[north-of-anything]

I think bilevels are cool. The biggest issue I have with public transport is the ceiling heights, and the GO bilevels aren't as bad as the Rockets, so why switch to vehicles that fit fewer people and make level boarding even more difficult?

 

[ARG1]

Steve has his biases, but I don't see how he's too pro-TTC. He has plenty of criticism for them all the time.

Perhaps, but you can still be critical of something and still be pro something. The reason why Steve Munro is seen as pro ttc isn't because he's nice to TTC, but because of how aggressively critical of Metrolinx. He comes from a time in transport politics where Toronto had control of everything and was the only city that mattered in transportation planning, and he seems to have a nostalgic fondness for that status quo. Unfortunately it seems like he has trouble coming to terms with the fact that transportation reality has changed in Toronto and the GTA since the 80s and that only looking through the lens of only Toronto matters, and that everyone outside the Toronto is irrelevant and are just a nuisance that push the provincial government to meddle in the TTC's affairs. This is apparent with stuff like GO which he seems to view it as "that thing non-Torontonians use to get to Toronto, and especially apparent whenever he talks about Fare Integration where he treats at as this ideal goal Metrolinx is pursuing but is failing at, and that its not something that's extremely important. He seems to completely miss the reality that what the GTA, especially areas like Mississauga and Vaughan, is today is what Scarborough and Etobicoke were in the 70s/80s if not farther along in terms of development and that creating this barrier that Toronto and the GTA are 2 separate things isn't sustainable long term. Vaughan is especially a good case study since VMC could easily be looked at as today's equivalent of North York Centre.

All of this results in Steve's takes diminishing the value of many things Metrolinx seems to be pushing for, such as far stronger interconnectivity between the subway and other regional transit services such as GO, Viva Rapidway, or the Mississauga Transitway, especially when talking about the value of extending the Subway outside of Toronto, or design decisions such as cross platform connections between GO and the Ontario Line.

 

[nfitz]

^I’m very surprised that Steve is seen by some as pro TTC. He has been pointedly critical of how they manage service.

Steve Munro pro-TTC?

I'm not sure what blog Adjei has been reading, but it's not the same one I read.

 

[Undead]

Perhaps, but you can still be critical of something and still be pro something. The reason why Steve Munro is seen as pro ttc isn't because he's nice to TTC, but because of how aggressively critical of Metrolinx. He comes from a time in transport politics where Toronto had control of everything and was the only city that mattered in transportation planning, and he seems to have a nostalgic fondness for that status quo. Unfortunately it seems like he has trouble coming to terms with the fact that transportation reality has changed in Toronto and the GTA since the 80s and that only looking through the lens of only Toronto matters, and that everyone outside the Toronto is irrelevant and are just a nuisance that push the provincial government to meddle in the TTC's affairs. This is apparent with stuff like GO which he seems to view it as "that thing non-Torontonians use to get to Toronto, and especially apparent whenever he talks about Fare Integration where he treats at as this ideal goal Metrolinx is pursuing but is failing at, and that its not something that's extremely important. He seems to completely miss the reality that what the GTA, especially areas like Mississauga and Vaughan, is today is what Scarborough and Etobicoke were in the 70s/80s if not farther along in terms of development and that creating this barrier that Toronto and the GTA are 2 separate things isn't sustainable long term. Vaughan is especially a good case study since VMC could easily be looked at as today's equivalent of North York Centre.

All of this results in Steve's takes diminishing the value of many things Metrolinx seems to be pushing for, such as far stronger interconnectivity between the subway and other regional transit services such as GO, Viva Rapidway, or the Mississauga Transitway, especially when talking about the value of extending the Subway outside of Toronto, or design decisions such as cross platform connections between GO and the Ontario Line.

I often agree with your takes, but I don't get the same vibe from reading Steve.

 

[allengeorge]

My take is that Steve is pretty upset at agencies in general, whether the TTC, Metrolinx, etc. He thinks they pay too little attention to operational issues, don't engage in long-term planning and are apt to do/say whatever is necessary to please politicians. And, he gets pretty upset at the lack of operational funding support.

I actually don't think I've heard him say anything positive about any plans the TTC, Metrolinx, etc. have put out.

 

[ARG1]

I often agree with your takes, but I don't get the same vibe from reading Steve.

I guess that's fair. Its probably easier to see someone as being overly critical when its against something you support, or at least something you support more.

 

[gweed123]

The only reason for sticking with single level is if tunnel or other clearances demand it.

