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

[Rainforest]

LRT is the most expensive option out there due to the extra large tunnels needed and mostly due to switching the SRT to LRT. Most of the cost of the SRT switch to LRT is due to all the stations having to be comppletely redone due to having to "raise the roof" due to the extra height needed to accomodate LRT. It will be more expensive than much higher capacity subway/metro, SkyTrain, or monorail which just require track work changes. SkyTrain would require no changes at all and have the extra savings of not having to build a totally new LRT storage and maintenance centre.

Most of the costs are the extension to Sheppard / Progress, the rebuild of Kennedy station, and the rebuild of tunnel between Ellesmere and Midland. All those costs are needed for ART as well.

Raising the roofs is a minor component.

 

[Rainforest]

Turning lanes should be remove or not built at all as they take up too much land.

I saw next to no turning lanes or the so call excess lane in the centre of the road in Europe.

Cities in Europe don't care how many lights a driver has to wait to make a turn as that land can be used of development, bikes or wider sidewalk.

Finding arterial roads over 2/4 lanes is hard to do.

I was in a part of Mississauga a few days ago for a new area and the waste of space for roads was unbelievable. If the road width was reduce, more development could had taken place to increase the very current load density higher.

It is a massing how much road space there is outside of the 2/4 hours for peak service that is wasted and adds millions to infrastructure cost to rebuild them down the road.

Many european cities have narrow streets because they were built long ago.

When you build a new subdivision, it does not cost much to provide an extra lane or two and shift the houses 2 or 3 meters; the extra cost is fairly small.

Having a centre lane can be handy if you want to add a median LRT or BRT line later on. Half of you required space is already there. If the Toronto downtown streets were built with centre lanes originally, they would have streetcars in dedicated lanes by now, and would work much better.

 

[rbt]

Most of the costs are the extension to Sheppard / Progress, the rebuild of Kennedy station, and the rebuild of tunnel between Ellesmere and Midland. All those costs are needed for ART as well.

Raising the roofs is a minor component.

It's often easier to list the things ssiguy gets factually correct than to list off everything incorrect. This way many of his posts do not require any response at all.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

If the TTC upgraded the SRT to handle MarkII trains, the line will be incompatible with the rest of the TC network. It makes no sense to stick with the technology from a network perspective.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Unless more ICTS routes were created, and would ensure such lines would be off the road unlike LRT.

 

[BurlOak]

Unless more ICTS routes were created, and would ensure such lines would be off the road unlike LRT.

Sky Train has smaller tunnels, and less cost and high capacity. Maybe this is what we should use for the DRL. It may be easier to fit through downtown, could have tighter curves and maybe is could go over the YUS and not under. It may even stay elevated after crossing the Don Valley.

 

[Rainforest]

Sky Train has smaller tunnels, and less cost and high capacity. Maybe this is what we should use for the DRL. It may be easier to fit through downtown, could have tighter curves and maybe is could go over the YUS and not under. It may even stay elevated after crossing the Don Valley.

This suggestion might be reasonable.

But Bombardier itself quotes the capacity limit of a MkIII - based system at about 25,000 pphpd; whereas a conventional HRT subway can handle up to 35,000 - 40,000.

The current peak projection for DRL is 17,000 pphpd, and that should be in the MkIII's range. But in order to retain room for further growth, it might be better to build conventional subway, even if it costs 20% more.

 

[drum118]

Sky Train has smaller tunnels, and less cost and high capacity. Maybe this is what we should use for the DRL. It may be easier to fit through downtown, could have tighter curves and maybe is could go over the YUS and not under. It may even stay elevated after crossing the Don Valley.

Considering how may ICTS lines are used around the world, why put an white elephant back in Toronto when the first one never work in the first place??

I would build the DRL as a subway from day with long platforms as you are going to need it down the road unless you build it as an LRT that can branch off at the ends as well use the rail corridors.

If you do that, you need to think about using double deck cars also. If you look at various systems around the world, underground systems are being design for double deck cars.

