LowerBay
Active Member
Where in that report does it explicitly say that ICTS is not recommended? The report simply presents options -- it doesn't recommend any one option over another.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Dan416
- Start date
kEiThZ
Superstar
Look at Part C. Page 23 lays out the Benefit-Cost Ratio. Page 24 points out the CO2 reductions for the different options. On most counts LRT wins out. Page 37 and 38 points to LRT as the most effective solution. The sensitivity analysis also shows that option 4 becomes remains attractive at higher discount rates. Even option 3 remains largely competitive with option 2 at higher discount rates. It would run completely against their own analysis if Metrolinx came out and recommended ICTS after their own assessments in the BCA show it to be inferior.
nfitz
Superstar
And what in this thread justified such vile attacks against someone?
LowerBay
Active Member
Just a joke -- first he said Eglinton was 9,000 per hour. Then, POOF, it's only 5,400 per hour (because 9,000 is in subway territory).
kEiThZ
Superstar
Even 10k phpd is still within the TTC's guidelines for LRT.
LowerBay
Active Member
Metrolinx's SRT report even goes against the TTC's (which recommended upgrading).
The major problem with Metrolinx's report is it doesn't take into account the financial, ridership, and environmental impact of a 3-year closure for LRT conversion. If that aspect is taken into consideration and assigned a proper weight/importance factor, ICTS comes out the winner.
The major problem with Metrolinx's report is it doesn't take into account the financial, ridership, and environmental impact of a 3-year closure for LRT conversion. If that aspect is taken into consideration and assigned a proper weight/importance factor, ICTS comes out the winner.
LowerBay
Active Member
9,000 was the figure for the Bloor-Danforth streetcar in 1958. Suddenly, what warranted a subway in the early 1960s doesn't warrant one now. Go figure.
doady
Senior Member
Make the LRT entirely grade-separated with subway-style station spacing and it would be just as fast. Just look the MUNI metro or the Edmonton LRT.
kEiThZ
Superstar
The TTC report was stacked against LRT at the time. The choice was either SRT or subway (at least the way the public saw it). The document set out to prove that subway was not feasible and that ICTS was more appropriate. Had they committed more honest analysis, they would have reached similar conclusions. And if both parties had done more accurate modeling by separating the extension to Malvern from the current system, they would have found that there is a decent case to be made for a subway (Kennedy-STC) + LRT (STC to Malvern).
In the long run, construction interruptions are not that important. The BCA estimates 8 months for ICTS, 36 months for LRT. The difference is only 28 months. That's not a lot given the expected service life of the SRT replacement. I am sure even if the SRT closure were taken into account, when amortized over the service life of the replacement, LRT would still come out on top.
Keep in mind that the SRT is sufficiently unreliable today that the TTC regularly runs a parallel shuttle service. So it won't be that much of a shock to ride the bus and won't really bother most riders, especially if it means that something better is coming down the road. Besides which, most riders will compensate for the closure by choosing bus routes that head directly to Kennedy instead of choosing routes connecting to the SRT.
Back then we didn't have the LRT technology we have now. If we had 30m low floor LRVs back then, maybe Bloor-Danforth would look a lot different today. Ultimately, even though I favour more subway construction in Toronto, it's hard to argue subways should be built everywhere. If Transit City were to be simply a subway building program, its likely we only would have ended up with 4 projects: Vaughan extension, Yonge extension, Sheppard subway extensions (east and west) and an Eglinton West subway (as per the original plan) only. It's likely the price of LRT that makes it possible to make Eglinton a cross-town route.
Last edited:
taal
Senior Member
With all this talk about what is required for a subway in terms of demand. What is the projected demand on the VCC line?
Does that come anywhere close to what a subway is.
Does that come anywhere close to what a subway is.
Chuck
Senior Member
None of the above arguments even matter! In the end, the TTC probably intends to make the Eglinton tunnel as similar as possible to the Harbourfront tunnel. They probably envision train sets consisting of 1 (2 max) streetcars, and stations that can fit at most 2 cars. You will pay your fare to the driver, and enter through the front doors only. Like on Harbourfront, speed would be at the discretion of the drivers. Also like on Harbourfront, many drivers will end up using the underground sections as a convenient opportunity to read the Metro newspaper while cruising along at 15 km/hr. And finally, if Metrolinx believes that TTC will readily give up control of its flagship Giambreglinton line, they must be on crack!
I believe that there are 5 non negotiable items that must be fought for tooth and nail for the Eglinton line. They are:
1) Tunnel is built to subway standards to accommodate future conversion.
2) Tunnel is signaled, standard operating speeds are implemented.
3) Fares are automated, no paying the driver.
4) Stations are at least 150 feet long with an extra 150 feet roughed in.
5) Stations are located 1000 metres apart.
Remove any one of these elements, and in effect, all we'll be doing is removing traffic lights from a regular streetcar line.
I believe that there are 5 non negotiable items that must be fought for tooth and nail for the Eglinton line. They are:
1) Tunnel is built to subway standards to accommodate future conversion.
2) Tunnel is signaled, standard operating speeds are implemented.
3) Fares are automated, no paying the driver.
4) Stations are at least 150 feet long with an extra 150 feet roughed in.
5) Stations are located 1000 metres apart.
Remove any one of these elements, and in effect, all we'll be doing is removing traffic lights from a regular streetcar line.
Brandon716
Senior Member
I guarantee you that it is not going to be subway grade platforms capable of handling 8 subway cars per train. Its impossible to stay within the constraints of the budget they've set forth.
What I can see is a system that is compatible with up to 4-6 light rail cars per train.
BTW, you get brownie points for nicknaming it the "Giambreglinton line" as it was rather brilliant.
I can assure you that any LRT system is not a glorified bus, but you are accurate in saying that its far from actual subway service in terms of speed as those intersections will certainly slow things down. But its also not running literally in traffic with cars in front and behind.
What I can see is a system that is compatible with up to 4-6 light rail cars per train.
BTW, you get brownie points for nicknaming it the "Giambreglinton line" as it was rather brilliant.
I can assure you that any LRT system is not a glorified bus, but you are accurate in saying that its far from actual subway service in terms of speed as those intersections will certainly slow things down. But its also not running literally in traffic with cars in front and behind.
chriskayTO
Active Member
I believe all TC lines are planned for automated fare collection and all-door boarding.
Voltz
Senior Member
Fortunately, the bold sentence was the only part you got right, possibly the last one as well.
LowerBay
Active Member
Metrolinx plays the fiddle, and Miller and Giambrone will dance. Metrolinx has already stated it will retain ownership of all new lines in the RTP, and that includes Eglinton.
And, there are persistent rumors that they will enter into a PPP arrangement with Bombardier to operate the Eglinton line.