by

A Few Questions About the Scarborough RT Extension

Updated 11:25 am:  Information about maximum gradients added as well as a comment about costing of the underground alignment north of Sheppard.

Last week, the TTC and City conducted an open house for the Scarborough RT extension project.  As regular readers here know, I have long advocated that the RT technology be changed from ICTS to LRT, but there is little sign of a move in that direction in the materials on view at the open house.  A single panel (page 32 in the presentation) says that the technology is yet to be determined, but the design clearly is based on an RT implementation.

This is rather odd considering that a rethink of the RT/LRT debate has been floating around since last fall when Metrolinx produced its report comparing the benefits and costs of various alternatives for the RT extension.  If a real comparison were underway, we would see two designs that reflect the requirements specific to each technology and exploiting the advantages of each.  Moreover, the keep/replace decision would be part of the larger context of the future of the existing RT and its place in the context of Transit City.

Back in 2006, after a study of the RT’s future, the TTC adopted a policy of retaining the ICTS technology.  The context for that decision was very different from today:

  • Neither Transit City nor the Metrolinx Regional Plan had been formulated, much less announced, and a “Scarborough LRT” would have been a free-standing new LRT just as the RT is a self-contained implementation of ICTS.
  • “Rapid Transit” plans consisted of a network of higher-order bus routes plus modest subway expansion.
  • The decision was taken in the context of replacing the existing line, not of extending it to Malvern and, possibly, beyond.

In less than a decade, the RT will truly be a technology orphan, an ICTS line surrounded by a network of LRT lines.  However, the 2006 policy decision has yet to be revisited.

The TTC, echoing a tactic used decades earlier, has created a scenario that demands complete grade separation of the RT extension by claiming an 10,000 per peak hour demand for the line.  However, this only applies to the section between Scarborough Town Centre and Kennedy, not to the whole line.  Demand north of Sheppard is projected to be only 2,500 by 2031.  (During the original LRT scheme’s debates in the 1980s, TTC claimed that an elevated LRT would be needed through STC to avoid isolating property south of an LRT right-of-way.  The LRT proposal took the hit of what was then considered an intrusive elevated structure thus paving the way for ICTS.)

The design shown at the open house was clearly prepared for an ICTS implementation.  All of the illustrations show trains that look suspiciously like Mark II ICTS, and the route is integrated only with the existing RT, not with Transit City for vehicle maintenance.

Several questions remain unanswered:

  • If this were an LRT line, why does it need a separate maintenance yard?  At most, the line would need a storage yard, but heavy maintenance could be performed at the proposed carhouse for the Sheppard LRT.  What is the additional cost of supporting a technology for one line?  The FAQ talks about possible savings from a consolidated LRT maintenance facility, but the design shows a carhouse that would only be needed for ICTS.
  • The RT extension passes under Sheppard with no connection to the LRT line.  As an ICTS route, this is logical, but not as LRT.
  • Demand north of Sheppard, by comparison to other Transit City routes, is well within the capability of LRT, but there is no provision for a “short turn” service at the Sheppard Station, nor of a transition to at-grade operation in anticipation of extending service beyond Malvern.
  • Structures appear to be sized for ICTS, not LRT, both in the underground section and at stations.  What is the effect on cost for LRT?
  • Although it is impossible to know from the presentation, what is the maximum gradient on the line and is this appropriate for the Transit City LRT vehicle specification?  This question is answered in a comment below left by Karl Junkin.  The answer is “yes” the proposed alignment is within Transit City vehicle specs.
  • What would be the price of ICTS and LRT options?  We already know that vehicles for each technology cost roughly the same (about $5-million each), but the LRT cars are much larger.  What other differences would there be in an LRT implementation?
  • The evaluation of alignments north of Sheppard includes a footnote that cost comparisons are based on an at-grade alignment through the old rail corridor, not underground as the plans now show.  What is the extra cost of going underground, and would this be needed for an LRT line running with less frequent service?

Difficult though this may be, the TTC needs to address the technology issue for the entire RT line and do this in the larger Transit City context.  Many design issues hinge on the technology choice notably the reconfiguration of Kennedy Station.  If this will be a junction of three LRT lines (Eglinton, Scarborough-Malvern and “RT”), the layout will be very different from that with ICTS technology on the RT.

The short-sighted 2006 policy decision to retain ICTS must be reviewed.  Too often, I hear rumours and comments suggesting that support for ICTS is dwindling among transit professionals in Toronto, but none of this surfaces in public debate.  We need that debate now.

44 thoughts on “A Few Questions About the Scarborough RT Extension”

  1. Hi Steve,

    “Although it is impossible to know from the presentation, what is the maximum gradient on the line and is this appropriate for the Transit City LRT vehicle specification?”

