Transit City Plan

[urbanboom]

^ Good post.

 

[waterloowarrior]

I don't understand what the fascination is with subways. Subway is great when the projected ridership justifies the cost, but when it doesn't, it is just a waste of money.

I'm personally thrilled with the LRT implementation that Metrolinx envisions, at least for the Eglinton Crosstown line. As far as I can tell, a well planned LRT line will be able to last many, many decades. Once ridership starts to actually need a subway line, we can create new tunnels beyond the currently planned tunneled portion and update the whole system as we please.

Projected weekeday ridership for Eglinton (under Metrolinx projections) is within subway (edit: or automated light rail) range... between the Red Line in Boston and the Circle Line in London, and busier than the Metropolitan line. It will be comparable to the Expo Line projections for 2010 once the Canada Line is done and the new cars are in.

edit: if you are referring to the Metrolinx desire for an automated, grade-separated line, I agree that would be appropriate.

 

[Voltz]

Projected weekeday ridership for Eglinton (under Metrolinx projections) is within subway (edit: or automated light rail) range... between the Red Line in Boston and the Circle Line in London, and busier than the Metropolitan line. It will be comparable to the Expo Line projections for 2010 once the Canada Line is done and the new cars are in.

edit: if you are referring to the Metrolinx desire for an automated, grade-separated line, I agree that would be very appropriate.

Total daily ridership numbers area a really bad figure to evaluate different transit technology, the Eglinton line is so long that the total ridership can appear to be in subway territory (when compared to other cities) , but the peak point per hour ridership is still well within LRT levels, and do not justify a subway.

 

[Brandon716]

How many seats wide is a tram then? How wide? How long? What is the capacity? What gauge to these trams run on? The only figures you have access to are based on what operators ordered to drive around streets in Europe.



There is no set capacity. What is the base capacity of the non-tram you are using to decide this and what is the capacity of the TTC vehicle you are using to compare?



Operators need to order couplers. There are non-trams that don't have couplers. The only vehicles you can order straight from the factory in Thunder Bay right now are subways and GO train bi-level railcars. Both come with couplers.



Two different models don't lead to cost savings just because the manufacturer is the same. A Bombardier Q400 doesn't share many parts with a Bombardier Global Express even though they are both aircraft and both Bombardier.



OK. Believe what you will. Maybe when you see the Flexity Outlook that the TTC is ordering and how it is wider (four seats plus and aisle) and has couplers which came from the factory you will realize that Outlook versus Swift is about vehicle weight and speed, and not about available options and capacity.



They are spending it the best way possible. They are getting fleet commonality which reduces costs. They are combining the bids to make a bigger total order size which reduces costs. Thunder Bay only needs to be tooled once reducing costs. They are getting a lightweight vehicle which reduces costs. What would really waste money is to retool Thunder Bay twice to create two different vehicles to achieve a slightly faster vehicle, a whopping 5-10cm in width, and because mounting a coupler (i.e. mounting a bracket in a place the structure supports it) seems complex to some.

We don't have enough information to assume as much as you assume, unless you have a credible source you haven't linked me to as of yet. I'll be happy to read any information you have that I'm lacking, if that's the case. Here's questions I have.

1) Are the external couplers for the Outlook more expensive than ordering Swift vehicles with what appear to be stronger, built in couplers?

2) Can you string only two trains together with the external Outlook coupler? Can it be 3-4 trains?

3) Do you have another source that links a different size? The article I read said it would be just over 28m long and 2.3m wide for the new TTC Outlook streetcar. Where is a source that says the Outlook vehicle they are ordering is 2.65m wide? I'm just asking for information, if its true then its good. But I have not seen that evidence with a credible source.

Lastly, if they order Flexity Outlook vehicles that are customized at 2600mm width, over 28000mm long and have couplers included in the order - and the external couplers are as strong/sturdy and can link as many trains as the Swift - then I guess that is good news, isn't it?

I just haven't seen that evidence yet, if it exists.

