Updated June 21, 2015 at 12:45 am: SmartTrack alignment option 1C which was included in the presentation deck, but not in the individual illustrations on the project website, has been added to the consolidated set.
Updated June 12, 2015 at 6:30 am: Details of SmartTrack and Relief Line alignment options added.
The City of Toronto, Metrolinx and the TTC will conduct a series of eight meetings at locations around Toronto over coming weeks to present current information on studies now in progress regarding GO’s Regional Express Rail (RER) plan, SmartTrack, the Scarborough Subway Extension (SSE) and the Relief Line (aka “DRL”). Some of these meetings will focus on specific projects (noted below), while others are general overviews.
- Sat. June 13 9:30am: Burnhamthorpe Collegiate Institute, 500 The East Mall
- Mon. June 15 6:30 pm: Estonian House, 958 Broadview Avenue (Relief Line)
- Wed. June 17 6:30 pm: Spring Garden Church, 112 Spring Garden Avenue
- Thurs. June 18 6:30 pm: Archbishop Romero Catholic SS, 99 Humber Boulevard South (SmartTrack)
- Sat. June 20 9:30 am: Hyatt Regency Hotel, 370 King Street West
- Mon. June 22 6:30 pm: Winston Churchill Collegiate Institute, 2239 Lawrence Avenue East
- Wed. June 24 6:30 pm: Scarborough Civic Centre, 150 Borough Drive (SSE)
- Thurs. June 25 6:30pm: Riverdale Collegiate Institute, 1094 Gerrard Street East (Relief Line)
Consultation in Mississauga, Peel, Markham and York Region will occur in September according to the City’s press release.
Recommendations will be presented by TTC and City staff to the TTC Board and Council in Fall 2015 on SmartTrack, the SSE and the Relief Line.
Update June 12:
SmartTrack
The presentation boards and alignment options for the western leg of SmartTrack are now available online. For convenience, I have collected the illustrations in one file [PDF 2MB].
Broadly the study is considering three alignment groups for the link between Mount Dennis and the Mississauga Airport Corporate Centre:
- A direct connection via Eglinton from the Kitchener rail corridor
- A separate heavy rail corridor via Eglinton from Mount Dennis
- A direct connection south from the Kitchener rail corridor through the airport
The “base case” for the study is the already-approved second phase of the Crosstown LRT.
The options include:
- 1: Direct links with the SmartTrack alignment:
- 1A: Swinging east of the KW rail corridor south of Eglinton, and then turning west to make a direct connection with the Crosstown line.
- 1B: Turning west from the KW rail corridor south of Eglinton. This is the original SmartTrack proposal.
- 1C: Continuing north of Eglinton, and then veering back south through a vaguely defined area west of Weston Road [illustration added June 21]
- 3A: A separate line west from Mount Dennis.
- 2: Links north via the rail corridor and then south into the airport lands:
- 2A: To a point beyond the UPX airport spur, then south through the airport. The “Airport” station would be a connection to the UPX at Airport Road.
- 2B: The same alignment as 2A at the north end, but following Dixon Road and Carlingview south to 427/401.
- 2C: To a point east of the UPX spur with a station at the east side of the airport, then south via Carlingview as in 2B.
Some alignments require tight turns and tunneling will be needed for all of them contrary to the original claims that SmartTrack would be a “surface subway”. This will also force the issue of electrification without which a tunnel alignment is impossible, but Metrolinx plans now claim that the first electric operations will not begin until 2023.
The option 2 alignments will face technical challenges including curve radii depending on the exact details of the alignment and the equipment chosen for the route.
Headways for all option 1 and 2 alignments will be constrained by the need to share trackage with the UPX operation.
Relief Line
Four corridor options are under consideration. At its northern end, the corridor would start at either Broadview or Pape Station, and through the core area, the line would follow either Queen or King/Wellington. I have collected the four maps together in one file for convenience.
Detailed discussions of the pros and cons of these options are on the respective pages of the project site. The Pape alignment has clear advantages over Broadview, and a Wellington alignment through the core has advantages over King or Queen.
Steve Munro 
@ Malcolm
I get where you’re coming from as a non-end user.
Until the LRT plan is fully funded to include Malvern LRT & at least either the Sheppard transfer to North York stubway is removed or SLRT take a more central route & avoids the industrial stops I likely many others who would actually use this transit will support the subway replacement of the SLRT. For what it’s worth Sheppard can then continue to be a Political hot potato for a few years.
As I’ve stated previously a patchwork LRT network with transfers is class warfare and contradicts one of its main drivers behind an LRT network in that it creates an extra layer of inequity to large areas left with nothing. The 1st class Toronto would have subways, the 2nd class would receive LRT and the 3rd class and some of the most needy citizens would have buses to connect to the patchy network in hopes one day the LRT fairy will come to bless the in the future. This is hardly an improvement & doesn’t provide enough improvement to the majority to warrant the support.
The Subway extension to a more central location is much more efficient & equitable for the majority to gain access to were the main job market reside in the core. Local transit options can be discussed down the road when truly required. BRT is likely a more economical means anyhow.
Again just my take on this nonsense of comparing crappy proposals & although I may be alone on this blog there’s a hell of a lot of people out here that share the same concerns. Technology is not the issue, planning & funding is the issue.
LikeLike
I don’t know what a “patchwork LRT network” is, and how it would differ from a professionally and responsibly designed LRT network.
If the bus ridership along the Jane, Eglinton, Don Mills, Finch and Sheppard corridors was large enough to justify a higher capacity, Calgary style LRT, but not enough to justify a heavy rail line, then would you recognize a system like Transit City as a professionally and responsibly designed LRT network?
I question your description of the subway’s current design being “class warfare”. Some downtown subway stations are surrounded by dense neighbourhoods that are quite affluent. Other downtown subway station are surrounded by dense neighbourhoods that aren’t affluent at all. Is it not their affluence that makes them good examples of the current plan — not their density?
I believe that subway stations that aren’t surrounded by a dense neighbourhood can nevertheless be successful stations, if they have they have lots of busy busbays where riders are brought from more distant, less dense neighbourhoods.
Steve: I offer my home station, Broadview, as an example; there is even less density around Pape.
There are subway stations that aren’t used by a lot of riders, because they lack both a dense neighbourhood within walking distance, and surface routes bringing in riders from more distant neighbourhoods. Did the original planners of the Bloor-Danforth line make a mistake to place Old Mill station between Royal York and Jane stations? The one bus route that serves it goes up Prince Edward Drive, which is much closer to Royal York station than it is to Old Mill station. When I had to take that bus, to go to school, I used to get off at Royal York, and walk the block to Prince Edward, and board there. So, was Old Mill station a mistake? I don’t know. There may be other factors.
But, as I am sure others have asked, is Scarborough really being discriminated against, if it lacks really dense neighbourhoods that are good prospects for being linked by heavy rail? Are northern areas of Scarborough, or North York or Etobicoke, for that matter, really disproportionately poorly served by public transit, if they just aren’t dense enough to justify an LRT or heavy rail? One dense area, not well served now, is the Jane-Finch region. I can believe it is dense enough to justify two LRT routes: an LRT along Finch to connect it to YUS and an LRT along Jane, to connect it to BD.
