In all the debates about transit options, be they in Scarborough or elsewhere, one of the most abused and frequently misunderstood terms is “LRT”.
The term appears in various contexts over the years under both the guise “Light Rail Transit” and “Light Rapid Transit”. The difference can be more in local preference including marketing aims.
One can even find “LRRT” where a proposal tries to be all things to be all people. The Buffalo line, which incongruously runs on the surface downtown, but in a tunnel elsewhere, originally used this term, but was rebranded “Metro Rail”. The “LRRT” term, however, is still in current use as a Google search will demonstrate.
The term “Light” contrasts “LRT” with systems that require more substantial (or “heavy”) infrastructure such as:
- mainline railways including commuter rail operations such as GO,
- “subways” as the term is used in Toronto (with other words such as “Metro” and “Tube” found in other cities),
- any technology requiring a dedicated, segregated guideway and stations either because of automated control systems or because the right-of-way cannot be crossed for various reasons.
Life gets very confusing because there are overlaps between technologies and their implementation. One of the oldest streetcar systems in North America, Boston’s, exhibits every conceivable type of operation with the same vehicles running in mixed traffic (little of this remains on the network), on reserved lanes in street medians, on private rights-of-way that run “cross country” relative to the road network, on elevated structures, and in tunnels just like a subway. (The “Blue Line” running under the Boston harbour was originally a streetcar tunnel, but was converted to “subway” operation in the 1920s.)
The Boston Green Line is the oldest subway on the continent, and it runs with “streetcars” that morph into “light rail vehicles” not because of magic performed where they leave the street pavement, but because of the way the vehicles are used. This is central to the concept of “LRT” – the ability to operate in many environments as appropriate to demand and local circumstance.
Unlike what Toronto calls a “subway”, an LRT network can adapt to its surroundings and this is a fundamental characteristic of the mode. The original Scarborough LRT would have run at grade with some road crossings enroute, and a Malvern extension was on the books, but never built.
Many decades ago, the Ontario Government thought it knew better than the rest of the transit industry what was needed for the future of cities. Toronto got the “Intermediate Capacity Transit System” (ICTS) better known here as the Scarborough RT, and in Vancouver as “Skytrain”. The arm twisting that went into Toronto’s “acceptance” of this technology is legendary to the point that Queen’s Park threatened to cut off subsidies, and a bill allowing Ontario to write financial guarantees for the Vancouver project was treated as a vote of confidence by a then-minority government.
To make this technology more palatable (and appropriate to the era of the debate – 1984), the ICTS was dubbed “Advanced LRT” even though it was nothing of the kind. It was an automated system using side-running power rails and a reaction rail (for the linear induction motor) in the guideway. Both of these dictated complete segregation of the system from pedestrians and traffic thereby making the technology more a “mini metro” or scaled down subway, not an LRT.
Ever since, the citizens of Scarborough have been confounded by a system that calls itself “ALRT” and confuses the question of what real “LRT” actually is. The problem is compounded by streetcar lines downtown upgraded to reserved lanes that are the very low end of “LRT” only in that they have partial segregation but none of the other attributes.
Now, of course, with the rattletrap RT on its deathbed, it is a widely derided technology and this attitude extends to the proposed “LRT” replacement that hardly anyone really understands.
Regardless of what one might think of the proposed “Transit City” LRT network, it demonstrated the concept of using “heavy” infrastructure (notably the Eglinton tunnel) where and only where it was needed, and surface running, mainly on streets, for the rest of the network. That is a hallmark of LRT even if some of the TTC’s proposed implementations were a bit heavy-handed.
The Scarborough RT-to-LRT conversion was added once Transit City became established as a brand to simplify and standardize the network on one technology. It would most definitely not have been a “streetcar” because none of the Scarborough line runs on a street. For the extended version, street running would have been confined to the carhouse access at Sheppard.
Now we come to the 2014 election campaign and the position taken by some candidates that Toronto Council should reverse its Scarborough Subway decision and proceed with the original LRT proposal in the SRT corridor. Queen’s Park, true to their meddlesome tradition, wants a subway, but on the SRT alignment, not on the Eglinton/McCowan route favoured by Council.
My point is not to debate the LRT vs subway issue here, but to ensure that terms are used for what they mean, not for anyone’s invention. (Comments attempting to relaunch the subway debate which has been discussed here extensively already will be deleted, or if I am in a very good mood, edited to retain whatever content is separate from that issue.)
We have one mayoral candidate, David Soknacki, who is clear that he favours the LRT plan while another, Olivia Chow, gives out confusing messages. (Tory, Stintz and Ford are clearly in the subway camp.)
In a recent NOW article by Jonathan Goldsbie, Chow extols Vancouver’s Skytrain as “LRT” when in fact that is (a) not what the LRT plan would use and (b) Skytrain is not “LRT” as the term is commonly used in the industry. Her main transit page features a photo of the Seattle LRT line, not Skytrain, but Chow contributes her own confusion to the debate with yet another piece of transit terminology, “Overground”.
“Overground”, a term used in London UK, refers to a collection of services more akin to GO Transit than to anything the TTC operates. There is also a map of world “overground” systems including Vancouver and other cities with Skytrain-like systems as well as conventional LRT and a variety of other technologies and implementations.
