[Hipster Duck]

Fair, it's just when you have these Transit City advocates (not a shot at Nfitz at all I'm just speaking as a general comment of my views) who take examples like LA's Light Rail which is all but an above ground subway saying "hey this moves people around just fine" yea ofcourse it does, but many examples tossed around aren't indicative of what we will get with Transit City. FWIW I am an advocate for LRT where it makes sense, i.e. medium densities with low to mid rise development for Local-medium trips. I don't agree that LRT should be used as a long-distance form of rapid transit, especially if it runs in the middle of a busy ROW competing with Bikes, Cars and pedestrians. I think an emphasis on having LRT focus on the local to medium trips funneling people onto more than one higher order rapid transit line like GO or another subway line for longer trips is what is needed and is supported by examples around the world from Madrid (LRT short distances in the suburbs shuttling to the Metro system), to Paris (same as Madrid) to name a few. In very few cities, if any, the physical expanse of Toronto, do you see LRTs as a long-distance form of transportation without accompanying high order transit routes to handle the long-distance trips. I think Eglinton is priobably the better of all the planned Transit City LRT lines.

But I digress.

Yes, I agree with everything you say.

Toronto is kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place, rapid transit wise, because we are sort of a hybrid of both a European city and an American city.

We have high densities in suburban areas, especially around clusters of tower blocks, but, unlike Europe, these aren't placed around an existing rail station and are scattered almost randomly across our suburban landscape. Many of these areas have a high captive transit ridership, but getting to these places is a problem.

We have car-based suburban arterials, like in the US, but they're not quite as wide, have way more transit ridership and way more auto congestion, due to the fact that our suburban areas are much denser. This makes ROW construction much more difficult than it would be in the US.

We have a city that's as physically expansive and dispersed as a US city, but has transit ridership levels and transit demand approaching a European city. It's not an easy fix.

 

[Wrenkin]

I was under the impression that there were fully grade-separated LRT lines, Calgary, maybe some LA lines? In order to do that though I think you'd need to either create an elevated structure, tunnel, or hydro/train corridor.

It seems like most elevated structures now have concrete pillars like a highway or the Vancouver skytrain, not like the NYC & Chicago steel structures. Also I would assume an elevated station now would have to be more elaborate than those in NYC, Chi, Philly, since there are new accessibility laws (must have elevators). So elevated structures & stations seem like they would take a lot of room.

On the plus side, I find riding elevated, trench, or on-street much more enjoyable since you can actually look out the window and see the weather.

Calgary isn't grade separated. There are many level crossings. Some have railway barriers (that drop very quickly) but the part downtown has no separation. It's very easy for a tourist to end up on the route. E.g. here. This setup does allow easy transfer to buses, although the LRT uses high platforms so you have to allow for that.

For examples of elevated stations look at the Millenium line in Burnaby. They aren't as big as you might think, probably because the trains are shorter than an NYC subway.

 

[Hipster Duck]

There are a few LRT systems where there are no traffic lights, but grade crossings with full LRT priority - like railway crossings. Calgary would be like that if the 7th Avenue Mall is ever replaced by a tunnel; St. Louis Metrolink is entirely like that - most crossings on the Missouri side are grade separated, all the rest are railway crossings, with few grade separations, all Illinois side crossings are all lights, bells and gates as well. The Edmonton LRT uses lights, bells and gates as well rather than stopping at red lights.

Edmonton has traffic lights on the new NAIT line along 105 St. NW. I'll take your word about St. Louis. These cities might have had their own reasons for choosing LRT. One, as gweed mentions, is that building an LRT system doesn't preclude your ability to extend systems that could be at-grade in the future. Personally, I don't see any advantage to using LRV technology - especially low floor LRV technology (which neither St. Louis or the Alberta systems use) - if you're going to build a fully grade-separated line with no anticipation of changing this in the future, or having interoperability with other surface LRT lines.

For examples of elevated stations look at the Millenium line in Burnaby. They aren't as big as you might think, probably because the trains are shorter than an NYC subway.

Vancouver's Skytrain and Canada Line systems are "heavy rail" metros; they are perhaps most appropriately called "light metros" since they aren't quite as big as typical metros, but operate under identical conditions. They are fully grade-separated, serving dedicated stations. Passengers are strictly disallowed from coming into contact with the rail infrastructure in any way (e.g. they don't cross tracks to get to the other side like in almost all LRT systems). The vehicles are smaller, yes, but I don't think the NYC subway is a good yardstick, since NYC subway trains are some of the longest and largest of any metro system in the world (BMT and IND trains use 8 cars the length of a TTC subway car; IRT lines use 10 slightly smaller cars).

EDIT: never mind. Re-reading your post, I realize that you don't think that Vancouver has a "light rail" system.