RoFo said people loved subways, but I believe riding in a nice, modern above ground LRT, with a reasonable view, would be a much more pleasant experience. I suspect that, once RoFo’s fans got to ride them, they would grow to love their local LRTs, without regard to whether they came from a more affluent or less affluent neighbourhood.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed. If rich areas are where the subway goes, where is the subway to The Bridle Path?
I’m not sure what evidence would convince me that “class warfare” was responsible for the design of the subway system, but it would at a minimum have to include a clear definition of what that even means and how to tell the difference between a design originating from “class warfare” and one that originates from sound planning principles. What is so hard to understand about “projected ridership does not justify subway” and “LRT will extend three times farther than subway”?
Steve: It is particularly important to remember that when the Yonge and Bloor subways were built, the gentrification of areas around the lines had not yet started. They became well-off attractive neighbourhoods after the fact. Parts of BD were positively down-at-heels and some are only now, five decades on, starting to be tarted up.
LikeLike
Here’s where you fail to understand about what the majority of Scarborough needs & prefers:
Priority#1 IS TRANSIT TO THE CORE FOR JOBS: Commuters have much less trouble travelling around Scarborough than the nightmare commute to the core. The subway is more effective, attractive, convenient and more centrally situated than the Scarborough LRT.
Priority#2 is LOCAL TRANSIT. The Sheppard LRT connecting to the Subway Stubway serves few effectively. For many it’s easier just to bypass the LRT and go straight to the stubway. This extension in its current form really only helps a small percentage & leaves out a huge section of “priority areas” to the south east.
Although the LRT will look pretty for the selected area it affects, it will make neglected areas stand out even more & buses & BRT can do just as good of a job.
Again it’s not the technology, it’s the way is being delivered. If it was really going to impact the majority in a positive way you’ld see outrage. Yet the only outrage is from those outsiders that have minimal understanding or tolerance for Scarborough’s real needs & future.
I agree many subway stations are around affluent areas & it’s great there are some non-affluent areas which have access to quality public transit. Scarborough’s non affluent areas won’t have that & many still get nothing in the LRT plan. Absurd.
Dear lord there is nothing professional and responsible over the FUNDED LRT network. It’s benefits are negligible over the current nightmare.
LikeLike
I think there are a couple of points here – 1 that is why the planners should be doing a real plan, not one where they are looking at the politician looking over their shoulder every 5 seconds. The other is Joe, the problem with talking as an end user yourself is that you are considering your own ride only. You say people do not have a hard time getting around Scarborough, however, I believe that depends very much on where they are starting and trying to get to.
Yes people need access to the core, however, it is not the only trip, or the only jobs. You speak with great certainty for all of Scarborough, but, this subway will not serve all well. The transfer issues, and routing should be something that are determined with detailed data with regards to actual travel intentions, because the system needs to serve many that do not currently use it.
LikeLike
Clarification please. Then you aren’t arguing that LRT routes should play a role in Toronto and the GTA’s transit plans — you are just arguing that some or all of the proposed or building routes are in the wrong places?
Okay, have to made a coherent proposal of some better routes that haven’t been under consideration?
Okay, are you comparing the $1.7 billion LRT from Kennedy, to STC, Centennial College and Sheppard with the $4 billion extension of the BD line to STC and Sheppard? With regard to “more centrally situated” — for the Kennedy to STC leg, since they start at the same spot, and arrive at the same spot, what would make the SSE “more centrally situated” than the LRT? Is there something special about Sheppard and McCowan that the SSE should terminate there, as opposed to the more easterly proposed terminus for the LRT? Really? Okay, change the route so the LRT terminates there. But there isn’t anything special about Sheppard and McCowan — is there? So, no offense, I am going to discount your “more centrally situated” claim.
“Effective & convenient” — I am not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that a ride from Kennedy to Sheppard will take a few minutes longer on the LRT than it would on the SSE, there are two reasons for this. First the LRT’s route is a couple of km longer, because it goes more easterly (bringing the more easterly living Scarborough residents closer to rapid transit) and because it has more stations, each of which it stops at to let riders get on or off. Those extra stations bring the LRT into walking distance of more potential riders, which most people would say increases its convenience. If you think being convenient to riders who want to walk to rapid transit is not worth making the trip time a couple of minutes longer, you don’t have to replace the LRT with heavy rail, you merely have to decide that it too will only have three stations.
The really important point you have not addressed is cost. For the $4 billion the SSE will cost this LRT could be built in Scarborough — AND a second LRT of comparable length.
Are Scarborough riders in a position to complain if the SSE is seen as fiscally irresponsible, and the LRT is built, in the end? Are they in a position to say:
Finally WRT “attractive” — I guess you have never ridden Vancouver’s SkyTrain? Its vehicles and trainsets are about the same size as the LRT, and much of its track is elevated or at grade, so riders get an attractive and entertaining view. Haven’t you ridden any of the new Flexity vehicles on Spadina? The LRT vehicles are similar. They are attractive vehicles. They provide an attractive ride.
Excuse me, your comments on how convenient riders find the Sheppard LRT — did you poll Sheppard LRT riders? Can I borrow your time machine, given the route is still in the planning stages?
WRT your argument that a Sheppard LRT will leave riders in “priority areas to the south east” underserved. Can I point out a couple of things.
First, by the time the Sheppard LRT is built the Eglinton Crosstown will already be running parallel and south of it. Wouldn’t the two lines go a long way to addressing any currently underserved priority areas between them?
Second, while the Crosstown is currently planned to curve north, so it won’t address the transit needs of riders in Scarborough’s south east corner — but didn’t the Transit City plans already include additional LRT routes that served the dense areas there?
If you don’t like the routes of those additional Transit City routes proposed for Scarborough you could lobby for the $2 billion saved by not building the SSE to be spent building an LRT going east from Kennedy along Kingston Road, or to whatever priority area in Scarborough’s south east.
Third, doesn’t the Lakeshore GO Train run through this area?
When a route is too busy buses can not do just as good a job. The last half dozen times I had to ride the Dufferin bus I couldn’t help reflecting on how that route would really be better served by streetcars.
BRT is an option. But the BRT being built in Mississauga, with its dedicated highway, just for buses, and its big stations, as large as a big LRT station, also comes with a cost.
Why did MiWay build a BRT and the TTC didn’t, other than that express route to York University? Maybe it is because once the TTC costed out the price of acquiring a right of way, and the cost of BRT stations, they thought it didn’t make sense to not run rapid transit on the right of way?
Buses are cheaper than LRT vehicles. But each little bus requires its own driver. Maybe Toronto planners prefer thought the reduced labour costs made LRT more cost effective than BRT.
See, this comment above is confusing, because in most of your comments you really do sound like you are opposed to LRT technology in general. Whereas, in this response, you sound like you merely object to the routes TTC and MetroLinx planners have proposed.
I lived in Scarborough for about a year, 25 years ago. Not long enough to be familiar with Scarborough’s neighbourhoods, and also too long ago to be up to date. So, please be more specific — if Miller’s Transit City is the option we are discussing, which large dense neighbourhoods in Scarborough are you arguing it would leave unfairly underserved?
