Update 1, April 15, 2009: Although the original Transit City report gave Pearson Airport as the western terminus of the Eglinton line, the cost estimate only covered the portion to Renforth. Approximately 3 km of additional construction are required to bring the line right into the airport, and the cost of this was not included in the 2007 estimate.
The underground section of the line was originally planned to lie between Keele and Laird Drive, but this may be expanded west to Jane and east to Don Mills (except for the river crossing). This additional tunnelling is included in the recently announced cost estimate.
Original article:
Today’s Globe & Mail contains an article by Jeff Gray about the constantly escalating estimates for the Eglinton “LRT” line. Gray cites the original estimate of $2.2-billion in 2007 compared with $4.6-billion figure included in the recent McGuinty funding announcement. Nobody quite seems to know why the cost has doubled in two years.
Back when Transit City was announced, the numbers were in 2007 dollars. There is some debate about whether the cars for the line were included, but it is my understanding that the original demand and fleet estimates were on the low side. This will bump up both the fleet and carhouse costs in later figures.
By the time the TTC’s 2009 Capital Budget was prepared in late 2008, more detailed estimates for all of the lines were available including discrete costs for construction, vehicles and maintenance facilities. The cost for Eglinton was now close to $3.7-million 2009 dollars of which $2.6-billion was for construction, $774-million for vehicles and $317-million for a carhouse. Comparing to the 2007 announcement, one might reasonably assume that there was no provision for vehicles or carhouses in the original Transit City estimate.
When we reach a point of actually announcing funding, that necessarily must be in actual, as-spent dollars appropriate to the time when a project is actually built. Eglinton will stretch out from now until about 2016, and some inflation can be expected in the interim. $1-billion, however, is a lot of inflation.
There have been two different numbers cited for the amount of underground construction. Originally, it was to be about 10km from Keele to Laird Drive (the east end of the old residential section of Leaside). In practice, the line may go underground further west, and a good argument can be made for an underground junction at Don Mills with whatever is eventually built in that corridor. Whether this is factored into current estimates, I don’t know, but the occasionally-cited figure of 13km of tunnel would roughly account for these extras.
According to Gray, the Premier’s announcement used Metrolinx figures, and who knows what technology Metrolinx was studying for their estimate. Metrolinx obsesses on a high-speed link across the city to the airport when, in fact, there are many other destinations along Eglinton now and in the planned future. This is rather strange considering that Metrolinx was given the task of solving gridlock in the GTA, and the last time I looked, driving to the airport was not the primary location of this problem.
Even thinking of the airport as a regional hub, we need more than one trunk line to get people out of their cars. Unlike the Yonge Subway, the Eglinton line will not have its demands neatly clustered along the line itself, but will depend on connecting services along its length. It cannot be the transit equivalent of the 401 without a complementary network of frequent surface routes acting as “off ramps”.
Whether the “old” Metrolinx board will last long enough to consider the detailed analysis of this corridor remains a mystery. If, like the SRT study, the Metrolinx evaluation shows that LRT has a better business case than an RT line, this will be rather embarrassing for those who would stuff an RT line, complete with infrequent, inconvenient stops, down our throats.
Meanwhile, the second round of public consultation is a mystery, and the Eglinton Project’s website has not been updated since October 2008.
Steve Munro 
Hmmmmmmmmm somethings fishy about the Eglinton Line Project … I won’t be surprised if they go with RT. Here’s a suggestion: leave the Eglinton line an LRT and extend the Bloor Danforth Line to the Airport. Wouldn’t that make more sense, or at least make a line branch of the Bloor Danforth line so that it goes to air port. at the same time get ride of that blue 22 line they want to build. I heard the Trains they want to use for that line is like technology used 50 years ago. You know Paul Beford … did a guest lecture at my school … I should of asked him about the Eglinton line?
Whatever technology is choosen … it’s sad that the public is completely in the dark about this issue. What ever happen to Transparency … I guess it doesn’t exist with the TTC and Metrolinx. These back and forth assumptions is getting too much.
Steve: If the TTC had their way, Eglinton will be LRT, but Metrolinx seems to have had a hankering for RT for at least a year, even well before their precious regional plan including things like technology selections was even out the door.
LikeLike
The G&M article raises some questions in my mind as to what function Metrolinx is going to have in the whole Transit City project. Why Metrolinx would “hijack” the Eglinton line and turn it into a rapid transit link to the airport and ignore the need for a local transit service is beyond belief! I live in north Scarborough, and wouldn’t dream of using such a route to travel to and from the airport. The airport link should be part of GO Transit with frequent, low-cost service from the airport to Union Station (not the high-cost Blue 22) where it connects to the main GO network. I fear that the change in the Metrolinx board composition is going to mean a hijacking of every transit project within Toronto and making them regional rather than local improvements. With this type of hijacking, the TTC will become a regional agency serving the needs of the 905 at the expense of any 416 need.
LikeLike
The original project costing had the line ending in the west at a new junction with the Mississauga busway and other 905 services. I understand that crossing the 401 and extending several kilometres further to the airport added significantly to the cost estimates.
Steve: The original Transit City report claimed that the line would go to the airport, but one thing I have noticed is that the length of the line has brown by a few km in some descriptions.
LikeLike
It baffles me how the TTC, city, and province are content to draw lines on maps when it is clear to virtually every rider that we desperately need more and newer streetcars. Getting process for obtaining the funding and accounting for just how many cars and carhouses will be on the books in the various future scenarios seems to me like a no-brainer. And yet here it is April and mum’s the word!
Steve: There is supposed to be announcement of the preferred vendor later this month. Once that’s settled, I hope we will see politicians lining up to make a funding commitment.
LikeLike
Dear Steve -T hank goodness you are there in Toronto (my old home town) to keep them all honest and to take on complacent officials and ignorant busybodies alike. I have not always agreed with your views — but know that they can only be met and bested with facts and principles, not rhetoric.
