GTA Transit Thread

[sober2ndthought]

Originally Posted by nname

Count the number of at-grade crossings. I see only 4 outside Downtown from the Calgary one - one is freeway off-ramp, and another is side street with station access.
]

Yep your right. What about Edmonton, there were many more.

Every time the grade separated in those videos, the LRT was moving from one road to another. Also if you note the LRT blocked off a lot of potential intersections, see the plans for Eglington a number of intersections will be blocked off by the New LRT thus reducing the number of at-grade crossings.

The problem with the NW line is that NW grew in a fashion which made building the LRT very difficult. So the line had to travel diagonally as opposed to a straight line. That and the political difficulties of building the line because it ran in a very developed urban community meant the city had to do more grade separation on the NW line.

The Northern portions of the NE Line (McKnight-Westwinds - Franklin Station) in Calgary pretty much identical to the route Eglinton will travel. I can't find a good video of it but here are a few which show it:

Here is most of the line:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZqVB...eature=related

Here is the trip from the more northern stations:
1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWI7OqrOBRQ
2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzEuzh2Gg9M

There are plenty of at grade intersections on that line. The new extensions Northward continue the tradition of many at-grade intersections.

Look at how many at-grade Intersections you see here in the future West LRT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvFz6LR-3fs

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by haljackey

No one will go for road tolls. If you want funding, balance the budgets! Get the Province to get rid of niceties like the Catholic School System and use that money elsewhere on projects like transit in municipalities.

Catholic Schools are constitutionally guaranteed, so you can't get rid of those. What the province should do is curb spending and the size of its workforce across the board, not just focus and target certain sections that make for easy finger-pointers.

For the record, as an avid driver I believe Road Tolls are very appropriate for severely congested roadways. If your time is valuable enough, then you can justify the toll. This is what makes Highway 407 such a pleasure to drive. Toll lanes for the DVP and the Gardiner would be a wonderful idea (that bus lane on the DVP right now? Make it a toll lane. $2.00 trip charge + $1.00 per kilometre). What I have a problem with is uniform congestion charging, since it's just a form of blanket discrimination that makes no allowance for the cost of time. It's also an excellent way to hurt a downtown core that will be facing stiff competition from the suburban belt in the near future. I also have a problem with road tolls that will no doubt be funnelled to fund govrnment waste... which is likely what will happen with these.

Originally Posted by dennis1

No Just making the point that for some unknown reasons the transit is expensive.

The reason isn't exactly unknown, it likely originates from those who plan and manage the construction of these lines. Read: The TTC.

Originally Posted by dennis1

There is filled in stations at Queen and Osgoode. Queen is closer to downtown. If the DRL is at union, then you have to move the Union streetcars. Union is closer to the lake. The Sheppard line should go across the Humber to Humber College, at least ensuring that the entire line does not lose as much money. Finch West-Sheppard would create and acutally serviceable route. Downsivew to STC is sitll a stub.

But extending the subway to Downsview already helps the students who commute to York University immensely. Anyone coming in from the East is going to benefit from that connection. Closing the gap should be priority #1, we can focus on getting a subway further west later on.

On the topic of the DRL, the downtown is centred on the Financial District, which is on King street. It's equidistant between Queen and Union. And since Union is already the main transportation hub, it should receive priority. Although there is definitely an argument to be made for running it along Queen- that way we could rip up the streetcar tracks between Roncesvalles and Broasview, and finally break up the 501 into two more manageable routes (maybe bring back the 507 Long Branch?)

[sober2ndthought]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

That maps is totally what we need. The only thing is, who says it needs to be all subways?

There is room there for using elevated (skytrain) trains in sections.

And as for cost, why does it need to cost so much? My friend and I were talking about this the other day, and costs to build rapid transit in Toronto are out of whack. Using Skytrain technology, Vancouver built about 25 km of rapid transit, including tunnel sections, for the same cost it would take Toronto to build 6 km of rapid transit.

And you can't blame union workers or a living wage on this. European cities also complete rapid transit projects for less money, yet have even stronger work standards and wage controls.

Vancouver is running only two car trains which are far narrower than Toronto's so that reduces building costs when it comes time to building stations and tunnels. As well the elevated sections were built on top of the route for the 98 B-Line, which was a dedicated bus lane so that helped reduce land expropriation costs.

