saveoursubways (SOS)

[nfitz]

And I think it's two years of work at minimum. If they can somehow manage to build sections of it while the SRT is still in operation, it could cut down the time. Buy by and large I would guess around 3 years. 1 to remove the existing structure and stations, and 2 years to build the new stations and track.

I haven't seen the conversion plans ... I'd have thought that the existing stations - other than Kennedy - would be pretty much left alone, only extended; all of the station work can be completed in advance of a service shut down. The new signaling system is simple enough. The ATC get's ripped out. Much of the new Kennedy facilitiies can be built before shut-down. What's left is the trackwork.

The whole thing was designed for LRT in the first place ... as far as I can tell, all they have to do is rip out the track, and replace it. My gut feel was they could do this in 6 months. They rebuilt virtually the entire Dundas streetcar route in a single year ... with all the complexities of traffic and utilities to deal with. In my mind a 2 year shutdown is overkill.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Wait, why is moving from one form of rail technology to another a 'downgrade'? Capacity will be similar and grade separation will remain in place. Who cares?

 

[kEiThZ]

I thought the best estimate was 8 months? And that was for the ART Mk II. I think 2 years is entirely reasonable. They are going to have to rebuild the yard at McCowan or build a junction at Sheppard to be able to access the SELRT yard. That alone will take some time. Probably more than doing up the tracks. Station rebuilds are not going to be easy either. Think of extending the elevated platforms at Midland or Scarborough Centre or McCowan. And rebuilding Kennedy is not some small project. It's probably the critical path in this project.

Rebuilding the Dundas streetcar is not the same thing. The technolgy is not changing. The turning radius of the vehicles is not changing. There are no platforms to extend. Etc. And it still took them a year. 2 years may prove too optimistic for rebuilding the SRT.

 

[nfitz]

Wait, why is moving from one form of rail technology to another a 'downgrade'? Capacity will be similar and grade separation will remain in place. Who cares?

Capacity will increase. On the other hand, the travel times will increase a bit as well, because the LRT won't accelerate as fast.

 

[nfitz]

They are going to have to rebuild the yard at McCowan or build a junction at Sheppard to be able to access the SELRT yard. That alone will take some time.

I thought the plan was to use the new yard on the north side of Sheppard. As such they don't have to touch the McCowan Yard ... and they can build the new track connecting up to Sheppard before they even turn off the existing SRT.

Probably more than doing up the tracks.

There will be the new overhead wiring as well ... though I'd think that if they wanted to, they could at least stick all the poles in while the SRT is running

Station rebuilds are not going to be easy either. Think of extending the elevated platforms at Midland or Scarborough Centre or McCowan.

I'd think much of the foundations, etc., can be built while operations are running. Weren't they designed for expansion? Vancouver didn't shut down their skytrain when they expanded platforms. Neither has the DLR in London.

And rebuilding Kennedy is not some small project. It's probably the critical path in this project.

It may well be. But the new platforms can be constructed without impacting service. I'm not sure it will really take 6 months to build the connecting piece. How long was the Yonge subway closed when they built the connection to the Sheppard subway?

Rebuilding the Dundas streetcar is not the same thing. The technolgy is not changing. The turning radius of the vehicles is not changing.

I thought the whole point of LRT is that it didn't have a bigger turning radius than the SRT I thought it was the Mark II vehicle that required the bigger turning radius.

And it still took them a year.

Spring to fall wasn't it?

 

[SteveMunro]

Yes, The Mark II cars also won't fit through some of the existing structures, and that makes the Mark I to Mark II conversion take longer than the TTC originally estimated.

The new LRVs are low floor vehicles while the ICTS cars are high floor. This means that the relative position of the tracks and platforms must change. Shifting the platforms is messy because this affects things like stairs, escalators and elevators. Raising the tracks is possible, but may also affect existing station roof structures. It also requires ramping up and down to the new level, and that may affect some of the existing elevated structures, notably at Midland and possibly STC.

The entire extension to Sheppard can be built with the SRT still in operation, as well as, possibly, some of the work at Kennedy depending on the new design's details. We may see this in a month or so when the TTC holds its next public meetings on the SRT project.