 

[ehlow]

Calgary isn't grade separated. There are many level crossings. Some have railway barriers (that drop very quickly) but the part downtown has no separation. It's very easy for a tourist to end up on the route. E.g. here. This setup does allow easy transfer to buses, although the LRT uses high platforms so you have to allow for that.

For examples of elevated stations look at the Millenium line in Burnaby. They aren't as big as you might think, probably because the trains are shorter than an NYC subway.

Thanks for the info. Looking at that Vancouver structure, it doesn't look like it would be possible to build that on a narrow 4 lane road, say like Dufferin or Richmond/Adelaide, right? The actual track structure has a small footprint, but the station doesn't seem like it would fit on a road.

 

[Wrenkin]

Thanks for the info. Looking at that Vancouver structure, it doesn't look like it would be possible to build that on a narrow 4 lane road, say like Dufferin or Richmond/Adelaide, right? The actual track structure has a small footprint, but the station doesn't seem like it would fit on a road.

No, I don't think they would. I just think they're smaller than NYC stations. Whether or not they're more imposing than something made of iron, well...

 

[ehlow]

No, I don't think they would. I just think they're smaller than NYC stations. Whether or not they're more imposing than something made of iron, well...

I personally love the look of elevated subways. To me, the iron structures in NYC or Chi are much more beautiful than Vancouver's though. I like how they add verticality to the street, and you can see the trains go by. I know that many don't share my sentiment though, since they block light, are rusty etc. They seem like they would be much more enjoyable to ride as well.

[video=youtube;iWHwZUc02rQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWHwZUc02rQ[/video]

My favourite parts of the subway are probably the open Davisville trench and the Keele to High Park part where you can see graffiti.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Here's a video of the Jerusalem light rail. Parts are light rail, others look like St. Clair, others like King Street or Queen Street without the automobiles. BTW. In 2013, the daily usage for the 13.8 km route was 130,000.

[video=youtube_share;jeEBPAx1lTY]http://youtu.be/jeEBPAx1lTY[/video]

Note the transit signals. Like the transit signals in Europe and without written word explanation signage. You already know that they are not for automobile traffic, but for the trams. Here in Toronto, we have to use the same traffic signals as the automobile signals, and have to explain in English who are they for. Too much sign pollution in Toronto.

 

[junctionist]

Traffic lights that are unique in design for light rail are a great innovation. They don't cause confusion for drivers and thus don't require signs telling drivers what they're for.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Traffic lights that are unique in design for light rail are a great innovation. They don't cause confusion for drivers and thus don't require signs telling drivers what they're for.

Unless you're in the business of making signs.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

Paris Tramway T3, the line similar to what the SELRT will be is currently carrying 250'000 riders a day.

http://www.tramway.paris.fr/actualites/bilan-sur-le-trafic-voyageurs-la-fin-2013

 

[MisterF]

Yes, I agree with everything you say.

Toronto is kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place, rapid transit wise, because we are sort of a hybrid of both a European city and an American city.

We have high densities in suburban areas, especially around clusters of tower blocks, but, unlike Europe, these aren't placed around an existing rail station and are scattered almost randomly across our suburban landscape. Many of these areas have a high captive transit ridership, but getting to these places is a problem.

We have car-based suburban arterials, like in the US, but they're not quite as wide, have way more transit ridership and way more auto congestion, due to the fact that our suburban areas are much denser. This makes ROW construction much more difficult than it would be in the US.

We have a city that's as physically expansive and dispersed as a US city, but has transit ridership levels and transit demand approaching a European city. It's not an easy fix.

You make good points about the way our suburbs are designed, but Canadian cities do tend to be much less dispersed than American cities. Toronto takes up a lot less land than similar sized American cities, ranging from Detroit to Boston to Atlanta. And their sprawl tends to slowly fade into the countryside, where you can't tell if it's urban or rural, while Toronto's suburbs have a more or less consistent density right to a hard edge. The same is true for most Canadian cities. European and Asian cities, of course, take up less land still.

 

[doady]

Anyways there are many examples of streetcars/trams running on streets with ROW that go through intersections with traffic lights around the world, just like Transit City.

Examples: Amsterdam, Brussels, Boston, Paris

And of course Toronto (Spadina, St. Clair, Queens Quay)...

