News   May 29, 2024
Summerhill South
 53     0 
News   May 28, 2024
Core Architects Wins a Trio of Awards for 210 Bloor West
 1.4K     1 
News   May 28, 2024
Quayside Resubmission Refines Block 3 and 4 Tower Plans
 1.8K     0 

Eglinton LRT- Skytrain Beams Vs. Median Right-of-Way

cplchanb said:
yea and im sure that the billions of $$ required will just magically appear in front of him along with the seals of approval from the city council
good luck trying to get enough nods to even think seriously about this most radical of plans. Viva itself took 3 years to plan and implement, and it didnt even have any rails.
50km of subway in 5 years.... unless this becomes a national build project, good luck with your fancy far fetched dreams
Click to expand...

Well, if Ssiguy can make up bullsh*t, I thougt we all could?
 
Last edited:
Second_in_pie said:
How are elevated tracks create barriers? I guess you've disregarded the elevated systems throughout almost every other major city in the world, which don't seem to tear communities apart. Granted, I bet if the TTC wasn't paying attention, they could very well screw up monumentally, but then they could do the same with LRT. Take a look at the elevated RT in Vancouver or Tokyo; those in no way tear communities apart. In fact, with even the slightest aesthetic talent, elevated tracks could actually make for a better community, having stores and such around stations, and creating a less imposing landscape along arterials.

If you're talking about inner-city, that's kind of obvious. But elevated tracks outside of build up areas really is a must that Toronto hasn't grasped the concept of yet.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the elevated sections of Vancouver’s Skytrain very definitely create psychological barriers in the City. However the elevated sections generally run along old railway lines, not down the middle of major streets, just like the Scarborough RT. Railway lines themselves create the same kind of psychological barriers and as a result often make up the boundaries of neighbourhoods. Therefore the psychological change of adding an elevated track to an existing rail corridor on Vancouver and Scarborough has been minimal. An example of this psychological barrier is the loop in Chicago. There is inside the loop and outside the loop. The elevated railway defines the edges of the neighbourhood.

The City of Toronto would like to make Eglinton the central focal point for commercial activity. Putting an elevated line down the middle would have exactly the opposite effect. Commercial uses don’t like to be under elevated structures because people don’t like to walk under elevated structures. Take a look at the loop in Chicago or the elevated sections in New York City. Those streets almost invariable become the ‘back end’ streets, with the loading docks and entrances to parking garages, big blank walls, or at best second rate commercial uses, not active pedestrian places. The active streets are generally the ones that cross perpendicular to the elevated tracks.
 
So we're not to be building elevated tracks on Eglinton (which would easily half the price of a subway,) because Eglinton's supposed to turn into this nice vibrant pedestrian-oriented area? Newsflash: Eglinton as an arterial road has no chance of becoming a Bloor or Queen street, even with all the LRT prettying up they want to do with TC.

I've gone along the RT corridors through Vancouver, and I see absolutely no barrier in it. Heck, I saw people using the grass and landscaping underneath as a park. Again, if you engineer it even competently, no barrier-age will occur and I think it could actually do a lot of good for what's currently a very open and imposing Eglinton.

If it does turn into an area for side streets and loading docks, then that's fine. That gives you a definite back end to put a street or two of TOD just north or south of Eglinton, which would have RT just blocks away.
 
Second_in_pie said:
I've gone along the RT corridors through Vancouver, and I see absolutely no barrier in it. Heck, I saw people using the grass and landscaping underneath as a park. Again, if you engineer it even competently, no barrier-age will occur and I think it could actually do a lot of good for what's currently a very open
Click to expand...

The "psychological barrier" seems like nothing more than an aesthetic "eyesore". It's probably NIMBYism that lingers around most of the residents that prevents it. Like new subways are built strictly underground in Korea because its citizens are annoyed by the train noises aboveground...
 
