Whose vision of transit in Toronto do you support?

[scarberiankhatru]

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.

Comparing to running in the middle of Eglinton, though, dipping through the Richview Corridor would hold up in terms of cost, but, yeah, if we're just looking to spend the least amount of money and attain some basic level of service, those rail crossings in the corridor would cost less money.

But Calgary would grade-separate wherever possible or desirable, and equating at-grade crossings with the Calgary 'way of doing things' simply isn't accurate for most of Calgary's system. Where they do have these gated crossings, they're typically at roads that don't see much traffic. What would Calgary do? At the very least, if they'd build gated crossings with Wincott and Widdicombe, they'd dip under Kipling and Islington. Yet Calgary tends to have midblock stations, not stations right at intersections, and larger gaps between stations, so what works there (and the C-Train's operational environment is just about as varied as light rail can get) may not work here. There's intersecting bus and vehicle volumes along Eglinton that may make gated crossings undesirable. And, really, the line is already costing many billions, so it's not like a few million dollars more matters *that* much.

 

[reaperexpress]

Comparing to running in the middle of Eglinton, though, dipping through the Richview Corridor would hold up in terms of cost, but, yeah, if we're just looking to spend the least amount of money and attain some basic level of service, those rail crossings in the corridor would cost less money.

But Calgary would grade-separate wherever possible or desirable, and equating at-grade crossings with the Calgary 'way of doing things' simply isn't accurate for most of Calgary's system. Where they do have these gated crossings, they're typically at roads that don't see much traffic. What would Calgary do? At the very least, if they'd build gated crossings with Wincott and Widdicombe, they'd dip under Kipling and Islington. Yet Calgary tends to have midblock stations, not stations right at intersections, and larger gaps between stations, so what works there (and the C-Train's operational environment is just about as varied as light rail can get) may not work here. There's intersecting bus and vehicle volumes along Eglinton that may make gated crossings undesirable. And, really, the line is already costing many billions, so it's not like a few million dollars more matters *that* much.

I wasn't thinking that we should use entirely grade crossings, but I think that's what MisterF is. Personally I think that, like you said, we should grade separate major intersections, but using overpasses, not underpasses. This would probably cost less than underpasses, since the bulk of the lowering could go to the road, not the tracks. Roads can handle steeper gradients than LRT, so we wouldn't have to dig as long a trench to go down the same distance. However, since the Richview corridor isn't all that wide, we couldn't simply build road underpasses, so I propose doing a combination of both: having the tracks go up a bit and the road go down a bit when they cross. Like I said earlier, this would make the LRT very fast and efficient since gravity would help accelerate and decelerate the trains.

Minor cross streets and driveways would use level crossings.

 

[kettal]

Now you're building a roller coaster with stations in the sky.

The whole benefit of LRT is that the stations don't have to be giant engineered monstrosities with an army of elevators and escalators.

The reason I suggested the LRT dips, was that the tunnel can be shallow, only tall enough to fit an LRT train in it. If it has to go over traffic, we're going to have to build high enough to accommodate large trucks.

Edit: I'll also add that road dips under railways are undesirable for pedestrians, cyclists, and any businesses which might be nearby.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Overpasses vs underpasses depends, too, on the exact elevation at any point. If we build stations at these over/underpasses, the stations would necessarily cost more than if we built them at midblock points...but then they'd be harder to get to, especially for bus transfers, so, again, Calgary may or may not be the best model. What Calgary does is tailor every segment of the C-Train to the local environment (beside the road, through a rail corridor, tunneled, elevated, etc.), and we should do that with Eglinton, not just plow it through the middle of the road because someone thinks that's the most awesome way to do it. If we run in the corridor and dip, we also keep more land available for development, much more than if we run it in the middle of Eglinton and build additional u-turn lanes.

 

[kettal]

Having quickly looked at existing conditions, there may be a case for a bridge over Islington, as this intersection is in a minor valley.

 

[reaperexpress]

Now you're building a roller coaster with stations in the sky.

To put it in perspective, the change in elevation would be less than 1/2 of the amount that currently exists leaving Keele station to the west. The subway goes from an elevated station above the street (with enough space for large trucks to pass under) to underground in under 50m. I ride that section fairly often, and it is barely noticeable.

The reason I suggested the LRT dips, was that the tunnel can be shallow, only tall enough to fit an LRT train in it. If it has to go over traffic, we're going to have to build high enough to accommodate large trucks.

