Transit City Plan

[Epi]

Someone needs to start going to local TC and government meetings to let them know we understand the differences and to not let them screw up Eglinton LRT by building some rinky dink streetcar. I don't have the ability right now because I'm currently applying to go to college and won't even be in Ontario until this fall, and that's only if I even get this next plan of mine to work.

The entire issue is an issue of cost vs usefulness.

Currently ridership on Eglinton in no way justifies a full blown subway. Projections 20 years from now, in absolutely no way justifies a full blown subway. LRVs were chosen because of the fact that they provide the capacity needed for as far as we can predict.

Meanwhile, somewhere in there is the issue of cost. While it doesn't justify a subway, obviously if we had infinite money, a subway may be a good idea, but since we don't have infinite money, LRV is what we get.

So then it breaks down to whether you want a 100m long LRV or a shorter 40-50m long LRV. What does ridership justify? How much more would it cost to double the size of all the stations, buy a completely different vehicle then the rest of Transit City (and the rest of the TTC fleet for that matter) and be able to service these vehicles, while losing the interoperability of different TC lines?

Now compare to how much more capacity having 100m long trains would give compared to 50m long trains, and does the ridership support this?

IF the cost is negligible, then it's not an issue. Sure let's massively overbuild the entire system, why not? IF the cost IS an issue, then we should not massively overbuild it, or else funding may evaporate for other greatly needed projects as well.

Finally, what is the cost of having this so called 'modular LRV' version vs putting in some couplers on the 'tram' version? If putting couplers is basically the same, wouldn't it make vastly more sense to just order the tram with couplers because then at least the purchasing of the vehicles is basically all the same vehicles aside from couplers, and the maintenance, training labour and parts would be basically exactly the same for all TC lines? Furthermore, since the TTC already committed to Flexity trams for the legacy fleet, likely they will use the same again, to save on costs, training more people, and parts.

As an aside, the highest ridership will likely be from the middle tunneled portion anyway. If the TTC were short-turning vehicles within that tunnel, because there's no stoplights there and thus it will inherently be more efficient than the surface portions, do we really NEED such massive trains anyway? Won't ridership be served either way?

Like what would be more prudent. Running 1/2 empty 100m long trains in the surface regions, or running 2x the number of 50m long trains in the middle portion. The cost of hiring like 5-10 more drivers vs the added costs of greatly increasing the size of surface stations, greatly increasing the costs of maintenance, and cost of making a very different vehicle, and greatly increasing the costs of buying extra cars, because now EVERY train has 50metres of useless cars for the more 'empty' parts of the line.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Meanwhile, somewhere in there is the issue of cost. While it doesn't justify a subway, obviously if we had infinite money, a subway may be a good idea, but since we don't have infinite money, LRV is what we get.

LRT in a tunnel is still going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars per kilometre. The choice has very little to do with cost.

 

[allabootmatt]

Its all about future viability. If they build a 2 car light rail system then Eglinton will be overloaded in only a few years time.

I always like to remind people that Toronto isn't a slower growth European city that is easier to project passenger ridership for, and Toronto isn't a second tier American city like Portland or Denver. Toronto is a world center and the largest city in Canada, and its got an extremely high rate of population growth, not to mention the Eglinton corridor will likely have lots of condo growth with the addition of this line.

I haven't been following this back-and-forth too much, but I would like to jump in on this point. I think TC is great in principle; there are tons of examples of European tram systems that are light-years ahead of what we're used to and moving in that direction is only for the good. But it does kind of worry me that when you scratch Miller and Giambrone on the light rail issue, they're quick to talk about how wonderfully it works in Bremen or Geneva or Amsterdam--all of which (even Amsterdam!) are piddling villages compared to the distances and numbers of people we're talking about in Toronto.

Most 'big' cities in Europe are quite a bit smaller than 'big' cities in North America--think of Stockholm, with less than a million people, or Munich, with just over that. In the only real metropoli--London, Paris, Madrid, and arguably Berlin--trams of any kind are really a peripheral part of the network.

I suppose this is me saying that we need to make sure these vehicles are as big as possible and run as fast as possible if they're going to be the backbone of the transit system.

 

[EnviroTO]

Oh, and enviroto, you should probably go back and re-read the information. I think I stated that trams can have multiple 'modules' but its set at the factory, plus the width is always about a foot smaller unless major modifications are made (at which, customized trams are too expensive to waste time on vs the flexity LRV).