Fair, it's just when you have these Transit City advocates (not a shot at Nfitz at all I'm just speaking as a general comment of my views) who take examples like LA's Light Rail which is all but an above ground subway saying "hey this moves people around just fine" yea ofcourse it does, but many examples tossed around aren't indicative of what we will get with Transit City. FWIW I am an advocate for LRT where it makes sense, i.e. medium densities with low to mid rise development for Local-medium trips. I don't agree that LRT should be used as a long-distance form of rapid transit, especially if it runs in the middle of a busy ROW competing with Bikes, Cars and pedestrians. I think an emphasis on having LRT focus on the local to medium trips funneling people onto more than one higher order rapid transit line like GO or another subway line for longer trips is what is needed and is supported by examples around the world from Madrid (LRT short distances in the suburbs shuttling to the Metro system), to Paris (same as Madrid) to name a few. In very few cities, if any, the physical expanse of Toronto, do you see LRTs as a long-distance form of transportation without accompanying high order transit routes to handle the long-distance trips. I think Eglinton is priobably the better of all the planned Transit City LRT lines.

If Toronto want on-street light rail in the suburbs, why choose what is largely an inner city corridor that's too narrow for on-street light rail...? And outside the inner city, there's the Richview corridor? LRT never made sense for Eglinton. But as dumb as it is, Eglinton is still better than rest simply because as a trunk route instead of a feeder route.

I think light rail and rapid transit (aka. subway, metro) serve the same purpose: trunk lines carrying riders over short and medium distances. Building LRT as feeder routes and subways for long distance? I don't agree with that. What is commuter rail for? Paris has commuter rail too. Subway is slightly faster than LRT, otherwise it seems like they they serve the same type of riders. Look at the Hurontario-Main LRT, bascially that will be Mississauga's Yonge Line. In fact, it will be even longer than the Yonge Line. No difference in function, just capacity. The only reason to build subway along Hurontario would be for higher capacity.

Which leads me to my other concern about LRT in Toronto is the transit ridership is extremely high. This is not suburban Atlanta. Based on the projected ridership numbers, even the Hurontario-Main LRT will require 2-car trains operating at 5 minute frequency on day one. That's already starting to push light rail to the limits. And Hurontario is a corridor without any subway connections, and located in the outer suburbs, not the inner suburbs. Is Eglinton, a mostly inner city corridor, connecting to two subway lines, really on the same level as Hurontario?

 

[drum118]

And of course Toronto (Spadina, St. Clair, Queens Quay)...



If Toronto want on-street light rail in the suburbs, why choose what is largely an inner city corridor that's too narrow for on-street light rail...? And outside the inner city, there's the Richview corridor? LRT never made sense for Eglinton. But as dumb as it is, Eglinton is still better than rest simply because as a trunk route instead of a feeder route.

I think light rail and rapid transit (aka. subway, metro) serve the same purpose: trunk lines carrying riders over short and medium distances. Building LRT as feeder routes and subways for long distance? I don't agree with that. What is commuter rail for? Paris has commuter rail too. Subway is slightly faster than LRT, otherwise it seems like they they serve the same type of riders. Look at the Hurontario-Main LRT, bascially that will be Mississauga's Yonge Line. In fact, it will be even longer than the Yonge Line. No difference in function, just capacity. The only reason to build subway along Hurontario would be for higher capacity.

Which leads me to my other concern about LRT in Toronto is the transit ridership is extremely high. This is not suburban Atlanta. Based on the projected ridership numbers, even the Hurontario-Main LRT will require 2-car trains operating at 5 minute frequency on day one. That's already starting to push light rail to the limits. And Hurontario is a corridor without any subway connections, and located in the outer suburbs, not the inner suburbs. Is Eglinton, a mostly inner city corridor, connecting to two subway lines, really on the same level as Hurontario?

Only a few sections of the line will be push to 3 car trains and you will have headway about every 90 seconds for peak time.

You cannot justify a subway on this line even 50 years down the road.

Bulk of the ridership is between the Queensways and Bristol.

If things stay on schedule, construction starts in 2016 and is completed by 2019, with an opening date mid 2020. You will get away with a single car off peak with every other train being double for peak going to Brampton.

The big different between Yonge and Hurontario, Yonge will be almost 100% high density while Hurontario will see some sections at high density. From Matheson to Derry, it will be very low density due to the airport runways and employment land. South of QEW will be low density due to NINMY and what the area is supposed to be in the first place.

 

[BMO]

Paris Tramway T3, the line similar to what the SELRT will be is currently carrying 250'000 riders a day.

http://www.tramway.paris.fr/actualites/bilan-sur-le-trafic-voyageurs-la-fin-2013

Notice how it has three stations out of 14 that connect to the RER or Metro? Spread throughout the line. This is an excellent example of what LRT should be used for. To connect to various Higher order lines. SELRT will have nothing close to the same degree of connectivity to higher order transit, it will BE the higher order transit that will likely have busses funnelling people onto it who are likely, mostly, going to connect to the subway at Fairview subway station.

 

[innsertnamehere]

2 vs 3 connections seems rather similar if you ask me.