Transit City Plan

[Epi]

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.

I watched all your videos, but I think they are not that applicable to Transit City. It looks like the MAX sure is fast in it's outer regions, but it also seems like the station spacing is quite long, as long as the Spadina subway. Transit City should have stations only 850m underground and around 500-600m on land. It would take far less time inbetween stations then the MAX. Thus the maximum speed is less of an issue, because by the time you accelerate, it's already time to slow down.

As far as the 'tram' being slower in the city, well it looks like the tram not only runs in mixed traffic, but also in the middle of college campuses? What exactly about it makes it so slow, is it implementation or is it the actual vehicle? Your argument is for the larger 'light rail' vehicles rather than using a tram, but it seems like from the videos, it's implementation that is the cause of the different speeds.

Here's a video of the Dresden Flexity Outlook:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua3SJlIIwd0

As you can see, it's a substantial vehicle in terms of size, and if you look at the traffic going alongside the train as it's going top speed, it's actually the same speed, but only loses out because of stops. It only hits top speed for a short period of time due to slowing down for cross-streets and stops.

I believe if implementation is a semi-exclusive ROW with short station spacing, no matter the type of train the service will be the same. The only argument then is really ridership levels and if the train has enough capacity.

One thing I noticed though, the MAX trains are not 100% low floor. Considering how hard the TTC pushed for 100% low floor for the legacy fleet, I can easily see them doing the same for Transit City as well. Those 'light rail' trains look really good for Portland precisely because of the mixed nature of the system. The outer stations are quite well spaced, and thus a more substantial vehicle is appropriate for the distance, but the system is inherently different from what Transit City is trying to do.

 

[Brandon716]

There are a lot of things that the videos can't offer, I just think its good to watch another system at work.

The thing with the Streetcar is that yes, it operates like a tram normally does, all in traffic. And that's the point of a tram: they can be built on sub-standard rail specifications.

What I'm saying is that Eglinton LRT is designed only to be in traffic at designated intersections, which is ironically a higher grade service than MAX is, and that Flexity Swift seems like a natural option for Eglinton LRT.

I fail to see how it would hold up Transit City at all, and I fail to see how it would cost exponentially more money to order the better Flexity Swift vehicles for Eglinton LRT.

Remember, the contract for the TC trains isn't even signed yet. They haven't finished planning the system, afterall. This initial order is just to order streetcars for the old TTC streetcar network. What kind of possible delays could possibly occur because they decide to order Swift vehicles for Transit City, I mean TC already has to have separate maintenance rail yards. Its not like they will be pulling the trains down to the new rail yard in the portlands district they are building for the Outlook trains.

Again, the Flexity Swift and Outlook vehicles share a lot of similarities, and each TC line has to have its own rail depot for storage. Intuitively what I understand about light rail doesn't tell me that its going to be more expensive to order Flexity Swift when Eglinton seems designed just for that kind of vehicle.

 

[Brandon716]

BTW, I'm finding this discussion to be more interesting every day I log on. Its the only discussion I've ever participated in where there's a similar model from the same line of trains that is obviously a better grade vehicle, and everyone seems to be crying and begging for the lesser model. And for what reason?

Seriously... Its downright hilarious. I'm not even against TC even though I would have liked the subway option better. I understand if someone is being defensive because they are diametrically opposed to Transit City, but I'm sitting here as a simple observer and want to see the best TC built as possible, and the suggestion that a better train technology is a bad thing?

Amusing!

So I guess I'm not going to be able to solicit at least one "yea, ordering Swift is a GREAT idea, even if that's not what they end up doing" agreement? You mean to tell me there's not one single person here that agrees?

I find that hard to believe. We're in a general discussion, its not like I have any real power to sway the planners of TC either way. Swift still seems the better option for the TC order which is separate from the TTC streetcar order.

My real hope is that these words are being read somewhere by a TC planner and that the idea that ordering Swift will somewhere be debated on a level that matters in a decision making capacity. My deed is done. I can't really contribute to a Swift vs Outlook debate any further, I've provided all the information I know how. From manufacturers' links to examples of other systems to the dimensions of the trams vs the modular light rail vehicles.

My hope is that somewhere, a voice that can make a difference just puts the Swift order idea into debate. If it doesn't win, oh well, but at least its considered.

