Transit City Plan

[Rainforest]

Maybe they will be building the Eglinton West subway from Eglinton West to Keele, and the Sheppard subway to STC. A sort of focus on finishing what was started and subways.

Metrolinx might be pushing for the Eglinton line that reaches further west, up to the Mississauga border and Pearson. Even though they cut that section when Miller was in Mayor's chair, now they are eager to assert their regional mandate, and the western extremity of Eglinton line is the only major regional connection they can defend at this time.

Also, it would be easier for them to use LRT vehicles at this point - to avoid redesigning the tunneled section, and to preserve part of the already placed LRV order - even if the line will be fully grade separated.

 

[LAz]

If you think that the support for the Eglinton line as LRT is based on "OMG lets make it a sexy tram" then you really need to pay more attention. Even most LRT supporters acknowledge that subways provide a superior service. The question is whether that superior service is worth the superior price tag.

The price difference between an underground heavy rail and light rail is quite small. The bulk of the cost is just tunneling.
So there is no reason as to why not have the thing as heavy rail from the get-go. It's as if people are scared of having a little more capacity. I mean yo, you're already tunneling... so why not make it the superior thing then??? A 13 km line is not something to be disappointed about.

Your must not be familiar with the Transit City plan. Part of Eglinton will be built as Metro. Another part will be built as Sobeys.

Metro implies heavy rail technology. All the transit city lines are light rail.

 

[EnviroTO]

Metro implies heavy rail technology. All the transit city lines are light rail.

To you perhaps. The London Underground trains have a smaller cross-section than any LRT that would be used here. The Montreal and Paris metros don't use rail at all and have a smaller cross-section than the LRT equipment that was proposed.

 

[EnviroTO]

Also, it would be easier for them to use LRT vehicles at this point - to avoid redesigning the tunneled section, and to preserve part of the already placed LRV order - even if the line will be fully grade separated.

However they would need to then explain how it can only make sense to put subway on Sheppard, but still sensible to put LRT on Eglinton, when more people are expected on Eglinton.

 

[Asterix]

The price difference between an underground heavy rail and light rail is quite small. The bulk of the cost is just tunneling.

For the tunneled portion yes, little difference in capital cost.

The advantage of LRT is that they can then build many more km of improved transit along the surface than they could ever hope to afford extending the tunnel to the east and west.

Then there is the little matter of higher subway operating costs that will not be justified by the ridership within the lifespan of the subway. That sounds like a gravy train to me.

 

[gweed123]

For the tunneled portion yes, little difference in capital cost.

The advantage of LRT is that they can then build many more km of improved transit along the surface than they could ever hope to afford extending the tunnel to the east and west.

Then there is the little matter of higher subway operating costs that will not be justified by the ridership within the lifespan of the subway. That sounds like a gravy train to me.

At this point, I'm leaning more towards the idea that Metrolinx is going to do Eglinton as ICTS, as they originally wanted. They fought with Giambrone & Co tooth and nail about the technology choice on Eglinton, but finally accepted LRT. Now that that Co is gone, and they have someone who places value on grade-separation in office, they may be able to follow through on that mandate. I wonder how much thought Metrolinx put into the LRT design behind the scenes (at least for the tunnelled section), for an eventual switch-over to ICTS (either before or after construction).

They also may want this because it will allow them to do the SRT refurb as it was ORIGINALLY intended, as an upgrade to ICTS Mark II. Let's not forget, that upgrade was planned long before TC came to be, and when TC did come to be, pretty much all the TTC did was went into the report and changed everywhere it said "Mark II" to "LRT". A lot of the planning and design work is identical between the two. This could potentially mean that the SRT upgrade stays relatively on schedule, with Eglinton being added shortly afterwards to form a continuous crosstown ICTS line.

But all this speculation is moot. We'll find out hopefully some time this week. Does anyone know the exact date the plan is scheduled to be released?

PS: I'd also be willing to sacrifice the FWLRT for a west extension of the Eglinton ICTS to Pearson. Much more of a regional significance.

