Transit City Plan

[Eug]

Good question. I think it will be difficult to make the central tunneled section of Eglinton suitable for buses, since a very powerful ventilation system would be needed to deal with their exhaust.

Yeah, I was thinking more about the non-tunnelled regions. I was thinking the tunneled portions could possibly operate more independently as a subway-like LRT if necessary. Then again, maybe not. Will the LRTs be able to turn around at the ends of the tunnelled portions?

- Eglinton / Kingston Rd (aka "Scarborough-Malvern") LRT line could share the right-of-way with buses that operate off Kennedy subway and serve eastern Scarborough;

- It is possible that Sheppard E LRT will be deferred, while Scarborough RT will be converted to LRT and extended to Malvern Centre. If so, then the LRT section on Sheppard (from Markham Rd to Neilson) could be shared with Sheppard buses.

The north-south portions are at surface level, but the east-west portion is elevated. If the track were shared, should I assume this spot would be bypassed by buses?

Btw, I heard that surface TC lines will be able to accommodate emergency vehicles.

Now that you mention it, I also heard mention of that, although I didn't think it was written in stone yet. Unfortunately, this dedicated lane would be needed most in the central core for emergency vehicles, as traffic usually moves better outside that, since the roads are wider and dedicated bus/carpool lanes already exist in many areas outside the core.

 

[allabootmatt]

Aren't centre poles (on which TTC has insisted repeatedly) an impediment to use by buses/emergency vehicles?

They're also ugly. But that's another discussion...

 

[kettal]

They're a problem to emergency vehicles who would probably travel in between the two tracks. But if the streetcar lanes are wide enough to take an ambulance or whatever, then it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Brandon716]

Is the dedicated Eglinton LRT line going to be paved as well, to make it compatible with buses (as a backup)?

It is likely the surface routes could be done this way, but no confirmation has been given by any official that I've heard from.

 

[EnviroTO]

The TTC seems to prefer concrete poured around the rails to seal the tracks from the effects of weathering. There is a possibility they will be convinced to put grass around the tracks on Queens Quay though.

 

[LAz]

Making it a "real subway" provides no benefits, yet drives up expenses, and creates two arbitrary transfers. Am I missing anything here?

I disagree. A 13 km tunnel is something that is worthwhile. I mean come on, that's 13 km. If it was only 3, then no, but 13 yes. Furthermore, that 13 will be extended over time.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Check out this link showing the Dutch RandstadRail line using both low-floor and high-floor trams.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Sheppard needs to be completed as a subway, because its already a subway.

Indeed...the lengths people go to here to deny the reality that perhaps the Sheppard subway should be extended because an unfinished subway already exists on Sheppard are both hilarious and idiotic.

 

[Brandon716]

None of this is absolutely decided yet, although the idea is since Bombardier won the contract, they now likely have first dibs at any Transit City contracts. Expect a train which looks basically exactly like the ones just ordered, except don't need to be customized for the legacy system's tight turns and steep grades.

Brandon, you should also watch this video on the TTC website:
http://www3.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Projects_and_initiatives/Transit_city/index.jsp

I watched that video last year, but thank you for the information.

Actually, I'm surprised few people have caught on to how different the Flexity Light Rail and Flexity Tram models are when I posted links to the official web site. The dimensions of the Flexity Tram are actually smaller for the car itself, and they aren't as modular: I think they can be customized to handle two cars per train at the most (again, with smaller physical size which also makes capacity slightly less). The Flexity Light Rail vehicles are what Eglinton needs, it would be a mistake to use anything less.

(and this is not a flame war on light rail vs tram, bombardier obviously makes two versions and they market one as a tram and the other as a light rail vehicle)

The Star reported that the TC order will be completely separate from the TTC Streetcar replacement order, on the link provided earlier in this discussion.

So if the order is going to be completely separate, and if Bombardier has two different styles of Flexity vehicles, I am inclined to think that Eglinton LRT will be using the larger version of the car. But again, it seems the TC people haven't announced anything to let us really know.

My belief is this: if they create a simple street-car like line on Eglinton, albeit with the tunnel, and they use a tram that doesn't have more than 2 conjoined cars per train the line is going to need more capacity as soon as it opens.

But its pure speculation on my part: I don't know if that's what they intend on doing. I keep hearing different information from different sources: some people who claim to have "insider" knowledge say its going to be 3 light rail cars per train, others say its using the same new streetcar/tram type cars that is going on the regular streetcar system (a major flaw if this is true, imo), and some people claim it'll be light rail, but not 3 cars, only 2 cars per train (and the TC video on the official site actually has a diagram built only for 2 cars per train).

