[Second_in_pie]

I still don't understand it though. Why is Metrolinx pushing for ART when subway would be better suited for the route? It would require the same ROWs subway would, but Eglinton doesn't need the service frequency that requires ART, it just needs to be able to handle crush loads, which bigger subway cars and longer trains do better than ART.

I can think of only two reasons why they'd want it:
First of all, Miller&Friends have rather successfully established subway as holy ground that we are no longer worthy to tread on. ART would ease the blow, pretty much just because it's not called subway.
The second (and bigger) reason is that they're trying everything to save the SRT. Now this is a more serious offense that I'm pretty sure goes against much of what Metrolinx stands for. Stopping a subway 4 kilometers short of a major urban centre and growth node, and switching to another technology that's been crippled by the City's cowardice in the face of the Unions, as well as being showed to be severely hindered in certain weather. Not the best thing to do for an agency trying to promote transit, and manage connectivity and keep the municipalities in line when they're making a stupid mistake regarding transit.

So let's look at the facts; ART is still basically an orphan technology in Toronto. Put that on top of that the fact that the ART system that we have has to be replaced soon, and is an illogically placed line that was only created to test a new technology. ART is best suited to operate lighter loads but at significantly higher frequencies than subway. This results in an eventual lower capacity than subway, but it's useful in places that need high frequencies, such as Airports. The Detroit People mover is an excellent example because it needs to be fast and maintain very low headways due to the design of the people mover in question.

Also is the fact that ART's biggest pro is totally negated by the Unions. They would never allow driverless trains, and if the system continues to run like the SRT, the low headways that are the crown of ART is essentially nothing. The line is basically a lower-capacity subway, which has a higher capital cost for the cars (and I would assume system as well, but I'm not sure)

Finally, Eglinton is probably the worst place to put ART in the entire TTC network. It won't really need high frequencies, nor would it particularly require fast acceleration. It could at least be useful on Yonge (where high frequency and high acceleration would be really useful in the core,) or at least B-D, where high frequencies would assist the relatively large amount of walk-in traffic it seems to get. Eglinton just needs to be able to withstand the crush loads that our current bus>subway system provides, which can easily be maintained by traditional Subway. ART is currently an orphan technology, and we really have no need for it; why keep it when now is a perfect time to get rid of it?

Or maybe suggesting ART is a clever trick by Metrolinx:
"Can we pleeeeaseee have ART on Eglinton?"
"Ok, fine."
"Hahaha! What happened to street level LRTs being the right choice? ART is fine, yet when a subway would provide the exact same service, you immediately say no? Seems like someone just doesn't want the word "new subway" uttered in this city"
"Umm.... subway is obviously going to be several times as expensive as ART is. I mean c'mon! Nobody in Europe is building ART, it's obviously not hallowed enough to be expensive. Subway, on the other hand. That's being built all over Europe, it must be much too expensive for us"

EDIT: rbt, aren't the trains above ground on Eglinton limited in size? I'm pretty sure that overly long trains create a lot of issues when stopping at above ground stations, as well as at level crossings.

DOUBLE EDIT: Also, you mentioned the "small percentage of people going the entire way." Assuming the travel times aren't so horrendous that barely anyone in their right mind would take the LRT to Pearson, do you know how much of a demand there would be for a subway line there? First of all, there will be a lot of people wanting to go to Pearson on Eglinton. This leads to the second point, which is that a lot of people will have a strong disincentive to travel on Eglinton to Pearson due to the slow service it will provide outside the underground portion. If everyone wanting to get to Pearson by Eglinton actually took it, those 90m trains running every 5 mins might not actually be enough in the end. Of course, it's full potential wouldn't be realized with LRT, because it will be much too slow for most people, who would probably end up paying the premium for Blue22 (if they MUST take transit,) or probably just drive instead.

 

[Whoaccio]

Well, if both lines were built in areas with identical geology, existing subsurface infrastructure, and built with the same construction techniques (cut and cover versus boring), in cities with identical climate conditions.

In all of those cases except climate conditions, Vancouver is less favorable than Toronto. Unlike Eglinton, the Canada line spends a significant amount of it's length in dense urban areas, first bisecting the downtown peninsula then going along Cambie Street. East of Laird Eglinton is a highway, west of Black Creek Drive there actually is a highway ROW. An Eglinton LRT would not have to cross anything remotely similar to False Creek or the Fraser River and, in case this hasn't been said enough, most of it is something Calgary builds for 25m/km. So, while no two projects are entirely the same, the Canada Line doesn't have some kind of existential advantage over Eglinton that render comparisons moot.