Another change will be the power supply. The ICTS cars run on use a special supply that is 220VDC either side of ground (hence two power rails), while Transit City will be 750VDC. This will require all of the substation equipment to be changed out.

 

[MisterF]

The argument then becomes, if it is grade-separated already, and the tunnel is being built to subway specs, why not just make it a subway? My personal preference for the Richview corridor is a combination of cut-and-cover and trenched, similar to the Yonge line between Bloor and Eglinton.

This question makes me wonder - is there really a difference between high capacity LRT and a small subway train? Compare the Edmonton LRT with the Madrid metro - while the Madrid metro is fully grade separated and Edmonton's LRT isn't, the LRT doesn't stop for traffic. Both have high floor trains with similar size and capacity (both much smaller than Toronto's subway trains), and both use overhead power instead of third rail. I honestly don't know what the difference is between the two technologies. It should also be noted that there's nothing stopping an LRT from being completely grade separated, and there are subway lines, like in Chicago, that have grade crossings.

 

[kettal]

That Chicago thing subway that runs in the street... i don't think that's legal in most civilized cities...

 

[gweed123]

This question makes me wonder - is there really a difference between high capacity LRT and a small subway train? Compare the Edmonton LRT with the Madrid metro - while the Madrid metro is fully grade separated and Edmonton's LRT isn't, the LRT doesn't stop for traffic. Both have high floor trains with similar size and capacity (both much smaller than Toronto's subway trains), and both use overhead power instead of third rail. I honestly don't know what the difference is between the two technologies. It should also be noted that there's nothing stopping an LRT from being completely grade separated, and there are subway lines, like in Chicago, that have grade crossings.

In short, yes there is. The difference between a high capacity LRT and a small subway train is the potential for additional capacity. A 3 car TTC subway trainset and 2 of the LRT vehicles that will be used in TC has roughly the same capacity. However, to date I have not heard anything about the possibility of these trains beings tripled together, so it would be logical to assume that their capacity caps out at being paired. Subway trainsets however, can be pretty much as long as the platforms they serve.

It is unlikely that Eglinton will need anything above a 4 car trainset (like on Sheppard) for the near future. But if there is even the potential for the demand on that line to exceed what LRT can reasonably do, why not leave that door open? You can run 4 car subway trainsets at virtually the same frequency you would run paired LRT trainsets. And if the demand does increase to the point where you need to add extra cars, you don't have to make any modifications to platforms and the like. With an LRT to HRT upgrade, the platform height would need to be changed, and the electrical systems completely redone.

In short, the slightly higher upfront cost of doing grade-separated HRT compared to grade-separated LRT may not seem worth it. But when one considers the costs down the road, should demand come close to exceeding capacity, and an upgrade becomes necessary, spending that little bit extra for the potential of inexpensive extra capacity seems like a good investment. Not to mention it would be technologically compatible with every other grade-separated rapid transit line in Toronto (with the exception of the SRT, the orphan).

Also, doing Eglinton as an HRT line opens up the possibility of something that I have privately considered, and that has been mentioned by a few people a couple times: the possibility of interlining Eglinton with the DRL. It is unlikely that we will see the DRL go north of Eglinton for the foreseeable future (50+ years). So, to eliminate forced transfers at Jane and Science Centre, have 3 routes running along these two lines: 1) Pearson to Kingston (or Kennedy, but hopefully Kingston) via Eglinton, 2) Pearson to Kingston via DRL, 3) DRL Loop (DRL to Jane, across Eglinton to Science Centre, back down the DRL). It may be more complex, but especially in rush hour, I can see it really coming in handy. For people transferring off B-D going downtown, the 3 line thing won't even matter to them, because all trains on that line at that point are going downtown anyway. Just some food for thought.

