Transit City Plan

[GenerationW]

However they would need to then explain how it can only make sense to put subway on Sheppard, but still sensible to put LRT on Eglinton, when more people are expected on Eglinton.

Pretty easy to explain if they kill/delay Eglinton.

Unfortunately it seems we have to reach crisis-congestion levels before Toronto would allow new BRT. How long 'til Yonge North neighbourhoods figure out they are not getting a subway any time soon, and finally allow protected bus lanes above Finch? TTC, Viva/YRT riders deserve them, like yesterday.

I don't think extending Yonge north is necessarily that far away. York Region already got its way once over the objections of Toronto's mayor in the battle over a Spadina versus Sheppard subway extension. If York could steamroll Miller, why couldn't it do the same to Ford?

 

[Electrify]

In another thread, I made Eglinton connect with the SRT with either LRT or metro technology. I could see it work with ICTS, and if so hopefully new trains will be far more comfortable and appealing than what is currently in use. Even better, it may create an opportunity to modernize the SRT infrastructure, as currently it is depressingly unappealing. However, if we have people taking the Eglinton-Scarborough line over the Bloor-Danforth line, it could cause some serious overcrowding without some sort of relief infrastructure.

BRT could be a good fit on Sheppard. The current proposed stop spacing suggests for investment in a higher order local service rather than expensive LRT infrastructure, which is usually reserved for longer distances and regional needs. Granted with 400m stops, even with its own ROW it would be more like bus semi-rapid transit, but at least the money invested would be more appropriate towards the scale of the project.

 

[Electrify]

ICTS is one of those solutions without a problem.

The theory behind ICTS was to create rapid transit infrastructure for suburban areas at a more appropriate cost. Obviously LRT can do the same thing, however this way guarantees grade separation and speed. Sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't: LRT is easier to expand, but those expansions may be filled mixed traffic compromises. ICTS ensures 100% grade separation, but at the same time makes expansions more expensive.

I don't think extending Yonge north is necessarily that far away. York Region already got its way once over the objections of Toronto's mayor in the battle over a Spadina versus Sheppard subway extension. If York could steamroll Miller, why couldn't it do the same to Ford?

For the record, Toronto WAS part of York Region* up until the 1950s.

*was called York County until the 70s I believe.

 

[gweed123]

In another thread, I made Eglinton connect with the SRT with either LRT or metro technology. I could see it work with ICTS, and if so hopefully new trains will be far more comfortable and appealing than what is currently in use. Even better, it may create an opportunity to modernize the SRT infrastructure, as currently it is depressingly unappealing. However, if we have people taking the Eglinton-Scarborough line over the Bloor-Danforth line, it could cause some serious overcrowding without some sort of relief infrastructure.

Very sensible post, thank you. I wouldn't object to an Eglinton-Scarborough LRT/ICTS/whatever you want to do it as. My biggest concern is that the forced transfer at Kennedy does not remain. As long as Scarborough residents have a way to access the rest of the city without NEEDING to transfer at Kennedy, I'm fine with it. Oh, and as long as it's grade-separated too. The overcrowding issue is an interesting one. If the SRT is included as part of the Eglinton line, I wonder what sort of improvements they would need to make to Eglinton-Yonge in order to have it work. It seems to me like having a relatively small Yonge line platform at Eglinton may be overloaded if you have most of Scarborough AND all of Eglinton East being dumped onto the Yonge line at that location. It would be interesting to see if they would consider doing a Union-style 2nd platform to help with the predicted congestion.

BRT could be a good fit on Sheppard. The current proposed stop spacing suggests for investment in a higher order local service rather than expensive LRT infrastructure, which is usually reserved for longer distances and regional needs. Granted with 400m stops, even with its own ROW it would be more like bus semi-rapid transit, but at least the money invested would be more appropriate towards the scale of the project.

I agree completely. BRT is perfectly able to handle the passenger loads, and would cost significantly less to implement. In fact, you could get a subway extension to Vic Park, queue jump lanes from Vic Park to Agincourt, and BRT lanes from Agincourt to Meadowvale, and from Sheppard to STC via McCowan, for the same price as the SELRT. Overall, seems like a better deal to me. Also, you wouldn't need to build a new multi-million dollar vehicle storage/maintenance facility, and you could use all of the rolling stock that you currently have, and maybe just get a few more to supplement the service.

 

[Rainforest]

Realistically, the only company getting TTC contracts for rail vehicles is Bombardier, let's not kid ourselves.

But who makes trams, subway cars, and mainline rail cars for American cities? I am sure there is competition on that market, and anyone who makes that stuff for American cities, can deliver to Toronto as well.

I would agree with that. However, I would venture to say that Highway 27 would be a better candidate than Kipling would be. And the TTC wouldn't likely interline those lines anyway, so it would be a transfer either way. Compatible technology is only really an advantage if you're going to be running some sort of interlining.

Even without interlined revenue service, the ability to shift vehicles between the lines, access carhouses, and share maintenance facilities makes a transit system more efficient. This is perhaps not a defining factor, but if no cost / capacity speed advantages come from using another technology, then it is better to stick to the same equipment.