LikeLike
I beg to differ ever so slightly. I believe that you could build an extension on the Crosstown along Kingston, the SRT replacement LRT, including its extension, and still have plenty of money in the bank to build the Morningside Loop. The expensive part is the car house, which will already have been funded in the 1st build. That is you could get 3 decent length LRTs for the price not 2.
LikeLike
Untrue. Actually I live near an area the Sheppard LRT would actually serve some use. Morningnside & Sheppard. I work all over Toronto, Scarborough & the GTA. I’m giving you my opinion for the overall benefits of the plan & why it fails. I have friends all over Scarborough & have heard all the different complaints from every corner since I moved here a few years ago.
I also didn’t say it’s not easy getting around Scarborough. Please re-read. I made it clear it’s not the #1 priority. But don’t let that reality mask all the great “facts” thrown around to try to debunk it.
The Sheppard LRT will do little to help local transit & tearing up our busy roadway for a line that doesn’t connect to a local network and connects to a subway stub doing the same direction is not real planning. It’s a complete planning failure & the benefits aerate what some of you try to shove into our backyard. Build a proper LRT network that the MAJORITY will see benefit or just don’t bother as it only disrespects other areas in need and creates a greater divide.
Steve: On the subject of needs and areas served, it is interesting that all of this criticism is directed against the LRT network (or at least the version you expect would actually be built), but not SmartTrack which seems to leave a great deal of Scarborough out in the cold.
LikeLike
I’m all for LRT if it’s planned & funded efficiently.
The SLRT route is lackluster in terms of serving Scarborough compared to the proposed Subway route. Although it could be somewhat acceptable when combined as part of a broader network.
The Sheppard LRT without the SMLRT connections is absurd. Connecting to a short subway stub in the same direction is terrible planning & without being part of a broader local network its benefits are negligible to the majority. It’s even an inconvenience to many who live near this route as it add another layer of transfer.
SMRLT – Was used as a Provincial pawn to sell the crap above. Then quickly pulled.
Like I said. Priority one is better access to the core. Priority 2 is a local network.
Both very important but if the best stab at this local network is going to be poorly integrated to the current system & underfunded to the point it leaves out large numbers of neglected areas behind. [then] it’s a BS sham and we are much healthier with a subway extension reaching out further, buses & future BRT
It really has less to do with technology & everything to do with the number of people who will benefit.
You can argue these points all you want & I know people on both side of the argument who live along Sheppard. But the fact that it’s even debatable to the citizens living near the proposed line should tell you something I hope.
My concern is more with those that are not being served at all.
LikeLike
Smarttrack is still TBD
But again if we have to choose between these oddly funded plans I believe Smarttrack & Subway Extension serves a MUCH greater purpose than a SLRT & Sheppard LRT.
Why?:
– Better access to the core job market, airport, Markham consulting jobs becomes more accessible. All north, north east, central & south east residents are now a SHORT bus commute to this well connected feeder network.
– STC becomes much more attractive to residents & therefore high rise developers. Even opportunity to become a satellite office area as it’s well connected to downtown. If not, no big deal as its a great place to live & commute to work
– BRT would still run to Durham from STC through UTSC for a convenient trip from those students travelling to an from the downtown campus
– Future Sheppard subway loop would make greater sense down the road, LRT loop to Eglinton still possible. But the reality is this become less important as residents along Sheppard are a short commute on bus to these feeders
– Doesn’t create a new layer of transit divide between North east & Mid-South east Scarborough
– No need to shut down the RT & Smarttrack covers a couple of stops previously served by the RT
The idea that a great deal of Scarborough would be out in the cold is crazy. There might be a select FEW residents on Sheppard East which may be slightly disappointing as a stop might have been by their home. but there are now minutes from a subway stop at McCowan and SmartTrack at Kennedy.
Also the traffic on bus commutes from the far East areas along Sheppard, Lawrence, Eglinton is not even bad — it’s once you hit central Scarborough it chokes up.
Kingston Rd is another issue as it’s becoming much worse. But those residents weren’t receiving anything under the LRT plan & they will now also be much closer to the main transit artery in Toronto. And if GO and TTC can ever work out a fare integration partnership one day these residents will also have amazing access to jobs.
So overall it’s a pretty good plan to build for the future of a healthier City. But again there are a few discussions to be had before I throw my full support ie.) DRL, SSE route etc. But I think you could see this plan gain more support.
LikeLike
Hmmm. You puzzle me. Since you think the Transit City LRT plan was underfunded you prefer an even more expensive heavy rail plan? Can I state the obvious? Since serving the same routes with heavy rail will be even more expensive than serving it with light rail, surely you can see that would make underfunding even more of a problem?
I already asserted that regular buses simply can’t handle a very busy route properly. You didn’t respond to this point. I’d take your silence on this as tacit agreement — if you didn’t seem to be repeating that buses can substitute for LRT.
WRT BRT, I already asserted that I do not believe a BRT system with dedicated bus only highways, on their own rights of way, with stations that are of comparable size to LRT stations are significantly cheaper than or otherwise superior to an LRT. The rolling stock might be slightly cheaper, but since a bus can only carry an order of magnitude less riders than a Flexity Freedom trainset, the TTC would have to employ an order of magnitude more drivers for that route. I’d take your silence on this as tacit agreement — if you didn’t seem to be repeating the notion that a BRT was inherently superior to an LRT.
LikeLike
@ arcticredriver
I can’t be much clearer.
– Transit City was underfunded by the province. The Subway & SmartTrack are fully funded.
Steve: Well, no SmartTrack isn’t. Council has to figure out how to pay its share, and both the alignment and the cost are unknowns. Then there is the small matter of the operating subsidy to run this as part of the TTC fare system. As for the subway, once we see what the projected ridership looks like with competition from SmartTrack, and a better estimate of the final cost, the subway project may encounter pushback from Council especially if they are trying to fund both projects in the same timeframe.
– The heavy rail doesn’t serve the exact same route you claim & is much improved in terms of route alignment & convenience. The subway is far greater at serving Scarborough’s core than the SLRT. Also SmartTrack picks up some of the left out stops from the old SLRT route. So there no comparison there. The one or 3 extra stops argument is flawed. Where are the stops positioned to affect the greatest number of commuters. And oh ya that those transfers.
– What else are we getting with the LRT plan? A Sheppard extension the connects to a short subway stub. Again what the heck are we trying to build here? I must mention is [it] separately funded & could still go ahead? But it will be determined if it’s now required. I have my doubts.
Again this is not the most optimal design in my opinion but the benefits of the subway/SmartTrack far exceed the FUNDED LRT plan.
I apologize I didn’t respond to everything and likely missed it. Are you saying buses cannot handle Sheppard once the subway & SmartTrack are built? Please clarify and I’ll respond.
I reference BRT as a FUTURE option consideration only. Whether we need buses, LRT, BRT or Subway can be decided later by our Political transit gurus. We certainly don’t need or want a patchwork LRT network now. Period.
