[JWBF]

Elevated Rail, anyone?



Elevated trains: Metrolinx offers subway alternative
Natalie Alcoba December 20, 2010 – 10:34 pm

Metrolinx, Ontario’s regional transportation agency, has tossed another option into Toronto’s transit rethink: elevated train corridors.

Tasked with coming up with a plan that scraps surface transit routes, Metrolinx CEO Bruce McCuaig and chairman Rob Prichard met with Mayor Rob Ford’s chief of staff, Nick Kouvalis, his director of policy, Mark Towhey, and TTC chairwoman Karen Stintz on Friday at City Hall. Mr. McCuaig called it a “constructive and collegial” exchange.

The message from the Mayor’s office was that “minimizing the impact on traffic” (also known as preserving road space for vehicles) is “very important” to him; Metrolinx said there are alternatives to tunnelling underground.

“In some cases there might be a wide enough right of way to accommodate an LRT” while maintaining the same number of traffic lanes, Mr. McCuaig said in an interview.

“Another way of potentially addressing it is going up, instead of going down. We owe it to the people to look at all the alternatives.”

And while it’s clear that the Mayor is intent on building subways, he is also prepared to hear Metrolinx out.

“The Mayor’s office is certainly looking forward to working with Metrolinx and the TTC about the Mayor’s priorities to build subways,” said Adrienne Batra, Mr. Ford’s press secretary. “There is also a good opportunity here for there to be other options presented and we look forward to hearing what those are.”

Mr. Ford’s priority is extending the Sheppard subway from Downsview to Scarborough Town Centre.

Metrolinx is pushing for the Eglinton Crosstown, a light-rail line across the city that would include a 10-kilometre stretch underground, which is valued for its “regional” benefits. Mr. McCuaig said an Eglinton line would relieve the congested Yonge line and link up with GO Transit hubs.

“We’re hearing that that project has some support from the city as well,” said Mr. McCuaig.

Ms. Stintz said she expects to see a revised plan, with various options, by the end of January.

She said it is premature to judge the viability of building an elevated line. Ultimately, any changes to the plan will have to consider the limited funds available from the province, which is paying for most of the new transit, and meeting the Mayor’s target of completing a Sheppard line in time for the 2015 Pan Am Games.

The provincial government had put up $3.1-billion for the first phase of transit expansion, and is firm that there isn’t any more. Some of that money has been spent; the TTC and Metrolinx have also signed $1.3-billion worth of contracts that will cost money to break.

Mr. McCuaig said an elevated line is “less expensive than going underground” but could not give a per-kilometre estimate because it depends on the site. “When you look at places like Vancouver, they were able to integrate the SkyTrain and the Canada Line very effectively in the urban environment,” said Mr. McCuaig.

Toronto has some experience with the technology: The aging Scarborough RT operates on stretches of elevated track. Richard Soberman, a transportation consultant who was vice-president of the company that supplied the parts for the RT in the 1970s, said the city considered at the time putting the elevated tracks along the less populated stretches of Eglinton Avenue. The community objected to the “visual intrusion,” he said.

“I think it would be a tough sell in the modern era when people are a lot more concerned with the urban landscape,” said Mr. Soberman. “But it’s not something that shouldn’t be considered.”

National Post

Read more: http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/1...linx-offers-subway-alternative/#ixzz18imRsfRy

Yes, ELs have some interesting prospects in some areas of the city; however, the NIMBY protests would be probably worse than for LRV/LRTs. This is unfortunate for many reasons, not the least is that separate/non-grade ROWs solve so many problems.

 

[gweed123]

Yes, ELs have some interesting prospects in some areas of the city; however, the NIMBY protests would be probably worse than for LRV/LRTs. This is unfortunate for many reasons, not the least is that separate/non-grade ROWs solve so many problems.

I suspect most of the NIMBYism will be fear of the unknown. The public planner in me would want to educate them on the benefits, the private planner in me would want to tell them to STFU and deal with it .

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Transfers are a part of reality and will continue to be so due to political "gerrymandering." Learn to accept to it, it may frustrate you less!

And yet the Eglinton Crosstown line MUST be continuous with no transfers when there are clearly 2 different types/levels of passenger demand on the corrider.

 

[Paleo]

http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/sheppard_east_lrt/pdf/completion/ea_report_master_part1.pdf
Page 9

The Sheppard East line brings nothing in a regional perspective. Metrolinx made clear that they wanted future investments to have a regional impact. The Sheppard line study neglected to calculate that a subway would also cut the travel time forYork region and Durham region passengers in a very significant way.

