[Voltz]

I don't even know where all this LRT hatred really comes from, there must be a portal to an alternate dimension open,

the choice for the Scarborough LRT was to rebuild it entirely to use an objectively inferior transit mode, meaning at the end you spend more money for something objectively worse.

The service provided would have been the same either way, unless it snows, then good luck LIM, and nothing was ever mentioned about the cost of an LRT being higher, if anything, having a another fleet type with its own yard could not have been cheaper. Just what would have costed so much more with an LRT here?

 

[KhalilHeron]

I don't even know where all this LRT hatred really comes from, there must be a portal to an alternate dimension open,


The service provided would have been the same either way, unless it snows, then good luck LIM, and nothing was ever mentioned about the cost of an LRT being higher, if anything, having a another fleet type with its own yard could not have been cheaper. Just what would have costed so much more with an LRT here?

the price of the LRT would have been a lot higher than upgrading the rt to newer trains (including upgrading all of the systems needed to facilitate this upgrade. If the new stations planned for the lrt were built as new rt stations with the new trains it still would have been cheaper. I have no problem with the lrt plan if it was originally built like that but I don't see how paying more to downgrade a system to lower capacity trains was ever attractive.

 

[Voltz]

the price of the LRT would have been a lot higher than upgrading the rt to newer trains (including upgrading all of the systems needed to facilitate this upgrade. If the new stations planned for the lrt were built as new rt stations with the new trains it still would have been cheaper

How and why, what was so different?

 

[KhalilHeron]

How and why, what was so different?

I- because a new fleet, new systems and maybe a relocation of the Kennedy platform is a lot less expensive than all of that plus entire new tracks, catenaries, rebuilding of many parts of all the stations... The lrt was estimated to cost 1.8 billion (2013 dollars I believe) vs 190 million (2006 dollars). Both of those seem like low estimates but there is absolutely no argument for the lrt being the cheapest option.

 

[afransen]

im wondering what would be cheaper, a snow shed or heating the nickel plated rail.

It only needs to be heated during significant snowfall, which is not that frequent in Toronto. I guess the big challenge is maintaining the heaters, not so much the energy cost.

 

[Rainforest]

I have a question, it's probably been answered before but this thread is huge. Does LIM reliability actually suffer during snowfall or very cold temperatures? I do see a large uptick in delays and shutdowns on the RT during the winter (before the world ended, I used to ride the RT Monday-Friday to get to DT) - but is that a product of the technology itself (which I've heard people say) or is it a result of deferred maintenance combined with old, wonky trains? Or perhaps this particular implementation of LIM tech (ICTS?) was not up-to-par with Toronto's environment?

Now if LIM in general is indeed unreliable in our environment when compared to subways/LRTs, well RIP. But if it isn't, then we're building a 6+ billion dollar subway just because we don't like to climb 3 flights of stairs at Kennedy, lol. The transfer does become an issue during crush hour when that terminal becomes very crowded, but we could just fix that transfer for less money if we need to (i.e., build a short tunnel and dig a new station box, then demolish the elevated guideway).

I believe this actually splits into two separate questions. One: is it possible to upgrade/refurb the SRT line to something newer and more reliable, but serving the same role between Kennedy to STC. The other: is it worth building the more expensive subway rather than accepting a less expensive SRT refurb.

The answer to the first question is a definite yes. Some already mentioned that the LIM reaction rail can be heated, or the whole line roofed to protect from snow. Furthermore, retaining the LIM propulsion is not a must. One can replace the LIM rolling stock with conventional rotary-motor rolling stock. A bigger issue is the size of cars; small cars have a hard time handling the existing demand, while bigger cars, no matter LIM or rotary, will necessitate rebuilding parts of the system. But that's all doable.

The second question is conceptual rather than technical, and the opinions are obviously split. IMO, the subway extension makes sense even though it is more expensive than the SRT refurb. The subway extension will result in a subway network spread somewhat evenly across the 416. On the contrary, forever ending the subway at Kennedy would result in a situation where most of the city is within a reasonably short distance from at least one subway station, but a large triangle in the east (much of Scarborough) is far from any subway. A brief glance at the 416 map with TTC subways can illustrate that.

The ridership projections for SSE aren't stellar but decent; about twice the peak ridership of the Sheppard subway, and 4x the peak ridership of the planned Eglinton West tunnel. So, choosing between something that costs $6B and will make the residents happy, vs something that costs $3B and will cause future contention because of the lopsided subway coverage, I'd rather go for the first option.

Now, many people have strong opinions on this matter, and some will hit the Reply buttons to tell how much they hate SSE. I'm not sure I should bother responding to those. Everyone can have their opinion, but the matter had been debated repeatedly and there is little benefit in rehearsing the debate for the 10-th or 15-th time.