    I asked staff at the open house about the grades, and they told me it is around 4%, and that they are trying to keep it below 4% if they can. The design criteria maximum is 5%, citing manufacturer’s liability for the vehicles. As I understand it, this would be in line with Transit City.

    Steve: Thanks for this update. I’ve been waiting for this and other info for a few weeks now.

    I agree with you on the short-turn point at Sheppard, however, what’s also needed here is a track connection. This will affect the Sheppard LRT in this part of the line, and that LRT is going to be starting construction very soon. Not selecting the technology NOW would risk building the Sheppard LRT in the wrong way, and then having to shut a new line down, tear up a part of the brand new infrastructure, and rebuild it to accommodate a new connection they hadn’t thought of before. This is a massive cost, as it potentially affects station configurations.

    Steve: See my point 2 under “unanswered questions”. The whole issue of maintenance facilities is another query for which I await a reply.

    One area that I would slightly disagree with you on is the MTC station being elevated, I think this is a good idea. A possible extension shows it going towards the CP Belleville crossing, a potential future GO Train station. Railway crossings and LRT lines cannot cross at grade, so this part must be elevated for that future crossing. From here, making the GO connection another short-turn point, I do agree it should go should transition to at-grade operation north along Neilson to meet a Finch East LRT.

    Steve: In the original Scarborough Council briefing slides, there are two alternate station locations shown. Location 1 is the one that appears in the public materials from June 2. Location 2 is on the northwest corner of Neilson & McClevin.

    If this is an LRT line with some service turning back at Sheppard, I want to know why we cannot just run at grade in the middle of McClevin from the point where the line emerges from the old railway right-of-way — just bring the portal up in the middle of a widened street. As for the rail crossing, Neilson already goes over the CPR and there’s no reason the LRT couldn’t do the same without being on an elevated structure.

    Cheers,
    Karl

    P.S. Why no comments?

    Steve: Because I forgot to turn them on. I have fixed this and reformatted your email as a comment.

    Like

  2. I was also at the open house last week and when I asked the question regarding technology choice one of the official just blew me off, by saying it doesn’t really matter because there about the same size. In general when I kept asking the same question to different officials their responses were somewhat vague and ambiguous.

    Another thing that remain unanswered is Metrolinx’s RTP, as of now the TTC is building the eglinton Crosstown and the SRT as two separate projects. If metrolinx gets there way how will this affect the line?

    Lastly I was hoping the open house would illustrate how Kennedy station would be reconfigured to operate all 3 new transit lines.

    Like

  3. According to the TTC engineer that I talked to the maximum existing grade is just over 5% coming out of the car house and this gives them lots of problems in snow because it is done from a standing start. Somehow snow seems to lessen the coefficient of attraction between the LIM and the reaction rail, it can’t affect the coefficient of friction because this system does not use friction. He honestly said that they have trouble making it up the grade in snow? They do not want grades above 3 to 4 % unless they have a run at it. I would love to see the Bathurst or Avenue Road ICTS line.

    I have no problem with the line being totally grade separated up to the 401 or Sheppard as I believe that this line will have a high demand at least to Scarborough Town Centre and from there to the 401 is night mare. I cannot imagine any sane person design a line where demand drops to 1/4 without having a provision for short turning service. It would be nice to have a section of totally grade separated LRT that is not built to gold plated subway standards to show what it can do at the high end of its capacity.

    Like

  4. I hope the same mistake is not made twice. Here is the chance to make a change when we are about to unleash an entire LRT network. It would make perfect sense to make the move now. Although the price for vehicle is roughly the same the long term cost of maintaining two different systems would quickly catch up to us. I know a report was commissioned showing the proce of conversion vs upgrade to Mark II. It would be interesting to take another look at that report.

    Like

  5. To my mind, the best way to connect Scarborough to Sheppard LRT is via non-revenue mixed-traffic tracks on Progress. This parallels the non-revenue connection from Sheppard to Don Mills LRT.

    I’m afraid of TTC trying to fit some sort of an expensive cloverleaf under Sheppard for no reason, as there’s not going to be interlining.

    Steve: Yes, definitely, there should be a non-revenue connection that is built as simply as possible. We do not need another junction like Sheppard and Yonge just for carhouse moves.

    Like

  6. Haven’t you been doing this long enough to know that the fix is already in? So, why fight it? What’s more interesting is what’s going to happen to Eglinton.

    Steve: Never say die. The bastards expect us to just roll over and let them keep the RT as ICTS, and that paves the way for Eglinton as an “extension”. I cannot get over, in the middle of all the brouhaha about untendered contracts for transit equipment, let alone health care technology, we tolerate a situation where a proprietary technology’s vendor could get away with being handed such a huge project as an RT/Eglinton line.

