The City of Toronto and the TTC will hold an open house for the proposed extension of the SRT:
- Tuesday, June 2, 2009
- 6:30 to 9:00 pm
- Sts. Peter & Paul Banquet Hall, 231 Milner Avenue
This open house is described as part of the preliminary planning for an EA for this project. One important outstanding issue is the question of vehicle technology, and this is far from settled. For example, the current proposal included in the meeting notice (not yet available on the City’s website) shows a new yard east of Bellamy and Progress. This yard would not be required if the line is built as LRT because it would share the proposed carhouse for the Sheppard East line.
Also, the station connection at Sheppard will be affected if both routes are LRT because a track connection for carhouse moves will be needed.
Whether these issues are addressed in the presentation materials on June 2 remains to be seen.
Steve Munro 
The Scarborough-Malvern LRT is also having an open house this week;
http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/malvern_lrt/
I’ve heard from Mitch Stambler when he was giving a presentation to Scarborough Council that TTC is leaning heavily towards LRT for the SRT as they see a significant economic incentive for it since Transit City’s debut post-earlier-future-of-SRT-report. Metrolinx ultimately holds the cards, but all work for Eglinton has been leaning LRT as well, including the funding amount promised so far.
Steve: Regardless of what might have been said verbally, I cannot help remembering the experience of Richard Soberman’s oh-so-pro-LRT sessions that morphed into a defence of keeping RT technology by the time it became an “official” report. Let’s see what the balance is at the open house.
LikeLike
If they did covert the SRT to LRT how about using a dual power system? For example, on the existing ROW the LRT can lower the pantograph and use a third rail embedded in the ground (eg. Bordeaux tramway in France) instead rebuilding the existing platforms, they can raise the tracks up and the LRT can fit into the older SRT stations.
I dunno if this idea is feasible, but at least it will require little work on the existing stations. However i still have this strong feeling that they’ll use the ART technology, just because as you said before they could outsource it to Bombardier.
LikeLike
My problem is that if they use ART technology it means the eglinton will be ART as well, and right now ridership does not justify an ART.
PS I just wanted to make note of something: if metrolinx wants an express 401 subway from the east end of the city all the way to airport, then why are they still pushing ICTS technology on Eglinton and the SRT. The GTA does not need two HRT corridors.
Steve: Metrolinx is NOT pushing an express subway on the 401. No such route is proposed in their “Big Move” plan.
LikeLike
PS I just hope that LRT line is built right. In LA the Gold and Blue Line use rail way crossing at intersections. Maybe the TTC should consider that for the Eglinton and SRT line, it would sure make the line move faster, and that’s what people in Toronto want — fast Transit. One of the reasons why some people dislike Transit City (excluding myself) is because they think it will turn out like St Clair or Spadina. In both cases the TTC did bad job planning the (right of way).
Steve: Spadina will never be a high-speed line because its stops are so close together (justified by the demand character of the line) and because the traffic signals in some cases work against rather than for transit priority.
LikeLike
James Elliot Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
“If they did covert the SRT to LRT how about using a dual power system? For example, on the existing ROW the LRT can lower the pantograph and use a third rail embedded in the ground (eg. Bordeaux tramway in France) instead rebuilding the existing platforms, they can raise the tracks up and the LRT can fit into the older SRT stations.”
Why would you want third rail as well.
1. You would have to isolate the near side shoes to keep someone from electrocuting themselves on them.
2. The SRT has a third and fourth rail because the LIM’s cause repulsion which reduce the wheels contact for ground return.
3. The SRT is standard gauge so the track would need to be rebuilt anyways.
4. The stations will not accept the profile of an LRV so they probably will not accept the prolfile of an LFLRV.
Blast the damn thing to kingdom come and start again.
LikeLike
I’m still concerned about capacity if we convert to LRT. Each new LRV would not be able to hold as much as a current SRT train. We could couple two of them together, but we then run into problems if we have any plans to share the SRT line with any other neighbouring LRT lines, as we’d have 1 car trains and 2 car trains doing the same service. At the end of the day, the SRT is what it is, a quick shuttle between the massive bus bays of Scarborough Town Centre and Kennedy station on the subway. Eventually, though it may be 20 years off, the subway will go to STC.
Steve: A three-car LRT train (90m) has a higher capacity than a 4-car Mark II RT train (70m). The TTC intends to run multiple car LRT trains on the “RT” if it is converted to LRT, and yes this does constrain where these trains can go.