Yes, they are set at the factory or by TTC maintenance in a shop versus TTC operators pushing two vehicles together and clamping. What makes the most sense would all depend on how frequently things change. If Eglinton will always need a longer arrangement there is little value in having two vehicles coupled together all the time, have no walk-through capability, and carry two unusable cabs around. The width of the TTC vehicle will be about 2,540mm versus 2,600mm for most Flexity Swift vehicles. You can see how the vehicle is wider than the ones used in Brussels via the interior view of the replacement TTC vehicle provided by the TTC. The TTC vehicle handles four seats across plus an aisle. The talk about "customized trams are too expensive" is pointless as I have said before because no low floor trams are currently built in Canada and the Bombardier plant will be tooled for the TTC order. The tram the TTC gets will be the standard for Canada from Bombardier. The average tram widths seen in Europe are more a product of the operating environment those vehicles are ordered into and not a product of capability. When you order a vehicle to operate down narrow streets in Europe with narrow lanes you don't order a vehicle to max out a North American sized traffic lane.

Yes, a tram can be 25,000mm long or it can be 40,000mm long with a few more 'modules'. But you cannot join another, separate car together like the LRV. The trams aren't hot-pluggable by the end user (which will be the TTC).

Yes you can. The only requirements to mate two vehicles together is a coupler and a cable to allow a cab in another vehicle to send input signals to the other vehicle's motors and brakes. Since the Transit City vehicles will have two different cabs the ability to control the vehicle from multiple points will already exist.

Does this make sense? I provided all the information and photos to demonstrate what I am talking about. Just two conjoined LRV's can give more capacity than a larger, single tram with a few 'modules' built in.

Two joined trams can do the same. Joining two vehicles together for an extended period makes no sense however because you end up carrying two extra cabs (dead weight) and not allowing passengers to walk-through the vehicle so they can space out and effectively increase capacity.

 

[Brandon716]

I agree, I don't see a singular line that has projected ridership of 250k having empty spots on an 80m platform (or even as high as 100m).

As far as the choice of maintenance, Bombardier specifically markets these two variants because they are so interoperable in terms of servicing and repair. I don't think cost is the biggest concern, future capacity is.

Here's the big unknown, you can piecemeal the articles that have information right now and assume they'll be ordering the same Flexity Outlook cars for everything, from the streetcar network to the new Transit City network.

If that is the case, we know the following:

*The new TTC Flexity Outlook Trams will be 28,200mm long and 2,300mm wide
*Have 62 seats.
*Eventually will have computerized boarding where you come through all 4 doors simultaneously

Source: http://www.thestar.com/article/624347

In the above article, it quotes the following:

The Bombardier bid gives the TTC the option to negotiate for an extra 400 cars to run on proposed Transit City lines into the suburbs and the eastern waterfront.

Which means the reporter was lead to believe by Transit City officials that they are simply buying the same vehicle for every network, be it older streetcars or the newer Transit City lines.

But this part is pure assumption, because the TC order hasn't been made and no one has specifically clarified that they will be using the identical cars as the streetcar network.

 

[Brandon716]

Two joined trams can do the same. Joining two vehicles together for an extended period makes no sense however because you end up carrying two extra cabs (dead weight) and not allowing passengers to walk-through the vehicle so they can space out and effectively increase capacity.

If that line of thinking were applied to other areas, then the TTC Subway is the biggest mistake of all, afterall you have to exit the end of a car to go to another one to space out capacity. LOL

ALTHOUGH, if couplers can be purchased and installed, I would accept the smaller 2300mm width of the Tram over the 2650mm width of the modular LRV if it means saving big time $$$ over having two different models running.

If the TTC modern trams are individually going to be 28,200mm long, that means 28,200x2=56,400mm trains with a lot of capacity.

I've heard rumors that the tunnels on Eglinton will handle 3 cars. If each car is 28,200mm long, then they are reported by rumor to be building Eglinton's tunneled platforms around 84,600mm or basically 85 meters long.

That's unsubstantiated though... I'm trying to piece together actual information and don't have that as proof yet.

 

[Swarley]

If that line of thinking were applied to other areas, then the TTC Subway is the biggest mistake of all, afterall you have to exit the end of a car to go to another one to space out capacity. LOL

For what it's worth, the new subway trains are being made as single units for better distribution of passengers.

 

[Brandon716]

For what it's worth, the new subway trains are being made as single units for better distribution of passengers.

And as I originally stated, an actual subway along Eglinton would have been the best choice.

In lieu of that, I don't think modern light rail is as bad as some people believe. I've grown quite fond of the systems I've used in the past several years. Between Portland and Pittsburgh, LRT has a place and can move a lot of people around. Since Eglinton is a secondary region, I don't think its all the bad.

Now, if we start to discuss the DRL, if they EVER screw that up by pushing for light rail we might have a problem. I do think Toronto needs another TTC Subway project started immediately following the initial TC lines. They should put a hold on all Sheppard plans until money can come through for a subway extension. I will never agree with creating an LRT from Scarborough to Don Mills.

