[Brandon716]

I take it by your response that you agree with my general assertion. I don't quite understand the negative reaction to the crosstown.

I understand the negative reaction to Eglinton LRT, I do think the system would be better served as a subway, but the problem is that Eglinton LRT has went too far to be reversed.

At this point its better to support the project and encourage its development in a positive direction. If its not supported, all that will occur is infighting and nothing, and Eglinton will be bus service for 10-20 more years before something gets started. In 20 years if Eglinton traffic is so heavy it requires upgrading, a few billion more could be dropped to complete the entire system as above ground or in a tunnel in its own right of way.

And as I've used examples of other LRT systems with intersection mixing (like Portland MAX), its also not a slow technology. The entire route shouldn't take more than 50 minutes.

And as a personal user of LRT to get to work for the past 2 years (I used the Chicago L trains as well), I can say that the technology - while not subway - isn't AS BAD as people here are making it out to be. Its certainly an upgrade from buses, and its an upgrade from the TTC Streetcar network. But is it subway? No, it will never have THAT much capacity.

 

[ShonTron]

I support the idea of a LRT Eglinton line partly from a "let's get on with it" mentality - the bigger battle is seeing the Transfer City-becoming-RoundaboutCity on Sheppard/Finch, which could completely screw up crosstown travel for everyone, including the poor souls on the 39 Finch East bus and Seneca College students.

But the TTC and the city need to be pushed to make the right moves on the surface segments. Basically this means taking for advantage of the Richview ROW to operate a Calgary/Edmonton/Minneapolis style LRT outside of the traffic conflicts (either operate it like a railway, or have it duck under the major streets in the ROW), and minimize disruptions in the Don Mills-Kennedy section from cross traffic and the damned left turn priorities. The technology of high-concept LRT is appropriate, as long as the TTC doesn't screw it up in the legendary way it is known for.

I think the TTC's track record (no pun intended) on these projects rightfully makes people nervous or skeptical. At least the TTC can operate subways very well (maybe not escalators, but that's another story).

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

shouldn't we save the richview lands for the future subway upgrade?

 

[Second_in_pie]

Prometheus, thinking like that just seems wrong to me.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Prometheus, thinking like that just seems wrong to me.

why?

 

[doady]

But the TTC and the city need to be pushed to make the right moves on the surface segments. Basically this means taking for advantage of the Richview ROW to operate a Calgary/Edmonton/Minneapolis style LRT outside of the traffic conflicts (either operate it like a railway, or have it duck under the major streets in the ROW), and minimize disruptions in the Don Mills-Kennedy section from cross traffic and the damned left turn priorities.

Yes, I would like to see the above-ground sections of the LRT below-grade along Eglinton. Consider that Mississauga's BRT will be below-grade along Eglinton, then doesn't it make sense for this LRT to be as well?

Also, wouldn't a below-grade (or elevated) LRT be much easier to convert to full subway? After all, they are building the underground sections to accommodate conversion to subway so they should probably do the same for the above ground sections as well...

Even if Portland MAX LRT can be very fast, that does not matter here, because Portland does not have a distinct subway/RT system like we do. Unlike in other cities, the distinction between surface and subway/RT systems is very important here in Toronto because of the way that they connect to each other and the fare policy. Unlike the other Transit City lines (which will be distinctly part of the surface network), the Eglinton LRT will blur the line between the two systems so I think its above-ground sections should be designed in such a way so that it completely part of subway/RT system instead.

 

[Second_in_pie]

why?

Ah sorry, my mind went blank and I accidentally hit the submit reply key in frustration.

Basically, it's saying to reduce the ability of the line we're getting so there's room to expand to something we should be getting. If you ask me, either do it the best you can as LRT (using the corridor) or do it Subway.

Sorry, my mind's still kinda blank, so what makes sense to me might not be very well explained...

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

i get what you're saying.

here's a compromise. in the richview lands and wherever possible for the current above ground section, build the LRT in a open cut trench with TTC gauge track that can support HRT (subway cars).

in the future, a third rail can be added, platforms and stations can be built for subway service and the trench can be decked over.

 

[Second_in_pie]

That is a good compromise. I was thinking that on richview they could just do cut and cover, but that's still really expensive. If they just cut and put in LRT with the intention to easily upgrade to subway and cover it later, a LRT is really bearable for me. It'll be faster too!

I hope they do that.

 

[Brandon716]

I think that the main concern that most people have is that future ridership on Eglinton is somewhat unknown, therefore the 2010 line must as up-convertible as possible. LRT today is fine. Surface portions are also fine. However, add tail tracks to the ends of the tunnel so that tunnelling can one day continue without interrupting service on the ramps. Furthermore, build it all to subway standards so that 50 years from now, when LRT cannot carry the crush loads, the whole thing can be switched to subway. Alternatively, build to LRT standards, but rough in long enough stations to allow 400 foot long trains to be put into use and run every 90 seconds.

If it were completely tunneled OR completely ROW with above ground sections, LRT does have the speed to travel well above 100km/hr between stations (although I doubt they'd allow the trains to go that fast if the spacing is as short as they are making it).

LRT has one thing old style streetcars don't have: raw speed.

LRT is like a subway in speed but there aren't enough cars to consider it heavy transit. That's really the difference between the technologies. Plus the lack of a 3rd rail and the ability to intermix with traffic if necessary (which does slow it down).