When you have completed your labours, please consider my invitation that you decamp to Ottawa, where we need more than ever a thoughtful, methodical and principled approach to help our councillors, citizens and press think intelligently on own transit questions.
Until you take the VIA north and east (assuming you don’t get derailed by the good burgers of Smith’s Falls!) – bon courage!
LikeLike
Steve:
I won’t get mad if you tell me this is too long and inappropriate but it was fun looking it all up
I have been digging into my favourite motors, SSLIMs or Single Sided Linear Induction Motors, on the internet. It is harder to get real numbers about them that it was in the late 60’s and early 70’s when I researched them in the U of T and Engineering Faculties Libraries. Obfuscation seems to be the name of the game when you try to find out true efficiencies for these motors. They were around 25% to 28% for the motors on the RT. Typical rotary induction motors get 80% – 85%. The motors generate a repelling force that lifts the vehicle off the track and reduces wheel to rail contact. This is why they need a separate ground return rail as they can [Steve: I assume you mean “cannot” here] assure a return through the running rail.
From Wikipedia I found that Bombardier has lines running in
• Airport Express in Beijing (opened 2008)
• AirTrain JFK in New York (opened 2003)
• Detroit People Mover in Detroit (opened 1987)
• EverLine Rapid Transit System in Yongin (under construction)
• Kelana Jaya Line in Kuala Lumpur (opened 1998)
• Scarborough RT in Toronto (opened 1985)
• SkyTrain in Vancouver (Expo Line opened 1985 and Millennium Line open in 2002)
While there are several subways in Japan and China, built by Kawasaki Heavy Industries:
• Limtrain in Saitama (short-lived demonstration track, 1988)
• Nagahori Tsurumi-ryokuchi Line in Osaka (opened 1990)
• Toei Ōedo Line in Tokyo (opened 2000)
• Kaigan Line in Kobe (opened 2001)
• Nanakuma Line in Fukuoka (opened 2005)
• Green Line in Yokohama (opened 2008)
• Tōzai Line in Sendai (under construction)
• Line 4 of Guangzhou Metro, China (opened 2005). Line 5 and 6 under construction.
• Beijing Subway Capital Airport Track
It seems that they are also used for:
• California Screamin’ Roller coaster LIM application
• coilgun
• launch loop a proposed system for launching vehicles into space using a linear motor powered loop
• linear actuator
• Maverick – a roller coaster LSM application
• railgun
• Tether cable catapult system for US navy Aircraft Carriers
• Tomorrowland Transit Authority Slow ride LIM application
• Dreamworld, Australia LSM reverse freefall roller coaster
• Research Test Vehicle 31, a hovercraft-type vehicle guided by a track
Perhaps we could build an line from the end of the Spadina Subway to Canada’s Wonderland.
In order to get higher efficiencies you need to use longer motors, 10 m, put the reactor rail in a tube with the motor going around it like a hot dog in a bun and operate and a uniform higher speed. Because the word efficiency when used with numbers such as 25% or 30% does not look good they have introduce a term called the goodness factor which basically the amount of the magnetic field, the real field, that can do useful work over the part of the field, the quadrature or imaginary field that cannot. It does not say that the field actually does useful work, just that it is potentially able to. The first LIM was built in 1935 but it took a long time to get them to the state were they were useful as more than an interesting toy.
I agree with Metrolinx that there is the need for a high speed cross town line but it is not down Eglinton Avenue. Perhaps this is were a line from the airport down the Weston sub to the North Toronto Sub, then up the Belleville Sub into Agincourt would be useful. It would need to be electric to have a high rate of acceleration and have a one to two mile station spacing.
Steve: Ah yes, but there wouldn’t be a juicy “private sector” contract available to build and operate the thing if it were just a rail line. An Eglinton RT must have Bombardier just salivating at the thought of how much they can suck out of Queen’s Park.
LikeLike
$4.6 billion sounds plausible as a Skytrain line
LikeLike
By car house I guess it is where the TC LRT vehicles will “sleep” right?
Since Sheppard East LRT is the first one and I am sure they will have a carhouse somewhere … will each TC LRT line have it’s own carhouse?
Steve: Not necessarily. Some lines can share carhouses. For example, Don Mills and Sheppard East. There are also plans for a joint carhouse with Mississauga serving the Eglinton lines, assuming we get to build them as LRT.
I met Miller and talked to him about something and I noticed he has a Transit City button. Those aren’t related to the Spacing subway buttons, do you know where I can get one of the “TRANSIT CITY” buttons, or maybe if there are one of the individual lrt lines?
Steve: These were limited edition buttons available only when Transit City was announced. Yes, there was one for each line, as well as one with the diagramatic map.
LikeLike
It does seem a little conspicuous that the cost has doubled. I’m still hopeful that they’re banking on a true LRT line and not the ICTS technology. As for making the Crosstown a truly successful line, I agree that bus feeder service will have to be improved (maybe a 2nd Transit City plan in the not so distant future) and could this be solution to keeping demand high all across the line? I guess that remains to be seen.
I’m not overly concerned about the price tag, rather if construction schedules remain on time. As for the second round of open houses, maybe I’ll send a quick email and see how long it takes for them to respond with an answer. 🙂
LikeLike
I actually support an ICTS line running though Eglinton instead of LRT. I think Eglinton is a special corridor since it will be making connections to what will become future hubs (Kennedy, Yonge and Eglinton, Airport…..). I think that ICTS will have its advantage in the long run especially when we start talking about replacing LRT (if its built along Eglinton). Lets remember were building for the future. If Eglinton is being built to relieve lets say the Bloor-Danforth line in 15-20 yrs, it must have the viable technology to do so. LRT isnt enough for a corridor like Eglinton. Dont get me wrong here i like LRT and all but it cant be the choice for everything like the TTC thinks. Before we know it the TTC will want to build the DRL as an LRT line (if it ever gets built).