Who really knows? LOL

Part of the problem with TC is that there isn't enough clarification coming out of the marketing division. They need to have more accurate diagrams and construction plans published on the TTC we site.

 

[299 bloor call control.]

Anything longer than a one car train is NOT feasible on the surface sections because it'll basically create havoc at signalized intersections - there simply is not enough time in the signal cycle for it to work.

And based upon the funding announcement last month, there is still a lot of question whether or not LRT will actually be on Eglinton. We await Metrolinx's benefits case analysis that's due when the board reconvenes in its new form.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Anything longer than a one car train is NOT feasible on the surface sections because it'll basically create havoc at signalized intersections - there simply is not enough time in the signal cycle for it to work.

And based upon the funding announcement last month, there is still a lot of question whether or not LRT will actually be on Eglinton. We await Metrolinx's benefits case analysis that's due when the board reconvenes in its new form.

When the Bloor MU streetcar trains ran on Bloor Street and Danforth Avenue, and later Queen Street, the cross traffic just had to wait until the entire train passed, even when they had the green lights. With a right-of-way and farside stops, a long multi-unit train shouldn't be much of a problem.

 

[Voltz]

Anything longer than a one car train is NOT feasible on the surface sections because it'll basically create havoc at signalized intersections - there simply is not enough time in the signal cycle for it to work.

And based upon the funding announcement last month, there is still a lot of question whether or not LRT will actually be on Eglinton. We await Metrolinx's benefits case analysis that's due when the board reconvenes in its new form.

I don't see a problem with having a two car LRV running on the surface, it would only take an extra 2-3 seconds for one to get through an intersection, and they should be able to use the same green time as vehicles heading straight through anyways. Having two car LRV's also means that one would appear at an intersection half as often, making signal priority easier to manage.

 

[Epi]

Actually, I'm surprised few people have caught on to how different the Flexity Light Rail and Flexity Tram models are when I posted links to the official web site. The dimensions of the Flexity Tram are actually smaller for the car itself, and they aren't as modular: I think they can be customized to handle two cars per train at the most (again, with smaller physical size which also makes capacity slightly less). The Flexity Light Rail vehicles are what Eglinton needs, it would be a mistake to use anything less.

I'm not sure where you got all this information. The links you posted only had cursory information at most, no technical specs. Furthermore, the 'tram' Flexity models can 100% for sure be longer than '1 car', as I've been inside a Flexity low-floor LRT with 5 segments.

If we just look at the 'light rail' model from your link, and look at the picture, I don't see any extra modularity compared to the 'tram' model. It's not like they are individual cars easily joined up like a regular heavy rail train is or something, they seem to be just as complicated in terms of joining up with other cars in terms of connectors and so on.

I completely disagree that we need high-floor vehicles for Eglinton, because this means that the stations for all the non-underground portions will be massive, instead of literally just a curb. It would add to the cost quite a bit, and create huge stations that could no longer be sitting in the middle of the road, nor be so easily accessible (for wheelchairs, the disabled and strollers) without adding huge ramps or expensive micro-escalators, which yet again expands the amount of space these stations take up.

 

[299 bloor call control.]

When the Bloor MU streetcar trains ran on Bloor Street and Danforth Avenue, and later Queen Street, the cross traffic just had to wait until the entire train passed, even when they had the green lights. With a right-of-way and farside stops, a long multi-unit train shouldn't be much of a problem.

When Bloor MU trains ran on Bloor, they were 2 PCCs, which will be the length of ONE modern LRT vehicle.

A Two-car LRT train will be the equivalent of a four-car PCC train. And if one train gets backed up, you're talking about 8 PCC lengths to clear through an intersection. No signal priority system can handle that.

Also, back in 1960 (like, you know, 50 years ago, or a half century, or back when car ownership was minimal) you did not have volumes of cars like you do today. I'm all for giving transit priority over vehicles, but there's still a balance that needs to be reached.

Basically, we need full exclusivity for this to work.

 

[golodhendil]

Boston runs coupled articulated trains (46 m) on its surface sections, not just those with separate ROW but the street-running sections too. It certainly works, at least not in any way less than other factors (such as the lack of signal priority) are making it.
(plenty of pictures in my post #1452 above)