kettal
Banned
Yes, it's going to be just horrible! Blood on the streets, snow on the uh, tracks. Guns everywhere! The only solution is bloor-danforth subway into Scarborough.
|
|
|
Transit City Plan
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
LAz
Active Member
We're dealing with incometant corrupt idiots in power who have used hegemony to brainwash the masses.
What did Gramsci mean when he talked of Hegemony being used? Here's a two min explanation... gramsci was an italian communist who pondered why didn't the masses rise up... he figured out that it is because the ruling class brainwashed the masses to make the masses think that the interests of the ruling class are also the interests of the masses... so the masses supported the ruling class... more recently chomsky retold this in the modern era, with his manufacturing consent.
Therefore we are dealing with these monsters in power, who do not share the interests of the common being. Therefore wherever the hell a line gets built, the better. Sure, I support all of those, but heck, I want to see more done, and done faster, so heck, I would be willing to support these projects over more important ones simply because it is not likely that any will take place, and if something takes place it is amazing. The ones in power can push anything through if they wanted to. They want to push something through, they will, regardless of the cost. So lets at least pretend that our interests are their interests, and get more subways.
God, sorry for being a pessimist and taking this pathetic position.
Good lord, and this comes with a smiley face!!!
I only heard that this might be an extension of the green line... any more info on this plan to make an LRT instead? In fact, I would support having a "orange line" or a "dark blue" line that goes to m'sauga. I'd also like to see a black line go from the airport to the eglinton line (which does not exist I regret)
kettal
Banned
Open houses conducted by the TTC this month have explained this extension. Unfortunately I cannot find the documents online.
You can expect to see a pink line with red spots going into Mississauga via Dundas street in the future, and a silver line going to the airport, along with an eggshell-white line on finch and a sky blue line on Eglinton. It will be a rainbow of opportunity!!
Just be careful when near the blood-red line at York University!
Brandon716
Senior Member
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/623916
Okay, I haven't paid attention for a few weeks, and all of a sudden they have chosen the light rail cars?
I've been hearing mixed information lately, some people say the tunnels for the LRT system will be heavy rail subway compatible, but I fail to see how if the diagrams I've seen only have two light rail cars per train AND if they are purchasing low level platform light rail cars like these.
Any thoughts? Anyone have more information?
Okay, I haven't paid attention for a few weeks, and all of a sudden they have chosen the light rail cars?
I've been hearing mixed information lately, some people say the tunnels for the LRT system will be heavy rail subway compatible, but I fail to see how if the diagrams I've seen only have two light rail cars per train AND if they are purchasing low level platform light rail cars like these.
Any thoughts? Anyone have more information?
Swarley
Active Member
That order is just to replace the existing fleet - the TC cars won't necessarily be the same. Although a Bombardier contract for those is more likely now.
Brandon716
Senior Member
The way the article sounded, it was as if they are replacing the old CLRV's with the exact same technology that is being used by TC.
Brandon716
Senior Member
I finally have my answer, after some homework.
Bombardier offers several models of the Flexity Outlook series.
The Flexity Streetcar (Tram)
Source: http://www.bombardier.com/en/transp...vehicles/flexity-trams?docID=0901260d8001269c
^That is the recent order put in to replace all the TTC traditional CLRV streetcar network cars. They are lower capacity, smaller than the Flexity Light Rail series.
The Flexity Light Rail car
Source: http://www.bombardier.com/en/transp...ty-light-rail-vehicles?docID=0901260d800126b8
^More modular in design, a mid-way point between heavy rail and trams, the light rail cars have not been ordered.
There are two versions of the Flexity Light Rail car, a low level platform, and a high level platform at 900m from rail to floor of the train.
Source: http://www.bombardier.com/en/transp...ty-light-rail-vehicles?docID=0901260d800126b8
^That is approximately 3 feet, and right now we have no idea if Transit City planners will end up using lower platforms or higher platforms.
The lower platform trains will look something similar to the Portland MAX:
And the high level LRT platform cars would look something similar to the Pittsburgh T system:
NOW, as a comparison, the TTC subway operates using cars that are 1105mm from rail to floor of the rail cars.
Source: http://transit.toronto.on.ca/subway/5505.shtml
And obviously the beloved TTC subway heavy rail looks like this:
900mm isn't compatible with TTC subway 1105mm, so I don't think the Eglinton LRT will be immediately 'subway compatible' and convertable to a TTC heavy rail network without shutting the entire system down.
HOWEVER, I have heard reports that Eglinton LRT is being built to accomodate 3 car LRT trains, which is sufficient for 400-500k people per day if appropriate frequency is included (which shouldn't be a problem). So a subway heavy rail conversion isn't necessarily required in 20-30 years anyway.
Unknowns:
*Will Transit City's Eglinton LRT end up using low platform (Portland Max style) or high platform (Pittsburgh T style) light rail trains?
*Will Transit City build 2 car platforms or 3 car platforms?
*Will Bombardier build a 1105mm high platform customized Light Rail Car version of the Flexity Outlook for Transit City?