 

[Asterix]

At this point, I'm leaning more towards the idea that Metrolinx is going to do Eglinton as ICTS, as they originally wanted. They fought with Giambrone & Co tooth and nail about the technology choice on Eglinton, but finally accepted LRT. Now that that Co is gone, and they have someone who places value on grade-separation in office, they may be able to follow through on that mandate. I wonder how much thought Metrolinx put into the LRT design behind the scenes (at least for the tunnelled section), for an eventual switch-over to ICTS (either before or after construction).

I was under the impression that Mayor Ford had directed the TTC to go back to the drawing board and rework Transit City not Metrolinx.

What is the TTC's position on ICTS?

Wouldn't ICTS require elevated platforms (both in the tunnel and on the surface) instead of the low floor LRT? That and the complete grade separation will certainly make the surface running a lot more expensive. There are large sections of Eglinton who aren't going to be seeing improved transit any time soon.

How does this ICTS plan as well as Stintz's broadcasting of full Sheppard subway jive with previous statements by Metrolinx that there is the money to build either Sheppard or Eglinton, but not both? Has Mayor Ford found a few additional hundreds of millions of dollars in efficiencies and gravy he can reallocate to subways?

 

[Rainforest]

Frankly, I see no significant advantages of using ICTS for Eglinton, and a number of disadvantages:

1) The reaction-rail system is less reliable during snowfalls. This will not apply to tunneled sections per se, but if the yard is connected to the tunnel via an elevated section (and the existing Bellamy yard is), the trains might not get to the tunnel and the riders will have to rely on bustitutes - not a pleasant exercise on Eglinton.

2) Reliance on the single-source provider might cause problems a few decades from now when the fleet needs replacement again.

3) Impossible to connect to any of the future north-south LRT lines crossing Eglinton.

ICTS does not provide any capacity or cost advantage over the standard LRT implementation, and has a speed advantage only if the LRT line is not fully grade-separate. If we are considering a fully grade-separate ICTS, can as well choose fully grade-separate LRT for the same cost, and with same speed and capacity.

 

[gweed123]

I was under the impression that Mayor Ford had directed the TTC to go back to the drawing board and rework Transit City not Metrolinx.

From Metrolinx' website:

Toronto Transit Update

As of December 1st plans for the Sheppard East LRT, Eglinton Crosstown LRT, Finch West LRT and Scarborough RT are under review by TTC and Metrolinx. These projects are part of the Metrolinx Big 5 funded projects and the Big Move Regional transportation Plan. For more information please see The Big Move section on this website.

What is the TTC's position on ICTS?

From what I understand, they aren't exactly in favour of it.

Wouldn't ICTS require elevated platforms (both in the tunnel and on the surface) instead of the low floor LRT? That and the complete grade separation will certainly make the surface running a lot more expensive. There are large sections of Eglinton who aren't going to be seeing improved transit any time soon.

It will make it moderately more expensive, yes. However, especially in the west, it will negate the need to completely rip up and rebuild Eglinton, because they will be able to use the Richview corridor. And building high floor vs low floor in underground stations doesn't really change the cost of the station that significantly. The significant cost comes later when the station has to be changed from one to the other once it's built. And I would venture to say that the FWLRT funding will be going to this western portion.

How does this ICTS plan as well as Stintz's broadcasting of full Sheppard subway jive with previous statements by Metrolinx that there is the money to build either Sheppard or Eglinton, but not both? Has Mayor Ford found a few additional hundreds of millions of dollars in efficiencies and gravy he can reallocate to subways?

I think Metrolinx was engaged in a bit of fear mongering, to try and persuade Ford (and the public that was backing him) to not change the current plan. Metrolinx delivered a great quick little soundbyte that the media could latch onto in the hopes that a groundswell of negative press against Ford's changes would maybe cause him to change course, or at the very least take a bit of a political beating if he wanted to keep pushing his plan.

 

[gweed123]

Frankly, I see no significant advantages of using ICTS for Eglinton, and a number of disadvantages:

1) The reaction-rail system is less reliable during snowfalls. This will not apply to tunneled sections per se, but if the yard is connected to the tunnel via an elevated section (and the existing Bellamy yard is), the trains might not get to the tunnel and the riders will have to rely on bustitutes - not a pleasant exercise on Eglinton.

