[doady]

It's hardly fair to say that adding Flexity cars to St Clair would cause us to redefine it as an LRT. If it is, it already is. If it isn't, Flexities won't make it so.

This is why I can't take LRT proponents seriously... the term "light rail transit" doesn't make much sense to begin with, especially if it excludes streetcars/trams. Nobody calls subways/metros "heavy rail transit," and commuter rail counts as heavy rail.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

At some point you have to exercise some pragmatism and go with the more plausible option, even if it's not ideal. Transit City is a wildly imperfect solution in many cases but it has one big thing going for it - it can actually get built.

This argument makes absolutely no sense. Anything could "actually get built" if it was backed by unprecedented billions in funding.

Of course, Transit City's cost has bloated to such a degree that half the lines are already in doubt and now depend on another funding windfall.

 

[waterloowarrior]

This is why I can't take LRT proponents seriously... the term "light rail transit" doesn't make much sense to begin with, especially if it excludes streetcars/trams. Nobody calls subways/metros "heavy rail transit," and commuter rail counts as heavy rail.

LRT

LRT

LRT

LRT

LRT

LRT

LRT

 

[Darwinkgo]

^ O-Train is only really light rail in how it is being run, but the same rolling stock is run as main line railway DMUs in Europe.

 

[nfitz]

As it stands now, he's right. But the new streetcars will be here long before any of the TC lines (with the exception of St. Clair and Spadina) are in operation, and therefore will infact act as a pilot project.

Only if you remove some stops, close some interesections, and block some of the left-turn lanes. Then perhaps it could be a pilot project.

HOWEVER, the main purpose of a pilot project is to determine whether or not this new form of transit (new to Toronto anyway) will work here. ...

so if it fails as bad as Spadina ... well how do you calculate success then ... we all agree Spadina has failed in terms of rapid transit. Yet the growth of ridership on that line has exceeded all expectations.

 

[nfitz]

This is the next 100 years of transit in the city we're talking about!

Well it will last 100 years perhaps; but it's not all that's happening in 100 years. The city has talked of Transit City being constructed completely by 2018. Even Metrolinx has it all completed before 2034, along with the DRL, regional-express rail, a cross-town rail line. With GO service running at subway frequences, a lot will change. So at worst that's 24 years ... I'm sure there'll be a lot more in the following 76 years.

All this talk of a new premier or new mayor cutting transit funding is pretty much totally redundant.

Yet there are some people here who have suggested an incoming mayor would cancel certain Transit City routes. This is what happened in Ottawa; the incoming Mayor didn't cancel funding; they instead "reallocated" it. No sign of anything being built though ...

No Premier will be able to be able to get elected with a platform to kill all these transit projects, and Metrolinx can veto any mayor who wants to kill any of the improvements.

Oh, do you really think Hudak is that enlightened? He a Harris-clone. All it would take is a Liberal scandal, NDP clumsiness, and we'll have budget cuts left, right, and centre ... or perhaps, left, left, and left. Though instead of building 3 expressways heading north, perhaps he'll simply build the new expressway to Niagara.

Ok, let me put this into a metaphor. If you have an out of control river, how many rocks are you going to stick into it to try to block the flow before you say "Why don't we just build a dam?"
There's many cases where it makes sense to do something right and well the first time rather than do it in less time and have a big problem on your hands because it isn't up to par.
You can say that we haven't had a transit improvement in so long, so we need to get to work on quick projects now might make some sense. But 20 years down the road when people are still wondering why we didn't build a subway on Eglinton, the reason will be a little less clear.

 

[kettal]

Ok, let me put this into a metaphor. If you have an out of control river, how many rocks are you going to stick into it to try to block the flow before you say "Why don't we just build a dam?"
There's many cases where it makes sense to do something right and well the first time rather than do it in less time and have a big problem on your hands because it isn't up to par.
You can say that we haven't had a transit improvement in so long, so we need to get to work on quick projects now might make some sense. But 20 years down the road when people are still wondering why we didn't build a subway on Eglinton, the reason will be a little less clear.

The correct answer is to do nothing, conduct study after study. I argue with my neighbours how to best control the river. He stops me from building the levee because that would get in the way of his future dam plans. The next day we all drown.

 

[nfitz]

This is why I can't take LRT proponents seriously... the term "light rail transit" doesn't make much sense to begin with, especially if it excludes streetcars/trams.

Of course LRT includes streetcars/trams. I can't imagine anyone would suggest other wise.

Nobody calls subways/metros "heavy rail transit," ...

Except for the 1.4 million Google hits - http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=heavy+rail+transit

 

[unimaginative2]

The point is that Vancouver was able to build a completely grade separated rapid transit route that was 19 km long with a higher capacity than the Eglinton Crosstown line for a total $1.8 billion cost to governments. The majority of the line is underground and the tunnel diameter is the same as the TTC subway. That's a lower cost per kilometre than the Eglinton LRT which is mostly in mixed traffic.