The reasons why the Canada Line is better have very little to do with anything Vancouver specific. Using cut/cover construction for instance is not impossible in Toronto. Maybe we don't want to do that, which is fine, but it is ridiculous as a city to keep moaning about how we have such a lame subway system but just assume every system has to be a deep tunnel bore, even in the middle of nowhere. Ditto to viaducts. Ditto for almost everything that makes the Canada Line a better deal than what the TTC builds (stacked stations, smaller trains, smaller mezzanines). All of this is just as applicable to LRT, I might add. I was all for the Crosstown LRT when it was still 78m/km, I thought someone might have noticed there are unused ROWs right next to the corridor, we were promised that LRT-magic would let us build smaller tunnels and stations and so forth. I don't so much want the Canada Line as I want someone important to drop this whole "Toronto is unique" shtick and look at what works about various transit projects.

How will it carry less people? the LRT trains will hold more ppl than the skytrain sets, and the Eglinton line projections are to be between 35million - 40million/year.... about 100k a day.

Vehicle capacity isn't the only determinant of system capacity. The Canada Line is designed to operate at a peak headway of about 3 minutes whereas the Crosstown will probably operate with 5-7 minute headways. Likewise, Eglinton will be slower. The 2/3rds of the line will run at half the speed of Canada Line, and the other third will still be significantly slower than the Canada Line. End result being that faster speeds allow more people to use the line in a given period of time. Bombardier claims ICTS can carry "in excess of 30k people per hour pear direction." That probably assumes 4 car trains and 90s headways, but I assume the Canada Line has a similar theoretical capacity.

 

[officedweller]

It is currently free to the public so they can take a look.

That was just an 8 hour preview on Monday.
Tuesday was regular full fare service - but Monday was so crowded lookieloos would still pay the fare on Tuesday to have a look see.

 

[officedweller]

BTW - here's an excellent link
for those interested in calculating transit capacity:

http://144.171.11.107/Main/Public/Blurbs/153590.aspx

Includes calculating bus capacity, exclusive ROW capacity, light rail capacity and includes spreadsheets (not that I would know how to use those)

 

[rbt]

That was just an 8 hour preview on Monday.
Tuesday was regular full fare service - but Monday was so crowded lookieloos would still pay the fare on Tuesday to have a look see.

Really? I had misunderstood then. Thought the "preview" lasted for an entire week.

 

[officedweller]

Really? I had misunderstood then. Thought the "preview" lasted for an entire week.

Nope - just one day (not even a full day).

 

[nfitz]

Are you implying that the Canada line has less capacity than the SRT? Canada Line trains can run totally automated, and are made to run at headways of like 1 minute. Not only do they save money, but they have a much higher capacity and are more comfortable than the SRT.

I didn't say the SRT, I said SRT technology - which can also also run automatically with 1-minute headways. A 6-car configuation of Mark II equipment would give a 108-metre vehicle; at 130 passengers per car, that's 780 people per train. Though as far as I know, Vancouver only operates these in 4-car configurations (72 metres), and I think that's the intent for the SRT upgrade as well ... so say 520 people per train to be conservative.

The Canada Line stations are only 40-metres long (apparently they can be extended to 50-metres). So they can only fit a 2-car configuration that is 40-metres long ... apparently rated at about 330 people per car ... for 660 people per train.

(though I don't get how a 18-metre long by 2.4 metre wide can only fit 130 people, when a 20-metre long by 3 metre wide fits 330 ... with those number, the Mark II vehicles have 3.0 people per square metre, while the Canada Line has 5.5 people per square metre!).

So to make a short story long, the 6-car Mark II SRT configuration can carry more passengers than the new Canada Line ... but they are only going for 4-cars as far as I know ... so that's a bit less ... though I have a hard time believing the passenger numbers.

 

[Paleo]

Is 5.5/m^2 referring to crush load? If so one really shouldn't be using that as a point of comparison. Crush load and 1 minute headway isn't passenger capacity that can be sustained.

 

[nfitz]

Is 5.5/m^2 referring to crush load? If so one really shouldn't be using that as a point of comparison. Crush load and 1 minute headway isn't passenger capacity that can be sustained.

Hard to say ... the various documents are all apples and oranges. Needless to say, simply based on the area of the vehicle, a 4-car Mark II SRT carries significantly more passengers than the 2-car Canada Line vehicles.