LikeLike
ST: Sure but the Province and the Feds are in the game so sooner or later Toronto will have to come to the table as the concept and or DRL is fine tuned. Bottom line funding is there in the early stages & that’s a solid start.
Steve: The province is getting to count work they are doing anyhow for GO/RER as their “contribution” so it’s a zero cost item for them, hardly an endorsement. Metrolinx people talk fairly openly now about ST and GO/RER being effectively the same thing.
SSE: Yes we all know the honest folks at the Star, Metroland media and their team on the Left of council have been busy sharpening their narrative swords for some time. The divisive chaos should be entertaining albeit destructive & good ol’ Rofo will likely sit back light up some medicinal marijuana and watch the Left attempt to be “conservatives” at Scarborough’s expense & unintentionally (or maybe intentionally in the case of the Star?) launch him back into the Mayor’s seat next term.
Disclaimer: This isn’t an endorsement for Ford; it’s what I see as a strong possibility of what will likely happen if Tory’s ST is used to derail the SSE.
LikeLike
You amaze me. You have made vague claims that all recent LRT plans leave significant areas of disadvantaged residents of Scarborough significantly underserved. I asked you to be specific, and name those areas. Rather than be clear, you have merely continued to sound pissed off and continue to be vague.
All your comments, up until a couple of days [ago], your bitter comments implied you thought there was something wrong with LRT technology. I have bent over backwards to make an effort to really understand whatever point underlies your complaints. In doing so I got you to acknowledge that it is not LRT technology you resent, it is the layout of all the recent LRT proposals — the “Patchwork” as you call it. In my effort to really understand whatever point lies behind your complaint I suggested you name alternate paths, which would serve those areas you won’t name that you think were underserved.
So, no Joe M, I think you could have been orders of magnitude clearer.
I didn’t say it served the same route. I said it served the same endpoints. Look, I know that it is routine to employ “straw man arguments” on the general internet, where you pretend your respondent said something more foolish and easy to criticize than what they actually said, and then to mock what you pretended they say. But this is Steve’s web-site, and I suspect he won’t thank you for doing so. I do my best to not employ straw man arguments, or mock my respondents. I am doing my best to understand your points. And I would really appreciate, I am sure everyone here would really appreciate, (1) if you made more effort to be clear; (2) made a real effort to understand the points other people were making, even if they were mistaken.
WRT to the three alternate routes for the SSE that are still under consideration … I know Markham Road. My brother and sister-in-law lived just off Markham Road for about fifteen years. I know it was not an area that merited heavy rail. It is just not dense enough. Christopher Hume published a sarcastic video of Bellamy Road, which visually confirmed what other reporters have written. Bellamy is even more suburban than Markham, even less well suited for heavy rail. Hume showed a shot of the intersection of Bloor and Yonge — surrounded by highrises, with hundreds of pedestrians walking around who would need to use transit to get anywhere. He then contrasted that with a stroll down Bellamy, with one single kid walking by and suburban bungalows none of which were even two stories tall.
With an LRT plan we get several times as many kilometers of rapid transit. Will the extra capacity of a heavy rail extension actually be used? If it isn’t, then the extra two billion or more the subway costs will have been squandered, completely wasted, with the only advantages being short term ones. For a few years those Scarborough residents who resented North York getting three subway lines finally feel they are getting some of their share of funds spent in Scarborough; (2) Politicians, who should know better, and who had an obligation to spend some of their political capital educating voters, get to grab votes from those individuals who don’t, won’t or can’t understand that LRT is a more cost-effective way of spending the transit dollar.
If the extra capacity of building heavy rail is never used, or isn’t used in its first ten years, then it will have been a huge waste to squander that extra $2 billion to build that wasted capacity.
Since Scarborough residents have been lead to expect that $4 billion is now going to be spent on rapid transit in Scarborough, when the weaknesses and hidden costs of building this heavy rail extension are realized, and council goes back to extending the Crosstown to Sheppard, I completely agree that the $2 billion saved not building the wasteful heavy rail extension should be still be spent in Scarborough, on other rapid transit routes. Heck, on a BRT if that makes sense. I’ve asked you, several times, to name the route(s) to those underserved areas you vaguely claim all the recent “patchwork” LRT plans will leave underserved.
I encourage you to treat other respondents here seriously, stop being vague, and start being specific about your complaints, and start coming up with serious alternate plans.
It is my understanding that transit experts’ rule of thumb is that buses on roads shared with other vehicles max out at being able to carry only 5,000 passenger per hour. It is my understanding that, as the number of riders approach 5,000 per hour the buses start getting in one another’s way. When a bus wants to pull over into a loading area to let passengers board or unboard, the driver finds another bus is in their way.
That 5,000 is rule of thumb, and depends on other factors, like whether the bus riders have long trips or relatively short trips, and how many other vehicles share that road.
Please do everyone here a favor. Please drop the term “patchwork LRT network” from your vocabulary here, since you can’t or won’t explain why you consider Transit City a “patchwork LRT network” when it was designed by, to use your term above “transit gurus”. Rather, please be specific as to what is wrong with it. Please try to provide serious specific alternatives.
Yeah, see this kind of comment is polarizing, and unhelpful, and shuts down meaningful collegial dialogue. Can you avoid this kind of comment, as well? Transit design is not really a left-right thing, to the extent you present.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Please clarify what you call “Transit City”? Because there is a big difference between “Transit City” and what was being funded by the Province. Which in turn makes it a “patchwork LRT network”. Don’t know if that could be much clearer.
The original Transit City would have served a purpose. But you give too much credit to to these planners as even this plan had many flaws in my opinion.
This is the last time I respond to you. As your Holier than thou attitude is a bit much. Hopefully this helps.
LikeLike
@ arcticredriver
Ok I had an extra 5 minute so I decided to put my MSPaint skills in action just for you.
Even though I find you’ve been quite rude to me I try my best not to go down that route. Ill do my best to explain my point of view & if it doesn’t change you opinion that’s cool. Your entitled to it.
FUNDED “Transit City” – Grey
FUNDED Subway MCcowan – Yellow
Possible enhancement Bellamy – Black
“FUNDED GO/RER/Smarttrack” – Black
1. Please look closely at the route of the SLRT compare to the subway
a) Doesn’t cover much to the East or South East does it?
b) Should these low income commuters trying to get to the core be forced to pay almost $20 a day for TTC & GO? I consider this the 3rd class we’d be creating.
c) Where is “Transit City’s” Scarborough Malvern LRT? Good question but it’s not even in the Province’s next wave.
The Subway clearly reaches out to more with a more efficient route & shortens bus trips in
Steve: The sentence above just ends here.
2. Oh and the transfer…
No only will the subway shorten bus rides for the majority there’s no transfer. It’s a long commute still & its a great benefit for the elderly & those with kids.