*Is Transit City's Eglinton LRT system really going to be 'subway compatible' without shutting the entire system down, should they choose to convert it? I HIGHLY doubt it can be done and remain operational, so I classify this as not 'heavy rail subway compatible' however its only a 90% educated guess on my part, there is no evidence that Eglinton LRT is truly subway compatible. There are too many unanswered questions
These are the important questions we need answers, but right now I'm sure no one has these answers as of today.
Bombardier offers several models of the Flexity Outlook series.
The Flexity Streetcar (Tram)
Source: http://www.bombardier.com/en/transp...vehicles/flexity-trams?docID=0901260d8001269c
^That is the recent order put in to replace all the TTC traditional CLRV streetcar network cars. They are lower capacity, smaller than the Flexity Light Rail series.
The Flexity Light Rail car
Source: http://www.bombardier.com/en/transp...ty-light-rail-vehicles?docID=0901260d800126b8
^More modular in design, a mid-way point between heavy rail and trams, the light rail cars have not been ordered.
There are two versions of the Flexity Light Rail car, a low level platform, and a high level platform at 900m from rail to floor of the train.
Source: http://www.bombardier.com/en/transp...ty-light-rail-vehicles?docID=0901260d800126b8
^That is approximately 3 feet, and right now we have no idea if Transit City planners will end up using lower platforms or higher platforms.
The lower platform trains will look something similar to the Portland MAX:
And the high level LRT platform cars would look something similar to the Pittsburgh T system:
NOW, as a comparison, the TTC subway operates using cars that are 1105mm from rail to floor of the rail cars.
Source: http://transit.toronto.on.ca/subway/5505.shtml
And obviously the beloved TTC subway heavy rail looks like this:
900mm isn't compatible with TTC subway 1105mm, so I don't think the Eglinton LRT will be immediately 'subway compatible' and convertable to a TTC heavy rail network without shutting the entire system down.
HOWEVER, I have heard reports that Eglinton LRT is being built to accomodate 3 car LRT trains, which is sufficient for 400-500k people per day if appropriate frequency is included (which shouldn't be a problem). So a subway heavy rail conversion isn't necessarily required in 20-30 years anyway.
Unknowns:
*Will Transit City's Eglinton LRT end up using low platform (Portland Max style) or high platform (Pittsburgh T style) light rail trains?
*Will Transit City build 2 car platforms or 3 car platforms?
*Will Bombardier build a 1105mm high platform customized Light Rail Car version of the Flexity Outlook for Transit City?
*Is Transit City's Eglinton LRT system really going to be 'subway compatible' without shutting the entire system down, should they choose to convert it? I HIGHLY doubt it can be done and remain operational, so I classify this as not 'heavy rail subway compatible' however its only a 90% educated guess on my part, there is no evidence that Eglinton LRT is truly subway compatible. There are too many unanswered questions
These are the important questions we need answers, but right now I'm sure no one has these answers as of today.
Last edited:
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
Brandon, those are good points about immediately being subway compatible, but I think you overlooked the fact that the line will not be "subway compatible" anyways. 2/3 of it is going to be aboveground with at grade crossings! I have high doubts that the TTC will split it's wonderfully sold crosstown line into 3 different lines just to give subway service to the middle either. No, we're either getting full LRT or full Subway. Forever.
I still think we should be building to accommodate for the very near future that will most probably be requiring Eglinton as a subway (or at least some other crosstown subway line.) If you spread the money out and, say, build it in 2 parts (Eglinton West and Eglinton East) then you could work out a reasonably good budget. Maybe open Eglinton West by the Crosstown's deadline right now and open Eglinton East 8 years after that (or something)
Either way, I'm wondering if you meant converting the underground section of the LRT to Subway pain-free or if you were intending for the whole line.
I still think we should be building to accommodate for the very near future that will most probably be requiring Eglinton as a subway (or at least some other crosstown subway line.) If you spread the money out and, say, build it in 2 parts (Eglinton West and Eglinton East) then you could work out a reasonably good budget. Maybe open Eglinton West by the Crosstown's deadline right now and open Eglinton East 8 years after that (or something)
Either way, I'm wondering if you meant converting the underground section of the LRT to Subway pain-free or if you were intending for the whole line.
Brandon716
Senior Member
I'm speaking only of the underground tunnel portion. There is another internet forum where I've discussed this issue today, and I've been called all kinds of names for suggesting its not subway compatible.
I'm hearing all kinds of opinions being thrown around, including a guy who states he goes to TC planning meetings and has been confirmed by a TC consultant that Eglinton LRT's tunnels are 'subway compatible' but that must be a very loose definition.
Its not 'compatible' in the sense that it still requires an entire shut down of the line in order to convert to TTC heavy rail subway. But to someone else, its still considered compatible because it theoretically has the ability to be converted... On a theoretical level.
Right now I'm thinking on a different level. Transit City shouldn't be built to become subway compatible. Why? It would cost way too much, and Light Rail isn't quite so bad as some people suggest. If Eglinton LRT is built with low level platforms, has 3 light rail vehicle compatible train platforms both underground and above ground at each station, and if they run it with high frequency, there will never be a need to convert it in the future. It can handle 400-500k passengers a day no problem.