LikeLike
Steve: “A three-car LRT train (90m) has a higher capacity than a 4-car Mark II RT train (70m). The TTC intends to run multiple car LRT trains on the “RT” if it is converted to LRT, and yes this does constrain where these trains can go.”
Also it would have a cheaper infrastructure as the rail right of way for an LRT line is less expensive than for SRT (no reaction rail and it can be tie and ballast vs concrete). The motors are more efficient so less power is consumed and I believe that the cars are slightly wider so they can hold more people in the same length.
Points for consideration:
1. If the TC vehicles are going to run on 750 V and not have the power to run the grades on part of the legacy lines, where and when are they going to run on legacy tracks? Shop movements to Hillcrest?
2. Where is the TTC going to perform the heavy maintenance on the TC fleet? If the new cars are going to be standard Flexcity cars then I don’t think that they will take the corners on the existing system as their front and rear overhang is too long. None of the first four lines go anywhere near a legacy line anyways. They could make a track connection to the subway at Kennedy or Sheppard and Don Mills and haul them to Greenwood. Wouldn’t that make a nice sight?
3. If the TTC drops the silly idea that these cars have to operate on legacy lines to access Hillcrest then perhaps they could consider making them 15 cm wider, 9 ft versus 8.5 ft. Many cities ran 9 ft. wide PCC’s and since these cars are not going to run in mixed traffic and have new lines built for their wider turn requirements why not build them for bigger cars? Remember that the TTC was going to make the CLRV’s 46 ft long until Street Cars For Toronto reminded them that the Big Witts were 51 ft. long.
4. While there may be some areas in the future were TC and legacy cars share track, St. Clair and Jane plus Kingston Rd and Malvern if they make both LRT, I doubt if the double end cars ever get onto the old system.
5. What are they going to do for work equipment? Will they plough snow with trucks speeding down the right of way while trying to dodge centre poles?
I would be interested in what others think.
Steve: I suspect that Sheppard Carhouse, at least, will have some heavy maintenance capability as it will be the first carhouse on the TC network. Sending TC cars to Hillcrest just isn’t going to happen for the obvious reason that the Jane LRT connection to St. Clair is at least a decade away if it is built at all. TC cars will need shop facilities sooner than that. Some components, those that can easily be swapped out, may be shipped elsewhere for repair.
LikeLike
If the Transit City trams run on a frequent enough basis (i.e. less than 180 seconds), they could get by without snow plow vehicles. When the trams go through the intersections, the intersections would be plowed already by conventional trucks. If snow does become a major problem, there are snow plows that are the same width as a rail road track. I have seen it at the Halton Museum.
My local MPP already stated that ICTS technology has been chosen. It is unlikely that this will change. How is Bombardier going sell the technology abroad if we abandon it here?
I look forward when then ICTS line is extended. This can free up a few more bus bays at Scarborough Center.
Steve: It is my fervent hope that your local MPP is misinformed. Bombardier should concentrate its efforts on products with a larger market. If ICTS is such a great technology, they shouldn’t need a Toronto implementation to prove this to the world.
LikeLike
Sounds like history repeating itself. The TTC wanting a LRT line in Scarborough, and the Province forcing the TTC to use the ICTS technology instead.
If the Province is so eager to help Bombardier showcase ICTS/ART technology then they should revive the GO-ALRT program and leave the TTC alone on building a LRT network.
Is there another transit technology out there that we can use? To me, it sound like the Province and the TTC can’t agree if it should be LRT or ICTS, and HRT and BRT is out of the question. So what else is there?
Steve: You’ve named them all. The fundamental flaw in the creation of ICTS was the premise that there was no mode between buses and subways. This wasn’t true decades ago, and it’s still not true. However, thirty years ago the locals were more gullible and could be made to believe that nobody else in the world used “streetcars”.
LikeLike
Regardless of the technology used I’m woundering how the connection will work with the Sheppard LRT Line. In both cases whether its lrt or ICTS the station will be elevated and the sheppard lrt will be at ground level. With that being said how will one make a direct transfer to the next line.
Steve: I have not seen an LRT proposal and look forward to TTC staff showing their designs really are technology agnostic by including one, including a track connection to the Sheppard LRT, at the public meeting on June 2. By the way, my understanding is that the ICTS goes under, not over, Sheppard.
LikeLike
If ICTS Technology calls for it to go under ground, wouldn’t that be expensive because now u must make a subway like station?