 

[EnviroTO]

If that line of thinking were applied to other areas, then the TTC Subway is the biggest mistake of all, afterall you have to exit the end of a car to go to another one to space out capacity. LOL

The new subway cars which are to start arriving this year are different for this very reason. I don't get the LOL. The TTC is getting the new subway cars with the ability to walk through and with 4 cabs removed because they want greater capacity and the operational flexibility those extra cabs provide aren't worth the extra expense.

I've heard rumors that the tunnels on Eglinton will handle 3 cars. If each car is 28,200mm long, then they are reported by rumor to be building Eglinton's tunneled platforms around 84,600mm or basically 85 meters long.

I'm not sure what a "car" represents in the context of LRVs. Is an ALRV two cars or one? A tram with 5 modules is how many cars?

 

[Brandon716]

The new subway cars which are to start arriving this year are different for this very reason. I don't get the LOL. The TTC is getting the new subway cars with the ability to walk through and with 4 cabs removed because they want greater capacity and the operational flexibility those extra cabs provide aren't worth the extra expense.

I laughed because its just arguing for argument sake. I agree: all interconnected trains are great. But the TTC has operated for years with multiple cars, and having multiple LRT cars isn't so inefficient that it won't work. Afterall, Eglinton isn't going to be a heavy rail subway.

 

[299 bloor call control.]

Source: http://www.thestar.com/article/624347

There's some valid points you're bringing up, Brandon, but seriously, there's so much misinformation on the net and citing the Toronto Star is the worst possible way to build your case. Very few people actually know exactly what's happening on the Transit City routes, not even Steve Munro (*gasp!*) [he doesn't claim to know everything either, but the fanboys think everything and anything he says is cannon]. But the facts are that pretty much everything being discussed here is speculative and arguing about it is pointless until there's actually a solid proposal out, i.e., a RFP for Transit City Vehicles, or a finalized EA for ___ route. Sheppard East is the only one where the EA is complete, and I can tell you for a fact that the other lines are not the same as Sheppard East. But even with Sheppard East there's no final decision on vehicle specifications, because it hasn't been decided yet.

 

[Brandon716]

The new subway cars which are to start arriving this year are different for this very reason. I don't get the LOL. The TTC is getting the new subway cars with the ability to walk through and with 4 cabs removed because they want greater capacity and the operational flexibility those extra cabs provide aren't worth the extra expense.



I'm not sure what a "car" represents in the context of LRVs. Is an ALRV two cars or one? A tram with 5 modules is how many cars?

Here's the deal. One LRV car can have multiple compartments.

I will use the Pittsburgh T here where I am at present to demonstrate.

Pittsburgh uses high capacity LRV's built by Siemens and CAF. They are 2680mm in width.

To someone just glancing, you would assume this train has 4 cars. It actually only has 2 cars, but each car has 2 compartments. You cannot walk between car A and car B.

Does this help?

 

[EnviroTO]

I laughed because its just arguing for argument sake. I agree: all interconnected trains are great. But the TTC has operated for years with multiple cars, and having multiple LRT cars isn't so inefficient that it won't work. Afterall, Eglinton isn't going to be a heavy rail subway.

There is no point ordering extra cabs if they will never be used. Whether or not it works is irrelevant. I don't know how pointing out additional cabs are a waste and a lack of walk-through ability will reduce capacity is "arguing for arguing sake" when you have argued for the last {insert large number here} posts that somehow a tram is a doomsday scenario with no evidence that is will cause any issues at all.

 

[Brandon716]

There's some valid points you're bringing up, Brandon, but seriously, there's so much misinformation on the net and citing the Toronto Star is the worst possible way to build your case. Very few people actually know exactly what's happening on the Transit City routes, not even Steve Munro (*gasp!*) [he doesn't claim to know everything either, but the fanboys think everything and anything he says is cannon]. But the facts are that pretty much everything being discussed here is speculative and arguing about it is pointless until there's actually a solid proposal out, i.e., a RFP for Transit City Vehicles, or a finalized EA for ___ route. Sheppard East is the only one where the EA is complete, and I can tell you for a fact that the other lines are not the same as Sheppard East. But even with Sheppard East there's no final decision on vehicle specifications, because it hasn't been decided yet.

Isn't it frustrating? LOL

And to make things worse, I was called every name in the book on another forum when I'm asking as many questions as I'm answering... I'm just wanting to find information out like everyone else.

 

[EnviroTO]

To someone just glancing, you would assume this train has 4 cars. It actually only has 2 cars, but each car has 2 compartments. You cannot walk between car A and car B.

Does this help?

That all depends on the definition of "car" being used. The new subway will be completely walk through... so is it one car?