It’s you against AMT, NJT, Sunstar, Metrorail, Metrolink, Coaster, Metra, Roadrunner, ACE, Sounder, West Coast Express, NRTX, Amtrak Pacific, Salt Lake Express, TRE, Paris RER, TGV, NS, DB, Trenitalia, SBB, and a bunch of others. Do ya think maybe you’re missing something they know ?

- Paul

IMO, Bi-Levels work well in 2 scenarios:

1) When you have a pretty consistent and uni-directional boarding and alighting pattern along a route (i.e. mostly boardings inbound in the AM peak, mostly alightings in the PM peak), with the reverse of those all getting off or on at one central station. The moment you have a roughly equal number of boardings and alightings at stations, the internal passenger flow within bi-levels starts to become constrictive.

2) When ridership starts approaching the capacity of the system, and you are restricted by either the infrastructure (limited number of tracks) or by running rights (ex: the Milton Line being limited by CP's operations). In the case of NJT as you mention above, bi-levels make sense because they want to squeeze every square inch and second of tunnel space/time out of the Hudson River tunnels.

 

[ssiguy2]

^^^ I totally agree. I think DD are ideal for commuter systems and GO should continue to use them for it's long distance rush hour services. Conversely, RER is more of a subway-lite system.

Isn't the whole point of spending billion on this project to take GO from just being a commuter service to a true rapid transit system? If you want to transform GO away from it's limited commuter rail role then why would you use commuter trains?

 

[ARG1]

^^^ I totally agree. I think DD are ideal for commuter systems and GO should continue to use them for it's long distance rush hour services. Conversely, RER is more of a subway-lite system.

Isn't the whole point of spending billion on this project to take GO from just being a commuter service to a true rapid transit system? If you want to transform GO away from it's limited commuter rail role then why would you use commuter trains?

The issue is feasibility. Single level trains only make sense if you have high platforms. Changing the platforms to high platforms however means that all of the existing coaches will be incompatible with the new stations, and GO has a TON of leftover coaches with decades of life left in them. The economic argument as a result simply isn't there to basically fast track obsolescence. Sure you can have single level 70% low floor trains, but those have absolutely no benefits over double deckered trains whatsoever other than being able to fit in smaller tunnels which isn't a concern for GO. The final option then is to have stations like on the UP Express which is half high floor and half low floor, which is the definition of trying to have your cake and eat it too. Simply put, considering GO's existing fleet and infrastructure, the argument to push for single level trains that have all of its benefits you would get from a single level trains isn't large enough to justify discarding a majority of the fleet. Even if Double Deckers are less efficient at passenger flow than Single Level trains, its not to such a large extent where considering such a massive conversion would be worth it at the end of the day.

 

[ssiguy2]

I'm curious, is there such a thing as a TRUE DD commuter train? By this I don't mean bi-levels where you enter on one floor and then either go up 4 steps or down 4 steps but rather you enter on one floor and it is the entire floor and then it's 12 steps up to the second level? In other words just like a DD bus? Such a thing would result in the greater capacity of a DD train but the interior and exit/entry passenger flows of a standard one-level train. It would also be a God send for people with mobility issues and the increasing number of cyclists where DD are a nightmare.

 

[dowlingm]

Steve Munro's criticism of Metrolinx is that they prefer to do resident engagement on a one way basis. Tight control of information, board members with little incentive to break ranks, see public consultation as more like public endorsement, resile from commitments previously given to make consultations go more smoothly (e.g. Davenport Diamond public amenity). I think those are things worth criticising, personally.

 

[turini2]

I'm curious, is there such a thing as a TRUE DD commuter train? By this I don't mean bi-levels where you enter on one floor and then either go up 4 steps or down 4 steps but rather you enter on one floor and it is the entire floor and then it's 12 steps up to the second level? In other words just like a DD bus? Such a thing would result in the greater capacity of a DD train but the interior and exit/entry passenger flows of a standard one-level train. It would also be a God send for people with mobility issues and the increasing number of cyclists where DD are a nightmare.

No, for a variety of reasons including loading gauge, platform heights etc.

Alon Levy explains the downsides of bi-levels generally in this excellent blogpost of theirs. Downsides include:

• Massively increased dwell times. RER A in Paris can no longer run 30tph because the trains are literally stationary in the central stations for too long - they don't have enough doors to get people in and out. Unlike a single level train (i.e. like a Metro train, or something like the Class 345 Crossrail) it's hard to have 3 or 4 doors in each carriage if you want to fit in stairs. It also takes longer to get in and out of a train if there's stairs!
• Cost. They're about 50/100% more expensive than an standard EMU.
• Weight and the consequential impact on power to weight ratio
• Increased station construction and tunnel cost - you need "taller" stations and tunnels if you've got a taller train.

