[unimaginative2]

Whoa. Over your head. You are missing the point that many cities recognize the importance of LRT, and that HRT is not the only answer. We are not like those cities. We do not have the population, nor density to justify a subway, and only a fool would think we can become like those cities if we build subways like them. We CANNOT. Again, I am amazed why you guys chose to ignore this, or are simply ignorant of other transit modes. I do not know. Keep on preaching subways. No one is really listening anymore.

It's amazing how threatening you find anybody questioning the LRT fanboy consensus. Our population is far higher than many of the cities we've mentioned. Our population density is quite comparable to most of them. And yeah, given the choice of building a system that's a bit more like Munich or a bit more like St. Louis, I'll take the former any day of the week.

You haven't enumerated any of these wonderful mythical light rail systems just like Transit City that you've ridden...

TC Apologist? Hardly. More like a Transit Enthusiast who loves transit, and knows enough to understand Toronto doesn't need subways to have a great system.

Seriously...I don't understand the LRT fanatics. I really don't. But at least call yourself an LRT enthusiast. You obviously can't stand any other form of transit.

And please. The Canada LIne is not LRT. It's a automated light metro that has already reached capacity, and cannot be expanded without a huge cost. $2 Billion waste of money.

Uh...yeah. A waste of money...because it's so popular. Well I guess they should have built a street median LRT. Its ridership would have been so much lower that overcrowding wouldn't be a problem!

Or...the Spadina streetcar is pretty much at capacity and it would be pretty damned hard to expand. What a waste of money it was to build it!

 

[kettal]

I've ridden quite a number of light rail systems around the world, but I haven't ridden one like Transit City because there aren't any. Nobody has built tracks down the middle of the street stopping at every traffic light and with stations less than 500 metres apart over dozens of kilometres through the suburbs. Nobody. There's not one example of it in the world.

Bordeaux T1 runs about 14 km in the middle of a street, about the same as Finch West's length.. Average station stop: 400 m

Lyon has the same situation going on and Strassbourg's Line A is the same length and has the same on-street design as TC routes.

Why don't these ones count?

 

[kEiThZ]

Bordeaux T1 runs about 14 km in the middle of a street, about the same as Finch West's length.. Average station stop: 400 m

Lyon has the same situation going on and Strassbourg's Line A is the same length and has the same on-street design as TC routes.

Why don't these ones count?

Wikipedia Population Numbers:

Bordeaux: 250,082
Strassbourg: 276,867
Lyon: 1,783,400

The first two could use LRT because of their small population. Nobody is going to suggest that Kingston, ON build subways any time soon. LRT is appropriate for a trunk line for smaller cities. In our case, Hamilton, and Kitchener-Waterloo and maybe Brampton and Mississauga are going the same way.

Lyon on the other hand has four subway lines with decent enough spacing to provide good coverage of the city. LRT is filling some small gaps and serving as a feeder for the metro network. They aren't using LRT as a replacement for a subway like we are on Eglinton or Sheppard.

 

[waterloowarrior]

Bordeaux T1 runs about 14 km in the middle of a street, about the same as Finch West's length.. Average station stop: 400 m

Lyon has the same situation going on and Strassbourg's Line A is the same length and has the same on-street design as TC routes.

Why don't these ones count?

Isn't Finch going to be part of a 39 KM mega-tram (Sheppard-Finch) with 69 stops and 3 minute headways by 2031? (and a 1 hr 45 min trip from end to end... )

 

[kettal]

Both Bordeau & Strasbourg are closer to 700,000. The municipalities are split up, that's why the numbers were small.

You can nitpick all you want, but these cities have LRT systems comparable to Transit City. Oh wait, none of them have a CN Tower, so I guess they don't count. My bad

 

[kEiThZ]

Oooh 700 000. That's about the size of Mississauga. So our city of 2.5 million should emulate a city that's under a third of its size and the size of one of our suburbs? Would you suggest that transit planners in Paris or London take advice from Hamilton, ON?

