rid of it?
Or maybe suggesting ART is a clever trick by Metrolinx:
"Can we pleeeeaseee have ART on Eglinton?"
"Ok, fine."
"Hahaha! What happened to street level LRTs being the right choice? ART is fine, yet when a subway would provide the exact same service, you immediately say no? Seems like someone just doesn't want the word "new subway" uttered in this city"
"Umm.... subway is obviously going to be several times as expensive as ART is. I mean c'mon! Nobody in Europe is building ART, it's obviously not hallowed enough to be expensive. Subway, on the other hand. That's being built all over Europe, it must be much too expensive for us"
EDIT: rbt, aren't the trains above ground on Eglinton limited in size? I'm pretty sure that overly long trains create a lot of issues when stopping at above ground stations, as well as at level crossings.
DOUBLE EDIT: Also, you mentioned the "small percentage of people going the entire way." Assuming the travel times aren't so horrendous that barely anyone in their right mind would take the LRT to Pearson, do you know how much of a demand there would be for a subway line there? First of all, there will be a lot of people wanting to go to Pearson on Eglinton. This leads to the second point, which is that a lot of people will have a strong disincentive to travel on Eglinton to Pearson due to the slow service it will provide outside the underground portion. If everyone wanting to get to Pearson by Eglinton actually took it, those 90m trains running every 5 mins might not actually be enough in the end. Of course, it's full potential wouldn't be realized with LRT, because it will be much too slow for most people, who would probably end up paying the premium for Blue22 (if they MUST take transit,) or probably just drive instead.
Last edited: