Whose vision of transit in Toronto do you support?

[GenerationW]

So, a subway is an underground electric railway. The middle 10 kms of Eglinton will be underground, electric and with trains on rails. And it's not a subway because?

Because the TTC has not and is not calling it a subway. In one of the early information sessions for Eglinton, the TTC handed out literature which clearly stated that, due to projected demand levels, a subway for Eglinton was being rejected in favour of a Pearson-Kennedy LRT with a central tunneled section.

A curse on those who have selfishly abandoned the TTC for its definition of what is and isn't a subway. Traitors!

 

[gweed123]

That study seems so bizarre that I didn't think it worth mentioning. It seems to be a student project from a couple of people in the Geography department of all places. The numbers are all over the place ... on one hand they estimate that subway ridership is a bit below the Sheppard line; and on the other they put out numbers that are actually higher than the Yonge extension! They seem to be both sucking and blowing, and both can't be true. I honestly don't think they know what they are doing ...

Fair enough. But what about the other 4 or 5 studies done for previous plans that all justified HRT? Are they out to lunch too?

 

[nfitz]

Fair enough. But what about the other 4 or 5 studies done for previous plans that all justified HRT? Are they out to lunch too?

None seemed to indicate passenger levels that couldn't be dealt with, with LRT.

For the central underground section of the LRT, the cost for LRT or subway is about the same. If all one is going to build is that section, one might as well simply build subway rather than something new.

It's only when we start looking at the segments east of Don Mills Road and west of Jane, where there is a more than adequate right-of-way to construct at-grade LRT, where LRT can be built for a lot less money than subway, and which the ultimate peak loads are barely in LRT territory, let alone subway that LRT makes sense.

And then it comes down to a simple question of which makes more sense. A central subway with 2 connecting LRT lines. Or a single line with through operation. And this is where the LRT wins.

 

[gweed123]

None seemed to indicate passenger levels that couldn't be dealt with, with LRT.

For the central underground section of the LRT, the cost for LRT or subway is about the same. If all one is going to build is that section, one might as well simply build subway rather than something new.

It's only when we start looking at the segments east of Don Mills Road and west of Jane, where there is a more than adequate right-of-way to construct at-grade LRT, where LRT can be built for a lot less money than subway, and which the ultimate peak loads are barely in LRT territory, let alone subway that LRT makes sense.

And then it comes down to a simple question of which makes more sense. A central subway with 2 connecting LRT lines. Or a single line with through operation. And this is where the LRT wins.

But you also need to factor in things like connectivity with the rest of the system, as well as sharing of yards, etc. The connectivity could especially be a big point when the DRL is built to Eglinton.

And if it comes down to LRT vs Subway + LRT, I would be more inclined to do Subway + BRT, to save on construction costs. Also, BRT lines are easier to upgrade later on (flexibility of service changes mainly). An LRT would need to be decomissioned and replaced with a bus service to be upgraded to an HRT, a BRT would only need to be rerouted.

And I am still baffled why people insist that at-grade in-median LRT is the best choice for Eg West, when there is a perfectly good transit corridor sitting right beside it. I have yet to hear a good rational explanation why in-median is preferable on that stretch.

 

[Second_in_pie]

^^ That's the same big problem I have too. If you're going to be doing something on it, I don't get why you wouldn't use a completely unused corridor to provide a considerably better service. Subway from Pearson to Don Mills is quite doable, and I'd much rather have subway from Jane to Don Mills + BRT, which can be expanded to subway in the nearer future, than LRT which will end up wasting more money and keeping real RT away from the extremities of Eglinton for decades.

 

[nfitz]

But you also need to factor in things like connectivity with the rest of the system, as well as sharing of yards, etc. The connectivity could especially be a big point when the DRL is built to Eglinton.

We'd need a new yard for Eglinton anyways. I'm not sure what benefit connectivity gives you ... it's only for moving equipment around. Major systems in other cities don't have a lot of connectivity. Take London for example - one tube line is so unconnected (Waterloo and City) that they take the trains off it with a crane, and flatbed truck! The other lines have their equipment so dedicated, that they paint some of the interior of the trains to match the colour of the line they are on.

