Despite what Ford says The Streetcar in Toronto is here to stay.

[drum118]

Hey there Forbie Babie, look at all the traffics stopping a 512 on Bathurst Street trying to get to St Clair to go into service.
[video=youtube;_smQyiVZCIE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_smQyiVZCIE[/video]

 

[W. K. Lis]

Just remember that more oil is found all the time, and more inaccessible oil becomes accessible as the price goes up and technology is developed. Running out of oil isn't going to be a problem. As oil gets more expensive even if costs are passed along to transit riders the cost savings from taking transit become greater and greater. Remember that the ridership growth strategy and the second phase of transit city are both based on buses. When oil prices are high, people still are not going to walk 2 or 3 km to get on rail based electric transit.

Also, as a budding futurist you should read up on algae based biofuels. It and other evolutionairy technology likely supplement and then replace oil based fuel before oil gets ludicrously expensive.

The "new" oil is also more difficult to extract and process. For example, the Alberta tarsands is more expensive to process than the oil from Saudi Arabia. Which means it will be sold at a much higher price at the consumer end. As well, even that "new" oil will eventually be used up as it takes millions of years for "newer" oil to form.

 

[Darwinkgo]

Eventually yes, but there isn't going to be some oil less apocalypse out there where we have no alternatives and unaffordable oil. Less 'end of suburbia' more market driven transition. No need to be alarmist.

 

[Asterix]

Well yeah, I would think they kinda have to be. The entire drainage pattern of the roadway will have to change, which will require the replacement of all the storm sewers for the roadway. If not complete replacement, significant modification. Think of how disruptive the St. Clair ROW project was, Eglinton will be pretty much the exact same thing. The only saving grace will be that there's enough room to create some temporary traffic lanes.

Did they move the sewers on St Clair? I don't remember them going to that level.

I acknowledge that's it's some work for sure. However, it's been done before. Just look at the open cut section of the Yonge subway between Rosedale and Eglinton. A lot of the roads were built as overpasses. They're still doing fine today, 50+ years later.

Again, I never suggested such overpasses were unsafe or couldn't be done. Just that a lot of work would be required to build them (and those Yonge overpasses are just two lane streets, not the four or more lanes of the major Eglinton cross-streets you want to trench under).

The main point is that for what would be comparable cost to the surface LRT, you want to have a change of modes partway along the line (and one could argue that it would be to a lesser level of transit as well).

That's not even touching on the other issues raised by 'Still Waters' with respect to what the community wants from the Richview land.

 

[gweed123]

Did they move the sewers on St Clair? I don't remember them going to that level.

They likely had to do some sort of storm sewer modification, because of the fact that they had to put in what amounts to a giant centre median. With the old streetcar setup, the street was sloped so that it was raised in the middle, and the water flowed to the sides. With a centre median (often with a curb separating the streetcar lanes from the vehicle lanes), that flow would have been disrupted. Eglinton would likely be the same thing. It's a 4 lane road with no centre median. If the centre median is a permeable surface (ie just grass), you may be able to get away with not having to change the location of storm sewers. But when you put a curb between two impermeable surfaces, the entire drainage pattern of the road changes.

Again, I never suggested such overpasses were unsafe or couldn't be done. Just that a lot of work would be required to build them (and those Yonge overpasses are just two lane streets, not the four or more lanes of the major Eglinton cross-streets you want to trench under).

The main point is that for what would be comparable cost to the surface LRT, you want to have a change of modes partway along the line (and one could argue that it would be to a lesser level of transit as well).

It would still likely be around $20-30 million less per km than in-median LRT. It also provides a future opportunity to upgrade that ROW to LRT. If you find that the BRT is being overwhelmed, chances are surface LRT would be overwhelmed as well. In which case, you already have the grade separation at key points done for you, and all you need to do is replace the roadbed with rails. I will admit Eglinton may not be the best example of in-median LRT vs curbside or dedicated ROW BRT. Sheppard East is probably the better example. Curbside BRT would do wonders for Sheppard, at a fraction of the cost.

That's not even touching on the other issues raised by 'Still Waters' with respect to what the community wants from the Richview land.

So much emphasis is placed on "what the community wants". Quite often, "what the community wants" is to fight change for the sake of keeping the same. The residents and businesses along Spadina fought tooth and nail against the streetcar ROW. In hindsight, were they right to do that? Hell no. The Richview Corridor is a TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR. It was originally set aside for an expressway! It's like these people who move into a new house on a suburban 2-lane arterial, and then bitch 5 years later when they widen the road. Well f*cking duh!

If the planners were trying to plow a ROW though a built-up area (ie Spadina expressway), I'd say the community would have a point. But it's a transportation corridor. That's what it was intended to be used for.