Vancouver, unlike Toronto, also does long range Urban Planning. The Right of Way for the Canada Line was acquired many years ago. When the plan for the Canada Line was first laid, the city began preparing the area for a future transit line such as moving utilities during routine maintainence and once the funding for that line came through the construction went unimpeded.

Calgary does this as well. The area for the 8th Avenue Tunnel has already had the utilities moved and the city built an LRT tunnel under City Hall when the building was expanded. The surface sections get the same treatment; as the city grows, the city identifies potential future LRT routes and preserves rights of way before the land is developed.

Toronto seems to have a policy of funding everything as soon as the plan is laid then changing the plan every 2 years. So there is no long term strategic planning and thus Toronto ends up paying considerably higher costs for transit construction.

I am not going to comment on other factors, as I don't have the facts on it, but geology may have played a role as well.

[sober2ndthought]

Originally Posted by dennis1

Sheppard will be subway, probably road tolls along with it. A PPP should work, but this is Toronto. It would screw up fast.

Sheppard probably should be left a lone for a while. I just don't see the justification in expanding the subway, and I agree with most people the idea of building an LRT extension to the Subway is just ridiculous.

The focus for the time being should be on Finch, Eglinton and replacing the Scarborough RT.

[sober2ndthought]

Originally Posted by osmo

The C-train is a ugly system. The infrastructure is imposing and creates carriers at-grade. Sure its fast as hell but we are not Europe where we can run at high speeds with residents being smart and cautious about how they walk.

In fairness the system in Calgary was intentionally built ugly. It was rushed for the '88 Olympics and the city cut corners to save construction costs. Plus that picture you posted is a section of the LRT running next to a CP Rail line, so that area is ugly in general.

Compare Calgary's LRT to Edmonton's LRT and you notice it built much better, it is better integrated into the urban fabric and it still travels at about the same speed.



• Video Link

• Video Link

Calgary is starting to get the idea, the newer stations are way better integrated into the urban fabric but they could still do better.

[dennis1]

Originally Posted by Wharn

Catholic Schools are constitutionally guaranteed, so you can't get rid of those. What the province should do is curb spending and the size of its workforce across the board, not just focus and target certain sections that make for easy finger-pointers.

I thought we only had catholic schools because of some silly deals from years ago. Quebec doesn't have any.

For the record, as an avid driver I believe Road Tolls are very appropriate for severely congested roadways. If your time is valuable enough, then you can justify the toll. This is what makes Highway 407 such a pleasure to drive. Toll lanes for the DVP and the Gardiner would be a wonderful idea (that bus lane on the DVP right now? Make it a toll lane. $2.00 trip charge + $1.00 per kilometre). What I have a problem with is uniform congestion charging, since it's just a form of blanket discrimination that makes no allowance for the cost of time. It's also an excellent way to hurt a downtown core that will be facing stiff competition from the suburban belt in the near future. I also have a problem with road tolls that will no doubt be funnelled to fund govrnment waste... which is likely what will happen with these.

Agreed.

The reason isn't exactly unknown, it likely originates from those who plan and manage the construction of these lines. Read: The TTC.

But extending the subway to Downsview already helps the students who commute to York University immensely. Anyone coming in from the East is going to benefit from that connection. Closing the gap should be priority #1, we can focus on getting a subway further west later on.

On the topic of the DRL, the downtown is centred on the Financial District, which is on King street. It's equidistant between Queen and Union. And since Union is already the main transportation hub, it should receive priority. Although there is definitely an argument to be made for running it along Queen- that way we could rip up the streetcar tracks between Roncesvalles and Broasview, and finally break up the 501 into two more manageable routes (maybe bring back the 507 Long Branch?)

With the subway crossing Finch, fine. But what about those at Bayview who go to humber? Union is already too crowed, we should not be trying to squeeze it with people who already live here. I agree about the street cars. Perhaps kill those two you mention and just run King?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by dennis1

I thought we only had catholic schools because of some silly deals from years ago. Quebec doesn't have any.

Separate Catholic schools in Ontario are constitutionally guaranteed. Quebec used to have them but it made a constitutional amendment with the federal government about 10-15 years ago to get rid of them.

That said, I am not an Ontario Catholic school supporter but even if they were abolished and all schools were public, you'd still have to pay to have those kids educated. Of course, I guess you would save quite a bit on administrative costs and even duplication in some cases.