And lastly, if you have a link that proves the TTC is ordering what you're describing (outlook vehicles 2600mm wide) with strong external couplers that can string 3 vehicles together, and you can prove it costs less than ordering Swift vehicles, why didn't you just include the evidence to begin with? It would be much easier that way...

I'm the only person in our discussion who seems interested in going to the sources for valid information. From the original manufacturers of the vehicles to news articles where they reveal what the TC planners said about size... Right now all my information says the new TTC Outlook streetcar is just over 28m long and 2.3m wide, and any external coupler is weaker and less of a permanent solution than what is offered on the more modular Swift vehicle.

And again, the manufacturer differentiates between the two, so that discussion is decided already. There's a difference between the tram and the modular light rail vehicle with a built in, high strength, hot-pluggable coupler. Whether you want to continue arguing about the smallness of that difference is up to you, I'm just repeating what I've already said: its a small but real difference.

My concern with this external coupler is hot pluggability (how is it different for the TTC to disconnect and reconnect an external coupler customization vs a built in, by-design coupler), strength, and long term performance. I have no evidence that suggests an order of Swift vehicles for Eglinton is too expensive for what you get.

All you're saying is that it sounds too expensive, you haven't provided any evidence that a Swift order is too expensive, and I'm not sure anyone on here is qualified to make that statement (unless some secret TC planner is in here and has had direct talks with Bombardier).

Just so you know, I'm big into critical thinking. This plan of Transit City needs to be looked at from all angles. If the Flexity Outlook vehicle can be made more cheaply than the Flexity Swift, if the external coupler customizations are strong enough for 3 cars per train, if it can be customized for Eglinton to be the larger 2650mm width cheaper than ordering Swift, and if you can provide evidence as such, then yea I'll concede that its a good idea to use the same vehicle technology. But you have to provide the evidence with a credible source. I simply don't have that information.

And if you don't think an extra 1.2ft width is a 'big deal' then you should try living in a city with both styles and seeing the difference. The cramp feeling inside a Portland Streetcar during a packed rush hour compared with a packed MAX Light Rail train is noticable.

Just like there is a noticable difference between the smaller width of the Chicago EL trains, which is more like light rail car width, compared with the wider feeling in the TTC Subway.

And I'll go back to what I said earlier: if you're already spending billions of dollars, you might as well do it right the first time. Flexity Swift just seems like the right train for Eglinton from the information I have. And I fail to see how it'd cost soooooooooo much more than duplicating the Outlook streetcar order for Eglinton and using an external coupler (which that customization itself will cost something).

 

[EnviroTO]

1) Are the external couplers for the Outlook more expensive than ordering Swift vehicles with what appear to be stronger, built in couplers?

The couplers could be identical. Even amongst Flexity Swift models you will see different types of couplers so operaters can couple with their existing fleet. There would be little cost difference.

2) Can you string only two trains together with the external Outlook coupler? Can it be 3-4 trains?

These couplers are not used to pull the vehicle behind the coupler unless there is something wrong with a unit. Unlike trains with an engine pulling dead weight, all units in a LRT train are powered. The coupler strength on most vehicles is likely set to a level where the wheels would not grab the rails under the load.

3) Do you have another source that links a different size? The article I read said it would be just over 28m long and 2.3m wide for the new TTC streetcar. Where is a source that says the Outlook vehicle they are ordering is 2.65m wide? I'm just asking for information, if its true then its good. But I have not seen that evidence with a credible source.

The width will be somewhere between 2.5 and 2.6m wide (similar to the current streetcar). 2.3m is the width of the Brussels tram which is thinner than what the TTC is ordering. That number was probably lifted of the specs from Brussels. There is no way you could fit four seats across plus an aisle in the Brussels width.

Lastly, if they order Flexity Outlook vehicles that are customized at 2600mm width, over 28000mm long and have couplers included in the order - and the external couplers are as strong/sturdy and can link as many trains as the Swift - then I guess that is good news, isn't it?