 

[rbt]

But who makes trams, subway cars, and mainline rail cars for American cities? I am sure there is competition on that market, and anyone who makes that stuff for American cities, can deliver to Toronto as well.

A large portion of them are Bombardier or Siemens.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Realistically Toronto is always going to buy from Bombardier because it supports jobs in Thunder Bay. It's economic stimulus for that region.

Not tying us to a proprietary tech is still a good thing, though, as it allows governments some leverage when negotiating new orders.

 

[Hipster Duck]

But who makes trams, subway cars, and mainline rail cars for American cities? I am sure there is competition on that market, and anyone who makes that stuff for American cities, can deliver to Toronto as well.

Though big, I don't think Bombardier is the biggest player in the North American market. Kawasaki got the contract to replace New York city's subway fleet, which is almost as big as all other heavy rail fleets put together; Kinki Sharyo builds a lot of light rail vehicles; Hyundai ROTEM built the cars for Vancouver's Canada line as well as the new EMUs for SEPTA's regional rail service. There's a lot of competition out there. Of course, Matt is correct that as long as we ask the Ontario government to fund our transit projects, pretty much everything will be built by Bombardier in Thunder Bay.

 

[toto]

Just heard something on the radio about Ford and the Province talking about the Province taking over the TTC. Is this old news?

 

[LAz]

So ... a false analogy, followed by an argument from ignorance, a self-referential citation, reliance on another false analogue ("This allowed for ongoing coordination of transit and fringe area development, unlike in Toronto"), and an unsupported conclusion followed by unsubstantiated assertions?

Such a lazy effort from a wannabe faux polemicist.......

Cervero is not a b.s. source.
Check it out! http://books.google.com/books?id=bL...&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false


Oh wait I know, you probably don't like Island Press. Just look at these communist motherfuckers, http://islandpress.org/experts/index.html , they dare have a section on books on sustainable development under built environment... I want to pollute and screw this world like my god damn neoconservative gods tell me I may! Indeed, screw them. [/sarcasm][/neoconservative][/prick]

 

[Asterix]

Just heard something on the radio about Ford and the Province talking about the Province taking over the TTC. Is this old news?

Yes, it is old news. Province says they have no interest in taking on further costs, hassles in coordinating with municipal agencies and otherwise being the target for the venting of frustrated transit riders.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/927654--province-denies-interest-in-ttc-takeover?bn=1

 

[Tulse]

Just to clarify, as I understand it, one major motivation for the province to take over the TTC would be that, if it actually owned it, it could effectively amortize the costs of new construction over several years. If instead it just gives the money to the city to do the building, financial rules would require it realize those costs all in one year. In other words, it would make far more financial sense for the province to build its own subways than to pay to build someone else's. So the proposal for the province to take over the TTC was not just about "uploading" costs, but also about making subway expansion more financially feasible.

Perhaps someone here can shed more light on this issue.

 

[CDL.TO]

Running the TTC is hard! Can't someone else do it?

Just to clarify, as I understand it, one major motivation for the province to take over the TTC would be that, if it actually owned it, it could effectively amortize the costs of new construction over several years. If instead it just gives the money to the city to do the building, financial rules would require it realize those costs all in one year. In other words, it would make far more financial sense for the province to build its own subways than to pay to build someone else's. So the proposal for the province to take over the TTC was not just about "uploading" costs, but also about making subway expansion more financially feasible.

Perhaps someone here can shed more light on this issue.

That's a big part of it, if not the main reason. That's why discussion of passing ownership of just the subway system to Metrolinx/the province comes up on occasion. This usually morphs into "If we're going to upload the profitable bit, why can't we upload the whole thing?".

 

[Amy Rose]

Has anyone heard of something called a premetro in which you are pretty much forced to be in grade separation since they are just LRT lines with many characteristics of HRT such as grade separation, capacity comparing, etc. but you would need multiple cars of LRT to make it impossible to share with the street, and the LRVs would have to be HF to be forced a 100% grade separation order I assume because of the amount of moving parts in the bogey and how it is very pedestien unfriendly it is to very easy it is to get killed, but basically, its a mode of transit that could easily take on low end HRT job even though its LRT

 

[golodhendil]

Has anyone heard of something called a premetro in which you are pretty much forced to be in grade separation since they are just LRT lines with many characteristics of HRT such as grade separation, capacity comparing, etc. but you would need multiple cars of LRT to make it impossible to share with the street, and the LRVs would have to be HF to be forced a 100% grade separation order I assume because of the amount of moving parts in the bogey and how it is very pedestien unfriendly it is to very easy it is to get killed, but basically, its a mode of transit that could easily take on low end HRT job even though its LRT

Eglinton TC *is* a premetro as planned. Its similarity to other premetro systems (Boston Green line, SF Muni, Philadelphia subway-surface trolley, Brussels premetro, and the various German stadtbahns) had been brought up several times in multiple TC-related threads, this one included. No, premetros don't have to be high-floor only (all the American and Belgian systems use 70-100% LF LRVs, or are HF but with step-up entry). The surface portions of most premetro systems are fully compatible with pedestrian-friendly urban settings, because they are generally no different from "normal" LRT.