If the criterion for the term is that a transit line not be underground, well, all modes we operate in Toronto, including “subways” are “overground” at some point (just as our “streetcars” run underground in a few locations).
Does Chow even understand which technology she is endorsing? The debate is difficult enough without using incorrect comparisons to other systems and introducing a term that nobody in Toronto (or much of the rest of the world) applies in the manner implied by Chow’s material.
I understand the reluctance to talk about “LRT” in Scarborough, but that’s what the technology for Transit City really is. All of the planning and past debates have turned on that term, not one invented to dress up the scheme in new clothes. We went through that crap with “Advanced LRT” three decades ago, and Scarborough has been worse off for the experience.
For a more extensive review of transit terminology, see Wikipedia.
To conclude:
The term “LRT” was coined many decades ago to distinguish transit implementations that were “lighter” than subways, the most common form of rapid transit seen in the first half of the 20th century. By definition, this does not include any technology requiring a completely segregated right-of-way which is necessarily “heavier” than would be required for true LRT in at least part of a corridor.
The term may be used in some locations to refer to technologies outside of that definition (notably on the Docklands Light Railway in London, UK), but these are exceptions with local history, certainly not “LRT” as it was proposed and used here in Toronto and in most other cities of North America.
Steve Munro 
I’d say that Chow (or at least some of her advisors) do know the differences, but realize that a majority of the voters don’t. And given the “Subways, Subways, Subways” nature of the conversation for the last few years, the label of LRT has become so toxic that her campaign is trying to reframe the issue to show people that what’s being discussed is not a “Streetcar”, but a proven, effective solution that will cost less, etc.
Steve: All true, but if in the process she misrepresents what I think is her position, or confuses people even more about technologies, she doesn’t help anyone, least of all herself. What happens when someone says “is what you really mean that you support the LRT plan”?
LikeLike
Steve:
I went on “railfan” rides on London Overground (and messed up my OysterCard by missing a swipe – generously and civilly fixed by a collector), Dockland Light Rail and the LRT that runs from Wimbledon. The latter is the true LRT and runs in mixed traffic and in dedicated backyard hedgerows. I was there midday and don’t know how many commuters use the line, but it was quick, effective and scenic. Actually my favourite part was in the “mixed traffic” portion of the route in the “old town” (of unknown name.) In any case I really enjoyed the ride and if it was part of my daily commute I would feel “well served” not humiliated by getting a lesser form of transit.
One question – does the Overground run on exclusive tracks or are those tracks used by other rail traffic. Is it ATC as well.
Thank you
Michael
Steve: There is a lot of info on Overground’s site including a nice video about the history of the creation of this part of the network. Torontonians can only dream of this level of commitment to transit expansion and service.
The lines are used exclusively by Overground trains and given some of the headways, there isn’t room for anything else. Clearly the signal system is designed for close train spacing like a “subway”, not the kind of thing one sees for mainline rail operations and longer consists. In the video, there is a brief shot of an operator in a train cab, and he is driving the train.
LikeLike
Steve clarity can help any debate. One of the problems with LRT can be that it can be such a variety of levels. From single car, in median, to multi-car effectively grade separated with fully controlled to even predominantly bridged crossings.
I wish that there was a more complete public debate as to the details of what was being proposed in detail for each line, as well as a better look at future possible additions. Not just the nature of the track but the platform allowances, whether there would be room at end of platform for 30-10 enclosed shelters, proposed platform lengths, number of cars in trains. I know this was public information, but seems to have been lost in the misinformation.
I almost wish there was a quiz in public for all the candidates for mayor and council as to what exactly was proposed as well as some sort of way of providing real guarantees to people that at least this much would be rolled out. I suspect that if everybody 1-knew the details of the LRT proposed. {ie median completely separated, with light priority, and multi-car trains with high frequency} and 2- understood that the costs of construction were sustainable, they would be more likely to support it, as they would realize it was less likely to get pulled out from under them.
However, it gets confusing when we are calling the C-Train, and the Seattle LRT, and St Clair and Spadina the same thing. The C-train seems more like a subway on surface than a streetcar, whereas Spadina feels like it is a Streetcar in its own right of way, but lacking active light priority. If everyone knew it would be C-train type service, I think they would be on-board especially, especially if they really believe an entire network would be built out. Calgary has managed to build a tremendous amount of it, because it is so much less expensive than subway while providing similar service, and they are getting ready to build a bunch more.
Personally I think we should get rid of all parking on King, and show downtown’s enthusiasm for LRT by constructing a full light priority, curbed mini-LRT on King from the Queensway tracks to Broadview. Just as a marketing effort you know. Oh and I think we need to make it clear that this is the lightweight mini LRT single car, only curbed ROW, and they will get the good stuff in Scarborough.
LikeLike
Once again, you’ve shown why you are the master when it comes to all things transit.
Steve takes a small bow, with thanks.