In most road dips that I've seen, the sidewalk doesn't go as low as the road, it keeps going fairly level. The sidwalk only has to dip down enough under the LRT overpass to accommodate tall people. So in terms of height changed between pedestrian entrance and platform level, the difference would be much less with a road dip. In sunken stations the pedestrian overpass has to clear the overhead lines, meaning that it would be a long way down to the platform, necessitating monstrous stations with elevators and escalators.

Edit: I'll also add that road dips under railways are undesirable for pedestrians, cyclists, and any businesses which might be nearby.

And why is that? I'm a pedestrian and a cyclist in an area with lots of them, and I don't have a problem with them.

EDIT: It makes my sad that we are arguing over cost savings on a completely bare-bones station when they are building enormous cathedral-stations on the TYSSE.

 

[kettal]

As drivers go downhill, into a dip, their speed naturally increases, and their ability to stop decreases. Add in the shadows created by the bridge, and increased noise levels, it makes it quite unpleasant. Perhaps on a well-designed underpass these problems can be reduced. Personally, I get off my bike and walk when I get to the Queen and King street underpasses in the west end of downtown.

 

[kettal]

To put it in perspective, the change in elevation would be less than 1/2 of the amount that currently exists leaving Keele station to the west. The subway goes from an elevated station above the street (with enough space for large trucks to pass under) to underground in under 50m. I ride that section fairly often, and it is barely noticeable.

Am I not correct to say that the required change in elevation would be less for an LRT underpass, in a scenario where the surrounding land is flat? Less elevation change means less raised track, and whatever else goes with that. Admittedly, there could be a stormwater collection problem in any trenches, which will also have to be considered.

 

[reaperexpress]

You're right, i took a look at those underpasses on Google Streetview and they do look unpleasant. I think that's because they have so many tracks going over. In the ones near my area it's never more than 2 tracks, so it doesn't actually get dark under the bridge. As for the ability to stop, that would be true for the LRTs too if they were to dip down. And it doesn't seem to be that much of a problem anyway. Aren't they grade separating more rail crossings all over the city? I can think of Sheppard East and the Weston corridor off the top of my head. In all these places the road will have to go up or down. If they don't have a problem with cars going down hills, then I don't see why we should.

 

[reaperexpress]

Am I not correct to say that the required change in elevation would be less for an LRT underpass, in a scenario where the surrounding land is flat? Less elevation change means less raised track, and whatever else goes with that. Admittedly, there could be a stormwater collection problem in any trenches, which will also have to be considered.

Yes, if it was just an overpass vs just an underpass, the underpass has a lower change in elevation. However, what I am proposing is primarily a road underpass with the LRT tracks raised a bit. Comparing my proposal to an LRT underpass:
- LRT underpass has less elevation difference between the road and the rails but more difference between the sidewalk and the rails.
- My proposal can have the tracks go up by as much or as little as needed or wanted, with the remainder of the clearance provided by the road dip.

 

[gweed123]

However, doing the station directly beneath the road overpass (have the road at-grade, and the LRT underneath), the roadway would act as somewhat of a shield from the elements (rain/snow, a hot summer's sun, etc) moreso than a simple shelter would. You can build a curb-side cutout for the buses directly overtop of the platform (on a 90 degree angle I mean), and have stairs, a ramp, and maybe even an elevator down to the platform.

I envision something like what Ottawa did with the O-Train stations: http://www.lightrailnow.org/images/otw-rpr-o-train-stn-singletrack-ohd.jpg
Another view of the same station: http://www.barraclou.com/stations/ontario/otrain_carling.jpg

For Eglinton, you could do the stairwell and elevator structure in the middle, and have a centre platform, which would negate the need to build two platforms and two accessways.

In 2001, the entire 8km system was built for $21 million. Granted, the tracks were already there, so for 5 stations it works out to $4.2 million per station. In the grand scheme of things, that's a drop in the bucket. Granted, the platforms on Eglinton would need to be a bit longer, so that's an extra few thousand for a few more metres of concrete.

 

[golodhendil]

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

[...]

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.