Between 1998 to 2014 Vancouver will have built 52 km of SkyTrain of which 18km is underground and includes a SkyTrain only huge bridge over the Fraser River, tunneling downtown, under False Creek, a bridge to YVR, and bridge over HWY #1. That's all in just 16 years. Vancouver has managed so why can't Toronto. Vancouver is smart enough to tunnel where needed and elevate in the burbs and commercial roads. It also makes use to interlining which, for some reason only the maker knows, Toronto refuses to do. It tunnels where needed down major inner city areas like Cambie, downtown, and soon all the way to UBC by 2020.
The 11km SkyTrain to Coquitlam will be $1.4 billion by 2014 but somehow Toronto's 6 km SRT km will be coming in at $2 billion. As far as people not wanting to live near SkyTrain they quite litteraly build condo towers just 10 metres from the stations.
Toronto's stupid notion of tunneling to get to Walmart is part of the reason why rapid transit construction gets no where.
 
Something tells me Bombardier and Metrolinx is pushing for and ICTS/MARK II type of technology on Eglinton. This was the case two years ago when Metrolinx RTP was leaked to the press. It caused large debates on various form including Steve Munro's. Me personally I think it would be a good idea. Imagine having rapid transit from Malvern all the way to the Airport.

If it does happen the line will most likely be underground similar to the original LRT proposal, in the east however the line will be elevated from Don Mill to just before Kennedy where it dip below grade. It is here that the line will connect to the refurbished and extended SRT line. (hopefully to Malvern
In the west after Jane it will be elevated until it reachs the Richview corridor where it will be trenched and then elevated again after Martin Grove, all the way to the airport.

To me this sounds like a good plan. It would directly serve the entire city of Toronto and indirectly surrounding 905 regions like Mississauga, Brampton Markham, Pickering and Ajax.
 
It wouldn't shock me, and Bombardier would, I'm sure, be more than happy to do this as a turnkey project. But in the absence of hard evidence--and with the constraint of working within what's already planned--I am sceptical.
 
Given this is what Metrolinx wanted before the TTC insisted on LRT, it wouldn't surprise me. And seeing as how they would obviously use Bombardier as the supplier, I doubt they would mind a portion of the LRT contract being cancelled in favour of an ICTS contract.

The wait is almost over. The plan is supposed to be released this week is it not?
 
What value is ICTS? Bombardier sold automated TTC style subway cars in a turnkey project to Turkey. I'm not sure I understand the value proposition of ICTS considering a more standard ATC could be employed on standard LRT and subway vehicles. It seems like a technology that exists for the sake of being high-tech.
 
EnviroTO said:
What value is ICTS? Bombardier sold automated TTC style subway cars in a turnkey project to Turkey. I'm not sure I understand the value proposition of ICTS considering a more standard ATC could be employed on standard LRT and subway vehicles. It seems like a technology that exists for the sake of being high-tech.
Click to expand...

They weren't just "TTC style", they were H6s.

I assume that people think that ICTS is cheaper than subway, which is something I do not believe at all. The reason ICTS is billed as being cheaper is that the trains are smaller and lighter, so guideways aren't as expensive. On the other hand, ICTS requires an expensive linear motor to be built in addition to the third rail. One possible cost saving from ICTS is that smaller trains result in smaller tunnels. However, the TBMs have already been purchased, and they will bore a tunnel 6m in diameter, regardless of technology choice. In tunnels, ICTS will inevitably be more expensive than subway or LRT. The amount saved on guideways might just be enough to make up for this, but if the cost is the same, then what's the point? You get a system with lower capacity and more expensive (sole sourced) vehicles.
 
I have a hard time believing a guideway which is twice as complex can be much cheaper than LRT. Current LRTs are already lightweight compared to the previous generation vehicles. I don't see where these savings would come from.
 
EnviroTO said:
I have a hard time believing a guideway which is twice as complex can be much cheaper than LRT. Current LRTs are already lightweight compared to the previous generation vehicles. I don't see where these savings would come from.
Click to expand...

I havent heard anyone claim that ICTS guideways are cheaper than LRT guideways. I've heard that they're cheaper than subway guideways, but that's probably true.
 
I'm pretty sure ICTS guideways are cheaper in comparison to subways. ICTS guideways can also negotiate steeper hills and sharper turns.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top