I just hope the tunneling contract gets awarded in Spring 2021, and then - long wait ahead, but eventually the subway will run.

 

[TRONto]

Ok ok, these posts are getting out of hand but there’s definitely an unhealthy romanticism for transit city. I don’t comment much here these days but I will say this.

1) LRT is not slower than a bus because it’s got a high top speed is a silly argument, that’s like arguing that bikes are faster than most road traffic because going down a hill in perfect aero you can hit some crazy speed. LRTs that we are building are limited to traffic speeds, and because we (surprise to no one) won’t give good priority, they will sometimes be slower than buses because they will be caught behind turning cars etc.

2) If you’re building an LRT on Don Mills good luck justifying a subway anytime soon...

3) The linear transfer at Don Mills is an incredibly bad thing, it’s a symptom of transit planning based on a transit map than so many here are often critical of, there is not reason this should be the “real world”. I’ll note to you that our LRT lines are costing more than subways in some developed countries so this idea that we are getting a great deal with them is false. The transit city lines are being build because the political stars aligned, it’s not because they are sensible. Finch West is most likely not going to be faster than an express bus service would be and Eglinton has tons of well documented issues.

On the whole you are probably right that transit city supporters supported it because something is better than nothing. But that’s a prettttttty low bar to have for a massive transit spending spree. The truth is too, that both the LRT and Subway people are pretty much equally dogmatic just in opposite directions. If we dumped LRT and did stuff the way Vancouver has been for decades now we could have had the speed of the subway with a cost barely above our LRTs (as evidenced by Vancouver’s per km costs). But that would mean people need to accept that the blow back from stupid subway plans, were stupid LRT plans.

A couple things about the points
1) LRT vs BRT is about capacity. Speed on both could be exactly the same, the difference is in capacity. Due to the nature of the infrastructure, if LRT was stuck behind a car at a traffic light, so would the bus. If a car was blocking the VIVA bus from crossing the intersection (as I've witnessed many times), there is no getting around it and is the exact same situation that the LRT would find itself in.

3) LRT/BRT wins during the crucial time of rush hour. This can be seen in the St Clair analysis pre and post ROW implementation. Off peak could a bus beat LRT? Yes, it wouldn't surprise me at all but the most important part of the transit day is rush hour and LRT beats the express bus because it avoids congestion.

Comparing Toronto LRT costs vs Vancouver Skytrain costs isn't an appropriate comparison as it seems most of the world does LRT for cheaper too. The surface portion of Eglinton or Finch against Skytrain compared on costs, the LRT should win. Why? Unless I'm missing something, the main difference is building a large bridge to carry vehicles. The streets still need to widened, property needs to be purchased and utilities relocated. This is pretty much the case for the Eglinton West extension, the above ground option was analyzed to be much more expensive than staying at grade. Toronto did LRT and subways really expensive so I would expect that it would be the same for a new ICTS system.

Remember that an analysis on the initial LRT network for Scarborough showed the province would come out in the positive financially for making the investment. Yes, the province may have collected enough in revenue from the development of the Scarborough LRT network to come out ahead financially.

The whole things has been a mess and many different factors have been involved. Transit infrastructure largely needs to be decided on route capacity + geography. We know the capacities for different modes and making an adjustment for geography of the specific route and it should be clear enough what is required with possibly a little work on the details. Otherwise it's mostly splitting hairs

 

[Streety McCarface]

Why? Do you believe it will be over capacity? Do you dispute the fact that as compared to a subway all the way to Kennedy that money was saved? What measure do you use in your assessment of where transit should go and the form it should take?


Ideally they would have built Sheppard the same as Eglinton from the start knowing that they didn't have the money to get to SCC with subway. But we are left with the outcome of a subway or die mentality that leaves Sheppard east of Don Mills with 35 years of nothing. Of course if someone is assessing the actual benefits of transit then "something is better than nothing", but if one is simply religious about subways then nothing is better because it is "the principle of it all".

I call out the idea of converting the Sheppard subway to pre-metro as a convenience improvement in that it eliminates a transfer and would more likely lead to a westerly extension. Often people will make an argument against the transfer at Don Mills as rationale why the Sheppard East LRT is a bad idea, but often when given the choice of conversion to pre-metro vs leaving it as-is, the option they select is to leave it "as-is", because it isn't about the service level or the convenience but rather a desire to have subways because they are the best.

I have been saying that Eglinton (pre covid) would be over-capacity from day one, and that was with running 3-car trains. East of Don Mills? No, but west of Yonge, absolutely. Running 2-car LRVs increases the capacity crunch even further.