Chicago is a good example. Out of America's mass rapid transit subways (or elevated trains), Chicago's system uses fairly small cars. The cars aren't any larger than Light Rail cars, its just that you'll have stations that can handle many cars (8 or more if necessary). The El system services a metropolitan area of 10 million sufficiently, and the cars themselves aren't bigger than light rail cars. In fact I've seen LRT cars that have more width and actual capacity (as an individual train car) than the Chicago El cars which are unique and small among subway/elevated rapid transit lines. I feel lucky to have lived in Chicago, Portland, and Pittsburgh and been able to compare between these kinds of systems and the larger cars you find in NYC and Toronto. I've probably spent over 6 months in Toronto between my first visit in 2002 and today, and I hope to move to the GTA this fall if my student permit/college app goes well. [/pathetic wanna move to canada plug placed in as necessary LOL]

LRT isn't as HORRIBLE as everyone might think who supports subways. I do wished Eglinton was a subway, I wished Sheppard could be a subway from SCC to Pearson (connecting with Eglinton no less), and I wished a DRL could be built immediately as well, with full TTC subway capacity.

Unfortunately that won't happen, but light rail isn't a bad idea if its done right.

 

[golodhendil]

My only question about the "LRT now, subway later" approach to Eglinton is that, how realistic is it? How many real-world examples are there of premetro being successfully upgraded to a full metro? Because, once the system is in place, the inertia to keep it that way is immense and it's not as easy to convert as one may think. The only example I am aware of is Boston's Blue Line, which started out in the 1900s as an underground trolley route (not built to rapid transit standards) that crosses the Boston Harbor to East Boston, and was converted to a full subway line in the 20s and subsequently extended.

A case in point is the Green Line in Boston (again). Starting out as a streetcar subway, most of its tunnels and stations were built with enough clearance and length to run heavy RT trains of at least 300 ft, except for a nasty near-90-degree curve built back in the 1890s (in fact, heavy RT did run through part of it when the Main Line El was interlined through the tunnel for a few years in the 1900s). Some of the later stations were even built with deep track trenches covered by wooden planks so that the platforms need not be raised for a future conversion. However, admittedly due to a long series of misfortunate circumstances starting with the Great Depression, the Green Line was never converted to a full subway. Now, a century later, the line is completely overcapacity, bursting at its seams with passengers and with trains literally standing in line in the Central Subway during rush hour. Its daily ridership of 250,000 puts this one line on par with many of the other entire full metro systems in North America, and its per mile ridership of 10,000 surpasses every subway line in Chicago, for example. It can even be argued that the ridership is lower than it would have been only because several bus routes run parallel to it to relieve the loads. However, there is absolutely no intention (or money) from the authorities to upgrade the line to a full subway.

Of course, that Boston failed does not mean Toronto will not succeed, but I just think that "LRT now, subway later" is much easier said than done. If done in the right way, for example with heavy LRT like ALRT or like the German S-bahns, a non-full subway solution for Eglinton could still work. What definitely would not work, IMO, is a low platform "classical" LRT without fully separated right-of-way outside the tunnel. Such an implementation will run out of capacity soon enough and there will almost never, I think, be enough impetus to overcome the inertia and convert it to a heavy RT.

 

[LowerBay]

The idea that an underground Eglinton LRT would be converted to a subway in the future is absolute stupidity. How could they possibly close down a line that has reached LRT capacity for YEARS to do such a conversion? How would they handle the ridership during the line's closure (which is so high buses can't handle it)? It has never been done in the history of our transit system, and never will! We're not talking about a six-month closure you know -- the line would be down for about 3 years. I can't believe people here have fallen for this trick. It's either LRT-forever or subway-forever.

 

[doady]

Actually, the Montréal Metro is entirely enclosed, including their vehicle storage depots, because of the tires and the effect snow has on those tires.

No it's because the subway cars are not weatherproof. The water would damage the electric equipment on those cars...

The Airport Transit System in Chicago uses rubber tires... would you say that it doesn't snow in Chicago?

 

[Paleo]

The idea that an underground Eglinton LRT would be converted to a subway in the future is absolute stupidity. How could they possibly close down a line that has reached LRT capacity for YEARS to do such a conversion? How would they handle the ridership during the line's closure (which is so high buses can't handle it)? It has never been done in the history of our transit system, and never will! We're not talking about a six-month closure you know -- the line would be down for about 3 years. I can't believe people here have fallen for this trick. It's either LRT-forever or subway-forever.

I don't see why it wouldn't be possible if you throw enough money at it. It could even be staged to minimize disruptions to regular service.

They kept Sheppard station open instead of shutting it down while constructing a new station on top of the old one at great cost.

Now the TTC thinks they can do the same and make a major expansion to Bloor-Yonge without shutting it down, with the only catch being that it would cost a billion dollars to do it.

I'm sure you could do the same to Eglinton if you had a big enough budget.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I don't see why it wouldn't be possible if you throw enough money at it. It could even be staged to minimize disruptions to regular service.

They kept Sheppard station open instead of shutting it down while constructing a new station on top of the old one at great cost.

Now the TTC thinks they can do the same and make a major expansion to Bloor-Yonge without shutting it down, with the only catch being that it would cost a billion dollars to do it.

I'm sure you could do the same to Eglinton if you had a big enough budget.

Of course it would be possible to convert the underground portions to subway, but it would be so much more expensive than simply building subway from the start and would require busses to replace the LRT routes. I think it'll be easy for Eglinton to get "subway ridership," especially if it started as a subway, and the TTC should really be asking for enough money to build it as a subway. It really is a Subway or LRT issue here. If we get a LRT, we'll never get a subway on Eglinton.