 

[Fresh Start]

The number of fatalities as result of Metra train vs. vehicle and vs. pedestrian has been gradually declining over the past few years and many have been ruled as suicide attempts. Rail transit in general has a harder time breaking in time to avoid pedestrians in its path which is why surface systems in general pose many safety risks. Just last week a pedestrian was killed by a streetcar at Queen and Broadview: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...es-with-14th-pedestrian-death/article1443794/

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Madrid's newer metro trains are only, what, a foot narrower than the TTC's current trains? If the lines these vehicles run on are single-tunnel, are they using the largest TBMs available or can machines 2 feet larger be acquired? If they can't, what about one foot wider while shaving a few inches off the width of the TTC vehicles? Anything Madrid does will look like a miracle compared to Toronto, where stubbornness means we choose the least impossible option.

It should also be noted that there's nothing stopping an LRT from being completely grade separated

And we should be moving closer to that option in some places. Eglinton has to be in a tunnel in the central stretch, but just west of there, there's the Richview Corridor. Maybe it's just too obvious, like it's a trick or a trap. Reminds me of the scene in Airplane when one guy asks if they should turn the lights on to help guide the plane in and Robert Stack says "No, that's just what they'll be expecting us to do..." We're gonna spend over four billion dollars already, there's a strip of empty land...if the shoe fits, jesus christ, just do it. At the very, very least, the line should be dipping under intersections wherever elevation dictates.

 

[gweed123]

And we should be moving closer to that option in some places. Eglinton has to be in a tunnel in the central stretch, but just west of there, there's the Richview Corridor. Maybe it's just too obvious, like it's a trick or a trap. Reminds me of the scene in Airplane when one guy asks if they should turn the lights on to help guide the plane in and Robert Stack says "No, that's just what they'll be expecting us to do..." We're gonna spend over four billion dollars already, there's a strip of empty land...if the shoe fits, jesus christ, just do it. At the very, very least, the line should be dipping under intersections wherever elevation dictates.

+1... "Looks like I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue".

 

[kEiThZ]

I thought the plan was to use the new yard on the north side of Sheppard. As such they don't have to touch the McCowan Yard ... and they can build the new track connecting up to Sheppard before they even turn off the existing SRT.There will be the new overhead wiring as well ... though I'd think that if they wanted to, they could at least stick all the poles in while the SRT is running

I don't see how they'd be safely able to work on pole installation with the SRT running. Maybe nights, but that's it. As for the yard, it's only a very recent development, that they've said they are going to use LRT on SRT rebuild. I have not seen any analysis on the impact on yard requirements and such. So I don't know if they can or cannot use that yard. Heck, they don't even have a render on what LRT will look like along the way.

I'd think much of the foundations, etc., can be built while operations are running. Weren't they designed for expansion? Vancouver didn't shut down their skytrain when they expanded platforms. Neither has the DLR in London.

Like Steve's pointed out, there's so much more involved in this conversion.

It may well be. But the new platforms can be constructed without impacting service. I'm not sure it will really take 6 months to build the connecting piece. How long was the Yonge subway closed when they built the connection to the Sheppard subway?

I dunno about Yonge. I thought they never closed the Yonge line while building the Sheppard line. But in that case, the platforms were grade separated and they weren't doing anything to the Yonge line themselves. In this case, that's not possible. The SRT Benefits Case has conversion to ART MK II at 8 months and conversion to LRT at 36 months.
I would have thought they could speed things up if they avoid grade separation east of Progress and just run an at-grade Transit City style LRT on Progress. But that only appears to save them money, not time. The critical path seems to be the conversion. So yay, virtually no higher order transit in Scarborough for nearly a year at best and three with the plans they have. And I wouldn't be too confident about things being sped up. This is the TTC after all.

I thought the whole point of LRT is that it didn't have a bigger turning radius than the SRT I thought it was the Mark II vehicle that required the bigger turning radius.

Right on that one. My mistake.

Spring to fall wasn't it?

Correct. But again, this would only be if they picked the ART Mk II. And any politician who proposes another orphan technology for Scarborough is probably going to be tarred and feathered out of town.

 

[MisterF]

That Chicago thing subway that runs in the street... i don't think that's legal in most civilized cities...

As far as I know they don't run in the street, they just have some grade crossings. And the third rail doesn't go into the street itself. On subways with overhead power, street crossings are no less safe than high frequency LRT like in Edmonton.