I will say this, though; I support Chow no matter how ‘confused’ she is about transit (I think that she’s trying to figure out what the issues are rather than be tied down to only supporting a subway like the other candidates; there are OTHER things to be dealt with in Toronto besides the DRL and Transit City.) This article shows what I mean: Mayoral Candidates Rally Around the Downtown Relief Line
Steve: “Confused” is not one wants in a mayor. Once may be an honest mistake, not to mention very bad briefing by her campaign, but imagine if this sort of thing came up in, say, financial proposals. A misstep on that scale would be fatal. Getting details right matters. In this case, we really don’t know what sort of “LRT” Chow thinks she is supporting even though it is a major campaign plank.
LikeLike
I would like to note that Calgary already has something on the order of 56km of light rail (vs about 68km of subway in Toronto), and it serves essentially the same purpose in Calgary as the subway does in Toronto. Calgary has been actively building recently (opening stations in 2009, and 6 or so in 2012) and proposes to continue. It is popularly supported there much as subway is in Toronto. The entire system however, has been built since the last time Toronto extended the Bloor Danforth line, and all Toronto has built is the short Sheppard line in that time. A great deal of this is that it provides similar service at a much more sustainable cost, and a low enough cost of construction to keep it ongoing.
LikeLike
Thanks for your timely contribution to the discussion. I found myself trying to picture the distinctions between the different rail types as you described them, so probably images would be a great help here. People want subw… uhhh, infographics!
Do you think it would be fair to differentiate the two proposals for Scarborough by using the terms “light rail” and “heavy rail”, to keep things simple?
Steve: Everyone knows what a subway is, and so I think that side of the debate is covered off. Things get trickier with the “LRT” side because it will look different on the “Scarborough” line, a completely grade separated route with its own corridor, as opposed to, say, Sheppard which is largely in central reservation. I really didn’t want to get into making a catalog of potential reference pics from other systems in part because some components of the Transit City designs were never nailed down.
LikeLike
The Scarborough RT has all the things that make something a subway, except it’s above ground …
(That said, so does the SkyTrain).
Steve: And of course Skytrain runs in a tunnel through downtown Vancouver.
LikeLike
I thought that “LRT” encompassing both “light rail transit” and “light rapid transit” was tough enough … now that Chow has added another term (“Overground”) to the mix things can only get more confusing.
For some reason I have a mental picture of Andy Byford drinking a very English afternoon tea while looking at Olivia Chow’s transit page and then … well, if you’ve seen the TFC campaign about William Defoe you’ll make the connection.
I do not think that Olivia Chow understands the type (s) of transit she has inadvertently ended up promoting. The addition of the term “Overground” just adds to the vagueness.
Referring back to her map … I lived in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia for 5 years. They have two “LRT” lines (Light Rapid Transit) that are fully grade separated (both above and underground) with the first LRT Line also having some segments at ground level using an old railway corridor. There is also a monorail “PRT” (People-Mover Rapid Transit) which is also referred to as LRT System 3. In addition there is a 2 line “KTM Komuter” system of electrified trains running on the railway corridors. And to top it off, the Malaysian government is also building an “MRT” (mass rapid-transit/metro/subway) network … the first of which will have a capacity of 20,000 passengers per hour per direction, less than the two “LRT” lines running now … which will be partly tunneled but mostly above ground.
By Olivia Chow’s terminology all of what I described above is “Overground”
In the meantime the average user probably cares little about the terminology and is more interested in the availability and frequency (or lack thereof) of service.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Great post. However, I think that many will refer to Eglinton as a “subway” when it opens. I don’t think the majority of people care about the details of the technology as long as it’s frequent, reliable and fast, which the LRTs seem like they will be (as long as a good level of service is run on them, I guess), and it’s on the subway map.
By the way, will the underground Eglinton stations have fare gates like the current subway stations?
Steve: That depends on how, by then, the whole business of smart cards has been handled. I suspect we will see fare gates.
LikeLike
Bombardier’s CityFlo controller does allow for some automation even for trams. For example, in mixed traffic, the operator will have to drive by sight. In sections that are segregated from traffic, ATO is possible.
Steve: The Metrolinx LRVs will have ATO for operation in the Eglinton tunnel.
The best way to distinguish trams and heavy rail equipment is whether it requires platform loading or not. For heavy rail equipment, street level boarding is not possible as the boggy and frame are in the way. Trams can be boarded from the street or simple road islands. Trams also have crumble zones for DOT compliance.
The best way for transit priority is not light optimization. It is using railway crossings when it interacts with traffic. A tram operating at 80km/h can clear a crossing in seconds. I have been seen quad track mainline railways in Japan where a barrier is dropped every three minutes. There is no chaos. If the road has a lot of traffic, seperation would have to built. But this can be done in phases and not all at the same time.
Guideways are the best as it is cheaper and faster to build. Yes the stations would occupy a large amount of space. However, as long as people can walk from one side to another and there are many destinations within walking distance, there is no harm. Look at stations like Hakata, Osaka or even Sapporo. It does not split a city center in half.
LikeLike
LRT has become a term that is not useful at all. It means something different to many people and only serves to confuse. Even the Transit City video that claims Vancouver has a light rail system like what was planned for Toronto.
Probably better just to describe the system. On-street rail or street level would be better.
Steve: Yes, that video, while doing a good job of presenting the technology, does include that gaffe about Vancouver.