My fear for Eglinton that it will end up being another Yonge Line down the road with no ability to increase ridership. To offset that issue would require more east-west routes on either side of it.

The DRL should go over the Don Valley and no reason why it should not regardless what it is in the first place.

 

[Rainforest]

Btw, could an ART-type system / light metro be a suitable solution for Sheppard? That would be cheaper to build than a conventional subway extension, and can dramatically improve travel times from the remote north-eastern parts of Scarborough to the rest of the city. (I assume that such line will not terminate at STC, but will either stay on Sheppard or divert to STC and then continue further east.)

In order to eliminate the transfer at Don Mills, it will be easier to convert the existing subway section to high-floor light metro than to convert it to low-floor LRT.

Of course, one drawback of such solution is that we will have an additional rail technology within the city (subways, ART, Transit City LRT, conventional streetcars, and mainline rail; all mutually incompatible).

 

[Rainforest]

My fear for Eglinton that it will end up being another Yonge Line down the road with no ability to increase ridership. To offset that issue would require more east-west routes on either side of it.

In part, this can be mitigated if they extend the fully grade-separate section from Brentcliffe to Don Mills. That's less than 3 km, given that the Don Mills station will be underground anyway and the portal will be located west of Don Mills.

They don't need to tunnel from Brentcliffe to Don Mills; just place the line on the south side of the road instead of in the median.

It might cost a bit more than street-median alignment if a separate LRT bridge over West Don is required. But it will allow very frequent ATO service from the Don Mills interchange all the way to Jane. At 2 min headways (30 trains per hour) and 500 - 600 riders per train, the central section of the line should be able to support a volume of 15,000 - 18,000 pphpd. This is significantly more than all recent peak projections for Eglinton, and hence should provide enough room for growth.

 

[M II A II R II K]

To accommodate long range travel, the emphasis should be on the commuter rail lines with convenient transfers and pay options.

High density downtown areas should add short rapid transit lines for convenient connections and getting around efficiently. And for shortcut lines that aren't intended to play a significant role can for sure be ICTS.

 

[nfitz]

The current peak projection for DRL is 17,000 pphpd, and that should be in the MkIII's range. But in order to retain room for further growth, it might be better to build conventional subway, even if it costs 20% more.

Indeed. That's the 2031 estimate for the DRL from Pape to downtown, and then back to the Bloor line. If they extend it north from Pape to Eglinton, to intersect the Eglinton line, then it could be higher.

17,000 is higher than the 2031 for the Bloor-Danforth line after the DRL is built.

 

[snowystar]

But Bombardier itself quotes the capacity limit of a MkIII - based system at about 25,000 pphpd; whereas a conventional HRT subway can handle up to 35,000 - 40,000.

Bombardier's website state that the limit for the system is 51,000 pphpd (although with wider 6-car trains, possibly less seating, and crush load).

From Vancouver's study, it it determined that capacity of 25,000 pphpd is achievable with current 68m train at max frequency. With longer train that fit within the 80m platform, capacity of slightly higher than 30,000 pphpd is possible.

 

[innsertnamehere]

they are projecting to never need to go below 3 minute timing, even my 2050, if I remember correctly..

 

[ssiguy2]

Vancouver's SkyTrain {except Canada Line which is standard subway/Metro} have stations that were made to be easily extended to 100 meters or 3 MK111 trains. The Expo Line will all be extended to 100 meters by 2020.
Also Toronto will not have an extra 50km of subway by 2021 but rather 8km for the Spadina extension. Regardless of whether you think LRT is a good choice or not it is not, under any definition, a Metro/subway system. It has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with it's application.

This is why SkyTrain and monorail are considered as Metro when making comarisons and LRT is not even when it is partially underground suchas in Edmonton but is considered a Metro in Manilla. The only real commonality between Metro/subway systems is whether it has total grade separation...........in other words to qualify for Metro/subway designation it has to, atleast hypothetically, be able to be operated automatically. Whether some of the technology is underground, elevated, or at grade is not relevant but whether it has total, complete grade separation and hence none of the TC projects qualify.