Metrolinx: Sheppard East LRT (In Design)

[DaveFlavanoid]

Thanks for posting those maps, they are incredibly interesting!

I love how what was essentially identified as transit corridors (Eglinton and Finch) in 1976, took 40 years to get underway.

 

[44 North]

Yeah, they're pretty cool to look at. But it's worth noting that even though Eglinton and Finch were ID'd to have light/intermediate rail, they were to be 100% grade-separated and run just like our subway system. What was envisioned in the 70s was much closer to subways than in-median Transit City. And also Finch was to use the hydro corridor instead of Finch proper. So like what Filip said, there has been quite a downgrade compared to past plans.

 

[andrewpmk]

Thanks for posting those maps, they are incredibly interesting!

I love how what was essentially identified as transit corridors (Eglinton and Finch) in 1976, took 40 years to get underway.

In 1976, ICTS was the fad. Now, LRT is the fad. Nothing really seems to have changed very much. We make far too many of our transportation decisions based on which technology is considered the fad right now. Miller insists on ignoring all alternatives to the LRT fad even though other cities (e.g. Vancouver) have built much better alternatives like elevated subway. No one at the province or Metrolinx was willing to force Miller to change his LRT plan to above ground subways. We would have been far better off doing that because Ford would have never been elected.

We probably would have been better off with a modern automated subway system similar to ICTS on Eglinton and maybe the Finch hydro corridor. The capacity is a lot higher than LRT and it doesn't require human drivers and it doesn't go on strike. The first generation ICTS technology was garbage, but newer generation automated subways are a lot better.

It is sort of ridiculous how similar those maps look to the transit maps of today. Maybe if all the lines on this map had been built in 1976 (including GO electrification in the case of the GO lines) then Toronto wouldn't have the horrendous traffic problems it does today. The Sheppard subway and the Barrie GO line are conspicuously missing from the 1976 map. Also no sign of a Downtown Relief Line/Don Mills subway on the map.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

LRT is a very versatile technology. It can easily be made to handle much greater capacity - we do not have to revert to subways.

The under construction Blue Line in Lagos is using LRT technology and is expected to handle 850,000 daily passengers in 2030. (link)

We merely decide not to build high capacity LRTs, just like we decide not to use LRT vehicles with convertable pantographs that can operate in the Sheppard tunnel.

 

[Filip]

LRT is a very versatile technology. It can easily be made to handle much greater capacity - we do not have to revert to subways.

The under construction Blue Line in Lagos is using LRT technology and is expected to handle 850,000 daily passengers in 2030. (link)

We merely decide not to build high capacity LRTs, just like we decide not to use LRT vehicles with convertable pantographs that can operate in the Sheppard tunnel.

LOL - funny enough their rolling stock is our old subway cars.

That's how I envision LRT - major purpose-built stations (not streetcar platforms in the median), high level boarding, etc.. That's acceptable, not this streetcar with hundreds of annoying little 'streetcar' stops running down Finch, Sheppard, etc.

Let's call a spade a spade, we are not getting LRT guys, we're getting an underground streetcar on Eglinton and another streetcar on Finch (with less stops, but same idea).

 

[BurlOak]

LRT is like a Thnead - it can do anything.

 

[wopchop]

Let's call a spade a spade, we are not getting LRT guys, we're getting an underground streetcar on Eglinton and another streetcar on Finch (with less stops, but same idea).

Huh? The Eglinton tunnel has stop spacing that is comparable to the subway network.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Let's call a spade a spade, we are not getting LRT guys, we're getting an underground streetcar on Eglinton and another streetcar on Finch (with less stops, but same idea).

Now now, the underground LRT on Eglinton may as well be a lower-capacity subway.

 

[ehlow]

From what I've read, Manila runs light rail vehicles fully grade separated with 4-car trains. At that point it's indistinguishable from what most call a subway or metro.

LOL - funny enough their rolling stock is our old subway cars.

That's how I envision LRT - major purpose-built stations (not streetcar platforms in the median), high level boarding, etc.. That's acceptable, not this streetcar with hundreds of annoying little 'streetcar' stops running down Finch, Sheppard, etc.

Let's call a spade a spade, we are not getting LRT guys, we're getting an underground streetcar on Eglinton and another streetcar on Finch (with less stops, but same idea).

Sure, let's call it an underground streetcar. I love underground streetcars. I rode a Flexity low floor streetcar (similar to our new streetcars) through the underground tunnel in Brussels and it was great. SF & Boston have underground streetcars, but they'd be nicer if they were low-floor vehicles for level boarding.

 

[ehlow]

Now now, the underground LRT on Eglinton may as well be a lower-capacity subway.

Not even that much lower capacity since it can run 3 car trains very frequently (automated train control).

 

[CDL.TO]

Funny thing, is that in a broader sense, it's quite reasonable to call the subway technology "light rail".

I've long been saying that we need to define our transit plans by the corridor design, not by the vehicle that runs on it. The debates are all about sedans versus SUVs when it should be about streets versus freeways.

Here's my proposal: we need to judge our projects based on what a driver's eye view will look like. What will the driver see? What will they have to deal with? Speeds? Level crossings? Platforms? Mixed traffic?

The nice thing about a driver's eye view is that you don't know what the vehicle itself looks like. That's great, because it really is of secondary concern.

 

[nfitz]

Funny thing, is that in a broader sense, it's quite reasonable to call the subway technology "light rail".

The L in VIA's LRC locomotives and coaches stood for Light.

Often more about marketing than anything else.

Given the 90-metre trains, and narrow vehicles, the Eglinton line is intermediate capacity.

 

[ehlow]

Funny thing, is that in a broader sense, it's quite reasonable to call the subway technology "light rail".

I've long been saying that we need to define our transit plans by the corridor design, not by the vehicle that runs on it. The debates are all about sedans versus SUVs when it should be about streets versus freeways.

Here's my proposal: we need to judge our projects based on what a driver's eye view will look like. What will the driver see? What will they have to deal with? Speeds? Level crossings? Platforms? Mixed traffic?

The nice thing about a driver's eye view is that you don't know what the vehicle itself looks like. That's great, because it really is of secondary concern.

While I agree that the operating environment is extremely important, if you're looking at capacity, the vehicle & frequency matter as well.

Just saying, if you have a transit line fully underground, yet the vehicle size is very small (say like the Seattle streetcars) and say max frequency is every 2 minutes, that can limit capacity.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Interestingly through almost all of the 70s (and possibly into the 80s), Eglinton was ID'd as an Intermediate Capacity / Light RT corridor. http://levyrapidtransit.ca/category/part-three/ The last image is pretty interesting.

That second map has the Downsview extension marked as intermediate capacity transit, rather than a subway. Why?

 

[CDL.TO]

While I agree that the operating environment is extremely important, if you're looking at capacity, the vehicle & frequency matter as well.

Just saying, if you have a transit line fully underground, yet the vehicle size is very small (say like the Seattle streetcars) and say max frequency is every 2 minutes, that can limit capacity.

The vehicle size and frequency is a function of demand, which is a function of operating environment.

Vehicle size and frequency are the things which should be decided AFTER the operating environment is determined, not before. (Of course, in reality it should be an iterative process .)

Yes, there are serious differences in capacity between a Smart Car and a minivan. But those are far less important than the differences between a street and a freeway.