[sober2ndthought]

Originally Posted by 66days

Madrid has received billions from the Spanish government and the EU to build their transportation system. Toronto, on the other hand, has been starved of funds and suffered from lack of investment from the federal government for decades.

Before commenting on Madrid read the following about the
Madrid Metro

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by sober2ndthought

Vancouver is running only two car trains which are far narrower than Toronto's so that reduces building costs when it comes time to building stations and tunnels. As well the elevated sections were built on top of the route for the 98 B-Line, which was a dedicated bus lane so that helped reduce land expropriation costs.

Vancouver, unlike Toronto, also does long range Urban Planning. The Right of Way for the Canada Line was acquired many years ago. When the plan for the Canada Line was first laid, the city began preparing the area for a future transit line such as moving utilities during routine maintainence and once the funding for that line came through the construction went unimpeded.

Calgary does this as well. The area for the 8th Avenue Tunnel has already had the utilities moved and the city built an LRT tunnel under City Hall when the building was expanded. The surface sections get the same treatment; as the city grows, the city identifies potential future LRT routes and preserves rights of way before the land is developed.

Toronto seems to have a policy of funding everything as soon as the plan is laid then changing the plan every 2 years. So there is no long term strategic planning and thus Toronto ends up paying considerably higher costs for transit construction.

I am not going to comment on other factors, as I don't have the facts on it, but geology may have played a role as well.

The Canada Line cars are not noticeably narrower than the TTC cars.

[sober2ndthought]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

The Canada Line cars are not noticeably narrower than the TTC cars.

Canada Line cars are 9 ft 10 in 2 car trains in while the Mark 2 are 5 feet 3 in, and the Toronto's Transit cars are 10 feet 4 in.

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by sober2ndthought

Before commenting on Madrid read the following about the
Madrid Metro

A lot of the differences mentioned by Munro are TTC management and planning issues. If you can save money by running labour 24 hours per day, why is it not being done? It would also certainly speed up construction and minimize disruption from any cut-and-cover operations. High wages are an issue. Implementation of slurry walls would be a good idea.

He also mentioned smaller tunnels, which the TTC may want to look into for future isolated lines (like the Eglinton or DRL). It would create a two-size system similar to London, England: the Piccadilly line has very small, narrow tunnels and as a result it uses smaller trains than the rest of the Underground. No problem though, since it still moves a huge number of people very efficiently.

Originally Posted by dennis1

With the subway crossing Finch, fine. But what about those at Bayview who go to humber? Union is already too crowed, we should not be trying to squeeze it with people who already live here. I agree about the street cars. Perhaps kill those two you mention and just run King?

Union is being expanded and updated, no? It can take the additional capacity. I've been through Union many times during rush hour and it's not nearly half as bad as King, Queen and Bloor. Running the line along King would not be a half-bad idea, but King is not as busy as Queen and the 501 is far more deserving of a break-up than the 504.

[nname]

Originally Posted by sober2ndthought

Yep your right. What about Edmonton, there were many more.

[...]

The Northern portions of the NE Line (McKnight-Westwinds - Franklin Station) in Calgary pretty much identical to the route Eglinton will travel. I can't find a good video of it but here are a few which show it:

Pick the segment outside Downtown Core that have the most at-grade crossings:
Calgary (Whitehorn - Franklin): 2.2 (1.2) crossings per km
Edmonton (Health Science - Century Park): 2.2 (0.8) crossings per km
Eglinton (Victoria Park - Kennedy): 3.2 (1.9) crossings per km

And from the original LRT plan in Vancouver:
Evergreen (Lougheed - Douglas): 2.0 (0.9) crossings per km

() denotes major crossing. Note that Eglinton's plan have way more crossings compared to any of the existing or planned line.

And regarding Evergreen Line.. there are 13 major crossings for the 11km of the route. One of them is already grade separated from the original proposal. After the project was approved and construction was soon to begin, they found out that its not feasible to run 2 crossings at grade (which I agree), so they build both crossings underground and increase the cost of the project. For the 10 remaining major crossings, the train would only have partial signal priority for 5 of them (the train may stop at intersections, or they will held at station longer, for up to two minutes, to wait for the light)... And that's when the project starting to fall apart...

Hopefully TC can do better than that...

