[New_EastYork]

I would like to discuss the possibility of developing the Eglinton corridor using concrete beams similar to the Vancouver Skytrain. the vehicle technology is not as important in this context. Transit city is an amazing idea and I applaud the current administration for it. I am just not convinced LRT in median rights of way will be fast enough despite the tunneled portion. We deserve at least 70 k/hr dont we?

your thoughts? is this a possibility?

ps- I would support keeping the currently planned tunneled portion underground

 

[kettal]

It won't be 70 kph in any scenario, as the number of stations required will keep the average speed below 40 kph even in the best case.

Elevation would be an aestheic problem, and expensive to build and maintain. The benefit of street-level stations is there is no need to construct and maintain elevators, escalators, cleaning, and security. On the street you have all the eyes of pedestrians and motorists providing security.

For much of the low-demand areas of Eglinton, such expenses will be overkill given the low number of people who would actually utilize the stations.

 

[Second_in_pie]

There are actually plenty of corridors in the city that could use an elevated ROW. Eglinton East and Don Mills are two of the most obvious and most needed ones. Using an Elevated ROW is not a new concept in transit building at all, and many transit systems make extensive use of elevated ROWs.

And if you build them right, they aren't actually that bad aesthetically. Of course, when you're talking about the TTC here, that might not be that comforting. But it can be done.

 

[Rainforest]

I like the idea. A transit line on the elevated guideway does not have to be aesthetically unpleasant. Vienna's U6 comes to mind, it runs on elevated guideways for a large part of its length, but is built nicely into the urbanscape.

Obviously, elevated guideway is feasible only along outer portions of Eglinton, i.e. parts of East York / Golden Mile and parts of Etobicoke. The central section would still have to be tunneled, as mentioned in the original post of New_EastYork.

The overall cost would be higher than for the median right-of-way, but the extra cost would be partly offset by more efficient use of vehicles. When the speed is higher, same headways can be maintained by fewer vehicles in service; or, same number of vehicles can maintain shorter headways.

I don't think the number of people utilizing the stations along the western and eastern segments will be low. Eglinton line makes so many connections. If it is fast, many people traveling on buses from the north towards Bloor subway nowdays, will transfer to Eglinton line instead.

 

[JWBF]

I also agree that els are a good way to go but cost and access would pose too big to confront.

 

[superman]

If we're going for the cheap route, on the Eglinton line, a good idea following other LRT systems would be to:

- Reduce the number of minor intersections
- Dive under major intersections
- And, railway gate the intersections where we can't avoid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee93yveCDGM)

Didn't Metrolinx want to make this line ICTS so it can be linked the the SRT? If they pursued that, this line would have had to be elevated/underground, no?

 

[Rainforest]

Didn't Metrolinx want to make this line ICTS so it can be linked the the SRT? If they pursued that, this line would have had to be elevated/underground, no?

That's true; but ICTS has many disadvantages:

1) Incompatible with either subway lines or other Transit City lines. Not possible to interline, shift vehicles between lines, use common maintenance facilities etc.

2) Proprietory technology. If Bobmardier significantly alters its vehicle offerings in future, TTC may not be able to purchase additional vehicles, or replacement vehicles, without rebuilding the line. Case in point: the current situation with SRT. Had it been built with a commonly used technology, TTC could buy additional vehicles long ago and avoid overcrowding. Current headways are about 3'30'' and could be shortened, if TTC had more cars. But Bombardier does not make Mk-I any more, and Mk-II that they offer cannot negotiate the existing curves.

3) Reaction rail technology does not do well in winter when snow accumulates on the reaction rail. The maintenance yards would likely be placed at the elevated sections of the line. Hence, even the central tunneled section of Eglinton might not work during snowfalls, simply because the vehicles cannot get there.

I think that if they go for fully grade-separated line, they should use either subway trains (compatible with other Toronto subway lines) or LRT trains (compatible with other TC lines). Some had pointed that LRT vehicles are much more expensive than subway cars of similar capacity. On the other hand, a guideway for LRT trains might be easier and cheaper to build, since LRT cars are not as wide as subway cars.

 

[EnviroTO]

If we're going for the cheap route, on the Eglinton line, a good idea following other LRT systems would be to:

- Reduce the number of minor intersections
- Dive under major intersections
- And, railway gate the intersections where we can't avoid

Other than the railway gating of intersections this is the plan. A number of minor intersections will be closed forcing people to turn right, go to the next open intersection, and do a U-turn. In the short term the remaining intersections will have transit priority and in the longer term the tracks will dive under the intersection at key bottle necks.

 

[Rainforest]

... and in the longer term the tracks will dive under the intersection at key bottle necks.

Do any official documents mention that possibility? I haven't seen it anywhere in Eglinton LRT presentation panels.

Rebuilding the intersections after the line is in service means closing parts of the line. Moreover, at present they are planning complex U-turn arrangements for general traffic at many major intersections, including rebuilding parts of some avenues that cross Eglinton. Those arrangements will become redundant if they grade-separate the LRT at intersections in future.