 

[kEiThZ]

Isn't Finch going to be part of a 39 KM mega-tram (Sheppard-Finch) with 69 stops and 3 minute headways by 2031? (and a 1 hr 45 min trip from end to end... )

That's what you call amazing crosstown service. And that's before you factor in Metrolinx's warning about 10% variability per segment in travel speed.

 

[kettal]

Oooh 700 000. That's about the size of Mississauga. So our city of 2.5 million should emulate a city that's under a third of its size and the size of one of our suburbs? Would you suggest that transit planners in Paris or London take advice from Hamilton, ON?

So? Scarborough and Etobicoke are like Mississauga. The only difference is that an imaginary border line isn't between it and central Toronto.

 

[unimaginative2]

Exactly Keithz and Waterloowarrior. That's the whole point. I've always said Finch West makes sense in many ways. Unfortunately they've decided to build this 39km mega-line to bypass the Sheppard subway.

So? Scarborough and Etobicoke are like Mississauga. The only difference is that an imaginary border line isn't between it and central Toronto.

Exactly! That's the whole point I've been making. Light rail is ideal for local service within areas like Scarborough and Etobicoke, feeding into higher-order transit. A line up to Malvern from the subway at Town Centre, for example, or perhaps a route up McCowan. Where light rail makes absolutely no sense is on main trunk routes in a huge city travelling enormous distances with low speeds and frequent stops.

There's a reason the interurbans got abandoned way back in the 30s: they were so slow that they couldn't possibly compete. People just aren't going back to a time when they road the streetcar from Long Branch to downtown for an hour and a half. If we don't have decent rapid transit that is suitable for a city our size, people will drive. We've seen that all over the United States.

 

[kettal]

I also agree that running Finch-Sheppard as one big line would be a mistake.

But back to Eglinton, it only has 7 km of on-street track at either end, and ideally it would be a split line, with a central overlap. Is this not comparable to your European LRT that go in and out of reserved corridors or tunnels?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Revisionist history. Asking for $6B for a citywide transit network was visionary. I don't think he could have realized that we would end up with estimates of 22 km/h.

Really, what's so visionary about proposing something so expensive it may never be built? With knowledge that funding was on the way, existing transit plans were dumped and new ones created (that didn't even conform to the new official plan, but did conform to the kind of pie-in-the-sky vision of nostalgic utopia usually reserved for the love children of Kunstler and Pollyanna). The city may not have known how massively expensive Transit city would be, though, which may explain why Eglinton's cost, in particular, has ballooned out of control and threatened other projects.

A whole bunch of small but very inexpensive and very productive improvements are being bypassed, as well as a whole bunch of the busiest routes in the city.

Whoa. Over your head. You are missing the point that many cities recognize the importance of LRT, and that HRT is not the only answer. We are not like those cities. We do not have the population, nor density to justify a subway, and only a fool would think we can become like those cities if we build subways like them. We CANNOT. Again, I am amazed why you guys chose to ignore this, or are simply ignorant of other transit modes. I do not know. Keep on preaching subways. No one is really listening anymore.

Were you abandoned in a subway station as a child? Is this you every time you see the word 'subway' on the internet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbcctWbC8Q0

The cold hard truth is that Toronto needs to expand its subway system (and not even by all that much). Either you've never been to Toronto, or you've never been anywhere but Toronto. Most cities that are building LRT lines are either a fraction our size or already have superb subway/commuter rail networks. You don't seem to be aware of the massive nodes that already exist in Toronto's suburbs, many of which are slated to receive absolutely no improved transit despite "Transit City"'s mega-billion dollar pricetag.

Nobody here is saying don't build any LRT lines...we're saying things like don't waste $2B building them out to squirrel country at Sheppard & Morningside, where they'll never use even a fraction of the lines' capacity and where buses can do a better job. What's wrong with Dufferin or Wilson? We're saying build them properly and in the right places. The middle of Morningside is most certainly not the right place. The middle of Eglinton isn't right, either, when there's a corridor sitting right beside the road.