Steve: Actually, the tunnels on Eglinton will be built to subway standards so that future conversion will not “waste” the original infrastructure. Meanwhile we avoid the huge added cost of grade separating two thirds of the line. As for the DRL, the projected demand is already in subway territory (much higher than either of the extensions of the Yonge-University line into York Region), and the TTC has no intention of building it as LRT. You are mixing two unrelated issues here.
LikeLike
Have to say, I’m not really getting you here, Steve…
Yes, gathering that there is at least some planner or other within the bowels of Metrolinx that’s pretty sweet on an interlined RT-based line doesn’t require a degree in reading between the lines or Metrolinx Kremlinology.
But — and, honest-to-goodness, forgive me if I did miss something in the depths of some impenetrable PDF suggesting otherwise — I don’t see any basis to this implication that an evil 905 conspiracy wants the trains to whizz through darkest 416 with 5 km stop spacing. That seems to be purely based on ascribed motives.
Steve: It’s not an evil 905 conspiracy. It’s an organization, or at least its chair, that wants to make up its mind about technology choices before the analysis is completed. Metrolinx projected very high demand on Eglinton based on wide stop spacing and fast travel times. The problem here is that this is basically a highway model. Transit doesn’t work that way, and depends on either having people living and working right on the line, or a strong network of feeder services to funnel riders to the faster, trunk link.
There hasn’t been a whimper from Metrolinx over the 6-station plan for the Yonge extension, even though midblock stops at Cummer and Clark was a pretty surprising step back from the Sheppard model. (Pleasant surprises, IMO). Express-tracking Yonge has received no play as a viable idea, which you wouldn’t expect from an agency that was hopelessly wedded to the idea of moving 905ers to the core without the indignity of a dwell wait at Davisville.
Steve: Express tracking Yonge is a non-starter because it is (a) just about physically impossible and (b) responds to a “demand” that can be much more easily accommodated by frequent service on the north-south GO corridors, particularly to Richmond Hill, and by construction of the DRL at least to Danforth if not further. Your position is similar to the TTC’s approach which is to jam more and more people on the Yonge line and through the congested Bloor-Yonge interchange.
Secondly, why the doom and gloom on technology choice?
The case for RT, if it’s going to be made, is presumably going to involve numbers being laid out that suggest the ridership is actually higher than the original TTC numbers, and/or estimates that it could be built more cheaply than conventional wisdom says.
Call me naive, but I just don’t see why you anticipate either (a) a benefits case study getting done with cooked numbers that tilt the table to RT, or, (b) a benefits case showing LRT to be better than RT, but political overlords summarily overruling it.
Steve: My concern is that the benefits case will never see the light of day, that we will spend a vast amount on an RT line that should have been LRT, and we will have nowhere near the benefits on Eglinton itself that were foreseen in the Official Plan’s assumption of good transit supporting medium density redevelopment along the line.
The most plausible theory for something like that happening would involve references to Bombardier’s shadowy hand, and as both the little blowup over the streetcar contract and the provincial requirements for cancon demonstrate, McGuinty et al are not exactly in Bombardier’s pocket.
I have little doubt that if an RT-based proposal is floated it will receive rapid condemnation from many in this city. Some of which will be kneejerk, and come from the popular local transitnerd talking point that linear induction motors are well-disguised puppy shredders. Depending on what numbers are thrown out for ridership forecasts and construction costs, however, there could also be criticism that will be well-written, well-researched and well-reasoned. Needless to say, this website customarily provides the latter.
Steve: Alas, what is entirely possible is that a fully worked-out RT proposal will be touted as the miraculous salvation for our system, and the public (and politicians) will never know what the alternative would have been. I don’t mind a fair comparison, but if the fix is already in for an RT line, we will never see one.
LikeLike
Shared carhouse with Mississauga? Isn’t their BUSway set in stone regardless of merit?
Steve: The TTC and Mississauga are still talking about joint facilities. Also, don’t forget that there is an LRT study in progress now for Hurontario.
Also, it seems to me that Eglinton west of Scarlett has been graded for an expressway such that the major intersections are lower-lying than the roadways themselves. This lends itself to elevated stations every 1km or so. Not that I advocate an RT, but it seems that west of the tunnel, Eglinton is already built and developed such that the LRT could end up more of a quasi-subway with streetcars.
LikeLike
In that case, which street would get connecting tracks? I’d love to see those LRV’s make their merry way down 6-8 lanes of Eglinton Avenue West, or, shudder, Eastgate Parkway…
LikeLike
Tom Says:
April 13th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
“Have to say, I’m not really getting”
“I have little doubt that if an RT-based proposal is floated it will receive rapid condemnation from many in this city. Some of which will be kneejerk, and come from the popular local transitnerd talking point that linear induction motors are well-disguised puppy shredders. Depending on what numbers are thrown out for ridership forecasts and construction costs, however, there could also be criticism that will be well-written, well-researched and well-reasoned. Needless to say, this website customarily provides the latter.”
The fact is that they are not puppy shredders; they are simply inefficient and not equipped to working in our environment. The reaction rail is 300 mm wide or 1 foot. The separation distance from the motor to the reaction rail is less than 10 mm. In the winter this can get full of ice and snow and the motor can not clear the ice. Also the fact that the running rail cannot be used as a return power feed because of magnetic repulsion means that you need a third and fourth rail or trolley bus overhead to get the power feed. One of the reports I read mentioned the fact that there are really large vibrations at certain harmonic of the line frequency that cause a lot of noise. If you have ridden the SRT and listened, especially near stations, then you will have heard the noise. I did a simulation that predicted large noise from the induction motors and reaction rail for the opposition party in the early 70’s. (It was the Liberals.) My predictions were conservative and low. If you build SRT you have to have grade separation at all cross streets and this will greatly increase the cost. Also the right of way cannot be used by emergency vehicles. This requires that the entire line be elevated or buried. This would probably increase the cost by 50 to 100%.