 

[CDL.TO]

Didn't Metrolinx want to make this line ICTS so it can be linked the the SRT? If they pursued that, this line would have had to be elevated/underground, no?

Do we have any citations that Metrolinx has ever said that they wanted to make the line ICTS? All I can find are articles about how they want to make the line faster, they say nothing about choice of technology.

 

[New_EastYork]

I'm so glad to hear from people who are interested in alternatives to median ROW LRT. It certainly is true that 70 km/h was a bit wishful.
I also agree ICTS technology is inappropriate for our network, even though I am a pretty big fan of it.

I'm sure there will be a BCA from Metrolinx concerning this. A lot can change by May 19th

 

[ssiguy2]

The issue with SkyTrain can be a touchy one with Toronto winters but it could definatly work. I am a strong supporter of elevated rapid/mass transit with underground sections where needed. I think Monorails would be a better fit due to being able to negotiate tighter curves and steeper inclines which means it has better availability of being able to negotiate around current underground water/electrical infrastructure. Also the trains are lighter so the beams are considerable smaller. The tracks are covered so ice and snow are not issues. They can have more of the system built offsite so they are also cheaper to build. Most run of rubber wheels which makes them blissfully quiet which is a real bonus down roadways/rail ROW. The Bombardier Monorails are very light so only require 26 inch beams. Some of the newer systems are so light weight that they can actually use steel beams which, I think, is more pleasing to the eye than concrete.
Both have the ability to have automatic operations which LRT does not and this is a great money saver over the long term due to saved labour costs.

 

[superman]

Toronto needs to evaluate mode types by not only capacity, but speed, and the range that they expect passengers to use the service also. I think these are how the modes boil down:

Bus - Low capacity, low speed, local
LRT/Streetcar (On-Street) - Mid capacity, low speed, local
LRT/Streetcar (Partial Exclusive ROW) - Mid capacity, mid speed, local
Mid Capacity Transport Systems - LRT/ICTS/ART (Exclusive ROW) - Mid capacity, high speed, crosstown
Subway - High capacity, high speed, crosstown
REX-Style Commuter Rail - High capacity, super high speed, crosstown-to-regional
GO-Style Commuter Rail - High capacity, super high speed, regional

With Eglinton expecting lower ridership that what would be needed for a subway, i think it fits the MCTS mode the best since it needs less capacity than a subway, serves a more crosstown function than the streetcar lines on Spadina and St Clair since it'll be the primary transit route to the airport (especially the western leg) and thus would need the higher speed afforded by an exclusive ROW.

With that said, there can be a few options that the TTC should explore to build the exclusive right of way... of course underground would be ideal. But, they should really consider elevated or if they have no money, at-grade with true signal priority (gating intersections, not stopping for reds at all, fencing the ROW off to prevent intrusions - the Gold Line in LA is a good example).

I don't think technology choice between conventional LRT vehicles or ICTS really matters as long as we get an exclusive right-of-way somehow.

 

[leopetr]

Vienna's U6 comes to mind, it runs on elevated guideways for a large part of its length, but is built nicely into the urbanscape.

Going by Google Earth, Vienna's U6 is in a right of way 45 metres wide:
Sidewalk - 4m
Road - 8m
Parking - 5m
Elevated - 14m
Road - 13m
Sidewalk - 4m

For comparison, University Ave at Queen is 50m wide:
Sidewalk - 5m
Road - 13m
Median - 14m
Road - 13m
Sidewalk - 5m

Spadina Ave at Dundas is 36m:
Sidewalk - 4m
Road - 7m
Median - 9m
Road - 9m
Sidewalk - 7m

Eglinton Ave E at Warden is 32m (48m):
(Lawn - 7m)
Sidewalk - 2.5m
Road - 27m
Sidewalk - 2.5m
(Lawn - 9m)

Width of McCowan Station: 16m

So I suppose elevated is possible, at least in places. I do have to say that I really hate the SRT -- it's loud, ugly, narrow, and cramped. If they were doing elevated, I'd much rather they do elevated LRT with Transit City cars. Vienna's U6 uses traditional streetcar rolling stock, or used to very recently.

 

[Hipster Duck]

The "ugliness" of aerial viaducts is not an argument; just an aesthetic preference that people in one city are used to over another. For example, people in Paris, New York, Chicago or Berlin are used to elevated rail lines running through some of their most attractive and high-priced neighbourhoods; Vancouverites think that the SkyTrain's concrete viaducts are lithe and symbolic of the city. Some people I've talked to even say that Richmond feels much more urban and sophisticated after the Canada line viaducts were put in place.

On the other hand, Torontonians seem to look the other way when it comes to what I personally think are far more egregious examples of aesthetic blight. Somehow having a concrete guideway along a roadway brings down the character of the neighbourhood, but having a forest of overhead electrical wires and superfluous rotting wooden poles (or rusting metal ones) is okay.