In short, yes there is. The difference between a high capacity LRT and a small subway train is the potential for additional capacity. A 3 car TTC subway trainset and 2 of the LRT vehicles that will be used in TC has roughly the same capacity. However, to date I have not heard anything about the possibility of these trains beings tripled together, so it would be logical to assume that their capacity caps out at being paired. Subway trainsets however, can be pretty much as long as the platforms they serve.

It is unlikely that Eglinton will need anything above a 4 car trainset (like on Sheppard) for the near future. But if there is even the potential for the demand on that line to exceed what LRT can reasonably do, why not leave that door open? You can run 4 car subway trainsets at virtually the same frequency you would run paired LRT trainsets. And if the demand does increase to the point where you need to add extra cars, you don't have to make any modifications to platforms and the like. With an LRT to HRT upgrade, the platform height would need to be changed, and the electrical systems completely redone.

In short, the slightly higher upfront cost of doing grade-separated HRT compared to grade-separated LRT may not seem worth it. But when one considers the costs down the road, should demand come close to exceeding capacity, and an upgrade becomes necessary, spending that little bit extra for the potential of inexpensive extra capacity seems like a good investment. Not to mention it would be technologically compatible with every other grade-separated rapid transit line in Toronto (with the exception of the SRT, the orphan).

Also, doing Eglinton as an HRT line opens up the possibility of something that I have privately considered, and that has been mentioned by a few people a couple times: the possibility of interlining Eglinton with the DRL. It is unlikely that we will see the DRL go north of Eglinton for the foreseeable future (50+ years). So, to eliminate forced transfers at Jane and Science Centre, have 3 routes running along these two lines: 1) Pearson to Kingston (or Kennedy, but hopefully Kingston) via Eglinton, 2) Pearson to Kingston via DRL, 3) DRL Loop (DRL to Jane, across Eglinton to Science Centre, back down the DRL). It may be more complex, but especially in rush hour, I can see it really coming in handy. For people transferring off B-D going downtown, the 3 line thing won't even matter to them, because all trains on that line at that point are going downtown anyway. Just some food for thought.

I don't know about Bombardier Flexity, but there are 6-car LRT trains (3 artics), again in Edmonton and Calgary. They're not as long as a TTC subway, but they're just as long as many other subway trains around the world. I have no problem with the Eglinton line being built as a low-floor LRT. I don't really like the idea of making a line as big as possible in an attempt to make it future-proof. Instead, when a line gets to capacity, we should do what other cities do and build more lines. If we used that approach we might have a lot more subway lines today.

Madrid's newer metro trains are only, what, a foot narrower than the TTC's current trains? If the lines these vehicles run on are single-tunnel, are they using the largest TBMs available or can machines 2 feet larger be acquired? If they can't, what about one foot wider while shaving a few inches off the width of the TTC vehicles? Anything Madrid does will look like a miracle compared to Toronto, where stubbornness means we choose the least impossible option.

And we should be moving closer to that option in some places. Eglinton has to be in a tunnel in the central stretch, but just west of there, there's the Richview Corridor. Maybe it's just too obvious, like it's a trick or a trap. Reminds me of the scene in Airplane when one guy asks if they should turn the lights on to help guide the plane in and Robert Stack says "No, that's just what they'll be expecting us to do..." We're gonna spend over four billion dollars already, there's a strip of empty land...if the shoe fits, jesus christ, just do it. At the very, very least, the line should be dipping under intersections wherever elevation dictates.

I'm sure the newer lines are wider than the older ones - to be honest I didn't notice. And some of the lines have longer trains, but several lines have trains and platforms that are very short. I totally agree that the Richview corridor should be used. It's mind-boggling that it's not.

 

[kettal]

As far as I know they don't run in the street, they just have some grade crossings. And the third rail doesn't go into the street itself. On subways with overhead power, street crossings are no less safe than high frequency LRT like in Edmonton.

I thought you were talking about this.

Generally the difference is that LRT can run in the middle of the road like that. This one example is an exceptional case.