Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[kaptrice]

It's unfortunate that Toronto fell for the now declining LRT fad that struck North America. I've always believed that a subway along Eglinton (and in Scarborough) would serve our needs much better, especially in the future since the region has seen record growth over the years...

Toronto has a pretty uniquely weird LRT complex. In most of the US and in Alberta, the modern (70s and onwards) systems tend to be of a "tram-train" type, mixing fast railway or highway rights-of-way with inexpensive surface access into urban cores. There are a few examples of systems that are mostly rapid-transit, like those in St. Louis and Ottawa; Seattle mostly builds to rapid transit standard but is constrained by the relatively small suburban street median segment. There are some legacy systems that have central tunnels with surface branches, like San Francisco and Philadelphia. Toronto's first LRTs, on Spadina and Queens Quay, were higher-quality tramways, and the Transit City lines to me evoke the Ile-de-France tramways, even if the FWLRT flops the execution.

The ECLRT, stitching together a rapid transit line and a tramway at Laird, definitely ought to have been either one or the other. But it's rather distinct from other LRT lines across the continent; I don't think its poor planning is a product of imitation. It's a homegrown Toronto mistake.

 

[kaptrice]

One thing I also don't hope to see on Line 5.

The Flexity Outlooks on Toronto's streetcar system seem to have alot of rocking and general "instability" when accelerating and coming to a stop (and even some during static motion). Is this something we're also going to see on Line 5 due to the low floor design of the vehicles/the design of the flexity itself, or is it just due to poor track conditions of Toronto's tram network?

Oscillation has been a recurring problem, but the LRT vehicles are different from the streetcar ones, and their infrastructure's very different, too.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Toronto has a pretty uniquely weird LRT complex. In most of the US and in Alberta, the modern (70s and onwards) systems tend to be of a "tram-train" type, mixing fast railway or highway rights-of-way with inexpensive surface access into urban cores. There are a few examples of systems that are mostly rapid-transit, like those in St. Louis and Ottawa; Seattle mostly builds to rapid transit standard but is constrained by the relatively small suburban street median segment. There are some legacy systems that have central tunnels with surface branches, like San Francisco and Philadelphia. Toronto's first LRTs, on Spadina and Queens Quay, were higher-quality tramways, and the Transit City lines to me evoke the Ile-de-France tramways, even if the FWLRT flops the execution.

The ECLRT, stitching together a rapid transit line and a tramway at Laird, definitely ought to have been either one or the other. But it's rather distinct from other LRT lines across the continent; I don't think its poor planning is a product of imitation. It's a homegrown Toronto mistake.

Stitching a tramway with a tunnel is fine, if you have more than one branch to make the best use of the tunnel's expensive capacity (like Edmonton-ish with 1.5 branches, or San Francisco with 5 branches - not the Central Subway mistake). Theoretically, we could turn around trains at Science Centre to gain capacity, and I think that is what will eventually happen. But still, it's a very strange decision. So here's today's really, really terrible idea: Lawrence East LRT, branching into the Eglinton tunnel at Science Centre or Sunnybrook Park station. Instead of turning at Science Centre, trains alternate on Lawrence and Eglinton.

I feel like we argue this every other week. I personally don't expect anything to be rebuilt, not for the first 50 years of operation - come back to me in 2076 (I plan/hope to be alive then) to check in with this debate.

Is the news still "we don't know anything because Metrolinx is a wall"?

 

[Aplus23]

Why would a signaling system built from the ground up be so difficult to implement? After a few updates should fix any jinks or bugs if your engineers n programmers are really good.

 

[generalcanada]

if your engineers n programmers are really good.

you answered your own question

 

[felix123]

you answered your own question

Fom working in the industry for years, I can almost guarantee that the devs were like "Not crashing into other LRVs was never in the spec. You'll have to submit that req for the next sprint."

 

[reinventingthewheel]

if your engineers n programmers are really good.

you answered your own question

LOL. @Aplus23 I have two valuable lessons for you:

1. Pay peanuts – you get monkeys
Consider the high turnover rates, especially in software careers, and the comparatively lousy salaries offered here versus big tech companies over the last 15 years. With that we can’t make any assertions but we can suspect at least some lack of expertise, ownership and accountability.

Why would a signaling system built from the ground up be so difficult to implement?

2. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it
Choosing to deviate from proven designs inherits considerable risk. Successful design patterns come with a legacy of understanding and proven reliability. It can be a very expensive effort to achieve those same qualities in a refreshed design. This is why some critical systems still run software that is 40+ years old; the cost and risks outweigh the benefits of improvement.

 

[Undead]

Fom working in the industry for years, I can almost guarantee that the devs were like "Not crashing into other LRVs was never in the spec. You'll have to submit that req for the next sprint."

More like because business area didn't ask, asked at the last moment or don't know what they want