The automated control system uses Alcatel’s SelTrac signalling technology to run trains automatically. Its use has never led to accidents. This system will operate any rapid transit system including TTC subway and LRT where it is in a totally segregated right of way. It cannot be used were there is the possibility of pedestrians or autos crossing the track. Hopefully the system will be built for the future use of three car trains which on a 2 minute headway could carry 10 000 to 15 000 passenger per hour which is compatible with ART but at a lower cost. I object to ICTS or ART or whatever you call it NOT because I am a transitnerd but because the system is not suited to our environment and NOT as efficient as LRT. If this system were so good then Bombardier would have more than 4 real transit systems operating. Kawasaki Heavy Industries has 6 lines running in Japan and 2 in China. One has to wonder how many of these were totally free of political influence.
LikeLike
Mr. Wightman, it is easy to point out the weakness of every technology. The pantographs on a tram creates drag. At speeds beyond 300 km/h, any efficiency you gain by a rotary motor will be lost to air resistance. We have to look at the whole picture here. I can also point out that 100% low floor trams have more drivetrain losses since the motor is located farther from the wheel. At the end of the day, whether it is ICTS or not, it is still better than 5000 Chevrolet Tahoes or GMC Envoy on the road.
The next point is whether as Canadians, do we wish to spend public money to stimulate a Siemens factory making trams or a Bombardier factory making ICTS vehicles? Yes, we can order Bombardier trams, however, the Canadian content would be lower than ICTS. This is due to most of Bombardier’s tram technology must be imported from Europe. We are in the process of loosing GM and Diamler Chrsyler in Ontario. Where do we draw the line?
Farther station spacing and faster line speed will promote more development. Look at the area around Bayview Station today, the Sheppard metro brought development into an area where development would not have taken place without a metro. If we can major development like mega malls, office towers and condos, there is no harm in that. Such large development are much easier to extract money which could be used to offset some of the cost of the ICTS construction.
Farther stations will also create better stations. Since the Eglinton line must have good connecting service, every station should have bus bays. It would be impossible to build bus bays at every station with 700m spacing. With 1 to 2 km spacing, it is easier to do. People prefer to have indoor bus stops (like Don Mills) as oppose to being dropped off on the street and walking to a tram stop while being exposed to the elements.
Steve: Now we are wrapping ourselves in the flag. Buy ICTS because it’s “Canadian”. We have a lot riding on the development of our transit system, and chosing an orphan technology that only operates in a handful of cities in the world is no way to build a transit system. As for Sheppard and development, the tax revenue will not come anywhere close to paying for the cost of the subway line, and the same would be true on Eglinton.
LikeLike
I’m trying to figure out what they are thinking with Eglinton, if they use long station spacing then they still need bus service to deal with the local traffic, this is fine in areas where the line is underground, but how many people that live outside of that area want to lose 2 lanes of the road AND still have buses to deal with. Using Street car short spacing would make more sense in that you can eliminate the bus, For example after the Yonge Subway was built, they introduced the 97 Yonge bus, because stations, especially North of Davisville can be quite far apart and it doesn’t work for local trips.
I don’t know but spending $4.5 Billion and still needing buses everywhere isn’t going to go over well with tax payers either.
For a cross town line, I think Eglinton is too far South, Sheppard or Finch would be better. I still think that the Sheppard Stubway should simply be extended, instead of make a modal change at Don Mills, extend the Subway to Kennedy, then down Kennedy to meet the extisting Bloor-Danforth line. Run the Finch LRT out to the Airport. People wanting to go Downtown from the airport, should be using GO anyway.
LikeLike
I dont think an RT line would be a disaster, at least not on the same scale as the SRT. A LRT line would be preferable, but as long as something gets done, we are better off. My main concern about running an RT line this far underground is twofold:
In the west there is space to put it above ground, in the east this does not exist. That means that from Don Mills to Kennedy, we need a tunnel. What is the cost of this?
Also, the sound concerns me. The current surface RT is near unbearable, what would it be like if we had dozens of these things running in tunnels that echo sound.
LikeLike
“puppy shredder”? *bleh*
Pardon my ignorance and please explain.
LikeLike
I note above that LIMs are used in railguns. How about loading Vaughan commuters into steel canisters fitted with parachutes, railgunning them over Toronto with SRT motors and splashing them down in Lake Ontario? Gotta be cheaper than the Sorbara line…
LikeLike
ICTS might have an excuse if it was a new technology in development, but it is not. By now it should have become a mature technology and had all the kinks worked out. However it still has most of the same problems, although I do give Bombardier credit for finally figuring out how to eliminate the ‘demonic moaning/growling’ sound of the LIMs in the Mark II design. (I believe young children no longer run away screaming with fear in the Greater Vancouver area.)
If we need a small-scale subway car then we can do it without LIMs, five rails, the mysterious requirement for “standard guage”, and violently sharp-turned track switches with a fixed geometry. Bombardier is perfectly capable of building ‘ordinary’ trains using Canadian labour and some local supplies. It is extremely unnerving that talk continues to veer towards ICTS when there are so many palatable and proven alternatives.
LikeLike
Yikes! if we end up building a flawed system simply in the name of “buying Canadian” then I’ve lost all hope.
I certainly hope that whoever advocates such idiocy makes sure not to use any technology in their daily life that is not purely Canadian. See how well that does for you.
LikeLike
Benny Cheung Says:
April 13th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
“Mr. Wightman, it is easy to point out the weakness of every technology. The pantographs on a tram creates drag. At speeds beyond 300 km/h, any efficiency you gain by a rotary motor will be lost to air resistance. We have to look at the whole picture here. I can also point out that 100% low floor trams have more drivetrain losses since the motor is located farther from the wheel. At the end of the day, whether it is ICTS or not, it is still better than 5000 Chevrolet Tahoes or GMC Envoy on the road.”
