Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s

[trtcttc]

So why are the Chinese and the Europeans building transit at a rate unheard of in the western world? I will give Toronto some credit tho, The transit projects happening in the city all over the city at the same time right now is actually the largest in North America. But the Eglinton crosstown has been an annoyance since the start in 2011. I'm just saying that it shouldn't have taken this long.

We can definitely build transit faster and cheaper. However, there’s not like a simple one liner as to why. I found the transit cost project at NYU has some good data and studies on this if you’re interested. I was surprised when I looked at the data that cities that have great transit systems doesn’t necessarily build them cheaply. Hong Kong and Singapore are amongst the most expensive in the world.

 

[Steve X]

We can definitely build transit faster and cheaper. However, there’s not like a simple one liner as to why. I found the transit cost project at NYU has some good data and studies on this if you’re interested. I was surprised when I looked at the data that cities that have great transit systems doesn’t necessarily build them cheaply. Hong Kong and Singapore are amongst the most expensive in the world.

They might be expensive but at least they actually look decent. I mean look at the TYSSE stations. The walls are leaking water and is all patched up on opening day. I don’t know how is that even acceptable. At least paint it.

 

[EYorker]

A question for anyone in the know about the signalling system. Perhaps @smallspy would know this.

With ATC/ATO being in the tunneled section, presumably the line will be capable of single track operation, and/or bi-directional running if there had to be a track closure for maintenance or for instance, a broken rail or part of the OCS? I realize they've been running bi-directional testing on the surface section. But is the surface section capable of the same once the line goes into revenue service? For instance, if one direction of track was blocked for whatever reason. Could they run single track operation until the track is cleared?

 

[smallspy]

A question for anyone in the know about the signalling system. Perhaps @smallspy would know this.

With ATC/ATO being in the tunneled section, presumably the line will be capable of single track operation, and/or bi-directional running if there had to be a track closure for maintenance or for instance, a broken rail or part of the OCS? I realize they've been running bi-directional testing on the surface section. But is the surface section capable of the same once the line goes into revenue service? For instance, if one direction of track was blocked for whatever reason. Could they run single track operation until the track is cleared?

There are a lot of variables that don't include the signal system, unfortunately.

On the TYSSE, the TTC has designed a system to have separated power feeds and cuts track-to-track, and have built doorways built into the cross passages between tunnels. There, they can operate both directions on a single track even with the other one shut down for work. (And in fact, have done this several times already.) The ventilation system is also sectionalized and can be operated one track at a time if necessary.

The TTC is also working on updating much of the older portions of the YUS to this same standard (and indeed, they've done about two-thirds of it by now), but there is some concern that it won't be possible to operate on one track with work progressing on the other as there isn't a solid wall/barrier between the two tracks.

I don't know a lot of the specifics of the Crosstown just yet, but I can't help but assume that within the tunnels they will be building it to a similar standard as the subway. The signalling system is a different system from a different vendor, but is just as capable, so on that front it should be possible in theory. The real question will be with the power feeds and cuts and cross passages. Up on the surface, it looks as if the line is powered the same as the streetcar system, with single feeds power both tracks.

Dan

 

[Admiral Beez]

I agree with the previous comment. Adding China as a comparison in this conversation does not advance the conversation. I have spent enough time travelling around China by train, plane and car to experience the scale of building of their transit systems and to have some appreciation for what has been accomplished. But beyond the technologies, how China has built out, and continues to build out their systems, is not relatable to the western world.

Interesting summary of China's rail expansion.

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

Interesting summary of China's rail expansion.

Something that I want to point out regarding China's Rail Network is that the government has plans to try and force majority of passenger rail towards the High Speed Network. That will allow them to expand freight rail service on the conventional lines.

 

[JasonParis]

Let me guess, Mike Harris refused an idea that actually made common sense? Wouldnt be surprised if this was during his era.

After all, that's why we're getting this project built 25 years after the fact.

I think @interchange42 may know the answer here.

