Transit City Plan

[CapitalSeven]

TTC's plan has always been to build Eglinton as low-floor. It may be that Metrolinx has other ideas; they've mused about combining the line with the Scarborough RT using the "Mark II" version of that technology. A compromise would be to join the two lines as LRT using high-floor vehicles. I think the SRT has a 30" floor, which you could just get away with on high-floor cars, and could be used in a street-level system, though you'd need serious ramps at the stations. I'm not saying I think that's either likely or a good idea, but it's feasible and would lower the cost of rebuilding the SRT.

As for conversion, building the Eglinton line to heavy rail standards mostly means the dimensions, geometry, and grade of the tunnels, and convertability of the stations. If they're built with conversion in mind, it could eventually be done quickly and with minimal shutdowns. But several people (yes, including Steve Munro of course) have pointed out that if you plan and build a low-floor LRT system wisely, you can increase the length of the stations, change the vehichle type and signalling system, and add ATC, and you are up in the realm of heavy-rail capacities without having to convert.

This is essentially what Ottawa is doing with the Transitway conversion. While the tunnels will be built as heavy-rail compatible, the stations will be 600 feet long, even though only 400-foot trains will be needed in the medium term. A system with 600-foot LRT trains will have the same capacity as the TTC heavy-rail subways, beyond which Ottawa won't need to go for decades. Yet the trains will still be able to use the existing bus stations with varying (in some cases minimal) degrees of modification, and very simple stations will be possible on the outer fringes of the extensions.

 

[Dan416]

This kind of begs the question though. If an LRT is run ONLY in a tunnel, is it still an LRT at all? What difference would there be between an LRT only in a tunnel verus a subway? Basically nothing. Speed? The same. Capacity? Almost the same.

What defines a subway anyway? Is it the vehicle? Not so much, there are many types of subway cars out there. It's the fact that it's mostly tunneled, but ALWAYS in its own ROW. No crossing roads at grade or anything like that.

Personally I'm satisfied that they're building Eglinton with future conversion in mind. It is much better to spend the money now, and if demand requires it, we can quickly and easily upgrade it in the future (with some retired subway trains from B-D perhaps? lol).

 

[urbanfan89]

Line 6 of the Vienna U-Bahn is run with LRT stock even though it's completely grade separated because of a legacy issue. It is still considered U-Bahn though.

I think the TTC should cease using the word "subway", because it gives the impression that if the trains are not underground, they are like the Spadina Streetcar. Instead it should use "rapid transit" to refer to any grade separated rail line.

 

[Rainforest]

If LRT is going to provide such good service, I ask you this: Why not just build the DRL as a LRT line? I'm not attacking your ideas at all, but I'm curious as to what the answer is and have been for a pretty long while. The same goes for why Sheppard has to be a full subway.

I guess it could be broken down like this:

1) HRT subway: expensive to build; requires full grade separation for the entire route length; but provides much higher speed and capacity than any on-street mode.

2) Fully grade-separate LRT: expensive to build (but may be somewhat cheaper than subway); can provide same speed as subway, but usually lower capacity; can be combined with on-street LRT sections.

The capacity may be bumped up to the subway level, but at that point the compatibility with on-street sections will be lost, and the cost efficiency might become slightly worse than for HRT subway, because LRT cars tend to be more expensive.

3) On-street LRT in dedicated lanes: much cheaper to build, but provide substantially lower speed and capacity than HRT subways or fully grade-separate LRT.

Based on that:

- DRL should be built as HRT subway line, because of the high projected demand (17,500 pphpd at peak per Metrolinx's modeling). If it is built as a fully grade-separate LRT, it won't cost less (perhaps slightly more), and won't provide better interoperability because the huge LRT trains needed for such capacity won't fit on other LRT lines.

- Eglinton has a lower projected demand (7,800 pphpd) and hence can be built using LRT. The middle section of that LRT route has to be fully grade-separate, because the street is too narrow for two dedicated surface lanes. That middle section will also improve the average speed of the route. The outer sections can be built on-street in dedicated lanes, greatly reducing the overall cost.

However, since the demand might grow in future, it is wise to over-build the middle section, so it can be easily converted to higher-capacity operation. The TTC contemplates building it to HRT standard. But, perhaps it would be better to make provisions for running long LRT trains. In the latter case, the future upgrade would have to be done on the outer sections only (converting them from on-street operation to full grade separation), whereas the middle sections would keep running.