[sober2ndthought]

Originally Posted by nname

And regarding Evergreen Line.. there are 13 major crossings for the 11km of the route. One of them is already grade separated from the original proposal. After the project was approved and construction was soon to begin, they found out that its not feasible to run 2 crossings at grade (which I agree), so they build both crossings underground and increase the cost of the project. For the 10 remaining major crossings, the train would only have partial signal priority for 5 of them (the train may stop at intersections, or they will held at station longer, for up to two minutes, to wait for the light)... And that's when the project starting to fall apart...

Hopefully TC can do better than that...

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that Transit City will eliminate a number of minor intersections. The only intersections which will remain will be those at major arterial roads. Calgary eliminated quite a few minor intersections in between Whitehorn Station and Franklin Station.

The traffic priority at intersections definitely is the problem. The city shouldn't give in to auto mobiles in that case, give it full signal priorty. The city doesn't necessary need crossing arms, Houston doesn't use crossing arms all over the city in many case the lights just change for the rail line. But it changes as soon as the LRT drives by. Hopefully Torontians are smarter than Texans:
• Video Link

But considering they voted for Rob Ford I doubt it.

[nname]

From the TC plan, it seems like most minor intersections will be upgraded to serve as a U-Turn route (since left-turns will be prohibited in many major intersections). So instead of closing, they're making them bigger.

[sober2ndthought]

Originally Posted by nname

From the TC plan, it seems like most minor intersections will be upgraded to serve as a U-Turn route (since left-turns will be prohibited in many major intersections). So instead of closing, they're making them bigger.

Are you sure? See the following.

[nname]

That's the same plan I was looking... Instead of one single intersection, they made 3 - one large one and 2 for left turns.

The one I was looking was actually part3, which applies to the Eglinton East segment. Look at Birchmount Stop (page 5) for example. They didn't close any minor intersection, but instead, they are adding a new type of movement that make the intersection more complex.

[sober2ndthought]

Originally Posted by nname

That's the same plan I was looking... Instead of one single intersection, they made 3 - one large one and 2 for left turns.

The one I was looking was actually part3, which applies to the Eglinton East segment. Look at Birchmount Stop (page 5) for example. They didn't close any minor intersection, but instead, they are adding a new type of movement that make the intersection more complex.

To me that seems more like lessons learned from the Calgary mistake. Left turns on 36th Avenue is a pain during rush hour largely due to the left turn cycle which is constantly interrupted by the LRT which triggers a new cycle.

Again, I am no expert If we did this instead, we would could have this avoided mistake.

[miketoronto]

The Houston example shows why median LRT is not really rapid transit.
Due to the issue of cars, LRT trains in the median of a road, can not achieve high speeds, unless they are fenced off like in Calgary (which would not be done in Toronto), and have railway crossing arms.

As this ride on the Houston LRT shows, it is slow when you operate in the middle of a street.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U39NY...eature=related

[sober2ndthought]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

The Houston example shows why median LRT is not really rapid transit.
Due to the issue of cars, LRT trains in the median of a road, can not achieve high speeds, unless they are fenced off like in Calgary (which would not be done in Toronto), and have railway crossing arms.

As this ride on the Houston LRT shows, it is slow when you operate in the middle of a street.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U39NY...eature=related

If you watched that whole video, you would see the LRT picks up quite a bit of speed. See around the 3 minute mark.

Every video you have picked showing the horrors of LRT are videos in dense urban environments. Not in suburban environments. Calgary's LRT slows down in the dense urban areas of the city as well. See the following video:

• Video Link

The LRT has no choice in those areas because the dense urban environment does not support high speed traffic. Toronto will run the LRT in tunnel in dense urban areas while in surface areas the Eglinton LRT will be running in an area like this one:
• Video Link

There the LRT is travelling at about 80 KM/H between stations. That is a pretty decent speed if you ask me.

Finally as for fenced, see page 11 of this report. The LRT dips into the roadway and I believe I see sketches for a fence.

[miketoronto]

Transit City will not operate like the Calgary LRT.

First of all, the Calgary LRT has wider spaced stops, and total signal priority, and fencing(in terms of that video, concrete walls) as I said. Transit City will have none of this, and the reports on Transit City show it will be no faster than the current bus service in the corridor.

If Transit City was going to be fast like the Calgary video you just posted, I would fully support it. But the fact is it will be nothing like Calgary, and we will be spending $8 billion with very little improvement over the current buses.