Transit City Plan

[Fresh Start]

It's not a subway. Subway implies an exclusive ROW that doesn't have to cross at-level with general traffic whatsoever, not to mention higher capacity capability specs that grows as the ridership level does over time. To paraphrase something said to me by one disgruntled LRTista: "you can put lipstick on an LRT, but it's still a bloody streetcar."

 

[nfitz]

Yes and the point was that they (Metrolinx) is trying to sell the Eglinton LRT as a subway to the general public.

It is effectively a subway, at least for the middle 12-km where the demand is highest. Underground trains running in tunnels every 3 minutes or so, at YUS and BD speeds.

I'm baffled why anyone is trying to sell this as a streetcar. When we discussed using similar technology years ago along Queen Street we called it the Queen Subway.

 

[Justin10000]

It is effectively a subway, at least for the middle 12-km where the demand is highest. Underground trains running in tunnels every 3 minutes or so, at YUS and BD speeds.

I'm baffled why anyone is trying to sell this as a streetcar. When we discussed using similar technology years ago along Queen Street we called it the Queen Subway.

I am not a fan of Metrolinx, but I do not see anything wrong with saying Eglinton is a subway. You can even consider low-floor LRV's to be level boarding since no steps are required.
Anyone who is trying to sell this line as a streetcar is clearly not a "transit geek".

 

[The Mad Navigator]

I am not a fan of Metrolinx, but I do not see anything wrong with saying Eglinton is a subway. You can even consider low-floor LRV's to be level boarding since no steps are required.
Anyone who is trying to sell this line as a streetcar is clearly not a "transit geek".

Amen! +1

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I am not a fan of Metrolinx, but I do not see anything wrong with saying Eglinton is a subway. You can even consider low-floor LRV's to be level boarding since no steps are required.
Anyone who is trying to sell this line as a streetcar is clearly not a "transit geek".

Than email Metrolinx and ask what makes the ECLRT a "subway" and the SRT replacement "not a subway". What's at issue here isn't us transit geeks arguing the semantics of HRT, LRT, subway, etc, etc, etc it's what the average person thinks a subway is and how Mentrolinx has used that to obfuscate what exactly is being built on these 2 lines.

 

[Justin10000]

What's at issue here is you, and a few others cannot admit vehicles in the tunneled section will travel just as fast as the B-D line, be just as frequent, and have enough capacity for the long-term. For all intent and purposes it's a subway, semantics be damned. The average person is going to ride, and think "yeah, subway. It's underground, and fast."

 

[The Mad Navigator]

What's at issue here is you, and a few others cannot admit vehicles in the tunneled section will travel just as fast as the B-D line, be just as frequent, and have enough capacity for the long-term. For all intent and purposes it's a subway, semantics be damned. The average person is going to ride, and think "yeah, subway. It's underground, and fast."

The problem with the SOSers is that they're stuck in "nothing but grade separated RT lines" mentality.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

When you get down to it, it isn't all black and white. When you say "subway" people think underground. When you say "streetcar" people think at-grade. I wouldn't think the general public would accept calling the SRT a 'subway' even though it has the same grade-seperated features. In theory, you could call it a superway (I'd call at-grade a surway).

Think whatever you want, but people almost universally consider the SRT part of the 'subway' system. Everyone knows this. It's what happens when you have a fast, grade-separated line, shown on the subway map, at which bus routes terminate. People in Toronto don't associate 'subway' with just 'underground' because so much of our subway network isn't underground. If Eglinton, for instance, is not deemed a subway by people at large, it'll be because it shares the road with cars outside the central tunnel, not because it's not fully underground. The line's speed may also be a big factor.

 

[nfitz]

Than email Metrolinx and ask what makes the ECLRT a "subway" and the SRT replacement "not a subway".

Surely the difference is that one runs in a subway, while the other one doesn't (remember we are talking about the subway under Eglinton between Jane and Leslie). I suppose technically a piece of the SRT extension near Sheppard will be in a subway, as may the new Kennedy platforms, but there aren't any extensive sections of subway along the SRT ... unless it get's extended in the future north of Sheppard.

We are we arguing semantics ... who cares what we call it?