- Sheppard does not "deserve" HRT subway more than Eglinton based on demand / capacity. However, speed is more critical on Sheppard than on Eglinton, for two reasons: the city's geometry (Malvern and north-eastern Scarborough are the most remote parts of 416), and the lack of alternative rapid transit routes across the north of 416 (in contrast to Eglinton, where the Midtown rail line is an alternative).

Therefore, if the work on Sheppard corridor started from scratch, then LRT would probably be the best solution: tunneled / trenched from Downsview to Kennedy, and on-street in dedicated lanes east of Kennedy. But since a portion of subway line exists already, it is likely more efficient to extend it east to Kennedy and west to Downsview, and supplement it with LRT or BRT east of Kennedy. That solution would bring an added benefit of improving the connection between Wilson subway yard and Yonge line.

 

[Brandon716]

That has got to be the best word to describe what's going on right now with Transit City right now. I agree with you, well at least that Miller's really not a bad Mayor. IMO, Giambrone really isn't doing very well as head of the TTC.

I understand that Eglinton works well as an LRT because it's such a long line, but I really think that a Subway will be more reliable, do a better job of funneling people onto it from busses, and will just get more people on transit.

If LRT is going to provide such good service, I ask you this: Why not just build the DRL as a LRT line? I'm not attacking your ideas at all, but I'm curious as to what the answer is and have been for a pretty long while. The same goes for why Sheppard has to be a full subway.

The City seems to have everyone thinking that LRT is the new subway, so what really is the difference between LRT and Subway that certain things deserve LRT and others deserve Subway? If it's built to accommodate 3 units and will have the same capacity as a subway, with apparently a negligible difference between the speed of the two, what's the point of Subways? Perhaps we're looking at this the wrong way... the only problem is I'm not sure what that means.

Sheppard needs to be completed as a subway, because its already a subway.

The only reason I would support a Sheppard LRT is if they shut down Sheppard, convert the current portions to LRT, and then open it up as LRT from North York to Scarborough, and eventually westward.

But why would you shut down a functioning subway to convert it to LRT? So by default, I support building a Sheppard subway to Scarborough Centre.

The DRL needs to be heavy rail because its going to be Toronto's next big subway line leading out from downtown. It will have a lot of capacity requirement going forward.

I am willing to settle for LRT on Eglinton because its not the central business area and primary point in the city. Important, yes, but its not where all the action in Toronto is. As long as Transit City is built right, Eglinton won't need to be converted to subway in the future.

Now if they screw Eglinton LRT up, make it only two car train capable and limited capacity then we'll look back on it in 20 years and be like "what the hell were they thinking, did they not plan for the future" so I'm technically on both sides of the fence. Transit City can still be messed up, we don't have final construction schematics and plans that are a go. We just have consultants telling people what they want and city and government officials just talking about what they want.

Until we get final construction specs, I have no idea if they are going to build Transit City as a screwup or do it right.

A better idea than 3 car trains might be building stations that can handle doubled two car trains that run separately. I know there are going to be SOME scheduling conflicts with TC crossing traffic intersections, so they should probably build every station capable of handing two trains with two cars each, which theoretically would mean each station can handle 4 cars per stop.

That would give Eglinton LRT the room to expand well into the future, and if a scheduling conflict happens instead of stopping trains to get them back in sync, they just run double trains and you could have 4 car trains at a stop.

I'm basing this on my experience in Pittsburgh, when I travel to work on the T system, the trains have to constantly stop and get in sync with one another for scheduling purposes, our stations cannot handle two trains per station if they get out of sync. This is fine on a system that barely gets 35,000 riders per day like the Pittsburgh T, but for a busier, more transit oriented population in Toronto this isn't the ideal...

But that's another detailed issue for the consultants to work out who are designing the system. The funding needs to be there to create sufficient station size, that's my biggest concern with TC. Small stations will be the the horror of the project should they do it too cheaply.

 

[Molybdenum]

*Is Transit City's Eglinton LRT system really going to be 'subway compatible' without shutting the entire system down, should they choose to convert it? I HIGHLY doubt it can be done and remain operational, so I classify this as not 'heavy rail subway compatible' however its only a 90% educated guess on my part, there is no evidence that Eglinton LRT is truly subway compatible. There are too many unanswered questions.

