Transit City Plan

[rbt]

I stand corrected! But the only problem is that LRT costs much more than subway cars and running 5 cars with ATO increases the total number of LRV's required. To put this in perspective, the TR unit cost is around $3 million, but the unit cost of the new LRV's that the TTC is buying is around $6 million. And I don't know about the availability of low-floor HRT, or any other option, though.

Agreed. The rolling stock is more expensive due to being "street-safe"; just as Montreal has savings on their subway rolling-stock over Toronto because we need ours to be weather resistent.

In my opinion, it is worth the additional rollingstock cost to eliminate the transfer; just as I am in favour of eliminating the SRT to subway transfer at Kennedy.

 

[rbt]

This should be possible; perhaps, even 170 persons per car and 34,000 pphpd.

However, this will require:

1) Full grade separation, at least between Jane and Don Mills - both for 5-car trains and for the use of ATO. This is not a bad idea, but is not guaranteed; and if done, would drive the cost even higher than the present 6,065 million.

Not necessarily actually. 90 second headways for the TTC would require multiple turnback points (see Spadina/Yonge extension plans).

We could, for example, have 90 second service between the portals (both have cross-overs); 3 minute service between Jane and Don-Mills, and 5 to 6 minute service beyond those two points.

If Jane to Keele really has more than 15,000 riders per hour, then extending the tunnel by a couple of km should be straight forward to implement using a similar model as Bloor when the surface streetcar was replaced.

2) Even then, if they are building stations for 3-min headways with 3-car trains, will they be suitable for the passenger volumes brought by 1.5-min headways with 5-car trains? This is a big question for major interchange stations like Eglinton West and Eglinton/Yonge.

Good question. Given that this is the same board that calls Spadina and Sheppard stations "cathedrals" because they were/are initially overbuilt; I'm pretty sure everybody on this forum would prefer a grow-it as necessary approach like has been taken on the original segment of the Yonge line. Adding additional entrances, installing new vertical transports, etc. as capacity grows; just as King received new entrances/exits.

Most stations will not require upgrades. Summerhill is be perfectly fine with a single small entrance despite the large number of people passing through the station by train.


Two places to build to excess capacity out are Eglinton West and Eglinton East station since we can anticipate a large and growing number of transfers at those locations; just like Sheppard being roughed in for triple platforms.

 

[nfitz]

The rolling stock is more expensive due to being "street-safe"; just as Montreal has savings on their subway rolling-stock over Toronto because we need ours to be weather resistent.

Why are you saying that Montreal has savings?

Toronto just ordered 186 subway cars for $479 million. That's $2.1 million a car.

Montreal's recent (but now aborted) tender from Bombardier was for 340 cars for $1.2 billion. That's $3.5 million per car. There was an option for a further 713 cars for $1.8 billion, which was $2.5 million per car.

The Montreal cars are only 16.8 m long and 2.5 m wide, compared to the 23 m long and 3.1 m wide Toronto cars.

Given the Toronto cars are 70% bigger than the Montreal cars, and are are also cheaper, what is your basis for the Montreal savings?

 

[rbt]

Why are you saying that Montreal has savings?

Toronto just ordered 186 subway cars for $479 million. That's $2.1 million a car.

Montreal's recent (but now aborted) tender from Bombardier was for 340 cars for $1.2 billion. That's $3.5 million per car. There was an option for a further 713 cars for $1.8 billion, which was $2.5 million per car.

The Montreal cars are only 16.8 m long and 2.5 m wide, compared to the 23 m long and 3.1 m wide Toronto cars.

Given the Toronto cars are 70% bigger than the Montreal cars, and are are also cheaper, what is your basis for the Montreal savings?

Montreal has savings by not needing weather proofing since no part of their system goes outdoors.

They also have a number of additional expenses, as you well know, for various quirks of their system: Rubber tires and dealing with the vibrations they create, the longer expected life-span, manufacturing in Quebec, possibly dealing with various illegal elements in the contract (well documented for road related contracts).