And for those of you who think its not a good idea to at least consider, I'll concede everything I've debated to the point that if Swift would prove too costly, too problematic for the future of Transit City to be completed on budget, yea they should just stick with Flexity Outlook for TC and pretty much buy those custom coupler devices and use the same trains on all the lines.

But someone, somewhere needs to seriously consider Swift and see if it can be done within budget. Its simply a better vehicle and is ideal for Eglinton Light Rail. Eglinton is in its own right of way more than the Portland MAX I used for a year, and its in its own right of way more than the Pittsburgh T system is save for the 47 trains between Willow and Downtown. I don't agree that it should be Flexity Outlook because it goes through intersections and I don't agree that Swift sounds too expensive when its essentially a better version of the same technology. How much more expensive could it possibly be? I mean they negotiate these things by contract and i'm sure an arrangement can be made that works with TC if they make an effort.

 

[299 bloor call control.]

Edmonton's North LRT plans:
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/RoadsTraffic/ProjectBooklet-FINAL-081031.pdf

 

[EnviroTO]

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 couplers have to be "external" in order to grab each other. Anything that comes from the factory is "built-in". All couplers are couplers "by-design". Bombardier engineers aren't going to slap on a cheap coupler that rips off under normal load conditions. Suggesting otherwise makes no sense at all. By the way, hot-plugability is a term for electronics, not for physical attachments.

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).

I never said "too expensive". To say something is "too expensive" one would need to know the total budget available to purchase vehicles and the total cost a bid comes up with for those vehicles. I said "more expensive" and it is common sense. You don't normally get a heavier vehicle that goes faster for the same price. There is a cost to retool a factory to produce two different models... it can't be done for free. There are economies of scale when you don't need to retrain factory workers and TTC maintenance people how to build and repair two different models of vehicles. There are economies of scale when you only need one set of replacement parts. If you can't understand these basic facts I can't help you.

Just so you know, I'm big into critical thinking.

Where is the thinking? You haven't explained how 4 seats plus an aisle would fit into a vehicle the width of a Brussels tram. Just look at the interior pictures and think about how it is possible. You suggest that Bombardier would provide and the TTC would accept a coupler which is sub-standard. Why do you hold Bombardier and TTC engineers in such low regard? If you can't trust Bombardier to make a quality product why even go with the Swift?

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.

Who said anything about 1.2ft? The difference I am talking about from 2.65m is 5-10cm which is at max 0.32ft. You couldn't fit a properly sized aisle in a Portland streetcar with four seats abreast. You could have a slightly thinner aisle than the MAX.

Looking at the Portland example I see both vehicles are using the same coupler system.

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.

That same argument is used to say why the whole thing should be a subway. The reality is that the Transit City plan is a plan to cut costs so the same budget can deliver service into more areas.

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).

The difference between coupler and no-coupler on a vehicle designed from the start to support a coupler is a different front body panel and mounting the off-the-shelf coupler to the frame. The difference between an Outlook and a Swift is every body panel, every bogie, the frame, etc.

 

[EnviroTO]

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?

It is a heavier vehicle which goes faster and due to weight and momentum would likely have a smoother ride. I never said that the Swift isn't a different product. I have said that the differences aren't related to capacity, couplers, and modularity.

 

[Eug]

Personally I don't care that much about a few cm here and there or whatever. There are many more things important to the big picture.

What I think is important:

1) It can accommodate the ridership in peak hours, and will be able to do so 20 years from now too. To do this it will require the ability to couple trains easily, but that's not really an issue with light rail today.

2) The system can be implemented in a relatively quick fashion, is reliable, and can be built for reasonable cost.

3) The system can deal with Toronto winters and snow without going off-line all the time, and can handle not just straight areas but also those tight turns we (may) have in some areas.

4) Traffic signalling can be made to work reliably, to ensure priority for the LRTs.

5) Existing roads are not made totally unfriendly to cars. LRT must co-exist with vehicular traffic.

6) Noise is reasonable.

 

[Brandon716]

^^A simple no, you don't agree that Swift should be an option would have been fine.

BTW, I never suggested the external couplers were defective. I already know each vehicle powers itself.

As stated before, all information that i've already provided can be read before, no need to rehash. Its pretty clear you think Outlook should be the standard for all lines, both traditional streetcar and the new TC lines, and the debate is over for you. You're interested in supporting it, I'm interested in seeing Swift as a possibility for Transit City.

