Whose vision of transit in Toronto do you support?

[Dan416]

Sounds like a plan.

If LRT is recommended for Eglinton after all, then I would suggest to reserve station space for 4-car trains, in case the demand exceeds expectations. At least, do so along the western segment of the line that connects to the Airport and Mississauga BRT.

Once the line is in operation, it will be very hard to convert it to subway even if the demand warrants it and the tunnel is built to subway specs. Closing the line for conversion will really mess up that part of the transit network.

I think the only major difference is that LRT is low-floor and HRT is high-floor. As long as the platforms are built to accomodate high-floor then I don't think we'll have too much of a problem. At least going from low floor to high floor you don't need to change the elevation of the tracks, only of the platform. And building up is easier than digging down. And as for overhead versus third track, there's metro systems that run on overhead, so Eglinton could run on overhead and be HRT.

 

[reaperexpress]

I think the only major difference is that LRT is low-floor and HRT is high-floor. As long as the platforms are built to accomodate high-floor then I don't think we'll have too much of a problem. At least going from low floor to high floor you don't need to change the elevation of the tracks, only of the platform. And building up is easier than digging down. And as for overhead versus third track, there's metro systems that run on overhead, so Eglinton could run on overhead and be HRT.

On that note, why is it so crucial to have low floor operation on Transit City lines? Why can't we run high floor LRTs with high platforms? It doesn't need to be RT floor height either, just high enough that they can fit conventional bogies under the vehicle.
While I do understand that it is nicer to have less visually obstructive stops, HFLRTs have advantages too:

- The vehicles are faster, cheaper, more reliable, lighter, more energy efficient and more space efficient
- Even if lines cost more to build upfront, they will cost less to run. This is especially beneficial since capital funding is much easier to come by than operational funding
- The added cost of building high-platform stops might encourage the TTC to think more carefully about stop placement instead of flooding LRT routes with streetcar-like stop spacing
- It would be much easier to convert the SRT and Sheppard subway to LRT
- High platforms make it much easier to convert to subway in the future, though I think this is unlikely to occur.

And on a similar note, I've been wondering about the huge 6m diameter that is being proposed for the Eglinton LRT tunnel. How much room (tunnel diameter) would we save by having third rail power in the tunnels rather than overhead lines? I don't think that the vehicles need special electronics or anything, all they are doing is adding another pickup .

As for the discussion of the Eglinton LRT Richview section, I think it would be better (when cost is considered) to build the line at grade in the corridor with elevated SRT-style stations over intersecting roads. This has the advantage of using gravity to save lots of energy: going into the station is uphill, slowing down the vehicle, and coming out of the station is downhill, speeding up the vehicle.

 

[Northern Magus]

If you support LRT and you feel that the SOS group is failing its cause, the better for you. You should not waste your valuable time debating the initiative which, according to your own opinion, has no chance to succeed anyway.

Uh-huh. In other words, if someone doesn't agree with SOS don't post here and don't vote. That's quite the view, given that this is a public thread featuring a poll specifically designed and intended to solicit voting and posts. Sounds like a pretty sucky cop-out, actually. The fact is that everyone has the right to voice their views, pal, even those opposed. And if you don't like it, tough.

You folks want to earn some respect around here? It's pretty simple:

1. Lose the straw men and false dichotomies -- fast. If you can't use sound reasoning to win people over, you can't win at all.

2. Be honest, thoughtful, and realistic in anything you propose. Pie in the sky plans lack credibility.

3. Apply the same standard of criticism to your plan that you apply to TC. Consistency is always a virtue.

4. Accept your plan's shortcomings and modify it accordingly. Demonstrate that what you value above all is the most effective public transport for the city and region.

5. Budget realistically, and identify where funding can realistically come from, especially given significant government deficits for the next several years. This will be key.

6. Acknowledge all legitimate points made by critics and use them to make a better plan. Nothing grows by preaching to the choir.