If you approched the Sheppard corridor in a regional perspective, subway is the way to go. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that YRT, Durham and Go would reroute some of their route to Sheppard Lrt Stops. The LRT would do nothing to improve traffic on Yonge Street where most of the GO and YRT buses uses to reach Finch Station and this would not change with an LRT.

I also noticed that when they were estimating the project ridership for the Sheppard Subway line, not a word on the impacts of the YRT, GO rerouting their lines, not a word on potential drivers from the suburbs leaving their cars at Sheppard subway stations. Their projections are based on the areas close to Sheppard Avenue only which is a mistake. A subway would attract people from much far away.

Why haven't they studied Downsview to STC for a subway line? Studiying Don Mills to Meadowvale for a subway line is just forcing the numbers to justify the LRT over the subway.

Really? Why would people from Durham care? There are no major destinations along the proposed line other than a couple of malls. If they were headed downtown or to NYCC, why wouldn't they just drive along the 401 and park at Yonge or even Wilson or extended BD line at STC OR any of the many GO STATIONS. Ditto for people coming from York. What does using Sheppard accomplish that rerouting buses along the 407 to an extended Yonge line OR RH GO won't?

The line would likely be an even bigger money loser than it already is, why should it be built given all of the above and especially so if there are apparently just huge crowds of people waiting to use it from York and Durham (lol not likely) when they don't contribute a penny to capital or operating costs via taxes.

 

[Dan416]

And yet the Eglinton Crosstown line MUST be continuous with no transfers when there are clearly 2 different types/levels of passenger demand on the corrider.

The Mad Navigator is called the Mad Navigator not because he's angry, but because he's nuts

That said, transfers are fine where they're logical. Don Mills and Kennedy are not logical transfer points.

 

[noctis]

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with Transit City. I just wana see something get done rather than seeing a bunch of ppl debating about whether subway is better than LRT and what not. I just read an article on the Sheppard Subway Extension from the Toronto Sun, and one of the replies I saw was rather interesting, but true:

"In China, 1,400 km rail transit lines were under construction and 2,610 km more were planned in 2009.

China would invest 700 billion yuan (102.5 billion U.S. dollars) on urban rail construction in the coming five years.

....... and in Canada, we just argue and nothing gets done."

Does this ring a bell to anyone? Man, this is so 2009 right?!

I duno about you, but Mr. Ford's gravy train is getting gravier by the minute...he is just wasting time...I mean honestly, in 4 years, what can he really to for the city of Toronto? There's so much he can do and yet his first priority is thinking about trashing Transit City (which has already been started), and expanding the Sheppard Subway Line...Talking about money well spent? I don't think so...

 

[spider]

"In China, 1,400 km rail transit lines were under construction and 2,610 km more were planned in 2009.

China would invest 700 billion yuan (102.5 billion U.S. dollars) on urban rail construction in the coming five years.

In China you are not allowed to worship the God of your choice nor are you allowed to speak out about this and many other infringements on the dignity you deserve as a human being. But they have lots of great streetcars so I guess that's OK.

 

[JWBF]

I suspect most of the NIMBYism will be fear of the unknown. The public planner in me would want to educate them on the benefits, the private planner in me would want to tell them to STFU and deal with it .

I completely agree with you, too many separate agendas, and their propaganda.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

The Mad Navigator is called the Mad Navigator not because he's angry, but because he's nuts

That said, transfers are fine where they're logical. Don Mills and Kennedy are not logical transfer points.

True, I just hate the "gah transfers bad!" attitude that some people take on this forum. The fact is riders rarely have a one seat ride from their origin to their destination so transfers are a part of life. Their impact should be mitigated and reduced.

 

[gweed123]

True, I just hate the "gah transfers bad!" attitude that some people take on this forum. The fact is riders rarely have a one seat ride from their origin to their destination so transfers are a part of life. Their impact should be mitigated and reduced.