Isn't Finch going to be part of a 39 KM mega-tram (Sheppard-Finch) with 69 stops and 3 minute headways by 2031? (and a 1 hr 45 min trip from end to end... )

Don't forget that the EA (which is already optimistic) (edit - and I mean the EA for Sheppard and the BCA for Sheppard/Finch) says that there will be operational issues and delays due to red lights and traffic...European LRT lines as designed and operated by Europeans could probably take riders from France to Poland in the time it'll take the TTC to get someone from Humber to Malvern.

 

[unimaginative2]

I also agree that running Finch-Sheppard as one big line would be a mistake.

But back to Eglinton, it only has 7 km of on-street track at either end, and ideally it would be a split line, with a central overlap. Is this not comparable to your European LRT that go in and out of reserved corridors or tunnels?

On the whole, yes. That's why I've generally been guardedly supportive of the Eglinton line. My main concern has to do with the TTC's record at managing surface rail routes. If they can't get it right on St. Clair, I'm worried that we're going to see trains leaving the terminals at random intervals and bunching through the tunnel.

 

[Rainforest]

Everywhere from Pearson to just east of Royal York Rd; the Humber River to Mt Dennis Stn; Black Creek to Trethewey; and Brentcliffe to the DVP can be done via a mix of at-grade (trenched) and elevated guideways including bridge crossings. To say these portions of track will amount to $300 million when Vancouver was able to build its entire Canada Line for $190 million per kilometre (NB: that’s with over half the ROW being underground including major river crossings) is overanalyzing what the rates of inflation in five years will look like, not to mention the criteria being used to justify what is nothing more than a mere suggested total figure. What are TTC consultants basing this estimate on?

I don't know about the TTC consultants, but my estimates are based on the Spadina extension cost. By default, they are more relevant to Toronto context than the cost of Canada Line in Vancouver.

To make Vancouver numbers useful for planning in Toronto, we need a detailed comparison between those two projects. Indeed, the difference is remarkable:
- Canada Line: $190 million per kilometre, partly runs under the busy downtown, 45 kph.
- Spadina extension: $265 million per kilometre (more than $300 if the contingency fund is taken into account), partly runs under empty fields, 32 - 35 kph.

Apparently Vancouver has got a better value for the buck, but what are the reasons:
- Geological conditions? (If so, probably nothing can be done about it)
- Tunnel width? (Unimaginative2 noted that Canada Line's tunnel is about same size as TTC subways; if so, then this suggestion is void)
- Station design and length?
- Safety requirements in Ontario versus B.C.?
- Local construction cost difference?
- Fiscal overhead due to organized labor or other factors?

If the analyzis of those and other factors indicates that cost of subway construction in Toronto can be lowered towards the Vancouver numbers, then the plans ought to change, and Eglinton subway should return to the agenda.

Without such analyzis, attempts to cost Eglinton subway based on Vancouver's numbers are nothing more than exercises in self-deception. You can cancel LRT and hope to replace it with subway for $5 B. But when the planning and construction start, most likely the cost of subway will swell to $8 or $9 B, or the line gets truncated.

 

[unimaginative2]

- Geological conditions? (If so, probably nothing can be done about it)

I believe their geology is more challenging because of the high water table. The line also included crossings of three major bodies of water.

- Tunnel width? (Unimaginative2 noted that Canada Line's tunnel is about same size as TTC subways; if so, then this suggestion is void)

That's right. The dimensions are the same.

- Station design and length?

The stations are much shorter. That's one of the sources of savings. They attempted to compensate for shorter trains with automation that allows for higher frequencies.

They also standardized the station design to reduce costs.

- Safety requirements in Ontario versus B.C.?

I definitely don't think that's a factor. Many requirements are federal.

- Local construction cost difference?

Vancouver is a much higher cost city than Toronto.

- Fiscal overhead due to organized labor or other factors?

Vancouver has a higher minimum wage and higher wage levels generally.

Most of the savings on this line came from creative approaches to design (stacked tunnels, shorter stations, cut-and-cover, elevated segments) and project management.

 

[Ansem]

^^^^^

Excellent points....