Since when did LF vs HF LRVs have special claims to any of the features you listed above, when either type has so much variability in their specs? Compare eg Siemens' HF SD-160 (used in Calgary) vs their LF S70 (used in San Diego):

SD-160 (HF):
max speed - 80 km/h
capacity - 173 (0.68 / m^3)
mass - 40.6 T (0.16 T / m^3)
cost - $3.8M CAD (Edmonton 2005 purchase, ~$4M USD in 2009 dollars)
operating power to maintain speed - 165 kW (from SD-100, the DC-powered model of SD-160)

S70 (LF):
max speed - 120 km/h
capacity - 221 (0.78 / m^3)
mass - 43.4 T (0.15 T / m^3)
cost - $3.6M USD (2009 purhcase)
operating power to maintain speed - 130 kW

Thus, the HF SD-160 is slower, more expensive, heavier, less energy efficient and less space efficient than the LF S70.

Also, why would it be any more difficult to use LFLRV with non-standard gauges, when such vehicles already widely exist and variable gauge has already been taken into consideration in the LRVs' design?

 

[reaperexpress]

Since when did LF vs HF LRVs have special claims to any of the features you listed above, when either type has so much variability in their specs? Compare eg Siemens' HF SD-160 (used in Calgary) vs their LF S70 (used in San Diego):

I did some research, and it turns out you are right: there's a huge amount of variation between models, so it's hard to put one technology above the other. If you compare the Denver S160 to the Portland S70, they are practically identical:

Denver Sp160 (100%HF)
Max speed: 88km/h
Acceleration: 1.34m/s/s
Capacity: 185
Length: 24.8m
Width:2.65m
Weight: 40.6t

Portland Sp70 (70%LF)
Max Speed: 88km/h
Acceleration: 1.35m/s/s
Capacity: 228
Length: 28 m
Width: 2.65m
Weight 49 t

The S70 obviously carries more people because it's bigger. It's heavier for the same reason too.
Anyhow, I was thinking more of the 100% low floor vehicles when I said that HFLRVs were better in those ways. The 70% LFLRVs don't really differ that much from conventional LRT technology. Most importantly, they have conventional bogies and don't have floating sections. I'll admit that they are just as good as any other LRV. However, the TTC has decided that it wants an even floor height within the vehicle. This immediately eliminates the S70 from consideration. Here is a comparison of the Bombardier Flexity2 to the Bombardier K5000. Again, the low floor tram is bigger so it's not a completely fair comparison.

Bombardier K5000 (HF):Cologne, Germany
Max speed: 80km/h
Acceleration: 1.2m/s/s
Capacity: 62seated/115 standing
Length: 28.4 m
Width:2.65m
Weight: 37.8t

Bombardier Flexity2 (100%LF): Blackpool, England:
Max Speed: 70km/h
Acceleration: 0.5m/s/s
Capacity: 74seated/148 standing
Length: 32.2 m
Width: 2.65m
Weight: 40.9t

My thinking was that since 100% low floor trams have suspended sections and long overhangs, they would be unstable and unsafe to operate at speed due to the twisting motion that could occur when there are so many rotation joints between the bogies. As well, they tend to have much shorter body sections, which adds weight. That was based off the fact that there was such a weight savings when we went from the 55 foot aluminum G4s to the 75 foot aluminum M1s. My impression about LFLRVs being slow came from the fact that all the LRT systems that I could think of that run very fast either have high floor or partial low-floor vehicles. Evidently these ideas didn't stand up as well as I expected in reality.

Also, why would it be any more difficult to use LFLRV with non-standard gauges, when such vehicles already widely exist and variable gauge has already been taken into consideration in the LRVs' design?

It wouldn't take any engineering to change the gauge of an HFLRV (or 70% LFLRV for that matter), you could simply replace the bogies with TTC gauge ones. I don't doubt that it would be quite simple to order a fleet to TTC gauge, but then why did Metrolinx decide to build TC to Standard Gauge? From what I understand, it's so that we could share rolling stock orders with other cities and/or because standard gauge LRVs are somehow cheaper. With HFLRVs, we could easily share an order with another city, just with different bogies. We know from TTC history that they never had problems regauging all the PCCs they bought from (and later sold to) cities running standard gauge, so why is that suddenly a problem now? I assume it's because LFLRVs are harder to change the gauge on.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I think Metrolinx wanted standard gauge so that Toronto's new LRT network could one day connect to LRT networks in other GTA municipalities - the buying power thing is less less important.

 

[gweed123]

Here is what we have determined to be a reasonable costing estimate for the lines we are proposing. It is divided into two parts: total for all projects, and total for the priority projects. The goal is to have the priority projects come in under $15 billion, to stay on par with TC.

Let the debating and pointing out errors begin, haha. I'm not an expert when it comes to costing, so if you see anything that looks out of place, please let me know.