The ideal solution for Eglinton would have been a subway/metro west of Science Centre, and a Tramway east of there. It'd be a good transfer point for east riders since the OL would be right there, and the forced transfer would direct most passengers off the Yonge line and onto the relief/ontario line. You also get the benefit of not running a 50 km light rail line with 4 different ridership zones, causing insane delays throughout the line on a daily basis.

Here's a thought experiment: think of the crowding on the Yonge line, then think of similar crowding (not ridership levels) on the Crosstown, now factor in poor passenger movement, trains shortturning at Laird (instead of Science Center) every 3 minutes, on-street accidents, trains stopped at traffic lights (and thereby, train bunching), crew changes at Mount Dennis and probably Kennedy, track that are very easy to walk on, among so many other constraints on a fully built out Eglinton Line. Line one has trouble balancing the two levels of service on its west and east branches, and people think the Crosstown won't have similar/worse issues?

Don Mills was part of the Relief Line North project, and is now part of the Ontario Line, and that line, being a replacement for the yonge line, would absolutely be overcapacity if used for its intended purpose.

Sheppard doesn't need a conversion (which would cost more than the original cost of the line), it needs an eventual extension west, and the OL needs to make it up to Don Mills or Victoria Park.

 

[Steve X]

Here's a thought experiment: think of the crowding on the Yonge line, then think of similar crowding (not ridership levels) on the Crosstown, now factor in poor passenger movement, trains shortturning at Laird (instead of Science Center) every 3 minutes, on-street accidents, trains stopped at traffic lights (and thereby, train bunching), crew changes at Mount Dennis and probably Kennedy, track that are very easy to walk on, among so many other constraints on a fully built out Eglinton Line. Line one has trouble balancing the two levels of service on its west and east branches, and people think the Crosstown won't have similar/worse issues?

Mount Dennis would be the only logical crew change point. All underground stations are centre platform so you don't have to worry about walking on the tracks. Having operators walk on the tracks is a terrible idea. It sets a bad example for riders to do the same thing. Given all the stupid things people do in TO, how will they keep people off the tracks and running into the tunnels.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Mount Dennis would be the only logical crew change point. All underground stations are centre platform so you don't have to worry about walking on the tracks. Having operators walk on the tracks is a terrible idea. It sets a bad example for riders to do the same thing. Given all the stupid things people do in TO, how will they keep people off the tracks and running into the tunnels.

Even if the second crew change isn't at Kennedy, you're going to have to have one somewhere. A trip to Kennedy from Mt Dennis will take at least 50 minutes, probably an hour (we don't know how traffic control will affect travel times, or how much the TTC will pad the schedules). From there to Morningside, you can throw on another 40 minutes to an hour. Factor in terminal padding and the return trip, and you're looking at a 3-4 hr run.

 

[Coolstar]

TTCriders on Twitter: "Commissioner Osborne moves a motion to have staff look at options for Bus Rapid Transit or busway on the SRT right-of-way and report back in Q3. https://t.co/4JrtMNUn8N" / Twitter

 

[afransen]

I'm rather skeptical, but it doesn't hurt to study it.

 

[Reecemartin]

A couple things about the points
1) LRT vs BRT is about capacity. Speed on both could be exactly the same, the difference is in capacity. Due to the nature of the infrastructure, if LRT was stuck behind a car at a traffic light, so would the bus. If a car was blocking the VIVA bus from crossing the intersection (as I've witnessed many times), there is no getting around it and is the exact same situation that the LRT would find itself in.

3) LRT/BRT wins during the crucial time of rush hour. This can be seen in the St Clair analysis pre and post ROW implementation. Off peak could a bus beat LRT? Yes, it wouldn't surprise me at all but the most important part of the transit day is rush hour and LRT beats the express bus because it avoids congestion.

Comparing Toronto LRT costs vs Vancouver Skytrain costs isn't an appropriate comparison as it seems most of the world does LRT for cheaper too. The surface portion of Eglinton or Finch against Skytrain compared on costs, the LRT should win. Why? Unless I'm missing something, the main difference is building a large bridge to carry vehicles. The streets still need to widened, property needs to be purchased and utilities relocated. This is pretty much the case for the Eglinton West extension, the above ground option was analyzed to be much more expensive than staying at grade. Toronto did LRT and subways really expensive so I would expect that it would be the same for a new ICTS system.

Remember that an analysis on the initial LRT network for Scarborough showed the province would come out in the positive financially for making the investment. Yes, the province may have collected enough in revenue from the development of the Scarborough LRT network to come out ahead financially.