3. Sheppard LRT Look close again at that map.
a) See that odd subway stub on Sheppard? Those commuters around Vic Park to McCowan with a short bus trip to the LRT will be forced to get off so after to keep going a short distance in the same direction. Is this really good planning? NO
Are you really shocked these people don’t see the benefit. Many of you seem to be
Steve: The sentence above just ends here.
b) OK now to my area Markham/Sheppard to Morningside/Sheppard. We see the most benefit. But a plan that really only strongly benefits a couple small areas. Is that really worth it? NO
c) The Sheppard subway – must be be nice to be 1st class Torontonian commuters. If they eventually extended this subway to McCowan. I’d be happier as a Morningide & Sheppard resident to have a quick bus ride to an amazing network.
d) Oh & hear hear a lot of talk about benefit as a local transit “network”. Funny I must be missing the rest of it because it seems to only run on Sheppard? That’s not a local network. That’s a “band-aid patch” to create a new 2nd class transit rider.
Now again before you pull out the anti-LRT knife again on men. I’m just comparing the plans we’ve been provided. If we could:
1.) Improve the SLRT route and/or FUND the Scarborough Malvern LRT
2.) Spend whatever money is required to FAIRLY integrate & remove the transfer on the Sheppard subway to accept LRT, abandon or whatever it takes to make it equitable & provide greater benefit, & the fairness to the Scarborough commuters USING it.
You would likely see massive surge in support for LRT.
Again apologies for my poor Paint skills. Hope this helps.
Steve: At this point, there are no more messages on this thread in the queue, and I’m calling a halt as the discussion is not serving any purpose, and eats up a good chunk of my time just to format the comments.
The fundamental problem is the debate between the network that Queen’s Park has chosen to fund which, I agree, is inadequate and superficial. However, as one of the original “doodlers on napkins” in the Transit City planning, I prefer to look at things from the point of view that a more extensive network should be built. As long as the language of “second class” Scarborough prevails, nothing, nothing but a subway (and possibly not even that) will be “acceptable” if only because some politician tells people they should want even more. The acceptability of “LRT” in Scarborough has been poisoned by political misrepresentation and, for some people, by the mistaken conflation of “LRT” with the much despised “Scarborough RT” ICTS technology. Even Olivia Chow couldn’t get that straight in her campaign.
And so everyone, this is the end. Don’t write more. I will delete it. With Gusto!
LikeLike
An update — when I attended this morning’s MetroLinx presentation I think I saw that one more “Corridor Option” had been added for SmartTrack’s Eglinton leg. Corridor Option 1C” had the UPX continue to use the Georgetown-Kitchener right of way, for several hundred meters north of Eglinton, and it then began a curve across the north of the Mount Dennis community, finally arriving back on the Eglinton Right of Way at Scarlett Road. One of the staff members said the UPX couldn’t begin that turn until it had passed all the switches that are on the tracks, or would be on the tracks north of where the Mount Dennis rail station would be located. Here is a picture. Note: they didn’t even try to show an alignment, just a vague blob.
Steve: Yes, I noticed that this alignment was included in the online presentation deck, but not in the set of drawings linked from the main page. It’s a really weird alignment.
When asked whether using a different vehicle than the GO Train’s big bi-level coaches for SmartTrack staff members all said that their current mandate was to study the feasibility of the SmartTrack proposal(s) using the existing vehicles.
When I pointed out the need for tunnels for SmartTrack, one staff member said that the city could place the SmartTrack tracks at the bottom of a trench. I think this trench suggestion was either his idea of a joke, or that staff charged with finding a way to make the nonsensical SmartTrack work planned to come up with plans that would make it “work” that were so politically poisonous even partisan politicians would recognize the route had to be abandoned.
Steve: A trench for some of those alignments through Mount Dennis would require the demolition of many buildings. This only makes sense for the section straight along Eglinton, and even that runs into the problem that the “spare” right-of-way on the north side has been sold off in spots. I cannot help think that the person you talked too doesn’t know the area particularly well. If so, that doesn’t say much for the calibre of the project team.
Another surprise for me was that same candid staff member informed me he thought the DRL tunnel would best be constructed with a single very large Tunnel Boring Machine, than with a pair of parallel smaller TBMs. He said that there was a big dip in the surface of the bedrock in the Don Valley, and it would be best for the DRL tunnel to be bored through bedrock, under the Don.
He suggested the TBM would be wide enough not only for both pair of tracks, but also for the stations.
Steve: Interesting, but I will believe it when I see it. This would also have to be used for the tunnel across downtown, not just to get under the river.
For the Crosstown’s construction, for each underground station, the first step was to excavate very tall, narrow north south trenches across Eglinton, and bounding the station’s east-west wall. The trenches were dug filled with Bentonite clay slurry, that prevented ground pressure from collapsing the trenches. When the trenches had been dug to the depth of the bottom of station’s design the Bentonite clay slurry was replaced by concrete.
Later, the TBM would bore holes right through the north-south walls. From what this guy implied, the technique used on the Crosstown stations wouldn’t work for the stations built in bedrock.
Steve: Yes, that’s the “headwall” construction technique used on Eglinton. And, yes, it does not apply to rock tunneling.
Some of the underground SkyTrain stations in downtown Vancouver had the north and south platforms vertically stacked, which I imagine would require a narrower tunnel, if both tracks are to be built into a single tunnel. It seems to me that a TBM wide enough to place a central platform between tracks going in different directions would have to bore a tunnel more than three times as wide as the TBMs used to bore tunnels that just held a single track. The amount of muck to extract would be proportional to the square of the tunnel’s diameter. 3 times as wide, nine times as much muck. The TTC has been using wider platforms on its more recent stations. Ironically, the central platforms on the little used Sheppard subway are extremely broad compared with the platforms at Osgoode station and its neighbours on the University line.
The final thing he told me that I thought merited being repeated here was that a dip in the bedrock under Highland Creek would make the SSE station being considered at McCowan and Lawrence(?) the deepest TTC station so far. He told me how many meters deep it would be. Goldarnit, I can’t remember. Deep.
I may have mentioned that the TBM in Seattle, that is being used to bury a waterfront expressway there, is reported to be the widest in the world, at 57 feet. So, if this guy is correct, how wide would the DRL’s TBM have to be. If he is correct it would seem spooky to look out the window at a huge mainly empty tunnel as you traveled between stations. Maybe they would provide nonstructural walls in the tunnel to eliminate that creepy view factor.
Steve: The SkyTrain line (the original line) through downtown Vancouver was originally a CPR tunnel and was big enough to hold two Skytrain tracks in a stacked configuration. The Canada line was built in a similar configuration, but with a new tunnel. Note that the profile of the Skytrain vehicles is smaller than a Toronto subway train. I expect that we may see the usual lobbying from Bombardier to adopt a low-profile vehicle to reduce the tunnel diameter for the DRL.
LikeLike
You mean Bombardier lobbies for the TTC to use smaller vehicles than the existing ones?
Steve: There was a time when Bombardier was actively lobbying for projects that would use, and thereby validate and assist with marketing of, their Skytrain technology. This was a major threat to the Transit City LRT plan.
Am I correct that while the Flexity Freedom vehicles are smaller than the TTC’s heavy rail rolling stock, their use of a pantograph required tunnels as wide as that used for heavy rail?
Steve: The LRVs are narrower than subway cars, but taller because of the pantograph.