7. Drop the bunker mentality and ditch the conspiracy theories. Any plan is only as credible as its spokespersons.

In other words, if you start being cogent, persuasive and realistic, whatever you propose might actually start to go somewhere.

 

[Rainforest]

Uh-huh. In other words, if someone doesn't agree with SOS don't post here and don't vote. That's quite the view, given that this is a public thread featuring a poll specifically designed and intended to solicit voting and posts. Sounds like a pretty sucky cop-out, actually. The fact is that everyone has the right to voice their views, pal, even those opposed. And if you don't like it, tough.

You are welcome to post your opinion and to vote in the poll. My rebuttal was prompted by the fact that you mocked a perceived failure of SOS in public relations, without bringing anything of substance into the discussion.

If you wish to advice SOS how to handle public relations etc, choose another addressee. As I mentioned, I am not a member of SOS. If you don't like it, tough.

 

[Rainforest]

And on a similar note, I've been wondering about the huge 6m diameter that is being proposed for the Eglinton LRT tunnel. How much room (tunnel diameter) would we save by having third rail power in the tunnels rather than overhead lines? I don't think that the vehicles need special electronics or anything, all they are doing is adding another pickup .

I think that the problem is not a wider tunnel needed for 3-rd rail, but the fact that a line with 3-rd rail requires complete grade separation. Pedestrians and cars cannot cross such line at grade.

Of all options considered for Eglinton (subway, LRT, ICTS / ART), ICTS / ART is probably the worst. Compared to LRT, it would lose the ability to run in the street median, or next to street at grade. And, it would lose the ability to interline with any other route except SRT.

Compared to subway, ICTS / ART would share the need for full grade separation and hence higher cost, but would not match the subway capacity.

In addition, ICTS / ART means dependence on a proprietory technology. So, If Bobmardier changes the design of their vehicles once again, modifications to the line might be needed just to buy replacement vehicles. This is what happens to SRT now: Mark-I are no longer produced, and Mark-II do not fit the existing curves.

And finally, ICTS / ART does not handle snow accumulation on the rails very well.

As for the discussion of the Eglinton LRT Richview section, I think it would be better (when cost is considered) to build the line at grade in the corridor with elevated SRT-style stations over intersecting roads. This has the advantage of using gravity to save lots of energy: going into the station is uphill, slowing down the vehicle, and coming out of the station is downhill, speeding up the vehicle.

Sounds like an interesting idea. However, this can be done for either type of vehicles, not just SRT.

 

[Northern Magus]

My rebuttal was prompted by the fact that you mocked a perceived failure of SOS in public relations, without bringing anything of substance into the discussion.

Uh-huh. Attention to detail really isn't your thing, huh?

If you wish to advice SOS how to handle public relations etc, choose another addressee.

Psst, Einstein, there was no "addressee" in my post. But thank you for trying anyway.

 

[UD2]

all the practicals will pick A... al the dreamers will pick B.

Did anyone cost out B by the way? Because by expanding all subway lines I assume they include Sheppard East to STC as well, which would probably by it self cost more than all the transit city lines put together minus Eglinton. And then to build Eglinton as a full fldeged subway will cost even more. Plus the DRL.


I'm glad our decision makers are practical...

 

[reaperexpress]

I think that the problem is not a wider tunnel needed for 3-rd rail, but the fact that a line with 3-rd rail requires complete grade separation. Pedestrians and cars cannot cross such line at grade.

Of all options considered for Eglinton (subway, LRT, ICTS / ART), ICTS / ART is probably the worst. Compared to LRT, it would lose the ability to run in the street median, or next to street at grade. And, it would lose the ability to interline with any other route except SRT.

Compared to subway, ICTS / ART would share the need for full grade separation and hence higher cost, but would not match the subway capacity.

In addition, ICTS / ART means dependence on a proprietory technology. So, If Bobmardier changes the design of their vehicles once again, modifications to the line might be needed just to buy replacement vehicles. This is what happens to SRT now: Mark-I are no longer produced, and Mark-II do not fit the existing curves.