LikeLike
Reading this journal entry and mention of the SkyTrain reminds me of this book I looked through once that said Vancouver actually had a Light Rail Transit proposal back in the 1970s and the city even set up a mock up Light Rail Vehicle that I think looked similar to the Boeing Light Rail Vehicle.
I can only imagine that the UTDC and Queens Park did some strong convincing to get BC to go with ICTS ALRT. Fast forward to the 2000s and 2010s and there are many cities in North America discussing implementing Light Rail Transit.
So hopefully in the end, the vestiges of 1960s/early 1970s advanced futuristic maglev personal rapid transit fantasy type stuff will be laid to rest.
Steve: It was no mock up. Vancouver got an LRV from Hannover as a demonstrator, but it never ran because of political opposition to “streetcars” by the minister responsible for transit in BC. It now operates in the Edmonton Radial Railway Society’s museum.
LikeLike
Steve correct me if I am wrong but isn’t the difference between heavy and light rail how they get their power? LRT draws from a pantograph while heavy rail usually draws from a third rail if I am not mistaken.
Steve: That’s one characteristic, but there are always exceptions. An obvious example is electrified railways that use overhead, but which would never operate down a city street. “LRT” using third rail defeats the whole idea of the capability of mixed running that is central to “light” infrastructure.
LikeLike
Confused? Yes! The common media use the term LRT as something like St. Clair ROW with streetcars. I would imagine that some people even think of LRT as a streetcar that everyone will board at the front door by paying a fare. Hopefully when the new streetcars enter service, people will see streetcar as a better type of transit.
If you ask me, LRT is the term for a streetcar-like vehicle (LRVs) that is usually shorter than a subway. It can stop in much shorter distances, climb steeper grades and have a tighter turning radius. LRVs can run on a partial ROW like St. Clair, complete isolated ROW, elevated, in tunnels and even in mix traffic. Normally doesn’t operate with ATC/ATO.
The Eglinton LRT would have been better known as a subway than a LRT. Metrolinx continues to use the term LRT for subway portion where many places would have called the Eglinton line (underground section) a subway, light metro or pre-metro. When something goes wrong with that subway portion, media reports it as the LRT adding a bad taste to the term. Instead they should bash the term “subway construction” because that’s what it really is. On top of that, ATC/ATO on that underground portion puts it closer to a subway than a LRT.
The current SRT is definitely not an LRT under my terms as describe above. It can’t run in partially protected ROW and operates with ATO. I bet you have the people in Scarborough don’t want the LRT replacement because they think it will cross traffic. Thanks to previous LRT descriptions, this is what everyone thinks. I don’t blame them since I would have imagined that if I hadn’t read about the SRT replacement project. I think if we build the BD subway extension, we will miss the chance to showcase how good LRT could be in Toronto.
The Sheppard East/Finch West lines are what a typical urban-integrated LRT. Nothing special here.
I personally think everyone is advertising traffic expansion incorrectly. Instead of throwing the term “LRT” wildly, we should focus on how the LRT project will change people’s transit usage. The whole LRT as a replacement for the SRT should be rebranded as RT improvement.
Billboards/ads/commercials should showcase the type of station platforms and how everyone’s transit life will change instead of calling it LRT. If LRT is to proceed, they need a different name.
LikeLike
Steve, I’m still confused. Is there one single factor that distinguishes “light rail” & “heavy rail”? Is it the type of vehicle, type of rail, surface/tunnel/elevated, or mixed/exclusive ROW?
It is this paragraph that confused me:
I read this as meaning: a completely exclusive ROW transit line would be “heavy rail”, and a mixed-traffic rail line would be “light rail”, even if they use the exact same type of vehicle. Seems rather arbitrary to me.
Further clarification: the TTC keeps using the light-rail term for streetcar vehicles and lines. If streetcars ran faster, i.e. more in exclusive ROWs than the current mixed traffic, would the streetcars technically qualify as LRTs?
Steve: The distinction is that the technology could be used in mixed traffic even though in a specific implementation it is not. Boston has the most varied examples of the classic North American systems still operating, but even in Toronto we have streetcars running on reserved lanes (notably The Queensway which dates from the 1950s) and in tunnels. This is “light rail” because the streetcars do not require exclusivity as a precondition for use. The real issue is how a technology is implemented in specific instances.
Another variation is the degree of protection from conflicting traffic. Some LRT systems have crossing gates at streets and the signalling gives transit absolute priority. This does not happen in Toronto in part because of the type of routes on which streetcars operate and the impracticality of putting crossing gates on city streets with frequent streetcar service and a lot of pedestrian flow across intersections. Conversely, transit can be given signal priority without becoming “LRT” or “BRT”, and the degree of priority must be judged against operating patterns (e.g. stop location) and the actual need to interrupt all traffic all of the time.
I also disagree that “Everyone knows what a subway is”. It’s the term we use in Toronto for a particular network. Other cities use “metro” or “tube”. And I’m not sure whether the distinguishing factor of a subway is:
– Exclusive ROW
– Mostly underground
– Particular type of vehicle
– Runs frequently and all day (not commuter train)
Certain politicians have been using the term “subway” for any line that doesn’t obstruct car traffic, no matter the vehicle type.