Yes. I am looking forward to the province providing the funding to get this thing going.

 

[Brandon716]

I edited the last post several times, so I hope you get a chance to go back and read it thoroughly. These questions really don't need to be bounced around here as much as they need to be asked of the TC people and they need to be more forthcoming about plans released to the public.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

And a wooden spoon is cheaper than a television ... but what's that got to do with anything?

I don't understand what the fascination is with subways. Subway is great when the projected ridership justifies the cost, but when it doesn't, it is just a waste of money.

I'm personally thrilled with the LRT implementation that Metrolinx envisions, at least for the Eglinton Crosstown line. As far as I can tell, a well planned LRT line will be able to last many, many decades. Once ridership starts to actually need a subway line, we can create new tunnels beyond the currently planned tunneled portion and update the whole system as we please.

However, I suppose if someone here is able to convince some rich benefactor to build us a subway system from Scarborough to Etobicoke without it costing us taxpayers anything, then I'd be on board for that.

One day, you guys will realize that subways aren't expensive and LRT isn't cheap. Grade separation is expensive and not running lines in tunnels is cheaper. This city has chosen to spend billions of dollars on tunnelled LRT (though they'll still stop at red lights outside the tunnels, undermining them as rapid transit) and has chosen to run subways underneath empty land, completely unnecessarily boosting their cost.

We already have a subway from Scarborough to Etobicoke.

 

[Brandon716]

Yes. I am looking forward to the province providing the funding to get this thing going.

I want to see a successful Transit City as well, although i don't support the Sheppard LRT in any way, shape, or form.

But you need to remember the final plans for Eglinton LRT aren't final, this recent vehicle order is just to replace the TTC Streetcar network. You already know this, but just remember that an extra few moments of planning before rushing into buying the same streetcar for both the old TTC Streetcar network and the new Transit City network is worthwhile.

Just think on it, alright? I think it would be beneficial to order low platform Flexity Swift vehicles for Eglinton LRT (and possibly all the other TC lines) with the bigger width, built in coupler, and etc.

And contrary to what it sounds like you think, I doubt it'd be more expensive what-so-ever, especially over ordering more customizations on an outlook vehicle. Customized options add up and why customize too much when you can get the real thing?

And I'll use your own argument against you: these vehicle technologies really aren't ALL that different are they (remember, I never disagreed that trams and modular light rail vehicles are similar LOL)? So how could Swift POSSIBLY be that much more expensive?

Why would you possibly be against them ordering Flexity Swift for TC and letting the old TTC Streetcar network get the Flexity Outlook? It sounds like a healthy balance to me.

Its time people start asking TC these questions.

Enviro, I wished I could fly you to Portland and let you spend a week using the system during rush hours, off peak hours, etc. You'd notice the difference between a tram and a modular light rail vehicle over time. Eglinton LRT could be better served with a Swift, and if you had the same experience with modern trams and light rail vehicles I bet you would feel the same.

The Portland MAX, which started with Bombardier light rail vehicles so its directly comparable, goes directly in the street throughout the western suburbs of Hillsboro, Beaverton (where I used to live), central Portland, and the eastern suburb of Gresham. Its not like the MAX, with its modular light rail vehicles, didn't spend significant time crossing intersections just like Eglinton LRT will. There's still a difference between the MAX system and the Portland Streetcar.

And there can be a difference between the TTC Outlook Streetcar and a more modular, heavier grade Eglinton Swift LRT system if they make it that way.

I just hope they build it right the first time.

 

[Brandon716]

BTW, if you're interested in studying/experiencing the different forms of light rail, here's a great little video showing real world usage of the Portland Streetcar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL7QEQuRqq0

That video has indoor, outdoor, boarding, unloading... Its really neat to use.

When using the MAX, there's something I think you'll notice right away. Despite the fact that it crosses intersections, it travels faster on average:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuEvUI8hM3Q

The MAX operates in the street just like the streetcar in downtown:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmZ1lG4z5gE

MAX isn't even grade separated when it goes through central Portland like Eglinton LRT will be:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DArmatnCFEs

I'm pretty confident Eglinton LRT will be a success if they do it right.