    Like

  7. I was at least a little pleased that the FAQ in the hand out material did have a question on whether the whole SRT could be converted to LRT. The response said, “Yes, the SRT right of way (and existing stations) can be modified to accept LRT vehicles. This would require major changes to the existing stations and the replacement of the third rail with overhead power. This will require additional construction works and will significantly extend the period of service disruption and require shuttle service. A conversion to LRT has advantages as a consistent fleet and opportunities for centralized maintenance facilities.”

    The material on the alignment shows the tail track beyond the MTC station remaining elevated, then dropping to a below-grade level before turning parallel to Nielson in a direction towards CP’s Belleville sub. It almost seems as this is still undecided, but it is drawn with the “underground” style.

    I would like to see this line converted to LRT but remain on a separate ROW as it can showcase the rapid transit capabilities of LRT in a way that Transit City lines will not. The need for the whole tunnel is not there for LRT, though. The tunnel from just north of the 401 to just north of Sheppard is a good idea, even though it does make connecting tracks more challenging. LRT in this environment is workable, but I suppose that the speeds it will run at here mean that it would be better to segregate people and animals from it.

    Even the tunnel remains as currently planned, instead of putting it in the median of McLevin when it emerges, it could remain on a side-of-the-road right of way as it only has to cross one driveway for the high school and Tapscott. Both of these crossings can be signalled like the Hiawatha line in Mineapolis when it runs next to Hiawatha Avenue (see http://lrt.daxack.ca/Minneapolis/hires01.jpg for an example). The driveway to the school on McLevin could even be removed and a second entrance on Tapscott could be built in its place to leave only one level crossing.

    Like

  8. Calvin said: “The material on the alignment shows the tail track beyond the MTC station remaining elevated, then dropping to a below-grade level before turning parallel to Nielson in a direction towards CP’s Belleville sub. It almost seems as this is still undecided, but it is drawn with the “underground” style.”

    If you take another look, you’ll see that the northern bit is a “possible future extension” (see pg. 23), rather than an underground section.

    I’m not surprised the traffic drops off north of Sheppard – there’s very little provision for local trips here, it seems very commuter-centric by avoiding anything like a street that people might want to go to as a destination.

    Like

  9. In order to change technologies, they’d need to shut down the line for perhaps a year and a half. No politico wants to be the person to have to say “You can’t take the SRT for 2 years because we are going to run LRT on it, so we can share a single carhouse and interline routings” The public response would be “TWO YEARS!? I didn’t hear any of that bullcrap after the two years part! I’m electing someone else!!”

    Like

  10. Steve, let’s look at this from a purely economics point of view. Yes, there are no other makers of ICTS in this world. However, any profits funnelled to Bombardier will be used to enhance their aerospace division. A quick look at their quarterly result (released last week) showed that the aerospace’s sales were down drastically. The transportation business kept the company in the black. This is a fact that all Canadians can be proud of.

    The US government frequently “overpays” Boeing for their military products. They operate on a “cost plus” basis. So, if the F22 Raptor cost $150 million to build, the US Department of Defense (DOD) will pay $150 million plus a 5% profit margin. Why do they do that? WTO rules prohibit a government from directly funneling cash to a corporation. However, there is no rule prohibiting governments from overpaying for their purchases. Thus, the DOD overpays for military hardware so that Boeing can uses that money to help subsidizes their civilian division. This is why Boeing civilian aircrafts are consisently cheaper than their Airbus counterpart.

    Bombardier competes with well funded corporations around the world (particularly Brazil’s Embrarer). By the way, Brazil’s government subsidize Embrarer through their military purchases as well. Since Canada does not have a large military, Bombardier cannot be aided this way. So any extra money, Ontarians pay to Bombardier for their transit products will end up to ensure that their aircrafts are more competitive. Bombardier is spending over 2/3 of a billion dollars to roll out the CSeries jetliner in the next few years. How many Canadian companies do that? Does Magna do that?

    Finally, purchase ICTS trains is a regional economic policy. This keeps the workers and families viable in Thunder Bay. Do you know why the Japanese government forces Japan Airlines and ANA to purchase Boeing planes on launch? It helps to boost regional economies as the wings, fusalage and other body pieces are made by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. By having launch customers, governments can help to win a manufaturing plant in their own economy. There is no question that those launch planes that JAL recieved are quite buggy. But, it creates badly needed manufacturing jobs.

    Steve: Sorry, but ICTS is a niche technology. Right now, the transit world is over in Vienna at the International Union of Public Transport (UITP) annual meeting, and ICTS systems around the world are a miniscule fraction of the total. When we have a federal minister telling Toronto to “fuck off” about its request for new streetcar funding (see today’s Star), it’s clear that our government does not see transit systems as a way to stimulate the economy regardless of technology. If Bombardier needs an ICTS line in Scarborough to keep its aerospace division alive, it’s not much of a company.

    Like

  11. Something tells me that the SRT upgrades to a ICTS/ART MKII are part of a bigger picture than we have yet seen. Maybe Metrolinx or the TTC is looking at putting another ART line somewhere we haven’t thought of yet (other than Eglinton).