You have my reasons: better, higher quality couplers built in with a more modular size. The difference between a 2,300mm width train and 2,650 is about 1ft, and there is confusion as to how wide the TTC streetcars will be, but if it is a difference of 2300 vs 2650mm that's over 1 ft, not .3 ft. If the difference is 2400mm and 2650mm, it is about .9ft (almost 1 ft).

Basically if it can be done for minimal cost changes, if any at all, I think its worth looking at Swift. Not sure where you keep needing to go line by line in some critique of my statements, it really is about that fine point.

Enviro, I admire your passion, but what we're disagreeing on is a simple matter of what you think will pass easier (using the same car as the streetcar network) and what I think would be better for the longer term in getting the higher quality Swift cars for TC. I'm not arguing for the destruction of the TC plan, obviously, but I do think Sheppard LRT should be dropped while they build the other lines.

A separate subway building project to finish Sheppard and a DRL should be in the works after TC, imo.

And in regards to Portland, the coupler on the MAX is very different from the Streetcar, the Portland Streetcars are all built in and aren't doubled up anyway. Not sure what you are referring to there... Maybe if you discuss what you mean in detail I could understand better. I love talking about the systems they have built in Portland, I grew fond of the city while I was there. Its still a very small town compared to Toronto, but its making the best effort of any city in its range south of the border.

Speaking of Portland, I visited Vancouver no less than 4 times between fall of 2007 and winter 2008 before leaving town to come back east. One thing I love about Canada is how despite the less population, there's more quality to the cities. Vancouver essentially has the same population as metro Portland, yet its more urban and interesting than Seattle (which has a million more people) or Portland. Portland seems like a downright small town compared to Vancouver.

Its so amazing to see the differences between the various cities, and how Canada treats its cities in terms of development, layout, character, etc. I think out west, the PacNW and west coast of Canada are quite interesting. Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland are lopped together as one unit many times, but few people talk about how different they are.

Here's how I describe them...

Portland - small urban village, but its a genuine urban feeling despite it feeling smaller
Seattle - huge, sprawling, less urban
Vancouver - large, urban (most urban in the region)

Its fascinating to see a quality vs quantity issue. Canadian cities always amaze me for how much more quality there is over quantity. There are places all over America with 800,000 or 1 million, or 2 million people. But Omaha, Kansas City, Fresno, Knoxville, etc. all leave so much to be desired as they lack so much. Its just Walmart and Best Buy with a few homes and a small business oriented downtown usually.

For Vancouver to be so urban and so interesting when south of the border, while interesting places in their own right, they can't seem to manage the same kind of interesting urban intensity with the same or larger populations.

Portland was a great place to be, but I couldn't help but laugh because you suggest building a highrise structure outside the central city and people get totally bent out of shape. Beaverton Central MAX station has a development they tried to develop into a larger structure, but the suburban communities get enraged at any highrise activity and its killed before it gets off the ground... Yet Surrey is building 50 storey buildings. I'll pick the Vancouver model, it just feels better. And Canadian, of course.

Always so interesting to discuss.

 

[EnviroTO]

You have my reasons: better, higher quality couplers built in with a more modular size. The difference between a 2,300mm width train and 2,650 is about 1ft, and there is confusion as to how wide the TTC streetcars will be, but if it is a difference of 2300 vs 2650mm that's over 1 ft, not .3 ft. If the difference is 2400mm and 2650mm, it is about .9ft (almost 1 ft).

- They use identical couplers on both vehicles.
- The width of the vehicle will be between 2.5 and 2.6m... not 2.3m.

Not sure where you keep needing to go line by line in some critique of my statements, it really is about that fine point.

Because you don't seem to be able to comprehend what I am saying. Swift IS a better and more expensive vehicle, but it is better for reasons which do not include couplers and modularity.

And in regards to Portland, the coupler on the MAX is very different from the Streetcar, the Portland Streetcars are all built in and aren't doubled up anyway. Not sure what you are referring to there... Maybe if you discuss what you mean in detail I could understand better.

I meant to say the couplers on the Bombardier LRV Type 1 are identical to the ones used on the Siemens LRT Type 2 despite being from different manufacturers. Couplers have common designs. The couplers mounted on a Transit City vehicle would be of a standard design just as capable as any other. If the TTC asks Bombardier for a Scharfenberg coupler on their Outlook they will get one and it will be the exact same coupler they would get if it was a Swift.