If they built the Eglinton LRT line in the same way as the Brussels Premetro system, converting the system to a high-level heavy rail subway without a lengthly shutdown might just be doable. Here's a station example:

 

[Tuscani01]

So im in Calgary now, staying right by a C-Train station. If TC is going to be anything similar to the C-Train, I completely support the plan. The trains are fast, boarding is easy and it runs in its own ROW. Its also free to use downtown!

 

[CDL.TO]

Operationally and design-wise, it will be very dissimilar from the C-Train. I would say "completely different", but that would just spark a debate over semantics.

While you're there, ride the NE line up to McKnight-Westwinds. The section from Malborough to north of Whitehorn runs in the median of 36 St NE.

Now, try to imagine a LRT line that is 30% like this section (in the median of the street, signal priority, POP), and 70% Spadina Ave (simple platforms, rather than large "stations"; stops at, rather than between, intersections; low-platforms; no railway-type crossing arms, narrower street, no tunnels to avoid curves in intersections), and you'll start to get an idea.

 

[LAz]

I support the sheppard branch extension first, because it simply is cheaper to build that. Sure, there is need elsewhere, and the need is big, but this northern zone is simply a lot cheaper to build, so why not build that before the prices/costs go up...




I have one issue with this eglinton crosstown thing... it is supposedly gonna be 32 km or something like that, with 13 km being a tunnel in the middle section. Why the hell not make that 13 km tunnel a subway, and then have people transfer out at the ends of it onto the street to the light rail thing? If they bother to dig tunnels I think it would make sense to make it a real subway. Furthermore, despite the argument that there is not enough demand - demand will be there. Build it and it will come. We can see how condos and all sorts of construction flourished on the sheppard line... and I firmly feel that the sheppard line is getting good ridership - ridership is higher than on the scarborough extension, and compared internationally it is a good line. I feel that our expectations, of it being a bloor-danforth big line, are unreal and that we should not build a line anticipating such immediate transit.

So why not extend the sheppard line first, to boost some more development to the other parts of the city - this would alleviate the congestion downtown... and if we had a 13 km eglinton subway in the middle, we could further help make this into a downtown like area... the goal should not be to wait for it to first become this huge thing. It can become that, but it is much better to help it become that, by building the metro which would help aid development in that section.

 

[RedRocket191]

So im in Calgary now, staying right by a C-Train station. If TC is going to be anything similar to the C-Train, I completely support the plan. The trains are fast, boarding is easy and it runs in its own ROW. Its also free to use downtown!

Remember what Craig said...

 

[kettal]

Eglinton.. If they bother to dig tunnels I think it would make sense to make it a real subway.

Making it a "real subway" provides no benefits, yet drives up expenses, and creates two arbitrary transfers. Am I missing anything here?

 

[Brandon716]

Operationally and design-wise, it will be very dissimilar from the C-Train. I would say "completely different", but that would just spark a debate over semantics.

While you're there, ride the NE line up to McKnight-Westwinds. The section from Malborough to north of Whitehorn runs in the median of 36 St NE.

Now, try to imagine a LRT line that is 30% like this section (in the median of the street, signal priority, POP), and 70% Spadina Ave (simple platforms, rather than large "stations"; stops at, rather than between, intersections; low-platforms; no railway-type crossing arms, narrower street, no tunnels to avoid curves in intersections), and you'll start to get an idea.

The median street portions do make it considerably different from a completely grade-separated LRT, but given the fact that its only crossing intersections, not actually going in the street, makes me think if they build stations at the intersections that stoplight delay would be minimalized. If the trains are already going to stop at the intersection to pick up passengers, I'm sure the signaling priority system could be created to have a good sync with the LRT network.

 

[waterloowarrior]

C-Train

Transit City

 

[Brandon716]

I've never seen those renderings, that looks more tram/streetcar like and less light rail like.

Transit City is the most complicated rail system to understand, I've seen diagrams where its completely separated from traffic and then schematics like the above that suggest its just a streetcar.

Does ANYONE know what the final design is going to be like? LOL

BTW, that above schematic rendering indicates they wouldn't be using anything more than a single or maybe double car tram, which isn't impressive.

Someone I've recently heard from 'confirmed' that they were using 3 car light rail vehicles and it is impossible to look like that rendering if that's the case.

But is it possible St. Clair will be different from Eglinton LRT?

 

[RedRocket191]

Based on the above photos and renders, I think that the Transit City options make for a better urban form... My two cents anyway.