    Steve: It would be Metrolinx, not the TTC. The problem, as I understand it, is that ICTS on Eglinton breaks the budget. Big surprise!

    Like

  12. “I cannot get over, in the middle of all the brouhaha about untendered contracts for transit equipment”

    Sorry, but we just handed over a de facto contract for 600 cars on a tender for 204, following a de facto sole sourced contract for the new subway cars. The avalanche has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.

    Like

  13. Steve: Never say die. The bastards expect us to just roll over and let them keep the RT as ICTS, and that paves the way for Eglinton as an “extension”. I cannot get over, in the middle of all the brouhaha about untendered contracts for transit equipment, let alone health care technology, we tolerate a situation where a proprietary technology’s vendor could get away with being handed such a huge project as an RT/Eglinton line.

    You can always lie down in front of the cement mixer. Either way, you know Bombardier is gonna get it. I think the perception out there is that ART is the equivalent of a mini-subway — which puts it one notch above LRT on the totem pole.

    Then there’s the problem that the elevated structures can’t handle the heavier LRT vehicles, extended line closure, platform rebuilds, etc. etc. etc. When you weigh all the pros and cons, ART probably comes out ahead cost-wise, especially since the whole thing can be outsourced to Bombardier. What I don’t understand is why don’t they just come out and say it? Why the game with this and with Eglinton?

    Like

  14. I’ve stated in the past that an option to the SRT shutdown period that should be given very serious thought is to have the Morningside LRT route (combined with parts of Sheppard LRT extension) constructed first, and divert bus traffic accordingly (presumably an interim terminal at UTSC). This can divert the traffic to Kennedy from the north-east. A McCowan spur from Sheppard may still be required in such a scheme though, as STC without some form of rail service is simply not going to go well.

    My mistake on the Neilson CP crossing. With it being grade separated, I agree that there should be an at-grade Tapscott/McLevin station, but that the line should not stop there, but rather at the Neilson CP crossing, as that location is suited for a real bus terminal, and is a natural hub location. The end of the line would be expected to have various bus connections.

    While I agree that some clover-leaf-like track configuration would be insanity at Sheppard, I wouldn’t close the door on interlining without considering the possibilities first. The only connection that has an argument, I suspect, would be from west-to-south and north-to-east at the Sheppard crossing. This opens up interesting operations that could be quite valuable to intra-Scarborough travel.

    Like

  15. Nick J Boragina says, “In order to change technologies, they’d need to shut down the line for perhaps a year and a half.”

    Perhaps, but how long will it be out of service to upgrade it to Mark-II? I would speculate that it will be at least nine months, and more likely as many as 15, so what is a few more months for more flexibility?

    Don’t forget that the Kennedy will be realigned. Then Lawrence East and Ellesmere will need full lengthening while Midland will need a partial lengthening (a longer platform was roughed in there, so just the roof and walls need to be extended). Has there been a confirmation of whether Mark-II cars will fit through the underground curve between Ellesmere and Midland?

    Like

  16. It seems like over the last few years the TTC had to shut down the line in the evenings for extended periods of time for various reasons. Will they address the current shortcomings of the SRT when they extend it? Or will the new longer line be prone to the same extended shutdowns as the current line?

    Like

  17. Nick, the last time I read anything about switching to Mark II cars, I believe they were suggesting a long shutdown to rebuild tight turns the new cars couldn’t take. If the LRT cars are built to downtown turning specs this much wouldn’t be a problem, would it? Would switching from third rail to overhead power seriously take that long to switch?

    I realize that stations would have to be rebuilt, but if you look at Kennedy as an example, they just built the new high floor deck above the original low floor one. If that happened elsewhere, I can’t see it taking that long.

    Is there something I’m missing here?

    Like

  18. Benny Cheung made an ‘economic’ argument for supporting ICTS/ART technology, by basically saying it was a way to prop up Bombardier’s aerospace division comparing it to other countries’ military contracts that essentially do the same thing.

    If we take that as a valid argument, why should the outcome be the support of ICTS/ART?!? We have basically handed Bombardier the contract for TC vehicles with the announcement that they are the choice for the legacy streetcars, so Benny’s argument can just as easily support the conversion of the SRT to LRT.

    Karl Junkin wrote, “The only connection that has an argument, I suspect, would be from west-to-south and north-to-east at the Sheppard crossing. This opens up interesting operations that could be quite valuable to intra-Scarborough travel.”

    I see a north-to-east connection as the primary one, mainly for movements between the car house that will likely be between Morningside and Meadowvale on the north side of Sheppard. However, I can see the possibility of SRT branch operations, likely during rush hours, where one branch goes up to Malvern Town Centre and the other heads out along Sheppard to Meadowvale. The second most useful connection, I believe, would be west-to-north which could be used for Sheppard branching, again likely only for rush hours, giving service branches to Meadowvale and Malvern. I can see a west-to-south connection for a service on Sheppard that branches back to Scarborough Town Centre (or even all the way to Kennedy), but somehow this seems less likely (though, only slightly).