Hopefully these cute videos can help you guys understand the difference between the variants of light rail technology. The Outlook is a slower vehicle than the Swift, and here's a video that can help with understanding the difference as Portland is probably the ideal example to compare with. Boston's systems are so different its kind of irrelevant to compare with that system.

 

[Brandon716]

One of the neatest parts of the street car video is where, about 4mins/30secs it goes through Portland State University (and you can see the school of urban design labelled right at 4:30). At 5 minutes it looks at the vehicle from an outside perspective.

 

[Brandon716]

Since this forum is filled with transit enthusiasts, I hope I'm not boring you with these vids, but here are the new Siemens trains they ordered for the Green line for MAX.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPmPKnE6_9A

That's the testing on the new green line they built in downtown, set to open this fall in September.

And this video even shows the 100% electronic fare system that is partially faith-based (faith that the passenger bought it, they only send a security official to check if you've paid every so often). LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BsImW_pfr8

BTW, one of the things I miss about Portland was its quirky behavior.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otvoX0IwIOY

^Hope the last one was a MAX experience you'll never forget.

 

[299 bloor call control.]

Wouldn't a fully grade separated ALRT or subway system attract more riders, though? Of course the models for Eglinton as LRT is going to show LRT-range peak point ridership, because the line is modelled as LRT.

 

[Dan416]

Wouldn't a fully grade separated ALRT or subway system attract more riders, though? Of course the models for Eglinton as LRT is going to show LRT-range peak point ridership, because the line is modelled as LRT.

Fully grade-separated LRT would attract more riders than the currently proposed not-fully-grade-separated LRT. If the whole line was fully grade-separated, then it would be just as fast as a subway since it wouldn't have traffic lights to deal with.

I think the partial tunnel and part above-ground COULD work. If it doesn't, we could always just convert the tunnel to subway and run LRT on either end.

 

[Brandon716]

Wouldn't a fully grade separated ALRT or subway system attract more riders, though? Of course the models for Eglinton as LRT is going to show LRT-range peak point ridership, because the line is modelled as LRT.

Transit City is going to be separated in its right of way the entire route with one exception: suburban intersections. There are fewer than 20 intersections it has to go through along its entire 32km route, and each of those intersections are likely to have a stop because of how far apart the stations are reportedly going to be.

I'm not sure, especially with signal priority, that going through these intersections is going to be that challenging or push away riders, especially when the central portion is entirely underground. If they are already going to stop at intersections to pick up and let off passengers, the time to wait for the signal priority is negligible.

I am anticipating a faster system than the Portland MAX I've linked above.

 

[Epi]

I don't understand what the fascination is with subways. Subway is great when the projected ridership justifies the cost, but when it doesn't, it is just a waste of money.

I'm personally thrilled with the LRT implementation that Metrolinx envisions, at least for the Eglinton Crosstown line. As far as I can tell, a well planned LRT line will be able to last many, many decades. Once ridership starts to actually need a subway line, we can create new tunnels beyond the currently planned tunneled portion and update the whole system as we please.

However, I suppose if someone here is able to convince some rich benefactor to build us a subway system from Scarborough to Etobicoke without it costing us taxpayers anything, then I'd be on board for that.

Considering how many years Toronto has been waiting for the funding to build new subway lines in desperately transit dependent areas aside from the 5.5km of Sheppard, I'm still surprised that there are so many people out there that are 'subway or nothing!'. Seriously, if it's subway or nothing, it will be nothing for a very long time. So many other cities in the world have vastly surpassed Toronto in subway lines because they can muster the political support for whatever reasons (i.e. their countries don't hate their city).

For the very fact that TC is not subway and costs a lot more, the political support has been found to muster up the money to fund these projects, and finally hundreds of thousands to a million people will get much higher quality transit than what a bus can possibly deliver. Somehow this is a BAD thing.