News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.5K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 1.2K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 432     0 

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

11th said:
Ask yourself this, is ROW unique to LRT systems, or can streetcars (or "trams") systems also have them ; the same goes for signal priority. And do streetcars that have ROW uses simple low-level platforms? It's easy why some people will dismiss the TTC LRT as rebranded streetcars. (Except for the tunneled part of the Eglinton Crosstown, but we all know that's a subway running LRVs)
Click to expand...

It's a very different point of view in Ottawa (where I currently am) which has just signed off on an LRT and the public usually refers to it as a Subway. Very similar to Eglinton; low platforms, "tram style" LRT trains (that are ridiculously long) and a tunnel in the middle, and the word on the street is "Did you hear about the subway they're going to build under downtown?" I haven't heard the term "streetcars" used by the public once!
 
Catenary said:
It's a very different point of view in Ottawa (where I currently am) which has just signed off on an LRT and the public usually refers to it as a Subway. Very similar to Eglinton; low platforms, "tram style" LRT trains (that are ridiculously long) and a tunnel in the middle, and the word on the street is "Did you hear about the subway they're going to build under downtown?" I haven't heard the term "streetcars" used by the public once!
Click to expand...

I have, but it's usually meant as a derogatory term by people who want to see the project canned. "We shouldn't be wasting money on streetcars, we should be building roads instead" is usually the phrase. I even heard one person use the term "sewer tram". I was definitely taken aback by that one.

But you're right, in most circles it's either "the tunnel" or "the LRT". The tone of the debate in Ottawa is very different than in Toronto. The debate isn't over technology, it's about price. Speaking as someone who has been keeping track of both very closely, it's quite an interesting dichotomy.

I do think the shit is going to hit the fan though in the next couple of years, when the debate over the Western LRT extension alignment comes up (again). It will be a debate about cost and about routing, but again I don't think technology will really even enter the discussion.
 
I have no doubt that once the project is up and running, and people are taking it every day, that they will colloquially refer to the line as a subway. Heck, if it only goes from Weston to Kennedy, I bet many people won't even take it east of Don Mills and be blissfully unaware that it has to run on the surface in parts of Scarborough.
 
innsertnamehere said:
People wanted subways because they equated anything on the surface as streetcars. People in this city don't know any form of transit other than subways, so that is obviously what they want.

As for funding order, I wouldn't be surprised if the DRL is further to the back of the list. I expect the Kitchener electrification, Hamilton LRT, and Hurontario LRT in the first part, with the DRL and Yonge extension in the second part, and lakeshore electrification last after half hour service has been running for a while.
Click to expand...

Did you ever stop to think, that many people in this city are drivers who NEVER use public transit and many of them, unfortunately, don't give a damn about what happens with transit. All they care about is getting to work faster, by car. For them, a streetcar or bus, just slows them down, so they want all transit underground and away from them. I've had this argument with selfish people at work, who hate any form of public transportation that's above ground. In fact, they don't want to see any of their tax dollars going to improve public transit but they figure subways are the lesser of all evils.

When I tell them that better transit, means less cars on the road, and therefore, less traffic for them, they just don't buy it. Common sense does not work on all people, even the intelligent ones. Some people just believe that public transit is so horrible and degrading, that no decent person would ever switch to it, even if it was improved. What can you do when you are dealing with attitudes like that? I really think that is why so many people support subways in public surveys. Well, that and if they keep demanding subways, nothing will ever get built, so all the tax dollars will just get spent for driving infrastructure. That seems to suit a lot of people's anti-public transit agendas.
 
They should be shown this:


[video=youtube;Iw8w-PH5X4A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Iw8w-PH5X4A[/video]
 
11th said:
Ask yourself this, is ROW unique to LRT systems, or can streetcars (or "trams") systems also have them ; the same goes for signal priority. And do streetcars that have ROW uses simple low-level platforms? It's easy why some people will dismiss the TTC LRT as rebranded streetcars. (Except for the tunneled part of the Eglinton Crosstown, but we all know that's a subway running LRVs)
Click to expand...

Indeed it is obvious how many dismiss them as streetcars, but streetcars they are not. Unlike subways and LRT where there is a clear distinction between hem, LRTs and streetcars share a blurred lines where there is no real definition. But all door boarding, ROW, and traffic priority is certianly something that helps keep it firmly in the LRT category. The traffic priority really Is the biggest factor in this mind you.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Indeed it is obvious how many dismiss them as streetcars, but streetcars they are not. Unlike subways and LRT where there is a clear distinction between hem, LRTs and streetcars share a blurred lines where there is no real definition. But all door boarding, ROW, and traffic priority is certianly something that helps keep it firmly in the LRT category. The traffic priority really Is the biggest factor in this mind you.
Click to expand...