    Steve: Interlining poses a big problem because the trains on the “SLRT” will be longer than the trains (and platforms) on the surface LRT lines. North-to-east and west-to-south are a pair — you need one for outbound and one for inbound traffic. The question is whether they need to be grade separated especially if they are only used for carhouse moves. This would considerably simplify the structure. As for west-to-north (and the corresponding south-to-east), I am not sure why we need to be able to run service from Malvern Centre to Meadowvale and UTSC when a direct bus route would probably be a lot faster.

    Scott Watkins wrote, “I realize that stations would have to be rebuilt, but if you look at Kennedy as an example, they just built the new high floor deck above the original low floor one.”

    At Kennedy, a new higher floor was built above the original floor. The issue with the line is that the opposite will have to be done: tear the floor down to the low-floor level closer to the tracks, unless there is room to raise the track level up in the stations. That said, there will be an extended shutdown of the SRT for Mark-II conversion.

    Steve: Plans for Kennedy call for a completely new station regardless of the technology. It will be at the mezzanine (fare control) level, one below the bus loop. However, this must also include provision for the Eglinton and Malvern LRT lines.

    Here is our choice: shut it down for, I believe, 9 to 15 months to convert to Mark-II, then have numerous service shut downs every year, or shut it down for 18-20 months for LRT conversion and have no expected shut downs several times a year.

    Steve: As someone who endured the shortcomings of that monument to Ontario’s technological stupidity every winter for the last eight years, I suspect we would burn up the so-called difference in shutdown times rather quickly. It looks great in Vancouver because there is wonderful scenery, and it hardly ever snows. I wonder how long after opening it would take for us to see a train of Mark-IIs stranded on the bridge over the 401? A great advert for transit!

    Like

  19. I really don’t think you woudl have to shut the SRT for a year and half to convert to LRT. Putting up overhead catenary is something that can be done gradualy (as overnight work), as its presence wouldn’t interfere with current operations. I don’t know different the vehicle widths are, but is it possible an LRT-modified station could still serve SRT vehicles? That way stations could be upgraded one at a time.

    Given the curve at Kennedy, a new set of platforms would be needed (parallel to the GO station, I expect), which could be independently constructed.
    The big change would be the track gauge … but that could be done over the course of a nine-day closure (Saturday to following Sunday).

    Kennedy station is in line for a major rebuild, and it will be interesting to see if the final designs allow for the possibility of LRT.

    Steve: The LRT vehicles are wider, and so the stations must all be done at once. There is also the issue of platform height with ICTS being high playform and LRT low-platform. As for the gauge, I would be very surprised to see it done in one week. The TTC would also have to rip out the SRT power rails at the same time for clearance, I suspect, and the rail anchors are probably integrated with the tie structure. It’s a complete replacement.

    For power supply, the LRT system will run at 750 volts while the SRT runs at, I believe 440 (plus and minus 220 to ground). The substation equipment will have to be removed and replaced, and this could affect the feeder system which may not be designed for the higher voltage.

    The important issue is project scheduling. The Kennedy Station closure is probably the single most complex part of the project and everything else should run in parallel with it. If I see two workmen with a teaspoon between them working on excavations on alternate Thursdays, I will not be very impressed.

    Like

  20. One of the TTC engineers said that if they went ICTS they would use a Mark III car not a Mark II; perhaps the Mark III’s would be built to fit the existing line. I hope they go LRT but I am not holding my breath.

    Like

  21. The cynic in me says that the public probably wouldn’t really notice if the ICTS were to be shut down for a long period of time anyway. It seems like such a common occurrence.

    Seriously, this line is a technology orphan. It restricts the other LRT routes by stifling through running. I suspect that it costs a lot more to run on a per seat basis than LRT. Bombardier is getting a huge order for light rail vehicles. They should walk away from ICTS and be very pleased with what they have.

    Like

  22. No station at Milner. WTF? Arguably the one location with sufficient potential and existing density along the route does not get a stop. Other flaws: stop at MTC too far from the high density node at McLevin and Neilson, no stop at Markham (this one is debatable), and as noted by you, no connection to the Sheppard LRT removing inter-lining from the picture. These are terrible errors that seriously rob the line of much of its potential. I hope these get fixed. However, given how stacked the deck is in favour of ICTS I am not holding my breath.

    Steve: This is a classic case of how a technology “option” dictates the layout of the line. When Metrolinx looked at various routes, one advantage of the LRT mode was that stations could be closer together. However, the TTC study starts from the premise that the design has to work for ICTS, and builds from that. It’s the same sort of thing you would get in a subway/LRT study where the LRT was hobbled by taking only routes and station locations a subway could serve.

