SmartTrack (Proposed)

[44 North]

Name an elevated heavy rail project in London, other than a short connecting piece to an old Victorian piece of elevated.

That seems a bit specific though. I think a key point about allowing for elevated is that it’s meant to serve as the ‘connecting piece’ – not as a completely elevated line. Although there are exceptions, I think most lines around the globe that are considered to be “elevated†are mostly a series of ‘connecting pieces’ between existing infrastructure / embankments / surface / underground etc.

Just like if there was Crosstown or ST elevated above Eg west...the whole line obviously isn't elevated. Just the section on Eglinton West.

 

[CDL.TO]

Your the one who used London as an example of new elevated heavy rail lines.

*sigh* I said they've built elevated, which they have. You're the one who decided that only heavy rail counts in this discussion.

Still, if I managed to dig up some new elevated heavy rail line out in Hounslow or something I don't think it's going to change your mind anyway.

 

[nfitz]

*sigh* I said they've built elevated, which they have. You're the one who decided that only heavy rail counts in this discussion.

This is a discussion about the heavy-rail Smart Track project. The context that started this was:

How would a elevated heavy rail structure look like? This streetsview image is from Indian Road where the 2 Bloor-Danforth enters the elevated Keele Station.

View attachment 41690

 

[CDL.TO]

This is a discussion about the heavy-rail Smart Track project. The context that started this was:

Goddamn, am I really going to keep feeding the troll?

There was plenty of discussion about elevated corridors in general leading up to WK Lis's post, he did not "start this". One example from 5 seconds of searching:

All that doesn't change the fact that the extra cost of elevating the LRT is not justified given the low projected ridership, nor is it a huge improvement in travel time. I can't believe how many times this debate has been rehashed.

Again, would any of this actually change your mind? Try and see see the forest not just the trees, nfitz.

 

[nfitz]

Again, would any of this actually change your mind? Try and see see the forest not just the trees, nfitz.

Nothing is going to change my mind that London is a good example of modern elevated heavy rail.

I don't think I've opined on anything else, other than the stupidity of our wing-nut mayor wanting heavy rail on Eglinton when demand is less than 1,000 an hour, and that this should be left as a 100% provincially-funded RER project with the city focusing on higher priorities like the DRL.

 

[ssiguy2]

The reason I liked Tory and said so in the campaign is that he is not heavily ideological or stubborn.

Tory is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and consensus building person who is not only willing to listen to people but also seriously consider feedback. If he thinks he made a mistake or something could be done better he will use that information and make an informed decision unlike Ford's subways, subways, subways or Miller's LRT or nothing.

I don't see an Eglinton SmartTrack because he will hear the feedback and act accordingly. He will see that a Crosstown extension westward will be a better use of funds and continue SmartTrack north to Weston and Etobicoke North.

 

[sixrings]

I am really confused how they would operate a grade separated lrt from the airport to leslie street and then surface from leslie to kennedy. Id hate to be on the stupid lrt and then it announces this lrt will short turn at leslie please get on the next train. I understand that already that may be the case with the trains but with a surface and a separated alignment it may happen 100% of the time. In my mind once you elevate the west you might as well elevate the east and connect to RT.

 

[nfitz]

I am really confused how they would operate a grade separated lrt from the airport to leslie street and then surface from leslie to kennedy. Id hate to be on the stupid lrt and then it announces this lrt will short turn at leslie please get on the next train. I understand that already that may be the case with the trains but with a surface and a separated alignment it may happen 100% of the time. In my mind once you elevate the west you might as well elevate the east and connect to RT.

With the forecasted ridership being a lot lower west of Jane than east of Don Mills, I doubt very much it would be elevated in the west. So problem solved!

 

[Palma]

With the forecasted ridership being a lot lower west of Jane than east of Don Mills, I doubt very much it would be elevated in the west. So problem solved!

And that's a great thing cause elevated looks ugly and will never happen on Eglinton West

 

[salsa]

Steve Munro‏@SwanBoatSteve
Yet another SmartTrack casualty - @WaterfrontTO talks about Sherbourne Stn as "interim" relief for east bayfront

 

[Rainforest]

And that's a great thing cause elevated looks ugly and will never happen on Eglinton West

Whether it happens or not on Eglinton West, is a separate question. It will be based on the ridership forecasts and available funds.

In any case, elevated does not have to be ugly, and present Eglinton West is not exactly a marvel of urban design. Elevated done properly can make it better not worse.

Financially, fully elevated may be an overshoot; I'd rather look at elevating over a few busiest intersections.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

It's interesting that we are talking about ridership demand. It doesn't matter on non subway heavy rail. GO gets much less riders then the TTC but will anyone say it sucks? Low ridership on Eglinton West is not a big deal because this is not a subway, if it was people would have a point. SmartTrack is GO lite. Which means the fares will be higher to make up for less riders.

 

[howl]

There is nothing wrong with using elevated rail . . . when its appropriate. However there are some major considerations with elevating the tracks, including accessibility, construction costs, operational costs, maintenance costs, noise, weather, grade limits and of course aesthetics. When you add all that up and compare it to surface or underground rail, which each have their own set of considerations, elevated rail usually only makes sense in some very specific situations. In most places where elevated is used extensively there are geological issues preventing substantial underground work which makes going elevated more attractive. Toronto does not have those geological issues, tunneling is very easy and comparatively cost-effective, so going elevated in Toronto is probably not going to be the most affordable option on a large scale.

 

[BurlOak]

There is nothing wrong with using elevated rail . . . when its appropriate. However there are some major considerations with elevating the tracks, including accessibility, construction costs, operational costs, maintenance costs, noise, weather, grade limits and of course aesthetics. When you add all that up and compare it to surface or underground rail, which each have their own set of considerations, elevated rail usually only makes sense in some very specific situations. In most places where elevated is used extensively there are geological issues preventing substantial underground work which makes going elevated more attractive. Toronto does not have those geological issues, tunneling is very easy and comparatively cost-effective, so going elevated in Toronto is probably not going to be the most affordable option on a large scale.

The main fact is that elevated is between the cost of on-street and underground. If the public and politicians deem that on-street LRT is too slow, less reliable, too inconvenient and not enough capacity - there first place to look should be elevated and not underground (as in the Scarborough subway and SmartTrack West).

When Montreal, Vancouver, Madrid, etc. build underground transit for $110M to $150M per km then we are told that tunnelling (and hte resulting deep stations) is difficult and expensive in Toronto.

 

[nfitz]

When Montreal, Vancouver, Madrid, etc. build underground transit for $110M to $150M per km then we are told that tunnelling (and hte resulting deep stations) is difficult and expensive in Toronto.

Montreal isn't significantly cheaper than Toronto. The last extension deep into suburbia was 5 km long, but only had 3 stations, so a bit was saved there - and the costs neither included any extra vehicles nor vehicle storage space.

The proposed Blue line extension was priced at $250 to $300 million a kilometre back in 2013 - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-metro-s-blue-line-to-get-major-extension-1.1861770 - which is similar to Toronto costs.