And finally, ICTS / ART does not handle snow accumulation on the rails very well.



Sounds like an interesting idea. However, this can be done for either type of vehicles, not just SRT.

I suppose that I didn't make myself clear. What I was saying is that we could simply take our LRT vehicles, and stick 3rd rail pickups on the side, so that when they go into the tunnel, they switch from pantograph operation to 3rd rail. This might save some space, allowing us to use smaller TBMs, which would save money.

I also agree that ICTS/ART is probably the worst option for all the lines for the same reasons you stated: It costs as much as subway but without the capacity, and that it's a proprietary Bombardier technology. ICTS is a pretty dumb idea if you ask me, the linear induction motors cost more, yet are harder to maintain and are more unreliable. Might as well do the same thing with 3rd rail or overhead for far less cost.

EDIT: I just thought of another advantage of HFLRT: it would make it much easier to continue running TTC gauge, since it is incredibly easy to simply swap out Standard Gauge bogies with TTC-Gauge ones. It's not so easy with LFLRVs since the wheels are more built into the cars themselves. If our our LRVs were TTC Gauge HFLRTs capable of running from 750V 3rd rail, only very minor changes would be needed to run Sheppard LRTs through the subway tunnel, eliminating the dreaded transfer at Don Mills.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

all the practicals will pick A... al the dreamers will pick B.

Did anyone cost out B by the way? Because by expanding all subway lines I assume they include Sheppard East to STC as well, which would probably by it self cost more than all the transit city lines put together minus Eglinton. And then to build Eglinton as a full fldeged subway will cost even more. Plus the DRL.

I'm glad our decision makers are practical...

No, you're wrong. Considering Option A includes both the DRL and a Yonge extension, as well as some unfunded and not especially feasible LRT lines, it is, as of right now, also a dream. The DRL and Yonge extension help split the subway vote (pro-subway options tend to win all of the forum's other polls). The DRL and Yonge north of Finch are the two most viable, highest ridership subway projects...the poll boils down to little more than "should Eglinton be built as an LRT or as a subway?" since the other projects are all relatively minor.

Option C, if it was other or a mix of the above or whatever, would probably have won the poll.

As for cost, not one of the Transit City lines will be built for less than a billion dollars. I think some people are still believing the original cost projections from 2007, which were always and explicitly lowballed.

 

[Rainforest]

I suppose that I didn't make myself clear. What I was saying is that we could simply take our LRT vehicles, and stick 3rd rail pickups on the side, so that when they go into the tunnel, they switch from pantograph operation to 3rd rail. This might save some space, allowing us to use smaller TBMs, which would save money.

OK, I misunderstood your original post - sorry.

The idea sounds very interesting. I even heard that Amsterdam's metro-tram route 51, which runs as a regular tram in the southern part of its route, but then enters a metro tunnel and uses same tracks as metro trains, does just that - although I might be mistaken.

EDIT: I just thought of another advantage of HFLRT: it would make it much easier to continue running TTC gauge, since it is incredibly easy to simply swap out Standard Gauge bogies with TTC-Gauge ones. It's not so easy with LFLRVs since the wheels are more built into the cars themselves. If our our LRVs were TTC Gauge HFLRTs capable of running from 750V 3rd rail, only very minor changes would be needed to run Sheppard LRTs through the subway tunnel, eliminating the dreaded transfer at Don Mills.

You are right that using HFLRV would make Sheppard conversion easier, although that solves only part of the problems associated with such conversion. Actually, proposals have been floated to use HFLRVs on Sheppard because of that, even if the rest of Transit City is LF.

The reason HFLRV were not accepted - even for Sheppard - is that it makes construction more costly and complex. The modern accessibility requirements would mandate at least part of the platform raised, that in turn requires stairs and ramps, then the platform might have to be wider - all while space at many intersections is very limited.