I doubt that pantograph drag will be a problem since the system will be lucky to get above 80 km/h. I don’t know what low floor drive trains you have been looking at but the ones I have studied have the motor and the wheel almost together. There is no axle between the wheels as they are each mounted on their own rotor. The problem of operating a system at 28% efficiency instead of 84% is that your power costs are 300% for the entire life span of the system. This is not something to be ignored as power costs are going to increase, probably faster that inflation. Do you have a source for your claims of power train losses. There is too much information on the internet to always find it easily. One thing I did find in my research was a Japanese site that in all seriousness said that the power output, Po, of the system is equal to the force, F, time the speed, u, or Po = Fu. I don’t know if he realized the implications of his statement or not but I think that it is appropriate for LIM’s. Why should we ignore the weakness, if we cannot compensate for the weakness then why should we use it when there is something better.
Steve:
Congratulations on the 10 001 comments. In my research I have gone on many sites that have not a comment in 13 months. No one will ever say that your site did not inspire debate. I may not agree with every one’s comments but I appreciate them as they are necessary to force us all to look at all posible solutions.
Benny: my comment about the Po = Fu is not directed at you or any one else. I just found his choice of tems funny and it reminded me of some of the vulgar equations we used to make up during my days as a student to help survive.
LikeLike
Benny – this is exactly what has got the US car manufacturers into so much trouble … everyone knew 10 years ago that a Hummer in every garage was a ridiculous prospect … the execs knew it, the politicians knew it, the consumer knew it, the unions knew it … but it was the American way and North America goes it alone, even when it doesn’t make any sense long term.
There is no point buying a RT system if the technology doesn’t work in our environment, if the system is going to cost billions more than the other systems … the only way Canadian Industry is going to survive is if they don’t continue to make stupid products … or try to shove them down our throats with a “it’s the Canadian way” advertising scheme … we tried, and we failed … let’s learn from others, retool and build some LRT with some European know how, and maybe while we’re at it we can improve on what they’ve done, build some factories and who knows maybe in thirty years we will be selling streetcars to europe.
It seems to me pretty obvious based on the fact that Bombardier has only sold a few lines to other countries that this is not attractive technology … and if they build more of it here … I am sure that will become even more obvious.
LikeLike
In the comment of 16:17 on the 13th, Steve (I think; italics missing) mentions the possibility of a joint carhouse with Mississauga. I have also recently seen discussion of possible LRT in Hamilton (So the HSR will again be an SR!). Also, I understand that there is discussion of extending the Don Mills line north of Steeles into York Region.
It seems obvious that all of these lines should be the same gauge, in order to promote flexibilty and cooperation across municipal boundaries. Certainly it’s hard to imagine that one would build an entire carhouse consisting entirely of gauntlet trackage.
But what gauge? Can it really make sense to perpetuate the oddball TTC gauge throughout the Golden Horseshoe?
Looking ahead, the time may well come when it is useful to interline Grand River Transit LRT routes with Hamilton or Guelph LRT routes, and those routes with Brampton and Burlington, and those with Mississauga and Toronto.
In the shorter term, there will be segments of the LRT network that are useful as freight spurs (probably overnight, as in San Diego; but as fuel becomes less available the efficiency of rail may force a reconsideration of the unnecessarily cautious rules that seem to apply to this sort of proposal).
Now, at a time when a massive expansion in the track network is about to take place, and where the new parts will run significantly differently from the existing streetcar network (even slightly different vehicles, if I understand properly what I have read on this site earlier), is the time to build the new parts to standard gauge.
The existing system can continue on the TTC wide gauge for the foreseeable future, except for Lakeshore/Queensway west of Roncesvalles (break the 501 at Roncesvalles, with new loop trackage, when the Lakeshort LRT is built), St. Clair (change to standard gauge at next rebuild, or, since the line is always under construction, just work on a random block every other month until the job is done), and Kingston Rd. north of Queen (change when new Kingston Road LRT is built, whenever that may be).
And of course the Scarborough RT can be incorporated into the system by replacing the LIM infrastructure with LRT overhead and reworking the stations.
Changes of standards are always painful, but in this case no really upsetting change is needed. The value of having the new large network match the existing small network just has to be realized to be small compared to the inconvenience of having a huge incompatible network in the future.
Steve: Your premise about freight doesn’t fit into the overall argument. The track geometry — curves, special work, flange depth, bridge clearances — for mainline rail vehicles is not compatible with streetcar track. Moreover, there are few locations on the streetcar network (now or future) that lend themselves to freight car delivery.
The idea of working on St. Clair a bit at a time is also misguided. The line would have to be completely rebuilt to be operational and would have to interconnect with the “suburban” standard gauge system. Although there is a proposal to make this connection at Jane, I am not convinced that the southern end of this line will be built in the near future.
LikeLike
Two things are for certain.
In 20 years, 50 years, 75 years, or 100 years, the Eglinton XYZ line will need to be upgraded to a subway.
Whenever that time comes, you can be sure that Eglinton will play a much bigger role in the overall scheme of Toronto, the GTA, and the Golden Horseshoe. Traffic will be far greater then it is today.
This raises the question. How will the TTC/Metrolinx/The City/The Province upgrade the line to a subway without damaging the economic activity, traffic flow, and neighborhood unity that will no doubt be present as Eglinton becomes more urbanized.
It seems to me that Eglinton warrants a subway now. Not down the road.
LikeLike
I think the real concern with ICTS is that it would greatly reduce the interoperability of the whole Transit City network. Taking a piece out of the TC network will reduce opportunities to share carhouses and move rolling stock around easily. Think about how streetcar operations would be hindered if Queen Street trackage was replaced by monorail (for example).
It also reduces opportunities for interlining. I could imagine some benefit to having Jane cars from the north use Eglinton for a quick ride to the Eg. West subway, or have Eglinton cars from the airport take Jane (or weston road, or the weston sub) south into downtown. It’s just more efficient to have fewer technologies. Makes for easier and cheaper maintenance too.