You can desire the Swift all you want but the benefits are speed, weight, and ride related. The mission of a Swift is for longer distances between stations and high unlikelihood of interacting with street traffic. The mission of an Outlook is a more urban environment. It has nothing to do with couplers and capacity. There are many Swift that didn't come delivered with couplers.

 

[RedRocket191]

I'm not an expert, but I have worked for a municipal government for the past four summers and have dealt with tender documents on a regular basis...

While the Swift v Outlook debate is very interesting, doesn't it all boil down to what the vender is willing to provide? If Bombardier is going to bid with the Outlook (and a specific version of the Outlook at that) then it means that they are not willing to supply another product. There isn't too much choice to be had and I have a funny feeling that all these details have already been decided when they submitted a bid - mainly because the tender call would have specified every last detail already.

 

[Brandon716]

- They use identical couplers on both vehicles.
- The width of the vehicle will be between 2.5 and 2.6m... not 2.3m.



Because you don't seem to be able to comprehend what I am saying. Swift IS a better and more expensive vehicle, but it is better for reasons which do not include couplers and modularity.



I meant to say the couplers on the Bombardier LRV Type 1 are identical to the ones used on the Siemens LRT Type 2 despite being from different manufacturers. Couplers have common designs. The couplers mounted on a Transit City vehicle would be of a standard design just as capable as any other. If the TTC asks Bombardier for a Scharfenberg coupler on their Outlook they will get one and it will be the exact same coupler they would get if it was a Swift.

You can desire the Swift all you want but the benefits are speed, weight, and ride related. The mission of a Swift is for longer distances between stations and high unlikelihood of interacting with street traffic. The mission of an Outlook is a more urban environment. It has nothing to do with couplers and capacity. There are many Swift that didn't come delivered with couplers.

The Swift uses a different connector than the Outlook, so I don't see how you can say they use the same coupler.

And you have provided no evidence that the TTC Outlook trains are 2.5 or 2.6m across, you are guessing out of thin air.

Instead of making stuff up, you should really just say you want Outlook because you think it sounds cheaper, which means you think TC will be more viable a project.

That's really your only point... Which I accept as valid to discuss.

As stated before, if Swift is too expensive, I don't mind seeing Outlook be the final option.

But don't sit here and say the coupler is the same - its not - and don't say you know the width because you don't. I'm the only person that provided a link, and even if you want to bash the Star as a valid source, it was a source of information.

Please send me a link if you have information I don't have. So far you haven't done so. If you have the evidence, prove that the TTC Flexity Outlook is going to be 2.6m wide, and I will accept it and move on. I don't have that information, and the vast majority of Outlook vehicles are 2.3m long with the larger models at 2.4. If what you are saying is true, show me.

It sounds like you're defending the Outlook purchase based on figures you've created out of thin air, just because you want the cheapest option to go forth, because you fear any more hold ups with the TC project.

Lets just be honest about the debate. I'm happy to be on the side of a debate where all I'm arguing for is a higher quality train. LOL

You recognize Swift is a higher grade vehicle that averages 80-100km/h and the Outlook is a cheaper, less grade vehicle that maxes out at 60-70km/h. You seem to not recognize the additional coupler device required for Outlook vs the built in options on Swift... And the width is highly debatable, neither of us know the final blueprint on how wide this TTC Outlook will be, I have searched all over the internet and haven't found a source yet and would love for you to show me if you have it.

Also, last time I checked, Eglinton LRT is not operating with traffic. The Eglinton LRT is designed to cross traffic intersections (of which it will be fewer than 18 intersections system-wide, according to my calculations) and be separated by barricades/dividers on the street. Portland MAX runs in traffic for significant portions and not every station is a mile apart by any means. Eglinton LRT will be completely separated from traffic and will only cross at specific intersections where a station is already going to be present.

In other words, Eglinton is ripe for Flexity Swift.

 

[EnviroTO]

The Swift uses a different connector than the Outlook, so I don't see how you can say they use the same coupler.

The vehicle comes with whatever coupler you want. The Croydon Flexity Swift comes with a couple that is no more than a pole. If you order a Scharfenberg coupler that is what you get. If you order the retractable pole that Croydon ordered then that is what you get. These things are like options in a car.

And you have provided no evidence that the TTC Outlook trains are 2.5 or 2.6m across, you are guessing out of thin air.

No, you are guessing out of thin air. The streetcar replacement order is to replace streetcars on the current network. The current width of the streetcars is 2.54m wide with four seats abreast and an aisle. The interior image provided by Bombardier not surprisingly shows four seats abreast plus an aisle. You couldn't fit four seats and an aisle in a 2.3m wide tram safely if you tried. Do the math...