 

[Rainforest]

So much emphasis is placed on "what the community wants". Quite often, "what the community wants" is to fight change for the sake of keeping the same. The residents and businesses along Spadina fought tooth and nail against the streetcar ROW. In hindsight, were they right to do that? Hell no. The Richview Corridor is a TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR. It was originally set aside for an expressway! It's like these people who move into a new house on a suburban 2-lane arterial, and then bitch 5 years later when they widen the road. Well f*cking duh!

If the planners were trying to plow a ROW though a built-up area (ie Spadina expressway), I'd say the community would have a point. But it's a transportation corridor. That's what it was intended to be used for.

Good point. There are many places in Toronto where highrises can be built, but only very few continuous strips of land available for transit corridors.

The main point is that for what would be comparable cost to the surface LRT, you want to have a change of modes partway along the line (and one could argue that it would be to a lesser level of transit as well).

Here is another option: run LRT through Richview corridor. That avoids the mode change, and probably won't be more expensive than the current design given the amount of engineering they are going to put in diverting the left turns along Eglinton. But that could allow the trains to run faster, and make a future upgrade (even to longer LRT trains if HRT is out of question) a lot easier.

Likewise, south-of-the-road alignment near Leslie could be considered, as there are no sideroads on the south of Eglinton.

I don't know if TTC planners considered those options and turned them down for a good reason, or if they just ignored them. The presentation panels are silent on this matter.

 

[Rainforest]

^ Another contentious issue is the roundabout routing west of Martin Grove. Although they did a study and selected this routing out of several options, it is rather hard to believe that the proposed route to the airport is optimal.

Imagine that you board ECLRT at Eglinton West subway and want to go to the airport. The train makes 11 or 12 stops between Allen and Martin Grove. After that, it could run express to the airport, using a bridge over the 401 / 27 / 427 highway ramp maze (no aesthetic concerns as it could not get any worse) . But instead it is supposed to veer south and wander around Renforth and Silver Dart, making 6 additional stops in the process.

If they believe that intermediate Commerce and Convair stops will serve future important employment areas, why not split the line at Martin Grove, sending one branch express to the airport, and the other branch south-west serving those multiple stops?

 

[gweed123]

Here is another option: run LRT through Richview corridor. That avoids the mode change, and probably won't be more expensive than the current design given the amount of engineering they are going to put in diverting the left turns along Eglinton. But that could allow the trains to run faster, and make a future upgrade (even to longer LRT trains if HRT is out of question) a lot easier.

Likewise, south-of-the-road alignment near Leslie could be considered, as there are no sideroads on the south of Eglinton.

I don't know if TTC planners considered those options and turned them down for a good reason, or if they just ignored them. The presentation panels are silent on this matter.

That would be the most likely scenario, yes. My intention with bringing up BRT is to evaluate alternatives. I would be perfectly happy with LRT through the Richview corridor, especially if it had the grade separation at key intersections that I described earlier.

As for the alternative options, I would tend to agree with you. Out of all the TC routes, the vast majority of them are implementing in-median LRT. Of all the surface sections of TC (aside from the SRT replacement, which is really just the SRT refurb with a different title slapped on the front), nearly 100% of it is in-median LRT. You can't honestly tell me that in-median LRT was the optimal option for ALL of these corridors. That would be like saying routing a subway underground is the optimal choice for the entire route (ignoring possibilities for elevated, open cut, etc).

Is it appropriate for some corridors? Absolutely. The WWLRT is the perfect place to implement in-median LRT. No issues with that what-so-ever. Same as the East Bayfront. It just seems to me like in-median LRT was used as the defacto method throughout TC, and only when mitigating circumstances arose (ie ROW too narrow, must tunnel), was it deviated from. Good transit planning is about finding the right solution for the right corridor, not thinking "this is what we're going to use, unless we really can't do it, then we'll look at doing something else". Evaluate the options, then pick the best one.

 

[Asterix]

They likely had to do some sort of storm sewer modification, because of the fact that they had to put in what amounts to a giant centre median. With the old streetcar setup, the street was sloped so that it was raised in the middle, and the water flowed to the sides. With a centre median (often with a curb separating the streetcar lanes from the vehicle lanes), that flow would have been disrupted. Eglinton would likely be the same thing. It's a 4 lane road with no centre median. If the centre median is a permeable surface (ie just grass), you may be able to get away with not having to change the location of storm sewers. But when you put a curb between two impermeable surfaces, the entire drainage pattern of the road changes.

Have a look at Google Streetview along St Clair. When they did the imagery, the eastern part (Vaughan to Yonge) was complete. West of Vaughan was in various stages of completion. Can you identify where they've had to move sewers (or where they are in process of moving sewers)?

If the original road was crowned, putting in a raised center median doesn't negate that crown (and would presumably further complement it).