 

[kEiThZ]

You do realize that 1.4 million google hits for a generic term is rather light? There's probable more rail fans than that in the world.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

"Some" of the Eglinton corridor can accomodate cheaper construction, not "most" of it. I think that 10 km out of 30 would be an optimistic estimate.

It is true that Eglinton could save something on station costs (only Don Mills, Jane, Kipling, and the airport would need big stations). But this route has its share of other challenges:
- 3 highways: 404, 401, 427
- 4 rivers: East Don, West Don, Black Creek, Humber
- crossing old central part of the city with its numerous utility lines (I suspect that has added to the projected cost of Eglinton LRT tunnel)
- complex wyes for service connections to Spadina and/or Yonge lines

So, I think that $200 million/kilometre for the 10 km of "easy" Richview and East York sections, and $300 million/kilometre for the remaining 20 km, is not an overstatement (perhaps, an understatement). Adding up: $8 B, which is $3.4 B more than the allocated Eglinton LRT funding.

I think the above two are red herrings. The LRT plan still has to cross all those old utilities in the core (granted you did mention that it has added to the cost of the LRT). That shouldn't be used as argument against subway since an existing condition that would have to be dealt with regardless of solution.

The wyes would replace the cost of building a yard for the Eglinton fleet. I'd assume that a yard would be built specifically for Eglinton since it's significatly different from the rest of the TC network.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Not to mention that most of those hits are transit agencies talking about "heavy rail transit" as as scientific a term as possible.

People use "LRT" for all these things, from Streetcars to TC-style LRTs, to what are essentially Metros using pantograph wires instead of 3rd rails. When people refer to subways, they say "Subway," or "Metro." If you asked someone what Go was, they'd probably say "A train" or "Regional Rail" or "Commuter Rail" if they wanted to be more precise.

Just take a look at things: We've got "LRT" running at street-level rails essentially the same as busses. Then there's TC-Style LRT, with longer vehicles running in their own street-separated ROWs. Then there's Calgary LRT, which is almost totally grade-separated except for a few heavily ROW-separed segments and some road crossings (where they're treated like a freight train.) Even further, Barcelona is calling one of their new Metro lines "LRT" because they're using "LRTs" instead of traditional subway vehicles. It'll be totally underground, with fully enclosed stations, but it's still called LRT. So we've gone from busses to subways, all classified under LRT. Don't you think the definition is a bit broad?

 

[kEiThZ]

Oh, do you really think Hudak is that enlightened? He a Harris-clone. All it would take is a Liberal scandal, NDP clumsiness, and we'll have budget cuts left, right, and centre ... or perhaps, left, left, and left. Though instead of building 3 expressways heading north, perhaps he'll simply build the new expressway to Niagara.

If that were to come to pass, let's see how he'd react to Metrolinx canning GO service to Niagara first. It's not the TTC plans that are building support for transit in this province, it's GO and all the 905 plans. They are too far along for Hudak to do anything about it. And that's if he can get elected. There's no apetite for his kind of politics in the 905 heartland any more. Any politician proposing less transit in the 905 would not get elected for sure.

You can say that we haven't had a transit improvement in so long, so we need to get to work on quick projects now might make some sense. But 20 years down the road when people are still wondering why we didn't build a subway on Eglinton, the reason will be a little less clear.

It's clear now that we aren't doing it because of costs. And it'll be equally clear in the future that as a 'Crosstown' route it's a failure when very few people actually use it on a regular basis to go across town. I am sure the line will have high ridership. It's a 30 km line after all. There's lot of places to get on and off. However, will it have made a difference in reducing travel time for those who want to access the airport or get from one side of Toronto to the other (without going really far south to do it)? I doubt it very much.

The correct answer is to do nothing, conduct study after study. I argue with my neighbours how to best control the river. He stops me from building the levee because that would get in the way of his future dam plans. The next day we all drown.

If you are the only one arguing and the neighbours all agree, who's at fault? And if you're solution was a pile of rocks that might last a year vs. the neighbours who will trade a few basement leaks but build a dam that lasts a decade, who would you applaud?

There were plans about building subway lines that have been on the books for decades. Miller could have built on it by adding LRT and BRT lines to create a complete network. Instead he picked one technology and then built a rough grid to overlay on the city with very little consideration for travel patterns and even potential for development (despite all the avenuization BS).

 

[kettal]

You're right, English sucks. The discussion from here on will be conducted in German.

 

[nfitz]

The majority of the line is underground ...

Given that a majority of the Canada line is above ground, how do we know that anything else you said is correct?