And if Metrolinx wants a regional link across the middle of Toronto, they should just use the North Toronto sub. It wouldn’t be much of a stretch to run GO services from the Airport, down weston sub, across north toronto and up to Agincourt, Oshawa, etc.
Steve: Yes, the simplicity of a single network is am important point here. Alas, we are so used to building one line (or part of a line) at a time, we don’t think in network terms.
LikeLike
Isaac Morland Says:
April 14th, 2009 at 1:21 am
“In the shorter term, there will be segments of the LRT network that are useful as freight spurs (probably overnight, as in San Diego; but as fuel becomes less available the efficiency of rail may force a reconsideration of the unnecessarily cautious rules that seem to apply to this sort of proposal).”
The most efficient way of transporting rail loads around to factories is called CONTAINERS on a local truck. Rail cannot compete with the convenience and speed of trailers or containers for local distribution and trucking cannot compete with rail for longer distances.
As Steve said there is the problem of track geometry and then there is also the problem of loading gauge which means the size of the vehicles. Rail cars are 10 feet wide and up to 89 feet long. There is no way that these will fitt down any LRT or HRT line. I believe the San Diego line was built along former rail way rights of way so it has the proper gauge and clearances. The other problem is vehicle incompatibility. The regulatory bodies will not allow light rail and heavy freights to occupy the same track at the same time because the centre sills of the freights are much higher than on any high floor LRV let alone a low floor one.
LikeLike
Steve: Your premise about freight doesn’t fit into the overall argument. The track geometry — curves, special work, flange depth, bridge clearances — for mainline rail vehicles is not compatible with streetcar track. Moreover, there are few locations on the streetcar network (now or future) that lend themselves to freight car delivery.
Obviously a freight train can not take a typical streetcar intersection curve, and track (and other) standards will be different for streetcar/LRT and freight. But it is perfectly possible to build track that will accept both freight and LRT. This does not even mean that the whole system has to be for both. An interesting example is found in San Diego:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=san+diego+ca&sll=43.467404,-80.532339&sspn=0.014639,0.014141&ie=UTF8&ll=32.808004,-116.975472&spn=0.002065,0.00515&t=h&z=19
A location where the LRT vehicles take a bridge that flies high up over Fletcher Parkway; meanwhile another track takes a flatter route parallel to the LRT bridge. So frequent LRT vehicles during the day fly over the traffic on a steep bridge, while infrequent freight trains at night take a flatter route (and block road traffic).
So with proper planning portions of the LRT network can be made to accept freight trains, if the gauges match. This might mean that some LRT tracks are built to heavy-rail specification in terms of strength, clearances and other features; it does not mean that freight trains can go everywhere. But if the gauge does not match, none of this can be done, short of installing gauntlet track.
Over time one can reasonably expect more need for rail freight delivery all over the place (as freight rail continues to eat truckers’ lunches), and it would only take a couple of examples where a straight segment of LRT route is near a potential rail customer at one point and near freight tracks at another point to make the benefits of standard gauge indisputable.
Modern-style LRT routes also tend to be more big-train-friendly than old-style streetcar networks. This is true even of routes that are planned strictly as transit. How many tight corners are there in the Calgary rail transit system?
Steve: The idea of working on St. Clair a bit at a time is also misguided. The line would have to be completely rebuilt to be operational and would have to interconnect with the “suburban” standard gauge system. Although there is a proposal to make this connection at Jane, I am not convinced that the southern end of this line will be built in the near future.
I was being facetious about the picking random segments. Of course the whole line has to be done all at once. My idea is that at some point in the medium term, the Jane LRT might reach St. Clair, and construction of suburban standard gauge LRT trackage would continue east along St. Clair from that point. As the construction progressed, the suburban route would proceed further and further to the east before reversing back. Meanwhile the urban St. Clair wide-gauge streetcar line would be gradually cut back until it disappeared altogether. In the middle would be the construction zone, where buses would replace streetcar service. And one would hope that the whole process would be handled more expeditiously than the present rebuild is.
Or maybe that need would never arise and St. Clair would remain wide-gauge indefinitely.
The need to convert an entire network all at once is why I do not propose regauging the existing streetcar network on any foreseeable timeline. The portions I suggested regauging are pieces that connect minimally (at one point) to the rest of the network and which have or could reasonably have their own routes. So each such piece could be shut down exactly as already done for rebuilds, the only difference being that upon re-opening they would be running the standard gauge suburban cars rather than the urban wide-gauge vehicles.
Converting the “core” of the network would require either extensive use of gauntlet track for decades as parts of the network were converted to gauntlet track, and then later converted to remove the wide-gauge, or shutting down the whole system while every major street in downtown was dug up for the regauging. I can’t see this being feasible. This core, however, only runs between Bloor/Danforth and the Lake from Roncesvalles to Broadview, plus the Gerrard and Queen lines extending further to the East. The existence of such a small non-standard network is not a good reason to build non-standard trackage all over Southern Ontario.
LikeLike
Mr. Wightman, drivetrain loss happens on any system where the propulsion is connected to a wheel. On the Bomardier MITRAC system, the motor is not connected directly to the wheel. For space reasons, it has to spin a few gears before the wheel axel will turn. So if you measure the power output at the crank and the at wheels, you will see a slight difference. On a bus, drivetrain loss is typically about 15%. On a tram, we are talking low single digits here. With LIM, since the wheel is not used for propulsion, there should be 0%. Of course, there is a loss when magnetic forces partially lifts up the ICTS vehicle. This energy is not used to push the vehicle foward.
