nfitz
Superstar
Given that the thread is about an LRT line, discussion about fantasy subway construction costs have no relevance.
I don't think I made any direct reference to the Eglinton subway either. Again, I was merely making a point that subways aren't as expensive as the TTC states they are. I used trenching/elevating as an example of laughably low subway cost for building. Since I believe a couple people were mentioning a subway being built on Sheppard instead of LRT, again, that point and my post are totally relevant to the topic.Given that the thread is about an LRT line, discussion about fantasy subway construction costs have no relevance.
I'd disagree ... I spend most of my time on the Bloor-Danforth and Yonge line ... and I'd say they are grossly under-desigened.The TTC tends to overbuild things in general.
I'd disagree ... I spend most of my time on the Bloor-Danforth and Yonge line ... and I'd say they are grossly under-desigened.
I did venture up to Leslie the other day, and headed out the east exit. I don't know where all this "overdesigned Sheppard stations" comes from, but given the concrete walls in the station, and the concrete floor of the walkways ..., and very utilitarian exit. I really can't see how it's overdesigned.
As for Downsview being temporary ... it will be 20 years old by the time it's not the terminal. 20 years is longer than either Eglinton or Union were terminals!
Despite your sarcastic rhetoric about Europe, I think we generally agree. Sheppard may be an Avenue, but I don’t see it ever urbanizing in the sense of being a pedestrian-oriented, mixed use street. Densify yes, urbanize no. The street pattern and design in that area simply won’t allow for it. For that reason something similar to Calgary’s light rail lines would be appropriate for that street.^
The problem w/ Calgary and Edmonton is that they are designed for speed. Urbanistically, they are just about as attractive as a highway. Calgary made its' goals very clear from the beginning; low cost, high speed, rapid transit. The TTC seems much more intent on the grab bag ideal of "local service" which prioritizes public realm improvements. Take for instance this segment of the C-Train. The line goes into an underpass through a pseudo highway interchange and onto a the median of a pseudo highway. Calgary has no intention on transforming the surrounding area into some kind of Potemkin Euro city.
I think Calgary has a better implementation of LRT, but it is disingenuous to equate anything the TTC is planning to what Calgary and Edmonton have achieved. They are apples and oranges.
EDIT: There is a big difference between "LRT" and "LRT" in general. It is such a vague term that just about anything that has any sort of level crossing is considered "LRT," which ignores the rather large differences between the systems. The Hiawatha line or the C-Train are both quite efficient systems that have low costs, high speed (the C-Train's average speed is only 2kmh less than most of our subways) and fairly high capacities. They do that by running in more or less desolate ROWs that minimize the amount of crossings necessary (i.e. industrial lands, disused freight railways, highway medians, parks...). The TTC's obsession with St. Clair style "LRTs" is fundamentally incompatible with these other, more efficient, systems.
I suppose it's always possible, but the TTC would have to either close down the street, elevate the line, or demolish a line of houses along the way. Then, there would have to be underpasses or at least full signal priority at crossings, and a stop spacing more like 800 km instead of 300 or 400. I'm not against this for some routes, but I just don't think it can work on Sheppard.But I’m not equating what the TTC is planning with what Calgary and Edmonton have. I’m simply pointing out that you can have faster speeds without grade separation. There’s no reason that the Sheppard LRT couldn’t be the same speed as the Bloor subway.
Transit City (with some exceptions) is not a rapid transit system. The trams of Europe that the TTC points to are generally not rapid transit systems, they are supplementary corridors to the metro and suburban rail systems and good for short to medium distances or as the main system for small cities like Grenoble. Some cities have trams using rail corridors and some put them underground, but the TTC is only doing this for a small portion of Transit City.
It's not though, there's lots that can be done to improve average speed without grade separation. Most important is to give it complete crossing priority - never being subjected to red lights and car traffic stopping to let LRT trains pass. Calgary and Edmonton treat their LRTs like this and they're both mostly at surface. Calgary's average speed is 30 km/h including the slow downtown section. Edmonton, with a downtown tunnel that has very short station spacing, averages 37.
Despite your sarcastic rhetoric about Europe, I think we generally agree. Sheppard may be an Avenue, but I don’t see it ever urbanizing in the sense of being a pedestrian-oriented, mixed use street. Densify yes, urbanize no. The street pattern and design in that area simply won’t allow for it. For that reason something similar to Calgary’s light rail lines would be appropriate for that street.
i think Sheppard is a blatantly terrible candidate for LRT in light of the existing subway. I wish someone would explain this to Miller, Giambrone & Co. But I'm afraid explaining anything to them would be completely useless.
It's nice to see that one councillor actually believes in these corridors as subways.