It would still likely be around $20-30 million less per km than in-median LRT.

This I'm somewhat skeptical of. How much are they budgeting for the surface LRT per km? How much per km would your BRT cost? (I'm thinking also of how much the York bus byway cost and it didn't include any trenching under existing major cross-streets as well as the cost of the Dufferin jog elimination which is a similar concept to your proposed trenching under half a dozen or more cross-streets.)

It also provides a future opportunity to upgrade that ROW to LRT. If you find that the BRT is being overwhelmed, chances are surface LRT would be overwhelmed as well.

Is this accurate? With the capacity of the TC LRVs (running in two car trains as stated on the display panels at http://www.toronto.ca/involved/proj...n_lrt/pdf/2009-11-20_display_panels_part1.pdf), how many buses would you need to provide the same capacity? How many additional operators would you have to hire (since I'm assuming you will need more than one bus to replace a two car train)?

I know you don't agree with the numbers, but panel 7 in the above link does show that the LRT capacity of Eglinton will be significantly greater than BRT.

So much emphasis is placed on "what the community wants". Quite often, "what the community wants" is to fight change for the sake of keeping the same.

Ok, I agree that those concerns of the residents shouldn't count for a huge negative against the project. I wouldn't think though that half a dozen or more sharp downs and ups through the trenched underpasses would be as appealing to riders as a smoother LRT trip.

 

[gweed123]

Have a look at Google Streetview along St Clair. When they did the imagery, the eastern part (Vaughan to Yonge) was complete. West of Vaughan was in various stages of completion. Can you identify where they've had to move sewers (or where they are in process of moving sewers)?

If the original road was crowned, putting in a raised center median doesn't negate that crown (and would presumably further complement it).

But if the median is impermeable, you have to drain that as well. Ergo, you need to make some sort of modification to the storm sewers in order to drain it. In order for no work to have been done on the storm sewers, they would have had to have had the storm sewer running down the middle of the road, and would have had to put the drainage intake in the middle of the streetcar ROW, having the ROW drain inwards (towards the middle). I believe the storm sewers on St. Clair were on the sides, whether they were running to a single pipe running directly under the centre of the roadway I don't know, but logic would suggest they had to do modifications of some type in order to accomodate the new ROW.

This I'm somewhat skeptical of. How much are they budgeting for the surface LRT per km? How much per km would your BRT cost? (I'm thinking also of how much the York bus byway cost and it didn't include any trenching under existing major cross-streets as well as the cost of the Dufferin jog elimination which is a similar concept to your proposed trenching under half a dozen or more cross-streets.)

Well Sheppard East is averaging about $70 million/km. You can usually build a 2-lane roadway for about $15 million/km, but it can go up to $20, depending on standards. I don't have an exact number on the cost of overpasses.

Even if the west extension was done as LRT, it would at worst be cost-neutral with the current proposal (cost of reconstructing an entire roadway > cost of building new ROW with overpasses).

Is this accurate? With the capacity of the TC LRVs (running in two car trains as stated on the display panels at http://www.toronto.ca/involved/proj...n_lrt/pdf/2009-11-20_display_panels_part1.pdf), how many buses would you need to provide the same capacity? How many additional operators would you have to hire (since I'm assuming you will need more than one bus to replace a two car train)?

I know you don't agree with the numbers, but panel 7 in the above link does show that the LRT capacity of Eglinton will be significantly greater than BRT.

The operational costs would be higher, yes. But remember, multiple routes can use the BRT service, in a lot of cases negating a transfer. Those are buses that would have been on the road anyway. From personal observation, only about 60% of the buses that use the Transitway through downtown Ottawa are 'Transitway' routes. The rest are local routes using the Transitway ROW.

And as I pointed out earlier, in the 1st Ottawa LRT plan, the increase in capacity from going from BRT to surface LRT was only a couple thousand pphpd. It was seen by many as being a 'band-aid' solution. Run properly, BRT can carry very close to what surface LRT (non-grade separated) can carry.

Ok, I agree that those concerns of the residents shouldn't count for a huge negative against the project. I wouldn't think though that half a dozen or more sharp downs and ups through the trenched underpasses would be as appealing to riders as a smoother LRT trip.

Agreed. LRT is a smoother ride, much less lateral movement. I'm merely looking at cost/benefit here.

 

[Asterix]

But if the median is impermeable, you have to drain that as well. Ergo, you need to make some sort of modification to the storm sewers in order to drain it. In order for no work to have been done on the storm sewers, they would have had to have had the storm sewer running down the middle of the road, and would have had to put the drainage intake in the middle of the streetcar ROW, having the ROW drain inwards (towards the middle). I believe the storm sewers on St. Clair were on the sides, whether they were running to a single pipe running directly under the centre of the roadway I don't know, but logic would suggest they had to do modifications of some type in order to accomodate the new ROW.