    This sort of creative planning (I could use a much less polite term) happens far too often. A true “alternative” analysis would look at how the line would be designed as LRT, where it might go and how it would serve people. Instead, we get an ICTS design over which they might deign to run streetcars.

    The underlying problem is that the option of choosing LRT and seeing what is actually possible has never been presented to the Commission who, instead, received a deeply flawed report advocating that ICTS remain the mode for the SRT back in 2006. They have never revisited that policy decision, and such a review is long overdue given the alleged interest in LRT by several Commissioners.

    Like

  23. Scott Watkins Says: “Would switching from third rail to overhead power seriously take that long to switch?”

    The problem isn’t the power source, but the track itself. The RT does not use Toronto streetcar/subway gauge and thus any conversion to LRT would involve regauging the entire line.

    That said, who came up with the idea of using standard gauge on the RT?

    Steve: Probably the UTDC — one more way to make the line incompatible with streetcars so it could not easily be converted to the originally proposed technology. Also it’s likely that their trucks were not designed, like PCC trucks, to work for a variety of gauges.

    Like

  24. I agree.

    I don’t understand why Metrolinx is being so quiet about the Eglinton Line. The TTC is about to conduct a series of open house which will be based on the notion that LRT technology will be used here. The general public and the media assumes this as well. This nonsense has dragged on way too long. The lack of transparency is a joke when it comes to the SRT/Eglinton project. It will be interesting to see what the TTC brings to the table at the open house; at least they’re consulting with the public. Metrolinx on the hand … we haven’t heard from for months regarding this project. I guess there too busy dealing with all complaints coming from the west end regarding Blue 22; that project is a joke too, but I think we all know that already.

    Steve: I think that Metrolinx is still trying to find the bathroom now that it has a new board. They have yet to hold a public meeting and stake out a vision of what they want to achieve. The one thing I find really interesting is that Rob Prichard seems to be getting all the ink these days, not Rob MacIsaac whose musings about an Eglinton ICTS line started the brouhaha with the City in the first place.

    Like

  25. Steve wrote, “North-to-east and west-to-south are a pair.”

    Yes, when speaking of individual tracks.

    Steve: Typically, that’s how tracks are referred to at intersections because in many cases only one direction in a quadrant is present (surface examples abound, and in the subway there are only single curves in the two links between the Yonge and Sheppard lines. The nomenclature is always in the direction of travel.

    I was remiss in clarity in my previous description and tried to simplify it by referring to a bi-directional connection between lines, not uni-directional connections between tracks. Added to this, I said “north-to-east” when I meant “south-to-east” for some reason. Meaning to indicate the directions from the intersection, I ended up describing the movement along one track. I shouldn’t have used the word ‘to’ as it implies movement along a single track.

    To clarify, a “south and east” connection allows northbound trains to turn east and westbound trains to turn south. This is the most useful connection, while a “north and west” connection would be next and a “south and west” a close third. For sure, a “north and east” connection would have the least utility.

    I do try to keep in mind that a converted SRT would use 3-car trains while the TC lines are intended to have a maximum 2-car operation. This does not pose an issue for interlining a Sheppard branch to Malvern, and might even make it easier for people to identify the destination of the train at the platform (2 cars: Don Mills station, 3 cars: Kennedy station).

    As for interlining a longer SRT train out to Meadowvale, if this were to be something that travel patterns justified, this is one part of the Transit City network where 90 metre on-street platforms are feasible, though I don’t believe they should be built to this length at this time.

    Like

  26. Steve you said “the Kennedy Station closure is probably the single most complex part of the project and everything else should run in parallel with it. If I see two workmen with a teaspoon between them working on excavations on alternate Thursdays, I will not be very impressed.”

    With the way the TTC works, they will shut down the ENTIRE station at the same time and take their sweet time completing the project.

    Post-Script

    I know Kennedy is due to be renovated. Any idea how far in the distant future that is to occur?

    Steve: No — the TTC has not yet produced a detailed design, let alone a construction plan, for this project.

    Like

  27. Calvin, purchasing Bombardier trams will no doubt boost their aerospace division. However, let’s say Transit City becomes a huge success and the TTC needs more tram. Since Transit City is built to tram standards, any manufacturer’s product will work. Look what happened in Stratsburg, France. They started with the Bombardier Eurostar trams, they were supplemented by trams made by Alstom.

    Steve: The difference here is that Alstom does not have a plant in Canada, and is unlikely to be in a position to bid on cars. It was clearly understood in the bids for the “legacy system” cars that the winner would have to do something rather horrendous not to get the follow on order for Transit City. You are setting up a straw man. I could argue that if we really opened up bidding for the RT as “ICTS”, the work could go elsewhere as happened on the Canada Line in BC.