LikeLike
Oh yeah, there was one other comment one of the TTC staffers made that I think is worth repeating. I remembered an idea brought up here, about a year ago. I think it may have come from you Steve.
The idea was that if a tunnel, or pair of tunnels, branched off the Yonge line, went under Canadian Tire, it could attach to the un-used platforms at Lower Bay. This would allow some trains leaving Finch to take an alternate route to the Bloor Danforth line.
I don’t remember if the original suggestion here was for those Bay-bound vehicles to short-turn, and then head back north, on Yonge, or to insert themselves into the southbound stream prior to museum.
The staff member explained that, since the TTC wanted to run trainsets as frequently as possible, diverting vehicles out of the stream left holes, and inserting vehicles into the stream required leaving holes.
Maybe this point was made here, when we originally discussed using Lower Bay, and I just didn’t understand it then. In that case I will repeat his explanation here.
He said the current maximum frequency was 110 seconds between trains, which he rounded up to two minutes. If vehicles are leaving Finch two minutes apart, but every second vehicle diverts to Lower Bay, the southbound trains at Bloor, Wellesley then arrive only four minutes apart.
Similarly, if trainsets are to inserted into the southbound stream on University Avenue, trainsets have to be spaced every four minutes apart on the Spadina line, so there are gaps for the trainsets from Lower Bay to fit in.
Alternatively, if the trains were to be inserted into the northbound stream between Bloor and Rosedale the trains would have to leave Downsview every four minutes apart to leave a gap to insert them.
He mentioned another problem. Because so many people want to get on, or get off, at Bloor, the Yonge vehicles have to keep their doors open longer, and that extra long period reduces the frequency at which trainsets can travel on the whole line.
It seems to me that this would be a problem on every rapid transit system which has busy intersections where lots of passengers need to get on or get off to transfer between those two busy lines.
I wonder, if planners anticipate that an intersection will be a particularly busy one, maybe they should build the stations with an extra pair of platforms? So, when a fully loaded Eastbound Crosstown vehicle arrives at Eglinton station, there is a choice of platforms, and the automatic train control guides it to one of them. It no longer matters if it takes twice as most of its riders exit through its four single-rider doors, as the existence of another eastbound platform allows the next eastbound trainset to pull into the other eastbound platform.
Is one of the differences between the Flexity Freedom LRT vehicles and the Flexity Outlook streetcar vehicles that the FF vehicles have doors on both sides? Then maybe the Eglinton station should be designed so vehicles can open the doors on both sides of the vehicle?
Steve: The idea of connecting into Lower Bay has been a fantasy for many years. It is physically impractical because the lower levels of several buildings are in the way. The whole issue of merging services also makes this unworkable because, even if you could build the connection, the headway needed on Spadina especially with the Vaughan extension leaves no room for additional trains coming from anywhere south of Bloor. Splitting the service at Rosedale southbound won’t solve problems with lack of capacity further north, and there is no place to get new, empty trains to add southbound at Bloor. A short-turn northbound is out of the question (a) for lack of space and (b) because short-turn trains would have to offload completely at Bloor northbound onto crowded platforms.
As for Eglinton, yes, the Metrolinx LRVs will be double-sided, double-ended cars. The TTC cars could have been built that way too, but as we don’t use stub end terminals and crossovers, that’s really not necessary. It also saves on one set of cab equipment (and the space the cab occupies) on each car. The constraint on transfer moves will be the vertical passageways between the stations, and there is a limitation on where and how many of these can be build in a constrained space. As things stand, the design calls for Eglinton Station (Yonge line) platform to shift north about 50m so that it will occupy the space now used for the entrance to the pocket track (which will be abandoned). This will place the connections from the LRT line below more centrally on the Yonge line’s platform. (It will also get rid of the problem at the south end of the existing platform where there is an unusually wide gap between the platform and the trains.)
For details, see the TTC report from 2013, notably illustration 3 of 5 in Appendix B which shows the subway platform level, as revised. It is not a perfect centering of station above station, but it’s the best possible given the existing structure’s geometry. Eglinton Station was built south of the intersection because the TTC owned the entire southwest corner for Eglinton Carhouse.
LikeLike
The other day I came across a page on LRT on the website “Rail for the valley” which discusses rapid transit in the Fraser Valley. The author of this page was arguing that LRT was better than how some were presenting it. Vancouver’s most recent rapid transit line, although completely grade separated like the two original SkyTrain lines, used more conventional technology.
The trainsets were of comparable size, speed and capacity as those used on the original SkyTrain lines. Presumably Vancouver went to conventional technology solely based on cost.
I wonder if that SkyTrain technology is inherently more expensive to build or install, or whether Bombardier artificially boosts its price to capture more revenue from buyers willing to pay a premium so they can brag their system is more futuristic?
Steve: Bombardier thought they had that contract in the bag, but as I understand things, it was carefully written to avoid a sole-source situation. The Canada line is independent of the rest of the SkyTrain network and there is no requirement for interoperability.
Could trainsets of Flexity Freedom vehicles carry a really comparable number of riders, and carry them as fast, as a Vancouver SkyTrain could carry them, if those FF trainsets were as long as a SkyTrain trainset, served stations as far apart as in Vancouver, on a completely grade-separated right of way?
Steve: The issue of capacity is always “it depends”. First off, there is the question of train length and frequency. A SkyTrain “Mark II” pair of cars (they come in pairs) measures 33.4m, or slightly longer than the Metrolinx LRVs. although the LRVs are wider. This is longer than pairs of Toronto RT cars which measure 25.4m. Speed of operation is constrained by the design of a route — how close are the stations, are there curves or grades that impose speed limits — and also by the signal system — how close can trains run to each other without needing to slow down. Automatic train control can be used on any type of train, and so spacing is not an issue provided that ATC is used (and assuming that it is actually needed). Advocates of SkyTrain always talk about the savings from unmanned operation, but this is a valid proposition only if the line is completely grade separated. That’s a capital vs operating cost issue, not to mention tradeoffs in flexibility about station placement and numbers, not to mention extensions of the line.
In the context of something like the DRL, there is a good argument to stay with “subway” technology as we know it. First off, the line will be in the demand range where LRT capacity would be stretched. Second, this is “subway territory” geographically, and it makes sense to share existing maintenance facilities at Greenwood.
LikeLike
To my mind this really also requires a couple (3) of other answers:
1. the relative cost of equipment, and tunnels to support each,
2. the relative loading of potential extensions of the line, and as an additional aside
3. the likelihood of actually setting up additional parallel capacity in the future.
1. I gather that building a subway tunnel is actually somewhat cheaper (although not so much the stations)
2. It is hard to see that the load north of Eglinton would be even vaguely close to that south of Bloor, and
3. It seems almost unthinkable in the next couple of decades we would actually set up significant parallel capacity.
Personally I see the DRL as 17 of the 19 kms of subway that is required regardless. The ST raises many questions in terms of longer term system development. If Toronto is going to make real use of the rail corridors in the east and west, it needs to create real integration, with frequent all day service, real transit support to the stations, and a workable fare. If we are going down the ST road, and want to get a real increase in transit share, LRT and bus routes need to be designed to support GO stations in a manner similar how routes are currently conceived around subway.