If we connect some capacitors to a LIM motor, we can get very impressive acceleration numbers. Yes it is energy intensive, but if we run our power grid with nuclear power, then it is not a problem. Nuclear power prices are very stable, unlike natural gas or crude oil. Nuclear power is also pollution free. Even if we use more energy, the savings from ICTS operation would be substantial since it is automated. If we operated trams, drivers have to be paid. Human wages tend rise at a similar trend to the CPI. We pay more in capital cost with ICTS, but we save on the variable cost.
By the way, the Chinese government is considering to build more LIM systems in China. Since Bombardier has a cozy relationship with them versus Kawasaki Heavy Industries, we may see more ICTS systems very soon.
Steve: I cannot help noticing that you cite a Bombardier technology to buttress your argument that there are drive train losses. Bombardier, for whom you seem to do a great deal of promotion in these pages, isn’t the only technology in town, and even within that company they have many different products.
I will believe that we will see lots more ICTS when people start to actually build them. The lines in Toronto and Vancouver owe their existence to political influence. As Bombardier becomes more a European company than a Canadian one, it will be interesting to see how much they choose to emphasize a minor product in their overall portfolio.
LikeLike
Here’s a question.
If the Eglinton line is built as ICTS, creating a fast continuous line from Scarborough Town Centre to Kennedy and then to Pearson, then what are the impacts on the rest of the subway system; particularly to the loadings on the Yonge line south of Eglinton station?
I’d think that many people currently taking the RT from Scarborough, and travelling to downtown, would end up staying on the RT, and then changing to the Yonge line at Eglinton. On one hand, this would relieve the Danforth subway, and cut down on people changing at Yonge-Bloor – but on the other hand Eglinton is already second only to Union as the busiest non-interchange station. Also while an Eglinton LRT would likely only transfer much of the existing traffic from bus to LRT, a faster RT-like line will start drawing traffic away from other lines (such as the bus routes that feed from Eglinton/Don Mills are to Pape and Donlands) – and increase people switching transit modes.
I guess the short question is: can an Eglinton RT line be built without overloading the Yonge subway line – and is the construction of a DRL line to Eglinton/Don Mills a prerequisite to constructing an Eglinton RT?
LikeLike
Even if ART / ICTS technology is fundamentally sound – do we need three mutually incompatible city rail technologies emloyed by TTC? Obviously HRT subways are here to stay, and LRT is needed for mid-capacity, partially grade-separate corridors.
So, it makes sence to keep the variety down to those two nodes, given that high-end LRT can provide same speed and capacity as ICTS. That approach will help save on vehicle purchases, maintenance facilities, and interoperability.
I agree that once the Eglinton line is in service, it will be onerous to close it (even part-by-part) for conversion from LRT to HRT. Therefore, the tunnel should not be built to HRT standards. Rather, the tunneled portion should be built to “high-end LRT” standards, allowing for an easy expansion of the stations to handle long, 5-6 car LRT trains.
In that case, the central (busiest) section will always remain in operation, while the outer section are being upgraded to full grade separation. At the end, we would have a fast, high-capacity line, which just happens to use LRT rolling stock.
This approach will result in a better investment schedule: the first installment pays for the infrastructure that is needed right away, while the second installment is made when (and if) it is needed. It could even be possible to order cheaper (not street-worthy) LRT cars specifically for that line, once the line is fully separated from the street and the rolling stock is due for replacement. There is no reason for such cars to be more expensive that ICTS or subway cars.
For the long-range trips, the focus should be on the North Toronto GO service rather than on the Eglinton route. GO will be much faster and more comfortable than even a fully grade-separate subway line.
LikeLike
Not to change the topic … but I wanted to know what’s going on with the Spadina extension to Vaughan? I know they took out some storm sweage pipes, but when will construction start? We’ve been so busy debeating about the eglinton line, and other transit city routes, I feel that we almost forgot that this project is the front runner. anways what stage are the planners at? will we see construction this year regarding this subway line.
Steve: It’s still early days. This week, the City will conclude an agreement with York U to buy a surplus parcel of land to which the fire hall on Keele north of Finch will be relocated. That fire hall sits on the future Finch West Station site. As for north of Steeles Avenue, I don’t expect to see much there for a while as (a) it’s a fairly simple job to build that part of the line and (b) it needs the part further south before it’s any use to anyone.
LikeLike
Benny Cheung Says:
April 14th, 2009 at 11:50 am
“Mr. Wightman, drivetrain loss happens on any system where the propulsion is connected to a wheel. On the Bomardier MITRAC system, the motor is not connected directly to the wheel. For space reasons, it has to spin a few gears before the wheel axel will turn. So if you measure the power output at the crank and the at wheels, you will see a slight difference. On a bus, drivetrain loss is typically about 15%. On a tram, we are talking low single digits here. With LIM, since the wheel is not used for propulsion, there should be 0%. Of course, there is a loss when magnetic forces partially lifts up the ICTS vehicle. This energy is not used to push the vehicle foward. “
What is the efficiency of the LIM that is used in the Bombardier ART system? Who cares if the drive train loss is zero if the price of eliminating the drive train is an efficiency in the 25 – 30% range versus 80 to 85% in rotary motors. This does not include the benefit of recovered energy from regenerative braking which can recover up to 30% of the energy used to accelerate the and move the train. What is the regenerative efficiency of the LIM as a per cent of the input power, not of the motor’s output power. One of the supposed benefits of ICTS was reduced rail wear but if my memory serves me correctly wheel and/or track wear was a real problem along with truck hunting and the rail has to be ground back to true more frequently. Perhaps Steve can provide some information on this.
Steve: The claimed saving in rail wear presumed that without the wheels providing any tractive effort, they would never experience wear and would also not produce corrugations. In fact, what happens is that there are three ways for wheels to acquire wear. First, all wheels bounce, that’s their nature, and this bouncing (caused by minor imperfections in rail including joints) can initiate a pattern leading to wheel and rail wear. Second, wheels ARE used for tractive effort when the disc brakes cut in at low speed. It is possible for an RT car to get a set of flats just as on a conventional car. Third, hunting has nothing to do with the motor itself, and everything to do with the lateral interaction between the wheels and the rails. As a regular rider of the RT (until two weeks ago) I can assure anyone who asks that wheel roar and track corrugations are a regular problem that must be addressed by grinding.