 

[fanoftoronto]

Agreed. The rolling stock is more expensive due to being "street-safe"; just as Montreal has savings on their subway rolling-stock over Toronto because we need ours to be weather resistent.

In my opinion, it is worth the additional rollingstock cost to eliminate the transfer; just as I am in favour of eliminating the SRT to subway transfer at Kennedy.

But running 4 or 5 LRV trainsets will restrict their use to the tunnel only. The maximum operating capacity in the surface is restricted to 3 LRV trainsets. I believe it is because the train has to be able to cross intersections with sufficient time. So, if the demand ever increases over 3 LRV trainsets, then the tunnel has to start operating isolated from the surface portions.

 

[fanoftoronto]

Good question. Given that this is the same board that calls Spadina and Sheppard stations "cathedrals" because they were/are initially overbuilt; I'm pretty sure everybody on this forum would prefer a grow-it as necessary approach like has been taken on the original segment of the Yonge line. Adding additional entrances, installing new vertical transports, etc. as capacity grows; just as King received new entrances/exits.

Most stations will not require upgrades. Summerhill is be perfectly fine with a single small entrance despite the large number of people passing through the station by train.


Two places to build to excess capacity out are Eglinton West and Eglinton East station since we can anticipate a large and growing number of transfers at those locations; just like Sheppard being roughed in for triple platforms.

Yes, I have no doubt that the TTC will build the stations large enough to accomodate future expansion. In any case the platforms will have to be 6.5 m wide, since that is the distance between the two tunnels. And according to the EA, each station has atleast 2 entrances with some stations having 3! We will know more once the design for the stations come out, but we can be certain that they will be large enough to accomodate even 6 car subways.

 

[rbt]

But running 4 or 5 LRV trainsets will restrict their use to the tunnel only. The maximum operating capacity in the surface is restricted to 3 LRV trainsets. I believe it is because the train has to be able to cross intersections with sufficient time. So, if the demand ever increases over 3 LRV trainsets, then the tunnel has to start operating isolated from the surface portions.

Don't see the issue with running 5-car consists on short-turns in the tunnel and 3-car consists the full route. Riders would very quickly learn where they are going just by the length of the train.

It is also possible that in 2050 the Works Department (due to popular demand) will decide running 5-car consists in the street isn't very disruptive to traffic given the passengers NOT driving, and will tweek the lights/design to allow for the larger trains on the surface.

It is also possible in 2030 we decide Eglinton works pretty well and long ago build something similar on Lawrence and extended St. Clair. Eglinton sticks with 3-car consists because there 90% of ridership is within walking distance.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Don't see the issue with running 5-car consists on short-turns in the tunnel and 3-car consists the full route. Riders would very quickly learn where they are going just by the length of the train.

Kind of defeats the purpose of a transferless ride no? A rider at Yonge wanting to head east or west out of the tunnell section would either a) board the first train they see (and assuming it's a central tunel train) travel to the east or west end of the tunnel then get off and wait for the 3 car surface train. Or b) wiat for a 3 car surface train to arrave at their origin station. Both are inconveniences. So we are now back to a subway in the central section and LRT/BRT in the outer sections for roughly the same price.

 

[rbt]

Kind of defeats the purpose of a transferless ride no? A rider at Yonge wanting to head east or west out of the tunnell section would either a) board the first train they see (and assuming it's a central tunel train) travel to the east or west end of the tunnel then get off and wait for the 3 car surface train. Or b) wiat for a 3 car surface train to arrave at their origin station. Both are inconveniences. So we are now back to a subway in the central section and LRT/BRT in the outer sections for roughly the same price.

It's interesting how one thread can be entirely pro-branching (see anything regarding Ottawa BRT, many on New Yorks subway) and yet when it could be practical for Toronto to do something similar then it becomes an issue.

Yes, you are correct that the person would need to wait for the appropriately signed train to come along to get their transferless ride.