I think there can be a distinction made between "an acceptable transfer" and "a bad transfer" though. An acceptable transfer is when you need to switch from a local route (ie a bus route) to a rapid transit route. Another acceptable transfer is from rapid transit to rapid transit, but that are perpendicular routes (ex: transferring at Bloor-Yonge to go downtown). A bad transfer is any local to local or rapid to rapid transfer that is a transfer along a singular route, and does not occur at a transit node. If more than 50% of the passengers using that corridor continue along that same linear path through the transfer, then that transfer should not be there. A perfect example of this is the transfer at Kennedy. I would imagine over 80% of the SRT users getting off the SRT at Kennedy continue westward using B-D. Other people may cite Finch as an example of this, but I really don't think it is. Significantly less than 50% of Finch's ridership comes from the Yonge VIVA service. The majority of the transfers occuring at Finch are bus to subway transfers, not BRT to subway transfers. Does it make sense to extend the Yonge line further north? Yes. However, Finch is currently not forcing a linear transfer for a lot of transit users.

 

[SlickFranky]

In China you are not allowed to worship the God of your choice nor are you allowed to speak out about this and many other infringements on the dignity you deserve as a human being. But they have lots of great streetcars so I guess that's OK.

I don't think anyone's claiming China's perfect, but you have to acknowledge the effectiveness of a more authoritarian governemnt. They don't bend to NIMBYs, or set priorities based on political ridings, or think in 4 year blocks. They decide what they want to do, and they do it...for better or worse. In terms of infrastructure development it's an ideal system, but it does have some obvious downsides when it comes personal liberties. For the record though, the god thing?...couldn't care less.

 

[golodhendil]

But they have lots of great streetcars so I guess that's OK.

It's fun to see people jumping on every opportunity to embarrass themselves. Try to find five cities in mainland China that have built "streetcars" (or at-grade light rail, for that matter) in the past five decades.

 

[Electrify]

Check out this shot of an elevated section of Paris' metro:

http://goo.gl/maps/GkOh

Now I doubt Sheppard would ever be that kind of avenue, no matter how much transit we put along it, but it does show how elevated rail can be executed while minimizing impact on the urban environment. We could have the best of both worlds here: a continuation of the Sheppard rapid transit line without transfers or running at grade with city traffic, while avoiding the cost of tunneling and reducing visual impact on the street level.

 

[W. K. Lis]

It's fun to see people jumping on every opportunity to embarrass themselves. Try to find five cities in mainland China that have built "streetcars" (or at-grade light rail, for that matter) in the past five decades.

From www.beijingnews.net:

Beijing to tackle traffic jams in 2011 by limiting car sales

The city government of Beijing will restrict the sale of automobiles starting January 1 in a bid to tackle the chronic road congestion in the Chinese capital.

Only 20,000 cars will be allowed for sale per month in Beijing in 2011, Zhou Zhengyu, spokesman for the city's administration said at a news conference.

This way, only 240,000 new cars will appear on the roads in Beijing next year, compared with about 720,000 in 2010.

The government will set car registration quotas, which will be divided between residents and organizations.

It is expected that 88 percent of the registrations will be allocated to the general public

Ontario could do the same, to ease traffic congestion in Toronto.

 

[Electrify]

I think there can be a distinction made between "an acceptable transfer" and "a bad transfer" though. An acceptable transfer is when you need to switch from a local route (ie a bus route) to a rapid transit route. Another acceptable transfer is from rapid transit to rapid transit, but that are perpendicular routes (ex: transferring at Bloor-Yonge to go downtown). A bad transfer is any local to local or rapid to rapid transfer that is a transfer along a singular route, and does not occur at a transit node. If more than 50% of the passengers using that corridor continue along that same linear path through the transfer, then that transfer should not be there. A perfect example of this is the transfer at Kennedy. I would imagine over 80% of the SRT users getting off the SRT at Kennedy continue westward using B-D. Other people may cite Finch as an example of this, but I really don't think it is. Significantly less than 50% of Finch's ridership comes from the Yonge VIVA service. The majority of the transfers occuring at Finch are bus to subway transfers, not BRT to subway transfers. Does it make sense to extend the Yonge line further north? Yes. However, Finch is currently not forcing a linear transfer for a lot of transit users.

I said this earlier in the thread, but I believe the problem with the SRT has more to do with it being a very poorly executed rail line. Compare the SRT to the 196 York University Rocket: Both are short pseudo extensions of a main line, and both continue the main rapid transit line from the middle of nowhere to a major destination. However the 196 feels less of a chore to ride, even though it operates on a road ROW rather than being fully separated from traffic.

Other factors still come into play as well, such as I can't say if more than 50% of passengers through the station are connecting to the 196 or the YUS, and for most commuters York University is a destination point while the Scarborough Town Center is simply yet another transfer.