An LRT train T-boning a car because they couldn't brake in time at a red light during a heavy snowfall would also cause a pretty big inconvenience for commuters...

2) Reliance on the single-source provider might cause problems a few decades from now when the fleet needs replacement again.

All of the TTC's subway orders are custom-orders anyway, as are the legacy network streetcars. Hasn't been that big of a deal so far. Yes, there is the Mark I SRT, but that was very much a prototype technology. The Mark II has been widely adopted, and I doubt very much that there will be similar issues as what happened with the Mark I.

3) Impossible to connect to any of the future north-south LRT lines crossing Eglinton.

Jane should be built as a BRT, not an LRT, and the DRL will reach Eglinton in the east, so there won't be very many N-S LRT lines 'crossing' Eglinton anytime soon, if ever.

ICTS does not provide any capacity or cost advantage over the standard LRT implementation, and has a speed advantage only if the LRT line is not fully grade-separate. If we are considering a fully grade-separate ICTS, can as well choose fully grade-separate LRT for the same cost, and with same speed and capacity.

I'm not disagreeing with you that a fully-grade separated LRT vs fully grade-separated ICTS have no cost advantages over one another. However, the TTC is not building a fully grade-separated LRT line. They're building a 1/2 grade-separated LRT line. Metrolinx choosing ICTS will inherently come with full grade-separation, something the TTC is very reluctant to do. A trunk line with such a regional importance as the Eglinton line should not have to be subject to red lights and traffic. Period. If the TTC somehow has a change of mind and decides to fully grade-separate the Eglinton LRT line, great, I'll take that as a victory.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Scarborough should get something like the Staten Island Railway and call it the Scarborough Railway, and perhaps throw in a Scarborough Ferry to go downtown to match.

 

[LAz]

To you perhaps. The London Underground trains have a smaller cross-section than any LRT that would be used here. The Montreal and Paris metros don't use rail at all and have a smaller cross-section than the LRT equipment that was proposed.

Here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems , cheers.

But you are right. I should instead call it rapid transit, which implies heavy capacity. That is what a metro is, a high capacity system. That is what one thinks of when one hears subway. Subway is supposed to be a metro. But sadly if you put a cable car into an underground tunnel, then that too can "technically" be a subway. But that's splitting hairs. When one says subway that should imply high capacity. So, eglinton's tunnel portion should indeed be high capacity.
Here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit

Then there is the little matter of higher subway operating costs that will not be justified by the ridership within the lifespan of the subway. That sounds like a gravy train to me.

That's why we change landuse to create more ridership.

The advantage of LRT is that they can then build many more km of improved transit along the surface than they could ever hope to afford extending the tunnel to the east and west.

[transit city logic]Oh sorry, we do not have money, we should spend money on BRT routes instead, as that would save us much money.[/transit city logic]

 

[Asterix]

That's why we change landuse to create more ridership.

Changing landuse is not going to suddenly cause enough people to materialize to produce three times current projected ridership for 2030.

[transit city logic]Oh sorry, we do not have money, we should spend money on BRT routes instead, as that would save us much money.[/transit city logic]

I thought the current administration was all about efficiencies and spending money wisely?

How is building full subway for full subway costs and operating expenses when there is no where near full subway demand smart spending of limited resources?

LRT can have a higher capacity than BRT where people actually want to travel. Building an exclusive bus road through some undeveloped land (like a hydro corridor) can theoretically handle as many riders as an LRT line at a cheaper price and probably even give them a shorter trip. However it will not be serving the actual major road or destinations of those riders the way LRT will.

If you want to run BRT down the same roads where LRT is currently planned, you will not get the same capacity or quality of ride (both speed and comfort) and you'll be needing a whole lot more buses and operators to serve the same demand.

 

[gweed123]

If you want to run BRT down the same roads where LRT is currently planned, you will not get the same capacity or quality of ride (both speed and comfort) and you'll be needing a whole lot more buses and operators to serve the same demand.

So your assertion is that a higher capital expense can be justified in reduced operating costs, fewer vehicles, and greater ridership comfort?

 

[GraphicMatt]

Add increased ridership to the list and yes, I think a higher upfront cost can be justified. Why wouldn't it be?