I'm still not grasping this. Previously they had a crowned road with streetcar tracks in the middle. Drainage would be off to the sides.

Now they raise up the central part of the road, keeping the streetcar tracks. Why wouldn't the drainage continue to be off to the sides of the road? Have a look at Streetview, there are not many stretches where there is a raised curb between the tracks and the road. The entire track median is raised.

I don't have an exact number on the cost of overpasses.

Neither do I, but I suspect that is where you'd be spending an inordinate amount of your money, greatly reducing any potential savings vs median LRT.

The operational costs would be higher, yes. But remember, multiple routes can use the BRT service, in a lot of cases negating a transfer.

Which routes are you thinking of? I don't see much in the way of other routes beyond the 32 using that western stretch of Eglinton.

 

[gweed123]

I'm still not grasping this. Previously they had a crowned road with streetcar tracks in the middle. Drainage would be off to the sides.

Now they raise up the central part of the road, keeping the streetcar tracks. Why wouldn't the drainage continue to be off to the sides of the road? Have a look at Streetview, there are not many stretches where there is a raised curb between the tracks and the road. The entire track median is raised.

Because before, the streetcar tracks were flush with the pavement. Now that they're raised (or have a curb in between them and the pavement), the water can no longer drain from the streetcar tracks to the catch basins on the side of the street. If they did, you would get a cascade of water flowing over the edge of the raised streetcar ROW, or pooling inside the ROW itself. Therefore, they had to place catch basins inside the streetcar ROW, requiring some sort of modification to the existing storm sewer configuration.

Neither do I, but I suspect that is where you'd be spending an inordinate amount of your money, greatly reducing any potential savings vs median LRT.

I don't think they're THAT expensive. Yes, they aren't cheap, but you can't tell me that an overpass every couple of KMs plus a new ROW is more expensive than ripping up a 4 lane street, rebuilding it, and turning it into a 6 lane street.

Which routes are you thinking of? I don't see much in the way of other routes beyond the 32 using that western stretch of Eglinton.

Well you could route a lot of the bus routes that run along the major N-S streets (Jane for example, or Kipling). Not reroute the entire service, but create a branched service, where the A continues as it currently does, and the B travels via Eglinton to the terminus.

This type of scenario would be especially useful on Sheppard. Have 3 routes running: Vic Park to STC via the Sheppard ROW and curbside lanes on McCowan; Vic Park to Morningside via the Sheppard ROW; and Malvern to STC via dedicated lanes on Neilson (or none at all, Neilson flows pretty well), the Sheppard ROW, then the dedicated lanes on McCowan. This would be much more difficult to do with an LRT service, but with a BRT service it's easy. You don't even really need dedicated lanes for part of those routes.

 

[Asterix]

Because before, the streetcar tracks were flush with the pavement. Now that they're raised (or have a curb in between them and the pavement), the water can no longer drain from the streetcar tracks to the catch basins on the side of the street. If they did, you would get a cascade of water flowing over the edge of the raised streetcar ROW, or pooling inside the ROW itself. Therefore, they had to place catch basins inside the streetcar ROW, requiring some sort of modification to the existing storm sewer configuration.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...2AGKqYk2qHsnNVYXnBVJlw&cbp=12,236.55,,0,32.49

Why would water landing in the median, flowing off the the side, in the above section be any different than before, other than having to drop off the raised portion?

I don't think they're THAT expensive. Yes, they aren't cheap, but you can't tell me that an overpass every couple of KMs plus a new ROW is more expensive than ripping up a 4 lane street, rebuilding it, and turning it into a 6 lane street.

I don't believe I ever said it would be more expensive. Just that your cost savings would be negated by several other factors (decreased capacity, reduced rider experience, less attractive streetscape, etc).

 

[gweed123]

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...2AGKqYk2qHsnNVYXnBVJlw&cbp=12,236.55,,0,32.49

Why would water landing in the median, flowing off the the side, in the above section be any different than before, other than having to drop off the raised portion?

Because generally we want to avoid having water cascading over curbs... I dunno, can anybody else help me with an explanation here?

I don't believe I ever said it would be more expensive. Just that your cost savings would be negated by several other factors (decreased capacity, reduced rider experience, less attractive streetscape, etc).

The only thing you listed there that would negate cost savings is decreased capacity, which would only negate operational cost savings. The other two are completely subjective, and are very difficult to quantify.

 

[Asterix]

Because generally we want to avoid having water cascading over curbs... I dunno, can anybody else help me with an explanation here?

Why would there be any more water 'cascading' over that curb than would be running off from the middle of the street if there weren't the raised median?