    If we stay with ICTS, it will be a permanent revenue source for Bombardier. it also gurantees them a revenue if the system is expanded. Next, a Toronto implementation of ICTS is important for Bombardier. Toronto and the Detriot’s systems operate in the worst climate for ICTS systems. If it works well in Toronto, Bombardier can take credit for the “all weather” capabilities of ICTS.

    Since Detroit’s system will fall apart soon, Toronto’s system must be renewed. Otherwise, Bombardier cannot tell future customers that this is a four seasons system tested with Canadian winter. Canadian winter testing is very important for buyers in Asia. If something works in Canadian winter, it will work anywhere else. If one has been to a Bombardier sales session in Asia, they play up their Canadian heritage a lot. They also emphasize their product’s robustness in Canadian winter.

    On a side note, Beijing’s ICTS system works well in winter and dessert heat. This is a testament to the increased robustness of the MkII model. However, the Beijing system also has a more powerful reaction rail heaters than Toronto’s. So, once Toronto installed the more powerful heaters, ICTS will deliver a route completion rate of over 95%.

    Steve: Clearly Bombardier does not need Toronto as its postcard system when Beijing is doing so well. Of course nobody’s talking about all the extra energy needed to keep the rails warm.

    Like

  28. Steve said: “The underlying problem is that the option of choosing LRT and seeing what is actually possible has never been presented to the Commission who, instead, received a deeply flawed report advocating that ICTS remain the mode for the SRT back in 2006. They have never revisited that policy decision, and such a review is long overdue given the alleged interest in LRT by several Commissioners.”

    Why is the TTC staff so hell-bent on the one-sided analysis, still? I mean, presumably they aren’t the ones feeling the pressure to sustain a made-in-Ontario technology, right?

    Steve: The report in question was written in 2006. Times have changed, including the launch of Transit City in 2007, but there has never been an updated view of the alternatives for the RT. I also think that in 2006 the difference in the length of shutdown times was estimated somewhat higher than the numbers bandied around today.

    If the TTC is serious about an LRT network, they must address the question of technology for the RT and its extension.

    Like

  29. If where stuck with ART for the SRT again, we should hold Bombardier accountable on the promise of the ART technology on their site.

    *Ability to operate at very high service frequencies

    *All-weather operation on challenging alignments

    *Accommodates far more passengers than rail systems with grade crossings at higher than average speeds.

    Can you say, false advertising 🙂

    Steve: At the risk of defending ICTS, it can operate at very high service frequencies because it is automated. I saw this done successfully in Vancouver during Expo. That technology is not proprietary to Bombardier, but it does require a dedicated right-of-way.

    All weather operation, I think not.

    Challenging alignments? It’s hard to reconcile the TTC’s claim that they have trouble getting out of McCowan Yard with gradients planned for the Evergreen Skytrain extension in Vancouver.

    Accommodates more passengers? Certainly, any completely grade-separated line can carry more passengers. That’s not the point. The issue is do you need to, and should you spend the money on that type of infrastructure for lower demands.

    Like

  31. Re: Benny Cheung. So far, the results of “Canadian winter testing” are likely to discourage any potential buyers of ICTS. They see that the system does not perform as promised in Toronto, they will doubt other promises made by the supplier, even if snow is not a problem in their locale.

    Perhaps it is better to advertise reaction-rail based technology in those locales where it can work, while sticking to good old overhead collectors in our climate.

    One of the potential risks of extending ICTS technology over Eglinton is that the whole line might have to shut down if the elevated sections leading to the carhouse are affected by snowfall. The central tunneled section will be protected from snowfalls, but it won’t work anyway if the trains cannot get there.

    Steve: Maybe we can put the ICTS lines entirely underground like the Montreal Metro. I’m sure some private company would be happy to blow a bundle on that “investment”.

    Like

  32. Another significant mis-step is the very southward placement of Bellamy station away from all the density along Corporate Drive and the potential of Progress. Is the TTC out to kill in-field development?

    Like

  33. If we’re in the business of getting people from Points A-B-C-D etc. in the fastest and most effeicent manner (NOT the business of propping up planned communities *cough* Sheppard-Markham *cough*), the community would benefit more from a 401/Neilson alignment instead. I’ve discussed this elsewhere, that basically more areas of preexisting density would be targeted this way directly intercepting several high-rise apartment communities and mixed-use commercial areas en route; a better location within Centennial campus grounds for students and faculty to have easy access; and the Malvern terminus location would actually make sense given the no. of routes and microcosm of residential, commercial and civic buildings on-site at the corner of Neilson/Sewell.

    Provided the routing of higher-order LRT through Sheppard-Markham is already covered by the Sheppard East Line, this lessens the need for the S(L)RT to also have to cross through this neighbourhood as a means of fostering urban growth and infill. Sheppard-Neilson were separate Markham Rd and Progress Campus stations to be included as I recommend, the necessity of the official ‘preferred’ alignment further diminishes as [route] 102 riders would now receive a more direct transfer (not having to endure a long walk up/down a hill, especially during winter).