Option 1: (Subway + transfer to other mode)
- Wait ~45 seconds (90 seconds / 2) for train to come and ride to end point
- Get out and walk up stairs or to transfer area
- Wait ~2.5 minutes (5 minute headways / 2 for average) for train to arrive and find a seat.

Options 2: (Branched service within tunnel)
- Wait ~2.5 minutes (5 minute headways / 2 for average) for train to arrive and find a seat. You will watch 1 to 2 trains go by during this time.


Not quite the same thing.

 

[Fresh Start]

It is also possible that in 2050 the Works Department (due to popular demand) will decide running 5-car consists in the street isn't very disruptive to traffic given the passengers NOT driving, and will tweek the lights/design to allow for the larger trains on the surface.

It is also possible in 2030 we decide Eglinton works pretty well and long ago build something similar on Lawrence and extended St. Clair. Eglinton sticks with 3-car consists because there 90% of ridership is within walking distance.

You can't be serious. You think shilling multibillions on an LRT line along Lawrence (East? West? +Dixon Rd? All of the above?) to parallel something a mere single concession road south in the not too distant future is a better allocation of funds; than just building Eglinton as a crosstown subway today and if neccessary designate bus/HOV only lanes along those corridors during peak hours with transit signal lighting and honour system rear door boarding?

 

[rbt]

You can't be serious. You think shilling multibillions on an LRT line along Lawrence (East? West? +Dixon Rd? All of the above?) to parallel something a mere single concession road south in the not too distant future is a better allocation of funds; than just building Eglinton as a crosstown subway today and if neccessary designate bus/HOV only lanes along those corridors during peak hours with transit signal lighting and honour system rear door boarding?

That's odd, I thought you would be favour of the DRL.

I am entirely serious when I say that if any line in Toronto it approaching its capacity of 30,000pphpd or more I am in favour of building a parallel route at great expense (network redundancy primarily) instead of or in addition to making marginal improvements on the line itself.

My question is, how could you be against it? Why are you against the Downtown Relief Line for Yonge which faces this exact scenario?

Or did you make a rash comment without understanding the math/issue presented?

 

[fanoftoronto]

It's interesting how one thread can be entirely pro-branching (see anything regarding Ottawa BRT, many on New Yorks subway) and yet when it could be practical for Toronto to do something similar then it becomes an issue.

The only difference between other branched routes in other cities is that the carrying capacity of the vehicle was the same, be it buses in Ottawa or subway in New York. A 3 car LRT will not be able to handle peak load passengers. How is it logical to run 5 car consists in a shorter route than the 3 car consist? The 3 car trainset will be useless in peak hours, since it will always be full when it's operating in the tunnel.

 

[SlickFranky]

This whole debate has veered into fantasy-land.

No projection (including the craziest 'calculation' made here) has Eglinton anywhere near 30k. 5-car LRT's?!? Not only would YUS cease to function in any meaningful way, I have serious doubts even DRL couldn't manage this kind of pressure.

 

[Rainforest]

Don't see the issue with running 5-car consists on short-turns in the tunnel and 3-car consists the full route. Riders would very quickly learn where they are going just by the length of the train.

This is doable; but will be useful only if the tunnel (or otherwise fully grade-separate part) reaches the majority of big transfer points. Otherwise, 3-car consists will be overcrowded whereas short-turning 5-car consists will be underused.

It is also possible that in 2050 the Works Department (due to popular demand) will decide running 5-car consists in the street isn't very disruptive to traffic given the passengers NOT driving, and will tweek the lights/design to allow for the larger trains on the surface.

In a desperate need of more transit capacity, this might work.

It is also possible in 2030 we decide Eglinton works pretty well and long ago build something similar on Lawrence and extended St. Clair. Eglinton sticks with 3-car consists because there 90% of ridership is within walking distance.

But we won't get Lawrence LRT in the foreseeable future, because of high cost of Eglitnon and because of other competing priorities.

 

[M II A II R II K]

In those time frames it will be easier to have airbusses to not have to deal with traffic, roads, subways, tracks, or tunnels and be done with it.