Steve: Like “LRT”, the term “subway” can be fuzzy. Toronto usage was set in the 1950s with the original Yonge Subway which even then was only partly underground. As the system has evolved, it is even above ground in spots, although these would be more likely called “bridges” because there is no sustained elevated running on the YUS or BD lines comparable to the SRT from Midland to McCowan. The factors you list certainly match our “subway”.
As to the type of vehicle, one point I didn’t mention was the distinction between high floor and low floor cars. Until the advent of low floor LRVs, “subways” would typically have high platforms and barrier-free loading while “LRT” would operate like a streetcar and vehicles would have stairs to low platforms (often at street or track level). Some “LRT” systems opted for high platforms (Calgary as an example) to speed loading even for their street running (which is actually on a pedestrian mall where there is room for formal stations).
Even this distinction runs into problems because “streetcars” are not the only vehicles that can pick up passengers at street level. Mainline railway trains can and have done the same thing since their inception. VIA Rail uses low platforms except at Central Station in Montreal, and GO uses low platforms because its cars are designed with a lower entryway than VIA’s high floor fleet.
A lot of this is philosophical and a question of how a technology is used. A mainline RDC (and their descendants) may look like a “railway” but be operated somewhat like LRT depending on the level of infrastructure and service pattern.
LikeLike
I was reading an article from the mid-00s about the St. Clair ROW where you are quoted as referring to it as … LRT. So even you aren’t always perfect about the terminology. I can try and find the article, but right now it is much too late.
My personal definition between light rail and streetcars/trams is that one is operated like a bus on rails, while the other attempts to operate in a similar fashion as rapid transit (wide stop spacing, signal priority, off board payment, etc). Even then, it is not always black and white. For example, I believe the Croydon tram in London has a stopping pattern wider than the bus lines, but closer than the underground.
Steve: St. Clair is LRT, albeit towards the low end of the scale. The implementation is further hamstrung by some design decisions including stop placement and the lack of signal priority in some locations. The farside stops, for example, can actually hinder transit if the traffic signals don’t ensure that an approaching car almost always clears the intersection without stopping.
The whole point about “LRT” is that one is not forced into complete grade separation (which tends to also lead to more widely space stops if only because stations are expensive) simply because the technology demands it, even for one car per hour.
LikeLike
Michael Greason wrote abut
That is in Croydon (also referenced by Ben Smith). There is a page on my site describing this system.
Ben Smith mentioned:
The trouble with many generalizations like this is that there are a substantial number of exceptions. I agree that under the term “streetcar”, the vehicles operate like a bus on rails, but the key is that they are more or less restricted to this type of use. Subway/metro/etc. has the restriction that it must always be segregated.
The key to true LRT is that it can be implemented from one of these extremes to the other as needed, and cover the entire spectrum in between. The ironic thing is that so many pro-subway/anti-LRT arguments come from the “a one seat ride is always better” point of view, and only LRT can provide a one seat ride across a degree of different implementation needs.
LikeLike
Great topic. Reading all the posts make me realize the folks in Hamilton, by comparison, have no idea what they actually want re their LRT discussions.
LikeLike
From what I can tell, LRT can mean anything between streetcars in mixed traffic (most of our existing streetcar system) and something that basically resembles a commuter rail system using light rail rolling stock (Ottawa). In the latter case, it seems like it is being designed to provide no loss of capacity at all relative to subway due to grade separating the central sections and not running in the median of a road at all, unlike any other LRT system in the world probably except maybe Edmonton. Perhaps it could be compared to Chicago’s subway system which has grade crossings with third rail in certain sections. It seems like what is proposed on Eglinton is inferior to Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa due to the proposed surface sections having narrow platforms, no level crossing gates and the strange design at Leslie/Eglinton, never mind the proposed Sheppard/Finch lines which are barely distinguishable from St. Clair. Using LRT as a substitute for subways if it isn’t designed like the Ottawa system (in particular, using branching or short turns to make sure that at grade sections do not cause a large reduction in capacity) makes no sense. As I’ve said before, I think that what is being done with Eglinton is a really bad idea, costs a huge amount of money, and aside from the oddball line in Buffalo there is nothing comparable elsewhere in the world, and the line should be a subway (possibly with the low density eastern section cancelled). LRT really makes the most sense for fully above ground lines that do not have existing subway lines on them like Finch and Hurontario.
Steve: You really love to talk about “inferior” implementations, don’t you. Nothing comparable elsewhere in the world? How about the downtown streetcar subways in Boston, Philadelpha, Pittsburgh and San Francisco for starters, not to mention Ottawa’s plan?
The stop at Leslie is not “strange”. It simply has the platforms both east of the intersection. Usage here is expected to be very low and there is no need for some sort of heroic structure in the middle of the street (or even on the south side if the line were built side-of-road). As to platform widths, where stops have individual platforms for each direction, each platform will be 3 metres wide. In locations where there is a shared centre platform between the tracks, it will be 6 metres wide. This is substantially larger than the islands provided on St. Clair, Spadina, etc.
Crossing gates? Do you honestly expect to put gates in the middle of 8 lane wide intersections?