 

[Rainforest]

I think the only major difference is that LRT is low-floor and HRT is high-floor. As long as the platforms are built to accomodate high-floor then I don't think we'll have too much of a problem. At least going from low floor to high floor you don't need to change the elevation of the tracks, only of the platform. And building up is easier than digging down. And as for overhead versus third track, there's metro systems that run on overhead, so Eglinton could run on overhead and be HRT.

Well, overhead versus third track is probably not a big deal. HRT could run on overhead as you said. Or, even if the third track has to be installed, it should be faster than platform modifications.

The problem I see with conversion is operational one. Eglinton bus is already barely functional during peak hours, since the central part of the street is narrow and very congested. If 3 or 4 times more people come to rely on Eglinton LRT due to both the overall ridership growth and the switching from other routes, how could those crowds be handled while the line is closed.

So, if the line ends up being built as LRT, I'd try to reserve space for longer stations, so the length of trains can be increased without conversion to HRT.

 

[reaperexpress]

OK, I misunderstood your original post - sorry.

The idea sounds very interesting. I even heard that Amsterdam's metro-tram route 51, which runs as a regular tram in the southern part of its route, but then enters a metro tunnel and uses same tracks as metro trains, does just that - although I might be mistaken.



You are right that using HFLRV would make Sheppard conversion easier, although that solves only part of the problems associated with such conversion. Actually, proposals have been floated to use HFLRVs on Sheppard because of that, even if the rest of Transit City is LF.

The reason HFLRV were not accepted - even for Sheppard - is that it makes construction more costly and complex. The modern accessibility requirements would mandate at least part of the platform raised, that in turn requires stairs and ramps, then the platform might have to be wider - all while space at many intersections is very limited.

High level stops don't actually need stairs or anything, they just need a ramp from the street which is not much of a problem. It makes the stop longer and a bit further from the intersection, but not any wider than it would be otherwise. For example, take a look at the C-Train station at 1st ave. East in Calgary on Google streetview. While the westbound stop has stairs from the sidewalk, the eastbound stop simply has a ramp from the street.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie...id=3CiPK-xHXCX9K6zKF67LZw&cbp=12,1.88,,0,1.69

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Why bother dipping under intersections along Eglinton West? Handling at-grade street crossings the way the Calgary LRT does would be just as effective and much cheaper. Trains going as far as the airport would likely be less frequent than in the central portion.

If Eglinton West was in Calgary, they'd run the line through the Richview Corridor and dip wherever possible.

Running in the middle of the road and not dipping under intersections is not necessarily cheaper than running through the corridor even with dipping, especially if it means a more extensive rebuild of Eglinton including added u-turn lanes.

 

[reaperexpress]

If Eglinton West was in Calgary, they'd run the line through the Richview Corridor and dip wherever possible.

Running in the middle of the road and not dipping under intersections is not necessarily cheaper than running through the corridor even with dipping, especially if it means a more extensive rebuild of Eglinton including added u-turn lanes.

I understood MisterF's suggestion as having it run through the Richview corridor at grade with railway crossing gates at cross streets. This would be cheaper than either the options you listed. However, this becomes impractical when trains come very frequently since there would not be enough time for cross traffic. Though we could probably serve the demand with long trains at low frequencies as they do in LRT systems such as Calgary, Houston and Los Angeles, people would not take kindly to the idea of reducing the frequency.

An example in Calgary: http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie...1.021446,-114.059369&spn=0,359.99716&t=h&z=19

 

[MisterF]

I understood MisterF's suggestion is to have it run through the Richview corridor with railway crossing gates at cross streets. This would be cheaper than either of your options. However, this becomes impractical when trains come very frequently since there would not be enough time for cross traffic. We could probably serve the demand with long trains at low frequencies as they do in LRT systems such as Calgary, Houston and Los Angeles, but people would not take kindly to the idea of reducing the frequency.

Yes, just for the record I'm advocating the line using the Richview corridor.

As for frequency, the Calgary C-Train runs every 2-4 minutes in rush hour, street crossings and all.