LikeLike
I’d read about this idea before — maybe here. It seems like a good idea.
I looked at the 2013 TTC report you mentioned. If I am interpreting those diagrams properly they will move the busbays too.
Eglinton had (still has as they haven’t been torn up yet) a row of about a dozen above ground bus-bays. The passage to the busbays was located right in the middle of the station.
After not visiting Eglinton for a long time I found that the original bus-bays had been abandoned, and new bus-bays had been constructed at the south end of the building in a very dark cavity. These new bus-bays had the feeling that they were a temporary facility, although it seems to have been in use for a long time.
I guess once the Crosstown is in use most of the bus routes that use Eglinton Station will probably connect to the TTC’s rapid transit network at the nearest Crosstown Station to where they cross Eglinton. So Eglinton Station will require a small number of bus bays.
Looking at the diagram it looks like the bus bay cavity will be moved north, made smaller and will have its geometry changed.
Steve: Yes that was to be a “temporary” facility (the slab under the old bus bays is structurally unsound) pending a somewhat earlier opening of the Eglinton LRT line. That temporary terminal is actually inside what used to be Eglinton Garage.
The actual layout of a new bus terminal is unknown today, and what is in those drawings is a placeholder. Once the LRT opens, there will only be a few services left on the surface — a Yonge 97 and an Eglinton 32/34 providing supplementary services. A terminal with the number of bays shown there will not be required. After construction, the site will be redeveloped for offices or condos, but with TTC/Metrolinx facilities in part of the ground level.
Many new TTC stations have a bus bay design where the rider takes an escalator up from the mezzanine into an Island, surrounded by bus bays. This design has two advantages over the parallel bus bay design as originally at Eglinton, and later at Islinton and Warden. First, if there are two or more buses you can take to your destination, you can see which bus arrives first, and take it. Two, getting to the other bus bay requires merely walking across the Island. If I am understanding this design a rider might have to navigate past many riders, to get to a bus bay on the other side of the “U” shaped structure, and their other bus might have come and gone before they get there.
If they were going to alter the design, again, I wonder why they did not use the Central Island design?
Steve: As I said, the design shown is a placeholder, and with the small amount of service that will remain, they won’t need a big island. This will also give more flexibility for design of whatever will sit on top. The big reason these days for using island platforms is accessibility. One set of escalators and one elevator can serve the shared platform. Islington and Warden both have proposals for new bus terminals, but they are associated with development plans that have not yet proceeded.
LikeLike
Steve, I took another look at the interesting 2013 report (thanks for telling us about it again). I had seen artist conceptions of what some of the other Crosstown stations would look like, and it seemed to me the artist’s conceptions showed a wider central platform. The central platform on the stations on the Sheppard line seem to be wider than the platforms on all the older lines. That is ironic, given how little use it sees.
Well Yonge and Eglinton station, or Midtown Eglinton, or whatever they call it, is almost certainly going to be the busiest station. And yet, looking at the diagram, the central platform isn’t that wide. If any Crosstown station merited an extra wide platform it would be this station.
I liked that there seemed to be a route for Crosstown riders to go directly to the bus-bays, without mixing with riders going to the Yonge line.
Steve: Although there will only be a handful of not very frequent services left at this station.
The diagram on page 15 of the 2013 report shows part of the central platform in brown, for “paid area”, surrounded by a larger turquoise area, which the legend labels “back of house”. I presumed the brown represents the initial size of the passenger accessible portion of the central platform, and that the turquoise area on this level is everything enclosed between the concrete box built for the station. If this is so is the reason the box is so much larger than the passenger portion of the platform in case demand increases to the point longer trainsets and longer platforms are needed?
Steve: The area to the east is for the crossover — note the arrangement of the walls. To the west, I don’t know what they need all those rooms for. If you compare this station with the layouts for other stops on the project’s website, you will see that there is considerably less “extra” space beyond the platforms. If they were protecting for longer trains, they would be doing this all along the line.
LikeLike
Your article today reminded me of one more thing worth repeating from my discussion with officials at the public meeting last Saturday. I discussed with one official, Mike, a planner, a short muscular guy with a firm handshake — maybe you know him?
Anyhow, we discussed whether a DRL that only went as far north as Danforth would be of much help to the riders on Yonge who can’t board a southbound train because they filled up at the stations north of them. He said studies showed it would help. He told me that they estimated that phase 1 of the DRL, the downtown to Danforth leg would divert 700 southbound riders from Yonge per hour. 700 riders per hour? I pointed out that that was about one train-set. (Less than one at “crush” density actually.) So, phase one of the DRL would be of practically no benefit to those southbound Yonge riders.
Personally, one train per hour didn’t strike me as very significant.
I asked if the Danforth to Eglinton leg would cost approximately as much as the Downtown to Danforth leg. I don’t remember a firm answer. One of the recent links you provided showed a map with two boxes, an inner box showing the region where phase one of the DRL would go, and a much larger box, that had its northern boundary north of Richmond Hill — showing the areas where riders would benefit from the DRL. Am I wrong that a DRL won’t really pay off for those Yonge riders until its northernmost station, the one that diverts a lot of 905 and north Toronto bus routes, from Finch and Yonge, is quite far north?
If it makes sense to have a subway at Highway 7 and Jane, with lots of busbays, for those 905 commuters, surely it makes sense to have a DRL station with lots of busbays at far north as we can afford, concentrating bus riders there, instead of feeding the Yonge line? Should that northernmost DRL station meet the easternmost station of the Sheppard subway? Is there room for lots of busbays at Don Mills station, the current eastern terminus? Would bringing the northernmost DRL station to a big station on the Sheppard East LRT be just as good?
How much more useful would a DRL that pulls into the same BD station as a Don Mills LRT be at diverting some of the southbound riders on the Yonge line? Maybe he didn’t discuss this with me because no Don Mills LRT is currently funded?
Steve: It is quite clear that the people working on the DRL segment of the current round of consultations are totally in the dark about the material in the Metrolinx report on “relief”. This makes me wonder about just how close the alleged “co-operation” between the City and Metrolinx actually is. Of course, the City is working with the old TTC view of the DRL stopping at Danforth which, as the numbers suggest, isn’t an ideal “solution”.
LikeLike
When is the last time you have been to Ottawa? This certainly is possible; 10000/hour is roughly an articulated bus every 30 seconds. Keep in mind that there are other bus routes serving the Airport Corporate Centre area and there is walk in traffic to Airport Corporate Centre and Pearson Airport, so the Transitway itself does not need to be carrying 10000/hour. Also I would not be surprised to eventually see an Eglinton LRT extension replacing the Transitway as far as Square One.
Steve: I did not say it was not possible, only that the traffic to the airport would have multiple origins and the vehicles carrying riders would not arrive via a single corridor.