It’s quite amusing that you think LRT (or at least your version of it) is OK for Downsview or Mississauga, but not for your own home turf.
LikeLike
Steve wrote:
That’s for sure. In Pittsburgh, their LRT system is underground downtown and some refer to it as “the subway”. Nomenclature is not exactly consistent, as I recall once being on their LRT and being subjected to one side of a phone conversation of a woman who was telling someone she was on “the trolley”.
Steve also wrote:
Though, we should have had this elevated section from York Mills/Wilson to the 401 on the Yonge line.
Steve: To orient readers unfamiliar with this design, the linked image above looks south across the 401 toward Wilson/York Mills. The subway wound up under Yonge Street (and the Don River) for the benefit of the landowners who would have been affected by taking a route west of Yonge.
LikeLike
I find it a bit exaggerated to suggest that Chow does not know what she is advocating.
On her webpage she makes a big deal of the fact that people will “start moving faster” because the environmental assessment for her “overground” is already completed. So it’s clear that she wants to go back to the pre-subway plan.
I’m not a transit expert, but I understood her choice of the term “overground” primarily as an attempt at rebranding. And if using it helps her to convince people that it is the better option, then I don’t care so much if it’s an inaccurate term from the perspective of transit technology experts.
Steve: Rebranding, yes, but when she explicitly shows pix of the Vancouver Skytrain, enthuses about the technology, and includes cities on a world map (on the same web page) that are not running LRT, then we have a problem that voters are being told something different from the already approved, ready to go, EA.
LikeLike
I am of the mind that even within the Scarborough area there should be a variety of LRT applications over time. Ultimately there should be a couple of moderate scale (St Clair like) north south applications (top end of BRT or lower end of LRT) that would connect the east west LRT, that could be upgraded with time. This would be on top of the Sheppard, Crosstown, and Scarborough-Malvern LRT.
I would eventually expect there to be a need for an express service to serve rapid movements from somewhere like Morningside (down the Gatineau power corridor?) all the way to the end of a DMRL. This would in my mind be a fairly express route, full grade separation, that would link up somehow with the STC on the way through, and this would be one of a transfer point for other LRTs to the express.
A fully built out system in would likely include about 45-60 km of LRT, that would be a mix of St Clair like LRT (about 12-15km) that with more room for platforms, in median high end multi car LRT (another 20-22) and fully grade separated LRT at another 13-30 depending whether there was need for the Gatineau express in the end. This would provide a very manageable, and extensive rapid transit system. The need for this would develop as Scarborough is increasingly a hub of support business that do not need to be in the core, and Scarborough is more of an inner area, and suffers from more inbound trips both to and through from Durham and beyond.
LikeLike
For all transit enthusiasts, take a look at Manchester, UK which has now been running LRT for over 20 years. This system is comprised of disused railway alignments, railways converted to LRT, on street running and new right of ways. The system is forever expanding and totally effective.
Maybe Ford would like to Youtube Manchester Metrolink and see what Toronto is missing. Incidentally one line also goes to the recently revamped dockland area … now that’s an interesting thought for the powers that be at Waterfront Toronto. Politicians stop arguing and wasting money and get building!
LikeLike
But there were 2 interurban examples in the Chicago area: The Chicago, North Shore and Milwaukee and the Chicago, Aurora and Elgin. These now defunct railways used third rail on the Chicago El and other Chicago-area third rail territory but used trolley poles outside that territory. Most of the CNS&M had overhead and ran on its own off-street right-of-way, but had some street running. I believe, the CA&E had a higher ratio of third rail versus overhead feed. Even after the demise of these 2 interurban railways, there was one El line where cars had to alternate between trolley pole and third rail.
To muddy the waters even more, perhaps a Chicago El line with third rail feed still crosses some streets at grade. See the last 2 photos from 2007 in this link.
Steve: Yes, ever more confusion. Let’s say we are unlikely to see third rail operation in the middle of Finch Avenue, and this type of construction would not be contemplated (or likely even allowed by safety laws and insurance considerations) today.
LikeLike
Good grief — how many times are you going to rehash this argument? Subways are heavy rail transit, and ICTS does qualify as light rail/rapid transit. You can make up your own definitions now, but historically, the terms “light” and “heavy” referred to the system’s carrying capacity, not whether it was high/low platform, its power source, or whether it could run on the street with cars.
The only thing that matters with the general public is … “will this thing stop at traffic lights?”. I don’t even recall the term “LRT” being used until the 70s or so — we all knew then it was just a fancier more futuristic term for a resdesigned modern looking streetcar. Besides, who cares what it’s called? Nobody calls our streetcars trams, and we don’t call our subway a metro. It’s just a label, and the average person out there does know that LRT is just another term for streetcars on steroids. Nobody’s being fooled.
Steve: Yes, LRT appeared as a term in the 70s as you describe, and the salient feature was not capacity, but the intensity of infrastructure needed in an era when everyone (including the boffins at the Ministry of Transportation) thought there was nothing but full-blown subways available.
As used in Toronto, and especially as used in Transit City, the plan to which some candidates claim they wish to return, “LRT” is most definitely not a fully grade-separated system. Calling Skytrain “LRT” is this context is just plain wrong.