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

What's at issue here is you, and a few others cannot admit vehicles in the tunneled section will travel just as fast as the B-D line, be just as frequent, and have enough capacity for the long-term. For all intent and purposes it's a subway, semantics be damned. The average person is going to ride, and think "yeah, subway. It's underground, and fast."

And be built at the same cost as a full HRT which will have a greater ceiling to absorb ridership growth. I can buy a Chevy Impala for ~ $35000 or a BMW 3 series both will do the job but one will do it better than the other and have room to spare.

 

[Justin10000]

And be built at the same cost as a full HRT which will have a greater ceiling to absorb ridership growth. I can buy a Chevy Impala for ~ $35000 or a BMW 3 series both will do the job but one will do it better than the other and have room to spare.

The BMW will be a bare bones model, and will cost more to maintain, and operate, wile the Impala will not break the bank, and still get you from point A to B in relative comfort.

Point is, the LRT subway will have more than enough capacity for the long term, and the versatility of LRVs will allow the line to be extended in areas where a full-blown subway cannot be justified. I do not buy the "plan for the future" line because no one can predict the future.

 

[Rainforest]

The BMW will be a bare bones model, and will cost more to maintain, and operate, wile the Impala will not break the bank, and still get you from point A to B in relative comfort.

In case of Eglinton, maintaining LRT won't necessarily be cheaper than maintaining HRT.

LRT stations are going to be unmanned and that should bring some savings. But they can be offset by the slightly larger number of trains and drivers needed to maintain the same frequency (LRT will be slower between Laird and Kennedy -> longer total trip time -> more trains needed).

In addition, street-worthy light-rail cars cost considerably more than subway cars (of the same capacity) that only have to be tunnel-worthy. Given that the fleet needs replacement from time to time, this will be a greater recurring expense with LRT.

Point is, the LRT subway will have more than enough capacity for the long term, and the versatility of LRVs will allow the line to be extended in areas where a full-blown subway cannot be justified. I do not buy the "plan for the future" line because no one can predict the future.

You state that "no one can predict the future", and at the same time, assert that "the LRT subway will have more than enough capacity for the long term" ...

 

[scarberiankhatru]

The correct answer is that we have a substantial ability to create the future...change the fare structure, rezone, alter bus routes, set train frequencies, etc.

 

[The Mad Navigator]

The correct answer is that we have a substantial ability to create the future...change the fare structure, rezone, alter bus routes, set train frequencies, etc.

It's that simple, eh?

Why don't apply for a top TTC management job? or better yet run for council so that you can become TTC chair!

 

[Justin10000]

In case of Eglinton, maintaining LRT won't necessarily be cheaper than maintaining HRT.

LRT stations are going to be unmanned and that should bring some savings. But they can be offset by the slightly larger number of trains and drivers needed to maintain the same frequency (LRT will be slower between Laird and Kennedy -> longer total trip time -> more trains needed).

I also agree his analogy was poor. Definitely does not justify subway over LRT in tunnel. The difference in speed between the tunnelled section and the East section is around 7km. The increase in travel time will be minimal and will not require any extra LRVs. Regardless, whatever headway the TTC chooses will be maintained. I do not know how you came to that assumption, that more LRV will be needed because of a slightly longer travel time on the surface.

In addition, street-worthy light-rail cars cost considerably more than subway cars (of the same capacity) that only have to be tunnel-worthy. Given that the fleet needs replacement from time to time, this will be a greater recurring expense with LRT.

LRT is being built because you do NOT need the capacity of a Subway. The new TR trains must be purchased as one train, so that is automatically $18.9Million dollars. a 3 car LRV train will be half that cost, and will be more versatile. You can break up the train if necessary to save costs. Cannot do that with the new TR's.
You have no idea if the LRT will incur greater expenses. They are not even in service yet. The useful life of any rail transit vehicle is similar. I can very easily use trhe H6's to nullify your argument, considering they are due for replacement after less than 30 years in service. It's well known those cars are maintenance nightmares. What is "street worthy" LRVs anyways? They are all street-worthy, That is the versatility of a LRV.

You state that "no one can predict the future", and at the same time, assert that "the LRT subway will have more than enough capacity for the long term" ...

People with much more experience modeled the Eglinton LRT will peak at 5,400pph in 2031. The LRT is capable of much higher capacity .I am not pulling the "we should build for te future" excuse as a way to justify a subway.