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

[sixrings]

WHat motivation would metrolinx have for taking longer time and costing more to redo the SRT????????? What you are suggesting doesnt make any sense. Why wouldnt they want to go faster and save more money? What benefit is it to them to cost more? Wouldnt it help metrolinx to save as much as they can so that they could get the Eglinton line either farther east to Malvern or farther West to the airport? If they run out of money they will simply be begging for extra funds. I cant believe thats a enviably position to be in.

 

[smallspy]

Why aren't they just upgrading the SRT to handle the MK11......they wouldn't have to shut down the tracks very long and the maintneance /garage/control centre is already there.
And how in hell does it take 3 years?

McCowan Yard would have to be rebuilt and enlarged to handle the Mk2 cars, a new Kennedy Station would have to be built, and all of the stations would have to be lengthened. If you're doing that, why not spend the extra minimal amount and make the line compatible with other rolling stock that you have running instead of keeping it isolated and different?

3 years is for all of the work to be done, including preparatory construction such as building the temporary bus terminals. The actual shutdown will be somewhat less.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[nfitz]

* lengthen platforms of each station

Not just lengthen. The LRT uses low-floor vehicles. The current platforms are high floor. You'd have to remove the existing platforms entirely, which likely creates structural issues ... or elevate the track. I'd think this would be more expensive and more complex than just building a new station from scratch.

* remove everything else from the track except the track itself (ALRT equipment)

By the time the SRT re-opens, the track will be 40 years old. You'd want to remove that as well.

 

[SlickFranky]

I don't know why anyone is debating this. Experts did actually analyze the two options....

 

[kEiThZ]

The more and more I think about it, the more I feel that municipal transit expansion at this point should take a back seat to the electrification of the GO network. The $950 million for the SELRT and the $1.4 billion for the FWLRT could have gone much further if it was put towards electrification. Electrified GO lines running 15 minute headways off peak and 5 minute headways on peak would do way more for Toronto (and the GTA as a whole), then a few supplementary LRT lines would.

Fully agree. I have always seen this as a far bigger hole than our subway/lrt gaps. And this is also exactly why I believe that the GO rail and subway networks should come under a single authority.

It makes no sense for example to spend billions trying to get LRT to Malvern when a GO station and regular GO Rail service connecting to the subway network, along with better bus service would serve Malvernites so much better. Transit should be configured to have local buses get riders to their nearest subway/GO rail station (for the most part). And have that station as the focal point of the community. That's kinda how the S-bahn works.

It's too bad Metrolinx never looked at this. Instead we have money being thrown at a laundry list of projects that often are justified on their socio-economic impacts than their impacts on mobility.

 

[gweed123]

Fully agree. I have always seen this as a far bigger hole than our subway/lrt gaps. And this is also exactly why I believe that the GO rail and subway networks should come under a single authority.

I don't think they need to come under a single authority, I just think they need to come under a unified and consistent fare structure. The back ends can still be separate, but as long as the user doesn't feel like they're switching systems (have to pay a double fare, etc), then I see no reason to create a single massive transit agency.

It makes no sense for example to spend billions trying to get LRT to Malvern when a GO station and regular GO Rail service connecting to the subway network, along with better bus service would serve Malvernites so much better. Transit should be configured to have local buses get riders to their nearest subway/GO rail station (for the most part). And have that station as the focal point of the community. That's kinda how the S-bahn works.

It's too bad Metrolinx never looked at this. Instead we have money being thrown at a laundry list of projects that often are justified on their socio-economic impacts than their impacts on mobility.

I agree completely. The S-Bahn stops in the more suburban areas of Berlin are at the centre of the community, usually located on the main street of the community. They then have secondary transit (LRT or buses) that connect community to community and S-Bahn to S-Bahn. And while I think that the secondary network is important, right now we need to focus on the primary network.

 

[Northern Magus]

It makes no sense for example to spend billions trying to get LRT to Malvern when a GO station and regular GO Rail service connecting to the subway network, along with better bus service would serve Malvernites so much better.

Realistically, both will be beneficial.

The order they're built in, however, is certainly open to debate.

 

[gweed123]

Realistically, both will be beneficial.

The order they're built in, however, is certainly open to debate.

They're both beneficial, but I think that having an adequate GO network is the first step.

Ideally, what I'd like to see is an electrified GO network coupled with modest improvements to existing bus routes that lead to these GO stations (queue jump lanes, etc). Nothing big, but just make the current bus routes more efficient and reliable. Keep improving GO (probably one line at a time), and keep making targeted improvements to bus routes until the GO network is complete.

Once the GO network is sufficient, then we can better evaluate which bus routes need upgrading to a full BRT or LRT. Who knows, depending on where the GO stations end up going it may alter the travel patterns drastically from what they are now, and may bring another route to the top of the priority list compared to what it is now.

But at this point in time, I think that spending $4 billion on electrification of the GO network is a better allocation of financial resources than spending $4 billion on suburban LRT lines (just pulling $4 billion as a random number for example purposes).

 

[ssiguy2]

Lengthening the stations doesn't require any "down time" for the line itself. Vancouver's busy Expo SkyTrain line is having all it's stations upgraded and extended from their current 75 to 100 meters to carry 3 MK11 trains {the quivalent capacity of 10 MK1s} and there will be no disruption in service at all.
If it actually takes them 3 years to redo 6km of line then I want in on the action.
Vancouver's 18km SkyTrain Millenium Line was built from word go in just 22 months which included a 700 meter tunnel and a bridge over HWY #1.

 

[nfitz]

Lengthening the stations doesn't require any "down time" for the line itself.