The savings from not wasting too much money on Eglinton LRT could go into funding a full fledged subway DRL extension as the next priority project after TC gets its start.
That's the pathway I think would be better to follow going foward, especially knowing more about the types of cars and technology being used, and the savings that can be expected. Light Rail subways are considerably cheaper than heavy rail subway, especially low platform stations.
Now that Miller and Giambrone (which I don't think are horribly bad people by any means) have had their light rail orgasm, maybe they can seriously focus on building a DRL subway after the initial Transit City lines.
I'm hearing all kinds of opinions being thrown around, including a guy who states he goes to TC planning meetings and has been confirmed by a TC consultant that Eglinton LRT's tunnels are 'subway compatible' but that must be a very loose definition.
Its not 'compatible' in the sense that it still requires an entire shut down of the line in order to convert to TTC heavy rail subway. But to someone else, its still considered compatible because it theoretically has the ability to be converted... On a theoretical level.
Right now I'm thinking on a different level. Transit City shouldn't be built to become subway compatible. Why? It would cost way too much, and Light Rail isn't quite so bad as some people suggest. If Eglinton LRT is built with low level platforms, has 3 light rail vehicle compatible train platforms both underground and above ground at each station, and if they run it with high frequency, there will never be a need to convert it in the future. It can handle 400-500k passengers a day no problem.
The savings from not wasting too much money on Eglinton LRT could go into funding a full fledged subway DRL extension as the next priority project after TC gets its start.
That's the pathway I think would be better to follow going foward, especially knowing more about the types of cars and technology being used, and the savings that can be expected. Light Rail subways are considerably cheaper than heavy rail subway, especially low platform stations.
Now that Miller and Giambrone (which I don't think are horribly bad people by any means) have had their light rail orgasm, maybe they can seriously focus on building a DRL subway after the initial Transit City lines.
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
3 car LRT with 400-500k ridership per day? that doesn't sound right. Ottawa has about 240,000 right now using the Transitway and is planning to build an LRT tunnel and convert BRT to LRT in stages... the stations will have room for 6 car trains to meet future demand.
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
That has got to be the best word to describe what's going on right now with Transit City right now. I agree with you, well at least that Miller's really not a bad Mayor. IMO, Giambrone really isn't doing very well as head of the TTC.
I understand that Eglinton works well as an LRT because it's such a long line, but I really think that a Subway will be more reliable, do a better job of funneling people onto it from busses, and will just get more people on transit.
If LRT is going to provide such good service, I ask you this: Why not just build the DRL as a LRT line? I'm not attacking your ideas at all, but I'm curious as to what the answer is and have been for a pretty long while. The same goes for why Sheppard has to be a full subway.
The City seems to have everyone thinking that LRT is the new subway, so what really is the difference between LRT and Subway that certain things deserve LRT and others deserve Subway? If it's built to accommodate 3 units and will have the same capacity as a subway, with apparently a negligible difference between the speed of the two, what's the point of Subways? Perhaps we're looking at this the wrong way... the only problem is I'm not sure what that means.
kettal
Banned
The major difference is that LRT can run on roads, while subways can't. Theoretically if the DRL was made with LRT, but was always underground, it would handle the demand.
LRT that runs on the road surface has limitations to it's capacity in comparison to a subway. Transit City's avenues are not skyscraper-lined streets, and they're not zoned to be either, so the surface routes should be more than capable for their purpose.
Downtown, as I'm sure you know, has a much higher density than the Avenues being discussed in the context of Transit City
Hope this answers your question.
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
That doesn't quite answer my question, but it is the point that I'm trying to get across. It would seem that LRT is better than Subway in every way, so what's the point in building subway anymore in that case? Building the DRL as a LRT wouldn't be any less expensive than building it as subway, so why don't we decide to build it as LRT?
I think the answer is that we're downplaying our transit needs. We're saying that LRT will do the same job as a Subway, and that a Busway will do the same job as a LRT. Most of Transit City actually addresses these real needs well, but I believe Eglinton is that fine line where we are saying that LRT can do the job of a Subway with no real drawback.
kettal
Banned
For very high-capacity lines, there are other factors too. Since subways are wider, they provide more capacity in terms of length. e.g. it will require a longer train, and therefore longer platforms, which puts LRT out of question for Yonge's subway. But if there was a technology switch on Sheppard, or Bloor, there wouldn't be a need to extend the platforms or run ridiculously long LRT trains.
Personally I would prefer LRT vehicles are used for the DRL, despite it being entirely segregated from the road. I say this because communities like Riverdale won't take too kindly to having a subway earthquake rumbling their houses every few minutes.
whatever
Senior Member
That's only a 205mm difference, which could easily be cheated. HRT has a wider gage so they could just lay a new set of tracks in the tunnel that straddle the LRT, but at an elevation 205mm lower (assuming that the HRT cars have 205mm clearance underneath them, which doesn't seem unreasonable to me). It could probably be done at night when the system is shut down anyways.