After following UT for several years, I still do not know what an LRT is. All door boarding is just a policy choice and I would suggest has nothing to do with calling something LRT. We could decide tomorrow that the Queen or King streetcar has all door boarding (by adding Presto at all doors), but it would not make it an LRT. ROW is a big one since it involves infrastructure, but maybe crossing gates would be needed to make the ROW more separate. As for traffic priority, this could easily exist on St. Clair, Spadina or QQ West. Stop spacing is maybe another issue.

It has been quite a few years, but I recall Edmonton LRT being in the road median, with a full station, with crossing arms, and stations over 1 km apart. I also think you did not have to walk across traffic to reach your station.

If people are adamant that Spadina is a streetcar, I would say the ECLRT is more similar to Spadina or St. Clair than it is to Edmonton. Thus, people are not wrong to call ECLRT (or more so SELRT and FWLRT) a streetcar. If people say that Spadina is 50% LRT, then I could accept that ECLRT is 75% LRT.

I do agree with the definition of "Metro" or "subway" as a fully grade-separated line.
 
Yes, it wouldn't be all that difficult for Spadina to become LRT. Once the new streetcars come online all that is really needed is signal priority. There is a reason they were called LRT lines when they were first being built and being planned to have signal priority. As for stop spacing, the Eglinton LRT now averages around one stop every 750 meters, which Is right in the sweet spot of between 600-1000m stops in urban environments.

The deal breaker for me between LRT and streetcars really is signal priority. Mind you that doesn't mean a line with signal priority is necessarily LRT, but that is probably the most important factor.

I also really believe that the LRT should have gates at grade crossings. But something like that is something we won't see until the final design for the Lines between 1 and 5 years from now. (Depending on the line)

Sorry about any spelling errors, my iPhone can be pretty bad sometimes.
 
Last edited:
I have no problem calling Eglinton an LRT. It has the underground section with full stations. The above-ground part is more murky. Although I'm not sure full stations are necessary on Eglinton East as I'm not familiar with that area.

But if the above-ground section ends up negatively affecting the undergound section, they could always look at modifying the above-ground section to be more like more traditional LRTs like Calgary and I imagine Edmonton.
 
Catenary said:
It's a very different point of view in Ottawa (where I currently am) which has just signed off on an LRT and the public usually refers to it as a Subway. Very similar to Eglinton; low platforms, "tram style" LRT trains (that are ridiculously long) and a tunnel in the middle, and the word on the street is "Did you hear about the subway they're going to build under downtown?" I haven't heard the term "streetcars" used by the public once!
Click to expand...
The Confederation Line is essentially metro/subway. Compare the stations renderings of those stations to the ones planned for Crosstown's surface section and Sheppard then you can tell the difference. It's also completely grade-separated from the looks of it. Its ROW doesn't even run in-median of an arterial.
 
11th said:
The Confederation Line is essentially metro/subway. Compare the stations renderings of those stations to the ones planned for Crosstown's surface section and Sheppard then you can tell the difference. It's also completely grade-separated from the looks of it. Its ROW doesn't even run in-median of an arterial.
Click to expand...

Yup, it's a metro running LRT technology. The reason they went with LRT is so that the suburban branches can theoretically be at-grade (which will be running at half or a 3rd of the trunk frequency), but since all that's being built right now is part of the trunk, 100% grade-separation is essential.

I also spoke with someone from Metrolinx yesterday at the Big Move Roundtable, specifically about Eglinton East and the possibility of elevating it. He made it quite clear without explicitly saying so that he thinks that that would be the best solution, but that there are a lot of political pressures to not make any significant changes. He said that there have been a lot of 'serious internal discussions' about what to do with that section.

So basically, the only reason why it's being built at-grade now is because of political pressures. Which is definitely unfortunate, because I can say with confidence now that if Metrolinx could have their way, Eglinton would be a 100% grade-separated line with an elevated eastern section.

Hopefully they will find some way to get the changes they want, even despite the political will to not change it. Maybe some back room discussions can lead to something. But it's good to know that they were thinking along the same lines that I am.
 
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
I have no problem calling Eglinton an LRT. It has the underground section with full stations. The above-ground part is more murky. Although I'm not sure full stations are necessary on Eglinton East as I'm not familiar with that area.

But if the above-ground section ends up negatively affecting the undergound section, they could always look at modifying the above-ground section to be more like more traditional LRTs like Calgary and I imagine Edmonton.
Click to expand...

Do you know the definition of subway? (Not the King James Bible definition of know).

The dictionary definition of subway is: a short tunnel or underground passageway for pedestrians, automobiles, etc.; underpass; an underground electric railroad

I would consider the Eglinton Crosstown between Black Creek and Don Mills a subway.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top