If capacity were the only determinant, I might argue that a GO line whose track and signals limit service to one train every 20 minutes is “LRT”. A 12-car train down the middle of King Street every 20 minutes would mop up the demand quite nicely. Conversely, we know from historical record that “streetcars” carried thousands more people on BD and on Yonge in their day.
It’s the implementation, not the capacity, that defines the term.
LikeLike
This is where we are going to have to agree to disagree, especially after so many have tried to stress that St. Clair is not LRT over the last four years. However, this just goes to show how subjective the term actually is. What one person may consider to be low end light rail, another may consider to be a high end streetcar.
Also the idea that it is technically impossible for a subway/metro to operate at grade is a bit of a myth. Chicago has level crossings on some of its lines despite using a third rail, and in Rotterdam/The Hague there are trains which can switch between third rail and overhead wires to accommodate various running environments.
Steve: Yes, and nobody would propose building a Chicago style installation today if only for reasons of insurance liability. The issue with at grade operation for a “subway” as the term is used in Toronto has to do with train frequency and passenger handling at stations. A service that runs less often with shorter trains and lower passenger demand at stops can get away with a mixed traffic environment such as you cite in Chicago.
So what differentiates my idea of a metro from a light metro (LRT line which operates virtually exclusively in a grade separated environment)? I believe the capacity and kind of rolling stock best clarifies which is which. Light rail lines use trains which tend be of a lower capacity, but are able to make tighter turns and withstand impact due to being “street compatible.”
Steve: I will fully admit that I have used the term “LRT” on occasion to talk about lines like St. Clair, but have stopped doing that because it is getting too misleading. Life gets tricky on a route like Sheppard or Finch where it looks like a streetcar, but has fewer stops and (hoping against all contrary evidence) better transit signal priority. All of these terms overlap to some degree, but they are not interchangeable. And, just think, we have not even explored the term “Bus Rapid Transit” and the huge range of implementations, capabilities and restrictions that mode can bring to the table!
LikeLike
I am an advocate for the most parsimonious definition of LRT and subways, and I agree that St Clair (and Spadina, Harbourfront, Queens Quay) fall strictly within the LRT spectrum. To deny this is like saying that the Yonge Subway would cease being a subway if there was a stop-and-proceed policy for every face-pointing switch.
Steve: Guess what! The Transit City lines will have fully interlocked switches and signalling. Now all the TTC has to do is figure out how to keep them working. Place your bets for the first appearance of “out of service” signs hanging from the overhead.
LikeLike
LRT underground it would appear is good enough for Ford. Makes me wonder whether real issue is that he does not want to see either the system or its riders. I prefer, where possible, the idea of full sized platforms, with shelters (even if they are only 10 feet wide) along the way and then light priority, and running where I can see stuff. I find a riding the C-train in Calgary more fun than riding the subway, as there is natural light and something outside to look at.
The fighting should really be focused on how LRT will be implemented in Toronto, and specifics of design. To that end, we need to be creating a way of identifying various forms. So that all applications do not simply use LRT. As someone mentioned earlier Streetcar is Light Rail transit, but not Light Rapid Transit. Whereas something run in full separation with bridged crossings etc and a handful of widely spaced stops would be LRT in both senses, and a faster more comfortable application than current subway. Knowing exactly what we are talking about in each case is important.
What say you Steve, can you come up with some definitions and acronyms that would adoptable by the candidates and clearly understood by the media, to stand in for various applications proposed.
Steve: I am not even going to try. We do not need a debate about terminology, only accurate references and examples within what already exists.
Also where we have 3 meter wide platforms, I think putting shelters in along the platform between where doors would land, would provide adequate collection areas in poor weather, as they could still be 8 feet deep and 25 or so feet long, and could be implemented at any time.
Steve: There are accessibility issues for wheelchairs that require enough clearance that a chair can pass the shelter unobstructed.
These should be included any implementation, as this is really the major thing that Ford managed to hang his hat on against Transit City proposal, it was leaving users (Scarborough residents) waiting out in the cold, while downtowners were waiting inside for subways, and this was clearly one of the things that seemed to resonate.
Steve: Downtowners do not always wait inside for subways, although this is a popular misconception.
LikeLike
The Strathclyde Partnership for Transport serving Glasgow has a little fully underground “subway” that is referred to as the “subway” … and also the “Clockwork Orange” because the line is circular and the trains used to be orange.
The Tyne & Wear “Metro” serving Newcastle is described as a light rail system. Manchester’s light rail vehicles look much like a “North American” LRT.
Hong Kong has the MTR (mass-transit rail) and a “light rail” network and trams … and the new South Island Line is using smaller trains. Singapore has MRT (Mass Rapid Transit) as well as “LRT” services using rubber-tired people movers on elevated concrete tracks.
Perhaps, if capacity is the real focus we should simply define by capacity. A “30k” line can move 30,000 passengers per hour per direction etc. That would make it easier to compare to, say, a “2k” road lane or a “5k” bus or rail line.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
I can’t remember which website which had Olivia Chow stating her support for a relief line for Toronto. One problem I did have was wondering what she meant by a relief line. Would it be the subway relief line or the GO Train version? While both are worthy initiatives? The subway and GO-train versions would serve different type of commuters. I wasn’t sure which type of relief line Ms. Chow supported.