 

[interchange42]

I think @interchange42 may know the answer here.

The north-south section of the Mississauga/Toronto border has "always" been where it is now, aligned with the straight section of Renforth Drive from the 401 on up. (The 427 eventually swings onto that alignment for most of the way to Steeles.)

Sometime back in the 80s IIRC, Mississauga suggested that when the industrial area south of Eglinton and close to the Etobicoke Creek began to be developed, that they would be better suited to service it, so the border west of Renforth to the Etobicoke Creek should be moved from alongside Eglinton to through the hydro corridor to the south. Metro Toronto was like "what you smokin' Missy?" and counter-suggested that Toronto get everything between Eglinton and the 401. The Province was basically "settle down, we're not changing any boundaries" and that was that.

42

 

[JasonParis]

In a perfect world, I'd have preferred if Toronto/Etobicoke's border would have continued to follow Etobicoke Creek encompassing all of this, plus most of Pearson itself, and the Village of Malton. If we were devising it from scratch around what makes the most sense now, we'd do that. Having said that, it will never happen.

 

[innsertnamehere]

In a perfect world, I'd have preferred if Toronto/Etobicoke's border would have continued to follow Etobicoke Creek encompassing all of this, plus most of Pearson itself, and the Village of Malton. If we were devising it from scratch and what makes the most sense now, we'd do that. Having said that, it will never happen.

In an ideal world I would probably push the northern boundary up to the 407 as well to include areas like Thornhill and Southern Markham, which largely function more closely with the City of Toronto already than they do with the areas of their own municipality north of the 407.

 

[JasonParis]

We are getting off-topic, but 407 is also akin to a natural boundary, when really, the current Steeles boundary basically divides an integrated community by service levels.

 

[Transportfan]

It might have been, many years ago, before they realigned Renforth and Eglinton. But after they realigned everything, over 50 years ago, there's almost 200 metres from the intersection, west to the boundary. Renforth only becomes the boundary, at that curve, between Matheson and the 401.

I've drawn the approximate location of the boundary below.

View attachment 375747

Good observation. The section of Renforth Drive that was on the line was the southernmost part of the old Indian Line. Airport Road originally ran straight down and converged with Indian Line at the eastern terminus of Lower Base Line (Eglinton), forming a tripoint.

From link

 

[Amare]

The north-south section of the Mississauga/Toronto border has "always" been where it is now, aligned with the straight section of Renforth Drive from the 401 on up. (The 427 eventually swings onto that alignment for most of the way to Steeles.)

Sometime back in the 80s IIRC, Mississauga suggested that when the industrial area south of Eglinton and close to the Etobicoke Creek began to be developed, that they would be better suited to service it, so the border west of Renforth to the Etobicoke Creek should be moved from alongside Eglinton to through the hydro corridor to the south. Metro Toronto was like "what you smokin' Missy?" and counter-suggested that Toronto get everything between Eglinton and the 401. The Province was basically "settle down, we're not changing any boundaries" and that was that.

42

The things you learn on UT never cease to amaze, that's some good insight right there. Probably one of the best cole's notes lessons provided on UT because of the quick analogy references.

 

[EYorker]

Thanks for the detailed replies @smallspy and @duffo .

It's good to know that these new capabilities are baked into the line, and also on the TYSSE. But the bigger question will be if the TTC sees fit to operate Line 5 that way. It will hopefully create a paradigm shift in their attitude to rail operations. I hope they can get away from the "shut it down" mentality, as you put it duffo. We shall see how that pans out once the line is operational.

One would hope on the surface section, that if a car decides to drive onto the right of way, that service could still theoretically run as long as one direction of track is clear. Because we all know how great some drivers can be here. I would much rather see some delayed service, than none at all.

 

[trtcttc]

I hope they prioritize speed of service versus just the level of service. Don’t have a lot of hope after what happened to St.Clair and Spadina but hopefully they would’ve thought about how to prevent bunching on the surface sections