    Like

  34. The southern location of Bellamy comes from 3 issues;

    1. McCowan is existing and rebuilding to the point where even the FOUNDATIONS can’t at least be recycled is an unjustifiable expense. This forces a southeast start in the extension’s alignment.

    2. The land that is identified for a yard is vacant/available and so the alignment “has to” go right by the yard (yeah, Greenwood Yard’s configuration with the mainline is just my imagination)… nevermind the absence of the need for a yard here should it be LRT.

    3. Bellamy wasn’t part of the original scheme as too much focus was placed on “Rapid” transit (and for cheap, stations are pricey). TTC put it in because of public pressure through earlier open houses.

    To the credit of the proposed station, if the yard isn’t needed, you get an opportunity for transit oriented development right at this station.

    Another advantage was that this alignment frees Progress west of Markham from construction disruptions.

    Like

  35. I’m not that concern that there isn’t a station at Markham. There can be a bus bay for the 102 at Centennial College where a satiation is proposed. What I don’t get why there no station at Milner and Progress.

    Like

  36. I think it’s a serious mistake not to have a station AT Sheppard/Markham.

    Unless the Markham bus can “somehow” drop off passengers at the proposed station location. The ScarboroughRT is as much dependent on feeder service as any other line (particularly the Bloor-Danforth line)

    It goes without saying, as is often the case with misleading planning that the LRT could have a stop at Bellamy, Markham, Centennial, Sheppard, etc;

    Why are we burying a line completely in an open abandoned rail corridor?

    Steve: Having never been to Montreal, is that subway system ICTS-based?

    Steve: The line is buried in the abandoned rail corridor because this is open space backing onto houses, and the locals want no noise, nor loss of their parkland. The fact that the existing SRT makes a huge racket unless the TTC keeps the wheel and track profiles in tip-top shape is not exactly good advertising. This was a big issue during earlier parts of the study.

    As for Montreal, the trains there use rubber tires, and the lines stay underground to avoid traction problems on snow/ice/leaf-covered guideways.

    Like

  37. @J Johnson.

    Sheppard/Markham is scheduled to have some of (if not absolutely) the highest density area along the proposed extension. Neilson Road offers no such potential. The few buildings along Neilson you refer to would easily fall into the catchment area of the Malvern Town Centre station. That station simply needs to be re-located to McLevin and Neilson to better accommodate these riders.

    Like

  38. So basically Bombardier needs to build a ICTS/ART line to prove to the world that the technology works, and it wants Toronto as a example.

    So here my idea, we shove Bombardier ICTS/ART to another city. Lets say Vaughan, Durham, or Hamilton?

    Steve: Don’t put it too close to Toronto or they will “extend” it all the way to downtown.

    Like

  39. Even so, the Sheppard LRT line will route directly though this “UGC” already, which is more than enough to attract new investors. The mere fact that even the “preferred” alignment runs so far east of the Markham/Sheppard intersection (not to mention the exclusion of a Milner Stn where ridership would’ve been guaranteed) should tell us that having the transfer point occur in this area is arbitrary and meaningless. Sheppard-Neilson-Milner, while having less developmental potential benefits more commuters overall because riders off Neilson (both north and south of the 401) and much of NE Scarborough could transfer off of the bus and onto the rapid transit line at an earlier point.

    The main reason why I suggest this alignment though (besides the untapped cost-savings on running the LRT line at-grade through the 401 peripheral lands), is that it’d justify a distinct “Markham Stn” (midway between Ellesmere and Progress @Tuxedo Ct) and a distinct “Progress Campus Stn”, the latter of which would be serving one of the largest comm. college campuses in the GTA. Now tell me, how is Sheppard-Markham remotely underserved by being flanked on 3 sides by the Scarborough LRT (Route 102 by then will run at greater frequency) and having the SE LRT running straight through it?

    I do agree though with your position regarding relocating the terminal. Only instead of putting it on an elevated guideway through the middle of Malvern I’d keep the station underground midway between Tapscott/Sewell and McLevin beneath Neilson; such that PATH links could radiate out to the various apartment complexes, the civic building and the mall. Bringing the mass transit as closely as possible to where people actually school and reside and shortening the total length of bus commutes before/after riding along the LRT line is a good mindset to have towards urban planning.

    Like

  40. To James Elliot — UTDC already did try to construct an ICTS demonstration project in Hamilton back in the early 80s, called the Hamilton RT, extending from Upper James and Mohawk north across the escarpment and into a loop around downtown. Hamilton (or at least the residents) didn’t want it, and UTDC cut their losses (Scarborough and Vancouver may have already signed on by that point, giving UTDC their demonstration projects).

    Like

Comments are closed.