 

[EnviroTO]

The reality is that the $4.6 billion is based on what Metrolinx asked for, and the $2.2 billion is based on what the TTC was planning. I have never seen a document from the TTC claiming what they are proposing is going to cost $4.6 billion. So the comparison to the Canada Line is:
- a comparison between a project which is not fully defined and a completed one,
- a project which has far more tunnel boring in rockier earth and more underground stations under a street with no extra space and properties that will need to be bought versus a largely cut-and-cover project under a street which is very wide in much less rocky river delta soil,
- a comparison between underground stations built to be upgradeable to Toronto subway specs versus underground stations which are planned to remain a four car length,
- a comparison between a project which will significantly modify 3 existing subway stations versus one existing station,
- a comparison between a line 31km long and a line 19km long,
- and a comparison between a line with more than double the number of vehicles of another line.

That is apples to apples?

 

[Paleo]

I did a bit of digging. The normal load capacity of the Canada Line with 40m trains is between 10,000 and 12,000 ppdph. The stated numbers of 15,000+ ppdph in press materials is crush capacity.

50m trains would up the capacity closer to the 15,000 ppdph mark.

 

[Whoaccio]

Okay, let's just get some basic facts down. First, the Canada Line right now has a vehicle capacity of 400 passengers per train and a headway of 180 seconds for a peak capacity of 8000 pph/pd. The project is designed to "comfortably" carry about 6,800 pph/pd. With 10m station extensions and 120s headways the system has a capacity of 15,000 pph/pd.

Comparing this to the Eglinton Crosstown is difficult in that the surface segments of the line have much lower capacity than subsurface. Working off of what the TTC claims for the Crosstown LRT though, capacity is somewhere between 5,400 or 6,800 "people per hour" (half that for per direction). Nowhere in any of the TTC's materials do I see any intention of them breaking the line into surface/subsurface so as to run longer trains in the tunnel and nowhere do they propose trains longer than 2 LRVs.

So, yes, the Canada Line presently has a higher capacity than the Crosstown LRT and with minor upgrades has a undeniable capacity advantage.

 

[nfitz]

So, yes, the Canada Line presently has a higher capacity than the Crosstown LRT and with minor upgrades has a undeniable capacity advantage.

However, with more significant upgrades, tunnelized section of Eglinton LRT could be upgraded to full subway if demand exists in the future. And Canada Line seems to be stuck with what it's got.

The best way to save money on Eglinton construction would be to do it as cut-and-cover, like the Canada Line. But somehow, I don't think that the community will support that.

 

[officedweller]

Okay, let's just get some basic facts down. First, the Canada Line right now has a vehicle capacity of 400 passengers per train and a headway of 180 seconds for a peak capacity of 8000 pph/pd. The project is designed to "comfortably" carry about 6,800 pph/pd. With 10m station extensions and 120s headways the system has a capacity of 15,000 pph/pd.

Comparing this to the Eglinton Crosstown is difficult in that the surface segments of the line have much lower capacity than subsurface. Working off of what the TTC claims for the Crosstown LRT though, capacity is somewhere between 5,400 or 6,800 "people per hour" (half that for per direction). Nowhere in any of the TTC's materials do I see any intention of them breaking the line into surface/subsurface so as to run longer trains in the tunnel and nowhere do they propose trains longer than 2 LRVs.

So, yes, the Canada Line presently has a higher capacity than the Crosstown LRT and with minor upgrades has a undeniable capacity advantage.

People over here have generally questioned the 334 passengers / 400 passengers figure in the past - thinking it must be a crush load figure.

Anyways, the 15,000 ppdph is the "ultimate capacity" - theoretical maximum after build-out of the 50m platforms.

Bombardier ALRT's ultimate capacity with its 80m platforms is generally thought to be 25,000 to 30,000 ppdph. It would have increased with the MKIIs versus the MKIs.
The reason for the lower capacity system to Richmond is that Richmond is not slated to grow as much as Surrey (where the Expo Line runs to) because Richmond lies on a flood plain and will liquify in the big earthquake.

The other figures you mention sound about right from what I recall from news reports, etc.

 

[Whoaccio]

However, with more significant upgrades, tunnelized section of Eglinton LRT could be upgraded to full subway if demand exists in the future. And Canada Line seems to be stuck with what it's got.

Yes, it could, but then you have full subway costs. Maybe we want full subway on Eglinton and you can probably make an argument for it, but it is misleading to use LRT-grade prices while claiming subway style capacity. At least with the Canada Line the requisite upgrades to achieve 15k pph/pd (i.e. adding more rolling stock, building stations out 10m) are fairly minor and shouldn't have a major impact on costs. TTC projections seem to show Eglinton demand maxing out at something like 6,000 pph, which is way below subway demand and frankly on the low end of medium capacity systems. Maybe a faster system could spike that to 10k pph (i am just guessing), but I don't think an ART scale system would have capacity issues within our lifetime.