As explained above. Lengthening them isn't the issue that requires down time. It's changing the stations to support low-floor vehicles instead of high-floor vehicles.

 

[Rainforest]

They're both beneficial, but I think that having an adequate GO network is the first step.

Ideally, what I'd like to see is an electrified GO network coupled with modest improvements to existing bus routes that lead to these GO stations (queue jump lanes, etc). Nothing big, but just make the current bus routes more efficient and reliable. Keep improving GO (probably one line at a time), and keep making targeted improvements to bus routes until the GO network is complete.

Once the GO network is sufficient, then we can better evaluate which bus routes need upgrading to a full BRT or LRT. Who knows, depending on where the GO stations end up going it may alter the travel patterns drastically from what they are now, and may bring another route to the top of the priority list compared to what it is now.

But at this point in time, I think that spending $4 billion on electrification of the GO network is a better allocation of financial resources than spending $4 billion on suburban LRT lines (just pulling $4 billion as a random number for example purposes).

Just two notes:

1) It is not easy (if possible at all) to make room for the 5 min at peak / 15 off peak frequency on each of the GO lines radiating from Union. The train corridor may be wide enough to sustain a very frequent service, but the Union station is not built with that kind of passenger volume in mind. In particular, the stairwells are very narrow compared to the platform size. Widening them, or adding more stairwells to the existing structure might be difficult. Also, the station space is organized to emphasise retail, which is perfectly fine for the intercity + commuter hub, but won't work well for the central rapid-transit hub as it will get way too crowded. For the latter situation, you need passenger flows moving in and out very quickly, preferably short distances.

In fact, the Lakeshore and the Brampton / Airport GO services, the primary candidates for electrification and ehnancement, might consume much of the potential expansion room at Union.

2) Even if it was possible to implement the above 5 / 15 GO network, it would be very Union-centric. It is not uncommon for cities of Toronto size, or even larger, to have most or all of their rapid transit lines converging in the city centre. But usually they have multiple interchange stations within (or near) the city centre, rather than a single hub for all lines and all transfers. That would become the case in Toronto (except for Bloor subway).

 

[kEiThZ]

Realistically, both will be beneficial.

The order they're built in, however, is certainly open to debate.

Sure. But there's the issue of value here. Originally, Transfer City called for 3 multi-billion dollar LRT lines to Malvern. All of which, only promised to shave mere minutes off the bus ride to the connecting subway network. Ask any Malvernite, he or she will tell you that the most important transit priority to them is getting down to the subway network (STC or Don Mills or Finch) to catch the subway. They aren't complaining much about trundling down Sheppard to a mid-rise condo with a cafe at the bottom.

For the cost of those 3 lines alone, we could have built a fully electrified GO Crosstown, with a Malvern stop, and offered significantly improved bus service in the community. That would have cut commute times in half. Heck, for the price of Transit City, we could have done that and fully electrified the entire GO Rail network. After doing that, it would have been valid to see where more subway, BRT, LRT was needed. Unfortunately, Metrolinx decided to turn itself into a giant rubber-stamping exchequer for municipalities.

For a massive region like the GTA it's utterly moronic to focus on intensely local transit as a priority when the vast amount of congestion, grid lock, lost productivity, etc. arises from the lack of a proper long-haul transit capability.

 

[kEiThZ]

Just two notes:

1) It is not easy (if possible at all) to make room for the 5 min at peak / 15 off peak frequency on each of the GO lines radiating from Union. The train corridor may be wide enough to sustain a very frequent service, but the Union station is not built with that kind of passenger volume in mind. In particular, the stairwells are very narrow compared to the platform size. Widening them, or adding more stairwells to the existing structure might be difficult. Also, the station space is organized to emphasise retail, which is perfectly fine for the intercity + commuter hub, but won't work well for the central rapid-transit hub as it will get way too crowded. For the latter situation, you need passenger flows moving in and out very quickly, preferably short distances.

In fact, the Lakeshore and the Brampton / Airport GO services, the primary candidates for electrification and ehnancement, might consume much of the potential expansion room at Union.

GO Crosstown with Summerhill as a hub. That would increase demand on the Yonge line to be sure. But it might actually reduce pressure on Union.

2) Even if it was possible to implement the above 5 / 15 GO network, it would be very Union-centric. It is not uncommon for cities of Toronto size, or even larger, to have most or all of their rapid transit lines converging in the city centre. But usually they have multiple interchange stations within (or near) the city centre, rather than a single hub for all lines and all transfers. That would become the case in Toronto (except for Bloor subway).

Summerhill would be a good start. We'd have to look at creating other nodes.

That said, not everybody is heading downtown. And not everybody needs to go to Union. They do so today because of the current network configuration and fare rules. How many people would get off at Bloor, Danforth, Sheppard West (in the future) or Kennedy if we had integrated fares? Or at Agincourt if the Sheppard line reached there and we had integrated fares?

Also, more frequent service with greater service availability throughout the day might actually smooth out demand.

There's a lot of things we could do to manage this demand. We shouldn't be making excuses to not even attempt these changes.

 

[DavidH]

For a massive region like the GTA it's utterly moronic to focus on intensely local transit as a priority when the vast amount of congestion, grid lock, lost productivity, etc. arises from the lack of a proper long-haul transit capability.

Absolutely. Local transit is certainly important but with a proper long-haul grid, local transit can be handled relatively effectively by buses. The problems we have with local transit are mostly due to having an inadequate grid, forcing local routes to cover long distances.

 

[sixrings]

I would like the NDP and the PCs to comment on if they plan on keeping the Eglinton LRT if they get elected.