The whole things has been a mess and many different factors have been involved. Transit infrastructure largely needs to be decided on route capacity + geography. We know the capacities for different modes and making an adjustment for geography of the specific route and it should be clear enough what is required with possibly a little work on the details. Otherwise it's mostly splitting hairs

Quick point re rush hour being most important, yes - but many would suggest all day is going to be a lot more important in the future - and if you want more bus reliability during peak then you can paint the street, you don't need to spend billions on light rail.

See I feel like you've made the case for me here "The streets still need to widened, property needs to be purchased and utilities relocated" yes, so why not get your moneys worth and go elevated. The cost differential is less than 2x but the capacity increase is greater than 2x, plus you have better reliability because no auto interactions (which wreak a ton of havoc in Toronto even in the downtown where most trips are not necessarily in cars). Plus grade separation gets you better average speeds, so all else equal you attract more riders.

Vancouver did all this calculus and SkyTrain is obviously highly successful, by the time you have exhausted the capacity of buses you can build a light metro with room to grow into - which for a 100 year transit investment is probably pertinent when the costs are not 5+ Billion.

I think people need to make sure to remember that these "Analyses" are fallible, they are based on a lot of assumptions. Remember how Kirby GO went from insane to OK when the tides changed? You've gotta consider that more broadly . . .

 

[H4F33Z]

Denzil Minnan-Wong reveals motion "Feasibility of roadway on Scarborough RT Corridor"

"Every day, Scarborough residents are stuck in their private vehicles when driving during rush hour. We've seen with Covid, TTC ridership numbers have plummeted, and aren't expected to come back to pre-covid numbers for a long time. Everybody in Scarborough drives, well most. Let's use existing infrastructure to pave a new road for Scarborough.

The proposal is for a four-lane arterial road along the Scarborough RT corridor. To make enough space for these adjustments. A few trees would have to be safely removed. This would funnel vehicle traffic to local neighbourhood roads in the area, which is great for drivers in Scarborough who only drive and for trucks to access the industries.

Going under the tunnel and on to the guideway, the guideway would need to be widened and a bit of work would be required. It should be fine because it's a pretty industrial area and we already spent so much money on the Gardiner so I actually think it would save taxpayers money by saving time for drivers. Why can't Scarborough get what downtown is getting? Elevated highways.

At major roads, interchanges would be built which will make it convenient for drivers to access and removes a few unnecessary buildings. And drivers can easily access the Scarborough Town Centre which is a major hub in the district.

These minor changes will allow the drivers residents to easily get to where they need without having to take a bus. Buses are terrible, they're big and they take space. Bus lanes, terrible idea. Surface LRT, even worse so let's build a road with our existing space. In the future, we might be able to get even more roads in Scarborough!"

(this post is satirical but not far-fetched coming from DMW)

 

[Amare]

Denzil Minnan-Wong reveals motion "Feasibility of roadway on Scarborough RT Corridor"

"Every day, Scarborough residents are stuck in their private vehicles when driving during rush hour. We've seen with Covid, TTC ridership numbers have plummeted, and aren't expected to come back to pre-covid numbers for a long time. Everybody in Scarborough drives, well most. Let's use existing infrastructure to pave a new road for Scarborough.

The proposal is for a four-lane arterial road along the Scarborough RT corridor. To make enough space for these adjustments. A few trees would have to be safely removed. This would funnel vehicle traffic to local neighbourhood roads in the area, which is great for drivers in Scarborough who only drive and for trucks to access the industries.

Going under the tunnel and on to the guideway, the guideway would need to be widened and a bit of work would be required. It should be fine because it's a pretty industrial area and we already spent so much money on the Gardiner so I actually think it would save taxpayers money by saving time for drivers. Why can't Scarborough get what downtown is getting? Elevated highways.

At major roads, interchanges would be built which will make it convenient for drivers to access and removes a few unnecessary buildings. And drivers can easily access the Scarborough Town Centre which is a major hub in the district.

These minor changes will allow the drivers residents to easily get to where they need without having to take a bus. Buses are terrible, they're big and they take space. Bus lanes, terrible idea. Surface LRT, even worse so let's build a road with our existing space. In the future, we might be able to get even more roads in Scarborough!"

Denzil Minnan-Wong is the biggest blockhead i've ever seen in my life. Sometimes I think "he cant actually be that stupid", but then he just one ups himself day after day. If the dummy simply used Google Maps, that alone would be enough to come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to construct a 4 lane arterial road along the ROW, and it woule be next to impossible to create "interchanges at major roads". Let's not even talk about the guideway because he's hallucinating.

How does anyone actually take any one word from him seriously? And how does he keep getting re-elected? He's an embarrassment to Toronto.