LikeLike
Could they not pass through these shelters, or would they have to be restricted to end of platform application?
Steve: I presume you mean that the shelter would have a side opening so that it would not partly block the platform. This defeats the whole purpose of a “shelter” as we have seen in recent discussions about poor designs of some new shelters in Toronto.
I was merely paraphrasing the sound bite (can’t remember it exactly for sure). However, yes this is important to clarify. I walked up to Rosedale instead of down to Bloor, so I could get on the subway, and standing outside in the weather with only a moderate top shelter. If there is a privileged “downtown” stop this is it, and guess what it is outside. I would say Davisville is even more exposed. However, that is clearly not the impression the rest of the city and region has. Also, it is important to note that there is a large area downtown served primarily by streetcar and a huge number of downtown streetcar trips. These are generally open air or basic bus stop shelter.
However, regardless, clearly this perception resonated, and that would mean shelter is perceived as an important issue in the quality of transit. If it is reasonably feasible, and cost effective, some provision should be made for this, at least at the platform ends.
Steve: Depending on where you draw the boundary of “downtown”, there are stops that are superficially sheltered, but the wind whistles through them. Nice in the summer when they stay cool, but not nice in the dead of winter.
LikeLike
If waiting in the cold is such a big issue, can’t we use heated shelters like in Ottawa or the Highway 7 BRT, or heat lamps or heaters like in outdoor patios?
LikeLike
I was thinking more in terms of something that has likely been considered too expensive for streetcar shelters, powered actuated doors for these shelter. Common for access to public buildings, where there is a push button to open and hold open the door for about 20 seconds. Requires power to the shelter, along with proper door structures actuators, controls and I believe something on the order of a 42″ door openings. I would not want to skimp on the shelters on an LRT, in terms of the politics, seems penny wise and pound foolish.
LikeLike
Carl Searby suggested:
In what universe? Ford is so set in his thinking that he will not even look at something called LRT. Want proof? When he visited Austin Texas last year, he was asked if he would take a look at their LRT system while there. His answer was not simply, “No,” but a NO with a tone suggesting, “why would I do that?!?”
AL asked:
Minneapolis is another example, and it’s easy enough to make it on demand as shown in the photo on the left of of this section.
LikeLike
One heating source not mentioned is the in-ground floor heating, using either hot water or electricity, to heat an outdoor LRT or subway platform floor to at least 4°C. Enough to melt any snow that falls on it, and operating only during a snowfall, flurries, or freezing rain. We see such heating being done with apartment & condo driveways that go into underground parking garages.
Maybe even the use of a geothermal heating source could be considered.
LikeLike
GO is doing this on its island platforms because there is no where to push the snow. They use two gas fired “boilers”, they don’t heat it to steam, and pump a solution of ethylene glycol, I think, through plastic pipes in the platforms. It melts the snow but does not really do anything to warm up passengers above their ankles.
Geothermal heating requires an underground source of heat near the surface such as found in Iceland. Toronto is one of the worst areas around for this. If you are thinking of the heat pumps that extract heat by cooling the ground they are not all that efficient when you are dumping heat to the great outdoors.
IIRC think GO trains had demand heaters in their shelters at one time. Can’t say I have seen any recently but I only get to a couple of stations.
LikeLike
My favourite “LRT” is the existing O-Train running in Ottawa. Never mind that it is a diesel powered, federally regulated mainline railway, grade separated from vehicular traffic (one walking path crosses it), and is the definition of Heavy Rail. OCTranspo markets it as LRT. It even crosses two other mainline railways, one used daily by VIA, and is controlled by Rail Traffic Control Montreal. The only things that is remotely “light” is the German rolling stock which requires a Transport Canada waiver and ATP/PTC because it has one operator and doesn’t meet North American crash standards.
On the other hand Ottawa’s new LRT is also completely grade separated but is being built so that it may have grade crossings or median running in the future.
LikeLike
I believe Ms. Chow is holding off on supporting a specific relief line … perhaps she is waiting until Metrolinx and the TTC and the City begin their public consultation on Yonge Corridor Relief (which I think is going to happen in April?
Given Steve’s post about information requests from candidates … I wonder if candidates are requesting briefings from city staff yet.
Steve: There is a page on the City’s website with Q&A information for requests by candidates to City staff (including the TTC).
As for heating systems on surface LRT stations … well why not? I recall that the Detroit People Mover has overhead platform edge heaters (probably oil fed ceramic, from the surface appearance). Platform heating to prevent ice buildup is an event better idea.
And while we’re on the subject … regenerative braking is an important innovation … and I’ve heard some interesting stories about small vertical windmills being used to capture wind energy beside highways and railways.
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: Um, er, regenerative braking has been used on vehicles since at least the invention of the PCC car. As for windmills on transit shelters, the problem is that when there is no service, there is no wind, but that’s when people want heat.
LikeLike
Regarding heat in surface LRT stations its possible. The shelters at Exhibition GO station have heaters in them.
LikeLike
Long Branch has these.
LikeLike