Approximately : 0.43+0.43+0.43+0.43+0.6+0.1+0.1=2.52m.

To vary the width significantly from 2.54m would mean they would have to redo all the curbs on St.Clair, Spadina, and other stops with curbs to reduce the gap.

 

[EnviroTO]

While the Swift v Outlook debate is very interesting, doesn't it all boil down to what the vender is willing to provide? If Bombardier is going to bid with the Outlook (and a specific version of the Outlook at that) then it means that they are not willing to supply. There isn't too much choice to be had and I have a funny feeling that all these details have already been decided when they submitted a bid - mainly because the tender call would have specified every last detail already.

Yes. The RFQ specified what the TTC wanted and it was based on getting something that would fit the existing system with options with minor modifications that can be used for Transit City.

 

[CapitalSeven]

This is directly from the TTC report for September 19, 2007
SUBJECT: STATUS OF LOW FLOOR LIGHT RAIL VEHICLE PROCUREMENT PROJECT. Check out paragraph 5.

Key Vehicle Features
A. General
1. The proposed vehicle will likely be a 100% low floor vehicle for better passenger flow, increased passenger capacity compared with a partial low floor vehicle, improved accessibility, and reduced tripping hazard (at internal steps). Partial (at least 70%) low floor design, as in the case of vehicles employing conventional high floor end trucks, will be allowed for RFP submission. However, due to physical gradeability and adhesion limit constraints, and the desire not to have 4 sets of internal steps (to accommodate three high floor powered trucks), a partial low floor vehicle would require significant innovative design efforts to meet the specified performance requirements.
2. The base vehicle will be specified as a single-ended vehicle. This configuration utilizes the existing loops with no cross-over track, maximizes reliability and seating capacity, minimizes control complexity and ensures most seats will face in one direction and result in lower capital and operating costs.
3. The specification will incorporate stringent weight control, energy management, restricted substance and recyclability of materials requirements, and will be in keeping with global initiatives such as the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
4. The Vehicle will meet fire load, smoke and toxicity specifications for extended tunnel operation.
5. The LF LRV will have similar width (2.54m) and height (3.68m) as the existing vehicles. Depending on the carbuilder, the overall length could vary between 27m (88.6’) to 30m (98’), compared with a CLRV at 15.4m (51’) and an ALRV at 23.2m (75’).
6. The multi-articulated vehicle will have 3 trucks, with all trucks powered to meet gradeability and adhesion limit requirements.
7. The low floor vehicle will have partial power “limp home†traction capability and emergency push-out ability using a drawbar, with an emergency communication and braking coupling cable.
8. No fare collection by Operator is provided – an alternative fare system must be in place before the introduction of LF LRVs. Rough-in power and communication cables will be specified for ticket vending and validation machines at each doorway.
9. The performance of the existing trolley pole power collection system has been determined to be acceptable in the near term. Provision will be made for possible pantograph conversion in future, when the overhead system is ready, and particularly for higher speed Right-Of-Way (ROW) operation.
10. Pantograph operating on the Transit City lines with the proposed 750 V catenary and double point trackswitches on signalized right-of-way will be provided for as an option for the Transit City lines. Multiple unit operation, double ended configuration with doors on both sides will be studied in the interim and also be provided for as an option.
11. Almost all of the exterior lights will be of the L.E.D. (Light Emitting Diodes) type to reduce maintenance cost and energy consumption.

 

[Ansem]

Sheppard got funded

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/634783

Construction will begin this fall on the long-awaited Sheppard East light rail transit line to be completed by 2013, the federal and Ontario governments announced today.

Ottawa and Queen's Park are paying $950 million, with the province accounting for two-thirds of the total.

Today's announcement was made at the TTC's Hillcrest Yard on Bathurst St.

Construction on the Sheppard East LRT project is expected to start later this year, and will generate about 9,500 construction jobs before it's completed.

The new LRT, about 14 kilometres in length, will run from the Don Mills subway station on the Sheppard line to the Metro Zoo area on Meadowvale Rd., and will connect with the Finch West LRT.

It will carry about 45,000 people daily when fully operational.

It's the third of Toronto's proposed Transit City lines to receive funding.

Queen's Park announced about $6 billion last month for light rail on Eglinton Ave and Finch West.