The RT is much quieter in snow when there is the natural dampening effect of a snowbank around the rails, but unfortunately the LIM and the power pickups don’t work well under those conditions. Sort of a catch-22 there.
Crewing costs: The ICTS is automated so it does not need a driver, however it has an attendant. The major cost for labour is not in the operation of the train but in fare collection, maintenance and security. If the TTC were to adopt a more modern system of fare collection with barrier less station and ticketing machines then they could lessen the cost for operating the line. I am sure the cost for the extra ticket inspectors could be hidden in some other department to make the ICTS’s cost look better. The automation system will work on an segregated system. If the ICTS system is so good why is Vancouver’s new line not using LIMs? Here is what is says in Wikipedia:
“The fully-automated Canada Line will use trains with conventional motors rather than Bombardier’s proprietary linear induction technology, as used on the Expo and Millennium lines. This was largely a consequence of the public-private partnership format (a condition of BC government funding), which selected the proposal by SNC-Lavalin/Serco over that of the RAVxpress (Bombardier) consortium. It will use the same fare system as the rest of the transit system managed by TransLink. Known in early planning stages as the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver (RAV) Line, the line will run from Waterfront Station to Richmond-Brighouse Station, with a branch serving Vancouver International Airport, and will have 16 new stations: nine in Vancouver, four on Lulu Island, and three on Sea Island.”
It seems that even PPP does not like the system as it was cheaper to build conventional technology than use LIMs. If you want short small vehicles on an elevated guide way go to Chicago and look at it. You also need to remember that it ran a 22 second head way around a uni-directional loop with manual interlocking at its peak. This included trains that ran on Chicago Aurora and Elgin and The Chicago North Shore and Milwaukee interurban lines. You could catch a train on the loop in downtown Chicago and be in Milwaukee 90 minutes later. Talk about convenience. Automated operation is not the big money saver! Better fare collection is!!!
LikeLike
Back in the 1920s there was freight on the TTC. Those were the days when the TTC’s streetcar network extended out to Lake Simcoe, via a single track interurban line.
Because the TTC used a non-standard gauge, cargo had to be transferred from railway box cars to TTC box cars where they could be hauled all the way down Yonge St into downtown. Of course, back then the TTC was competing against house-dawn carts, rather then trucks.
LikeLike
What I’ve yet to see anywhere in the talk of ICTS is what exactly is preferable about ICTS over adding grade separation to conventional light rail? OK, ICTS is designed for automation and the new LRVs won’t be shipping with it, but what are the odds of the ATU suddenly having a change of heart on unmanned trains?
I think there is a decent case to be made for some elevation, and a general increase in the amount of grade seperation on Eglinton, but ICTS just doesn’t make sense to me.
LikeLike
How, if at all, do you see service for the Dixon/Carlingview area hotel strip factoring into the final Eglinton alignment?
Steve: I don’t think it will be served by the Eglinton route. However, one other factor in all of this is the Finch West connection down to the airport. We still don’t know what route it will take to get southwest from Finch to, say, Dixon Road.
LikeLike
What about signals in the underground portion of the Eglinton line? I saw a response you gave in a different thread which mentioned speeds which I can understand on the street portions but in the underground portion I would think that the right signal system would allow a good 40-50 kmh or even higher top speed. How fast do subway trains on the YUS and the BD travel over their respective routes? Likewise the SRT trains?
Steve: The top speed on the BD and YUS routes is about 70 km/h controlled by timing signals. The SRT can run at this speed, but rarely does. When three CLRVs were in Boston on loan many years ago, I rode them at 80 km/h, the maximum speed they were limited to on the Riverside line.
LikeLike
Grade Separation:
I’m sure you’ve mentioned elsewhere there is a STRONG infrastructure argument for building the Eglinton tunnel component between (Jane LRT) and Don Mills LRT:
-> This portion is to be HRT-capable (eventually, a subway)
-> This would create a subway between Transit City North (in the West, Jane) and Transit City North (in the East, Don Mills) eliminating interchanges.
-> The DRL (I’m calling it the Downtowner, everyone get on board w/ that) should come up to Eglinton (eliminating the Jane south of Eglinton issues, relegating the Pape (Danforth to O’Connor) issues moot) and provides several new “nodes” for users.
No questions asked, it would absolutely revolutionize the way people travel across (the actual horizontal centre) of the City of Toronto.
It also separates, and re-organizes two transit city lines:
-> Scarborough Malvern LRT would go from Don Mills/Eglinton Stn through Kennedy and along it’s route
-> Eglinton-Crosstown LRT could conceivably become the Eglinton West-Airport LRT and run from (Jane/Eglinton Stn) to the Airport via Eglinton and (Airport alignment to be determined)
…..
As a largely unrelated side note, I live at Oakwood loop, I would like my streetcar back, please. If anyone’s seen it, give me a call, generous reward pending… it “should” extend to Jane (or Scarlett), but what is the implication for Runnymede’s primary routing? [Steve, this one goes to you]
LikeLike
Steve are there any plans to use ATC in the tunneled portion of the LRT, as is done by Muni Metro in San Francisco? It may not be strictly necessary at first, but I imagine it would be much cheaper to put in the necessary signaling during construction, instead of retrofitting it later.
Steve: I have not heard anything about ATC yet, but will check.
LikeLike
It’s just money and us the taxpayer can always pay more …
Steve: It’s “we the taxpayer”, and we shouldn’t pay more if it’s not justified. The money could be put to use elsewhere building more transit, or schools or whatever. I have always felt that transit does an excellent job of pricing itself out of consideration by always opting for the most expensive implementation.
LikeLike