Transit City Plan

[kkgg7]

A few pages back in this thread (at least I think it was this thread), there was talk about how much of a hypocrite Royson James is. That may partially be my fault, I sent him an email a few years back explaining to him how LRT is not streetcars, and how Transit City is more of a combination of the two rather than a true LRT.

Tiger Master, don't be so hard on ssiguy, you two actually have a lot in common. For example, both of you want to see whatever is built to be rapid transit, and not something which stops every few hundred metres.

I still fail to see the difference between LRT and streetcars, except LRT having ROW.
To me, at least TC is more similar to streetcars than to real rapid transit such as subway or Vancouver's skytrain (don't know how to call that).

Can someone care to explain?

 

[Tulse]

I still fail to see the difference between LRT and streetcars, except LRT having ROW.

Having their own right-of-way is huge benefit, as it means LRT vehicles are not confined to move at traffic speed. If your car always had its own lane, you'd go pretty fast, right?

LRT can also involve explicit signal priority, meaning that the vehicles are less likely to be stopped by traffic lights.

LRT also often involves farther distances between stops, although this is not necessarily the case.

 

[kkgg7]

Having their own right-of-way is huge benefit, as it means LRT vehicles are not confined to move at traffic speed. If your car always had its own lane, you'd go pretty fast, right?

LRT can also involve explicit signal priority, meaning that the vehicles are less likely to be stopped by traffic lights.

LRT also often involves farther distances between stops, although this is not necessarily the case.

Thanks for confirming my guess.

So there is no difference except for ROW. Judging from experience on 510, I hardly notice any difference in terms of speed/efficiency compared with the rest streetcar system.

It would make a difference if it runs underground, or on an elevated track where it doesn't have to stop for traffic lights at all. This "signal priority" thing, I just don't buy it at all. Frequent stops and having to stop at traffic lights, make them basically - streetcars. On a scale of 1-10, where streetcars are 1 and real subway is 10, I would say the LRT or proposed transit city is more like 2 or 3, and nowhere near subways.

Not that I care about how transit is like in the vast suburbs north of Eglington Ave since I almost never go there, but all this LRT system, I am afraid is not good enough for Toronto. In 30 or 50 years, they would have to be revamped again cancelling all the cost savings we have today.

 

[Tulse]

On a scale of 1-10, where streetcars are 1 and real subway is 10, I would say the LRT or proposed transit city is more like 2 or 3, and nowhere near subways.

No one ever said that LRT is "near" subways. They are different technologies, with different advantages and disadvantages, and are appropriate in different circumstances.

 

[11th]

Here are Stintz's recommendations.

UTers should note the last point of Recommendation 6, which is to discuss with Metrolinx to study the feasibility of a downtown relief line.

The recommendations actually resemble more to Stintz's plan than the 2009 Transit City plan, well done. (#2 and #6 )

 

[Filip]

And Webster's opinion should't count anymore...:

"Webster says if he had to choose between building Finch or Sheppard East LRT lines, he'd choose Sheppard East"

 

[vz64]

While signal priority can help to increase the overall speed of LRT line, there might be a bottleneck that was not discussed yet. Consider a frequent, rush-hour service with train intervals down to 1.5-2min. To allow a smooth movement of these trains those traffic lights would be almost always green to LRT and red to crossing traffic. So, we either need to force LRT to stop more often in rush hours or build underpasses. If there are 3-4 sets of lights between major intersection, then either LRT speed will be pretty slow or we need to build a number of udnerpasses thus defeating the puprose of saving money. And we are talking about extending the line to Pearson. Without grade separation the rush hour trip time from Pearson to Yonge would be pretty long. And if you travelling with your laggage and there are stops every 300m the trip would be a nightmare.

 

[kkgg7]

No one ever said that LRT is "near" subways. They are different technologies, with different advantages and disadvantages, and are appropriate in different circumstances.

what's the advantage of LRTs except being cheaper?
I agree they are appropriate for different areas. However, whether to have LRTs or subways shouldn't depend on current funding, but rather what the city envision itself to be in the next 50 years or longer. We shouldn't do something just because it is cheaper when it comes to infrastructure.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

Councillor Matlow said "Build LRTs or subways where it makes sense. And ask a panel to look at Sheppard subway."

 

[Tulse]

what's the advantage of LRTs except being cheaper? [...] We shouldn't do something just because it is cheaper when it comes to infrastructure.

So you think we should plate all the sewers in gold, since that would cut down on corrosion? You think we should run pneumatic tubes to every house for garbage disposal, rather than use garbage trucks? Of course finances matter -- it is silly to build a more expensive option when the demand is unlikely to be there for any significant time. City finances are a zero-sum game, and if you spend a lot for a capacity you don't need, you will not have the money to do other vital things.

LRTs are appropriate technology for routes that have more demand than can be met by buses or traditional streetcar, but which are not dense enough for subways. To build massive overcapacity is genuine "gravy", and something that no true conservative should propose.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I agree they are appropriate for different areas. However, whether to have LRTs or subways shouldn't depend on current funding, but rather what the city envision itself to be in the next 50 years or longer. We shouldn't do something just because it is cheaper when it comes to infrastructure.

We should chose the cheaper option without precluding or otherwise unduly increase the cost of future upgrades. A good example would be the Bloor Line - which was originally a streetcar line, eventually upgraded to subway, but there were also investments in enabling infrastructure - e.g. the Bloor Viaduct allowance. That's the pattern we should follow.

AoD

 

[nfitz]

So there is no difference except for ROW.

Why even come here if your going to post such clear lies? The differences have been clearly explained many times.

This isn't some political debate, where you go up there, lie through your teeth, make sure you stay on message, and get your sound bite it.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Thanks for confirming my guess.

So there is no difference except for ROW. Judging from experience on 510, I hardly notice any difference in terms of speed/efficiency compared with the rest streetcar system.

It would make a difference if it runs underground, or on an elevated track where it doesn't have to stop for traffic lights at all. This "signal priority" thing, I just don't buy it at all. Frequent stops and having to stop at traffic lights, make them basically - streetcars. On a scale of 1-10, where streetcars are 1 and real subway is 10, I would say the LRT or proposed transit city is more like 2 or 3, and nowhere near subways.

Not that I care about how transit is like in the vast suburbs north of Eglington Ave since I almost never go there, but all this LRT system, I am afraid is not good enough for Toronto. In 30 or 50 years, they would have to be revamped again cancelling all the cost savings we have today.

There are also huge technical difference between LRT and streetcars. LRTs are much more then just streetcars with ROW.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Live video stream of the debate:

http://www.680news.com/news/local/article/327986

 

[BMO]

There are also huge technical difference between LRT and streetcars. LRTs are much more then just streetcars with ROW.

I don't think you can deny that technically an LRT vehicle is a streetcar (i.e. street train) that predominantly operates in it's on ROW. There are a wide range of different LRT examples, some with light priority, some without. So essentially, an at-grade LRT line is essentially a streetcar line with a ROW and other accompanying technologies to improve the speed of the line. Just like how an LRT line going underground in a tunnel is a subway (i.e. an underground metro line).

I think sometimes people get too caught on technicalities with track gauge and little details. In plain black and white terms, an LRT is a streetcar in its own ROW and with traffic priority technology.