Obviously some of these things don't matter to Toronto yet...

However, as others have pointed out - Toronto's existing fleet of double decker coachers are going to perform very well in the next decade or two with a new bi-mode (diesel and electric) locomotive attached to the front. And if you've got a bi-level fleet of coaches, you might as well purchase bi-level EMUs for your dedicated RER electrified trains...

 

[ssiguy2]

If ML goes with DD, there is another option that they be able to use.

In Dallas the DART LRT system {which most cities would consider more suburban rail} was built in the early 1990s and still has much of the rolling stock. The trains have 2 stairs that must be used to board much like GO and of course they have had numerous complaints over it's lack of accessibility. People with strollers, wheelchairs, or mobility issues had to enter at one door at the front of the train..............21st century rendition of sitting at the back of the bus.

They can't afford to retire all the trains early to make them accessible so they added a 'middle section' and are referred to as Super Light Rail Vehicles {SLRV}. Essentially in between the accordion sections of the train a smaller segment was added that is low floor. They worked with the manufacturer and designed a complete low floor entry by combining a lower middle section with a gentle rise in the area of the platform so entry was even. The doors were made wider and the area for that area of boarding was identified by a yellow paint.

Not ideal but would still work wonders for the disabled and cyclists as bi-levels are a horror for such users. I was in Europe and in Rome they have banned bikes from using the suburban DD trains because they were impeding passenger flow especially in rush hour and they found that some wheelchair users nearer the city could no longer use the service. Even though cities are encouraging active transportation, it was the bikes that go turfed because they had to put the needs of people with mobility issues in a higher priority, which of course they should. Such combo DD and level entry trains {ie every other coach} would solve this and would not only ensure the system is completely INDEPENDENTLY accessible but also help reduce dwell times and hence increase speeds.

 

[crs1026]

I'm curious, is there such a thing as a TRUE DD commuter train? By this I don't mean bi-levels where you enter on one floor and then either go up 4 steps or down 4 steps but rather you enter on one floor and it is the entire floor and then it's 12 steps up to the second level? In other words just like a DD bus? Such a thing would result in the greater capacity of a DD train but the interior and exit/entry passenger flows of a standard one-level train. It would also be a God send for people with mobility issues and the increasing number of cyclists where DD are a nightmare.

The closest I know of a true end-to-end two-level car are the RMTR style cars that were built in Colorado. Even they only have car to car access on only one level. The sway of such a tall car likely precludes a double deck vestibule.

Most others have at most one level floor ( eg Amtrak Superliners) but the second floor is shortened to accommodate mechanical equipment and/or keep overall height moderate by slinging the lower floor between the trucks. Accessibility is an obvious tradeoff, although I question why anyone would need to travel between cars where service is at the seat and washrooms are available on the lowest floor. The point is, overall capacity is higher per linear foot and per axle than a single level railcar.

If capacity on a single levelmis really that important, there is always the option of 5-abreast seating on a single level.... but I ain’t going there.

While RER will enable far more short trips and on-off trips, I think you may be overthinking if you anticipate subway-at-5PM crushes. Sure, GO DD’s are fairly slow loaders when at crush load, but other designs have wider stairways and more clear space. No reason to believe dwell times will be a proble. RER will be more subwayish than heritage GO, but not a complete subway.

- Paul

 

[tayser]

People are putting too much emphasis on the negatives of crushing people into DDs, the load/dwell times etc (Im not saying that there are no issues, but it's just overblown). I just did a quick comparison of the Lakeshore West line (from Union to Aldershot - that's where electrification is proposed to end, no?) to one of the longest here (Pakenham - where the new HCMTs are running) and they're approximately the same length: 60 km give or take.

Difference being that the Lakeshore West example has approximately half the number of stations (11) on it versus Pakenham (22 or 26 if you include the stations the line permanently runs express through in inner Melbourne).

Now you lot are much better at integrating modes and I wouldn't be surprised that you'll probably see a much higher average loading/unloading rate at each of the 11 stations versus the 22 here... but still - the electric services are only going to be stopping at 11 stations on their run.... you're not going to need to move a bajillion people per 1 square km like on a subway train. Again, it'll only be stopping at 11 stations - and doesn't Union station have a platform on either side of each track (so loading/unloading can come from/go out both sides of the train)?

The main thing that I find curious is splitting trains in half outside of peak, this might make sense if the system was going to be automated, but having humans marshalling trains outside of peak to then marshal them back to full length? Why bother?