And I am still baffled why people insist that at-grade in-median LRT is the best choice for Eg West, when there is a perfectly good transit corridor sitting right beside it. I have yet to hear a good rational explanation why in-median is preferable on that stretch.

Because it's a lot cheaper than subway; travel times are almost as fast, passenger demand doesn't need subway ... and it's a major corridor ... if you use the (very wide) road, you can build something along the edges and have a city, rather than just a transportation corridor, that serves no other function. We have the 401 not far to the north if you want a transportation corridor. If in 100 or 200 years we need a subway or RER line, they can always build it under the street, and we will have both a city and transportation corridor.

 

[gweed123]

if you use the (very wide) road, you can build something along the edges and have a city, rather than a transportation corridor that doesn't actually go anywhere. We have the 401 not far to the north if you want a transportation corridor.

I'm sorry, what??? How can an empty corridor that runs directly beside the street for the whole length between Jane and Martin Grove "not go anywhere"? Your argument makes no sense.

 

[nfitz]

I'm sorry, what??? How can an empty corridor that runs directly beside the street for the whole length between Jane and Martin Grove "not go anywhere"? Your argument makes no sense.

Sorry, I was thinking of it's original purposes ... for an expressway. Yes, if it goes underground into a subway at Jane, it does go somewhere.

 

[gweed123]

Sorry, I was thinking of it's original purposes ... for an expressway. Yes, if it goes underground into a subway at Jane, it does go somewhere.

Well certainly an LRT or BRT in a trench along the Richview corridor would be much less disruptive than an expressway. I was thinking something like what is existing and/or proposed along the Scott St corridor in Ottawa: http://www.ottawalightrail.ca/en/routes-stations/tunneys-pasture

 

[nfitz]

Didn't we have a discussion about that very corridor here a few weeks ago, with the general consensus that it was an urban wasteland? I don't see much street life along there.

 

[gweed123]

Didn't we have a discussion about that very corridor here a few weeks ago, with the general consensus that it was an urban wasteland? I don't see much street life along there.

So why not turn that wasteland into a useful transit corridor? Instead of ripping the street to shreds and leaving half the streetside still as an urban wasteland?

 

[nfitz]

So why not turn that wasteland into a useful transit corridor? Instead of ripping the street to shreds and leaving half the streetside still as an urban wasteland?

Because we can do better. We wouldn't want our suburbs looking like suburban Ottawa!

 

[Rainforest]

If they are restricted in this way it is because of a political choice and not a technical limitation. Turning back 2/3rds of the trains at the tunnel exits is both possible and practical. Multiple turnback points is done regularly with the subway today (St. Clair West) and is planned to be standard operation on the Spadina and Yonge extensions, should they both be built.

There is also a very high probability that the tunnel will be signalized via ATO. ATO is the cheapest option today for a new high-frequency signal system as the TTC will already have the expensive control room bits in place and it does not need as much in-tunnel gear and there is interest in having the tunnel signalized for safety reasons. That means these extra in-tunnel only trains could even run fully automated with drivers only on the ones which exit the tunnel, potentially even catching it at the tunnel exit.

This is possible, but not very useful with the transition points (from full to partial ROW) being at Keele and Laird. The short-turn branch would miss too many intersecting routes, its trains will be half-empty and won't provide enough relief to the crosstown branch.

If they adopt the Smitherman's proposal and implement full grade separation from Don Mills all the way to Royal York, then the dual-branch scheme will be much more viable ... but the cost of LRT line will climb even higher (and it is 303 million/km in escalated dollars already). Consequently, the difference between the LRT and subway cost will be even smaller.

 

[nfitz]

This is possible, but not very useful with the transition points (from full to partial ROW) being at Keele and Laird. The short-turn branch would miss too many intersecting routes, its trains will be half-empty and won't provide enough relief to the crosstown branch.

Presumably the turn-back spot in the east, will be in the tunnel at the Don Mills station. With only a single traffic light between that location the portal east of Laird, it shouldn't impact operations.

 

[gweed123]

Because we can do better. We wouldn't want our suburbs looking like suburban Ottawa!

Since when is Scott St suburban Ottawa? And yeah, ripping up a road for the sake of ripping up a road while leaving a patch of grass that had been set aside specifically set aside for transportation is certainly "doing better". It makes zero sense. None. Nadda. Zip.