I think that you are assuming that few people will use transit to the airport area and that everyone will keep driving. Metrolinx figures say that there are 245,000 people working near the airport and 40,000 at the airport itself. I’m not sure how many come from Toronto, how many come from Mississauga and Brampton and how many come from elsewhere (I am primarily concerned about people coming from Toronto) but that is a huge number. The traffic in the airport area is so bad that I have a hard time believing that more people won’t use transit once it is improved. I’m not sure what percentage of these workers travel in peak times and which percentage travel off peak, but LRT can carry around 30,000 people during a 3 hour rush hour. This is not much considering that there are almost 300,000 people working in that area.
I’m sure that you will see very high loads like this transferring to buses at the ends of the Ottawa LRT once it is built. Keep in mind that “LRT” in Ottawa has a far higher capacity than Eglinton (24,000/hour, almost as high as a subway). The LRT on Eglinton does not have a very high capacity and it was a very dubious political decision to build it rather than an elevated subway. There needs to be as many ways as possible of avoiding the likely overcrowded Eglinton LRT such as SmartTrack, various GO lines, the Don Mills subway, etc. Also GO does not have a very high capacity because of Union Station capacity limitations (a train every 15 minutes is less than LRT), so I am worried that GO lines will become overcrowded as well. If you build both Eglinton LRT and SmartTrack to Pearson Airport, then you get almost double the capacity compared to LRT alone.
Steve: Yes, but what does that have to do with people arriving specifically via the Transitway, and then transferring to the Eglinton line rather than ending their journey at the airport? That is the point I was making that you challenged.
LikeLike
Steve, I think you told us that you don’t feel you have enough homework, or otherwise lack the background, to offer informed opinions on the transit issues in other cities. I hope you will allow me to ask about this Ottawa assertion.
Ottawa uses low floor vehicles that don’t look that different from the Flexity Freedom vehicles that are planned for use in Toronto, Mississauga, Hamilton and Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge. If I have this correct, the higher capacity Andrew asserts for the Ottawa system is due to (1) more complete grade separation; (2) longer train-sets; (3) less frequently spaced stations; (4) signalling systems that allow for greater vehicle frequency — or a combination there-of. Have I got that right? Faster vehicles, on the other hand, wouldn’t really make a difference, as station spacing would keep vehicles being able to use that extra speed.
So, Andrew, can you explain where your assertion that the Ottawa LRT’s greater capacity came from?
Steve: When I talk about staying away from other cities’ issues, it is from a lack of detailed knowledge of local politics and history which are integral parts of the context for my writing about Toronto. That doesn’t prevent me from looking at the basics.
The capacity cited for the Alstom Citadis Spirit cars varies depending on the length of the unit (which in turn is a question of how many sections in its modular design). The basic unit is 30m (similar to the Bombardier cars for TTC and Metrolinx). By the time the length gets up to 48m, the claimed capacity is 300/car, and at 59m, 370/car. (See video.)
As a cross reference, a T1 subway car in Toronto is 23m long and has a service design capacity of about 170 based on peak load of 1,000/train. That’s comfortable standing load, not crush which can go to 200/car or a bit more. It is important when calculating capacity to distinguish between service design load and peak capacity because the latter cannot be sustained for a route with strong turnover along the line not to mention issues with platform space and circulation.
The numbers cited for Ottawa are a bit higher on a passengers per linear metre of car than the Toronto LRVs, but not excessively. Given that the line will operate more like a “surface subway” than a streetcar line with frequent stops and high turnover, let’s use 200/car for a 30m vehicle. For 24k/hour, that requires 120 cars/hour or a 2-car train every 60 seconds; 3-car trains would take the headway up to 90 seconds and 4-car trains to 120 seconds.
Because the line is completely grade separated, this frequency and train size can be achieved. The question for any corridor, however, must be what capacity is needed? Projected demand on Eglinton, particularly on its surface section is very much lower than 24k/hour.
Ideally, with proper planning, your staff anticipate when a route will become overcrowded early enough that you can take measures to address that overcrowding.
Over on the wikipedia I came across a notion called the “premetro”. I’d never heard of it before, but the notion seems to be about as old as the term “light rail”. Its diehard fans seem convinced that cities can save costs, when building rapid transit, if they skip the cost of building heavy rail, by initially installing only light rail, but building the line so it can be “easily” be upgraded to heavy rail, when demand requires.
The notion overlooks two things: first, if building the line so it can be easily be upgraded means: (1) restricting curves to heavy rail’s broad turning circle; (2) building stations long enough for heavy rail trainsets, and with wide enough passages for all the passengers a heavy rail can carry — well haven’t you eaten up much of the cost savings to be found using light rail, with zero immediate benefit?
Second, upgrading the line, when demand requires, means taking the line out of commission, right when it is busy. We saw that replacing the linear technology of the SRT with the more conventional technology of the Flextiy Freedom vehicles wasn’t going to require a “temporary” replacement of the line with a huge number of shuttle buses — for years.
Ideally, having anticipated that a line will be reaching its maximum capacity, we will already know we can fund parallel line that can be completed in time to take some of the load, before the original line’s maximum capacity is exceeded.
So, if the Eglinton line is ten years away from exceeding its maximum capacity, we begin a Lawrence route, or reasonable equivalent. Far enough away that it attracts a whole different population of walking distance commuters, but near enough that, for some riders, it will be just as attractive an alternate route, or an even more attractive alternate route, than the line it supplements.
I repeat, supplementing busy LRT or BRT routes with additional routes, rather than upgrading them to heavy rail does not require taking a busy route out of service for years, right when it is most needed.
Are you overlooking a key limiting factor to using buses on really busy routes? Busy arterial roads have little cut-outs, large enough for a bus to pull out of traffic, while passengers board, or get off. This eliminates holding up traffic for the entire boarding, unboarding operation. But, if you run too many buses on a route, drivers will want to navigate their buses into those cutouts, because passengers have to get off, only to find they can’t, because another bus is already using that cut-off. The result is that second bus ends up blocking traffic, while it waits for the first bus to free up the resource.
Is it acceptable to devote an entire lane to buses, as on certain sections of Eglinton now? But doesn’t doing so largely erode the criticism that running the LRT down to the middle of the road eats up two lanes so they can’t be used by cars?
Steve: This is precisely the problem Ottawa faces with its bus network. They built dedicated roadways (mini bus expressways), but when all of this converges onto on-street operation downtown, there simply isn’t enough capacity.
I am always amused by arguments that BRT can do everything we need, provided that we run saturation service, but then take a leap to the very high end of “LRT” with a design that is in striking distance of a subway line. The whole point of “LRT” is to address a continuum of capacities in between.
LikeLike
The thing is that it really does come down to the space that can dedicate, and the cost of operations no? Does it make sense to build station and occupy the space required to support of bus every 30 seconds – when the same capacity can be achieved with a station designed to support a vehicle every 3 or so minutes – and this is more likely to be able to be worked in with signals etc. The question in my mind, is that if you do start with BRT, do you design it so you leave yourself a viable option to convert, and if required a place that can actually support saturation service.
Downtown Ottawa, both in the terminus at Rideau, and across the core was always an issue, until the buses got back into their truly dedicated roadways. I do not see where in Toronto, that you would not run into the same problem near and at the subway station, without a new subway line, that ran in areas with much large approaching road allowances, and with the construction of a massive set of bus bays.
LikeLike