Steve: Yes, although to be fair there’s a good chance that an LRT station at this location would likely be grade-separated also.
LikeLike
I haven’t heard which side of Sheppard the transition takes place on, but I agree that the south side of Sheppard is the more likely candidate given the built form on the north side. I don’t see a switch being overly complicated given that the crossing is angled, not perpendicular. There are a number of different ways to do it, I’ll be very interested in what they ultimately choose.
LikeLike
Since the planned connection between Sheppard and Don Mills LRTs is going to be mixed-traffic surface rail, the connection between Sheppard and Scarborough LRT could very easily be mixed-traffic surface rail along Progress or Markham Rd. It doesn’t necessarily have to be anywhere near the actual interchange station.
Steve: Yes, but such a connection was not shown anywhere in the presentation seen by Scarborough Councillors. We will see whether one shows up by June 2 for the general public.
LikeLike
Benny Cheung Says:
May 20th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
“If the Transit City trams run on a frequent enough basis (i.e. less than 180 seconds), they could get by without snow plow vehicles. When the trams go through the intersections, the intersections would be plowed already by conventional trucks. If snow does become a major problem, there are snow plows that are the same width as a rail road track. I have seen it at the Halton Museum.”
The cars are supposed to run every 5 minutes so as “not to bunch” in the rush hour. I doubt that they will be running every three minutes all night long. If the snow plow runs on rubber tires and you have centre poles what happens if the plow slides and takes out the centre pole. Have you seen any buses running on the St. Clair reservation? They can run a city plow on Spadina if they need to. The Queensway has the area between the tracks that can be filled before they start interfering with operations. What will happen along St Clair after a night of heavy snow with out any street car service? A truck mounted plow will have fun clearing it. What happens if the right of way is plowed after the road way? All the snow ends up in the left hand lane of the road which will make the motorist curse even more. It will eventually be pushed into the bike lane to await removal. And since not one bike rider uses his/her bike in the winter that is ok. (I know there are bike users who ride all year. I worked in Mississauga with a guy who rode his bike all but two days one year.)
Yes a rail vehicle can keep a right of way clear to a certain extent it there is some where for its motion to blow the snow. This works on the railways but there track is usually on a ballasted right of way which is slightly above grade level. My question was partly rhetorical but I don’t think they have given much thought to what, if any, work equipment they will need. This is especially true if the SRT becomes LRT as it will not have any roads along side of it on which to drive the overhead truck or the crane to lift rail.
LikeLike
Replying to Robert Wightman (from 20 May 2009)
“Have you seen any buses running on the St. Clair reservation?”
I have commented on this before and I will do so again. I have both seen and rode buses in service on the ROW between St. Clair West Stn and St. Clair Stn. The bus I was on moved along at speed and had no problems. I have also seen responding fire apparatus on the ROW—again, no problems that were seen.
“If the snow plow runs on rubber tires and you have centre poles what happens if the plow slides and takes out the centre pole”
It’s classed as an accident and then appropriate emergency crews respond. The “what if” scenario could be put to anything but obviously, if a rubber tired vehicles are used on a ROW there should be trained and competent drivers behind the wheel. Could things still happen—certainly they could, but I’m sure a list could be compiled to show many of the different problems that could occur that would hold service.
The streetcar is probably the best surface vehicle for going through snow. It’s not too often that one will see a streetcar held because it can’t get through snow in this City (other than on a PCC car, the lifeguard full of snow and then buckled under the front truck). It’s usually the vehicular traffic that gets stuck on the tracks in the snow that holds the streetcars. The reason that they used to “sweep” and “plow” the rails was because if the snow was not cleared off between the tracks and then it froze or freezing rain occurred, the ice buildup could lift the car off the rails.
“This is especially true if the SRT becomes LRT as it will not have any roads along side of it on which to drive the overhead truck or the crane to lift rail”
Several of the present fleet of Overhead trucks are equipped with “Hi-Rails” for road or rail use. (I’m sure the Overhead Crews are eagerly waiting with anticipation for the day they can lower the steel wheels onto the new trackage on what used to be the SRT!)
I do agree with Robert in that there should be maintenance and snow fighting equipment on rail vehicles. I think for the ROW’s they should have rail vehicle with a mechanized scoop on front, feed the snow into a melter and have a storage tank that could be emptied at designated locations. This problem of no snow fighting rail vehicle should have been addressed when their first non-open track ROW was built along Queens Quay nearly 20 years ago.
LikeLike