[EnviroTO]

Once you go with SAFEGE you have blown the major cost advantage of monorail. Cement pylon and cement beam construction is quick and far cheaper in both materials and labour than an all metal construction. Once you go SAFEGE you probably might as well go with elevated LRT.

 

[sixrings]

Why not run elevated LRT south of Eglinton on Don Mills over top of the current train lines all the way west to Jane. This way the Jane and Donmills line can be one continuous line part eleveated part surface. It would be cheaper then a DRL and I am sure faster to make. PLus it would eliminate transfers. I do recognize that the DRL could use Subway capacity but wouldnt this be a significant step forward.

 

[gweed123]

Why not run elevated LRT south of Eglinton on Don Mills over top of the current train lines all the way west to Jane. This way the Jane and Donmills line can be one continuous line part eleveated part surface. It would be cheaper then a DRL and I am sure faster to make. PLus it would eliminate transfers. I do recognize that the DRL could use Subway capacity but wouldnt this be a significant step forward.

The only way I would go for an LRT DRL is if the line was four-tracked under Queen with the DRL running express and the Queen streetcar running local. Most other configurations with LRT simply would not have enough capacity to meet the projected demand. Just a DRL East from Danforth to Union is projected to carry 17,500 pphpd on opening. That's one 6-car LRT train every ~3 min. With that line extended north to Eglinton, it could see 25,000 pphpd easily. That's one 6-car LRT train every 2 minutes. But those numbers are completely irrelevant, because you can't run 6-car LRT trains in-median (which it would be north of Eglinton on either side). So they would either have to short-turn at the end of the tunnels, or they would have to run 3 car LRT trains every 1 min 6 sec in order to meet that demand. It's just not economical.

 

[Asterix]

Why not run elevated LRT south of Eglinton on Don Mills over top of the current train lines all the way west to Jane. This way the Jane and Donmills line can be one continuous line part eleveated part surface.

What "current train lines" south of Eglinton are you thinking of? The single track line that crosses Don Mills right by the DVP is at the bottom of the Don Valley - ie not close to anywhere people are or might want to go to or even accessible to any transportation method of getting to the line.

 

[sixrings]

the same train lines that the DRL would use... starting at carlaw and college down to union and again up to trethway and jane or weston and jane...

I understand the DRL I am proposing from LRT would hold significantly less people. But it would also cost significantly less and cause less transfers. The way I look at it. Isn't something better then nothing... I just dont know if the subway DRL will financially ever happen..

 

[gweed123]

the same train lines that the DRL would use... starting at carlaw and college down to union and again up to trethway and jane or weston and jane...

I understand the DRL I am proposing from LRT would hold significantly less people. But it would also cost significantly less and cause less transfers. The way I look at it. Isn't something better then nothing... I just dont know if the subway DRL will financially ever happen..

I don't really understand how it would be cheaper than doing HRT. The tunnelled portions would cost nearly the exact same. The portions through the rail corridors would cost nearly the exact same. I don't really see how it would cost significantly less.

 

[Asterix]

the same train lines that the DRL would use... starting at carlaw and college down to union and again up to trethway and jane or weston and jane...

My mistake then. I assumed when you said "south of Eglinton on Don Mills " that you meant "south of Eglinton on Don Mills" and were not actually referring to lines 5km away from Don Mills (and even farther from Eglinton). I admit to being unable to find the intersection of Carlaw and College though, so I'm only guessing again at what line you have in mind.

I'm sure you are aware of the capacity issues with Union Station, which currently can not handle much in the way of increased traffic but is also supposed to be expecting significant increases in GO train service to it, and have accounted for this fact in your proposal (especially if you are trying to run an elevated line into the station)?

What about the various existing overpasses for Spadina, Bathurst or Dundas W (among others)? Would your elevated line ascend another level to get over them?

Would you have any plans of intersecting your line with that on the Danforth so it might actually function as a 'Relief Line'? Where and how would you do that?

Have you looked into what CN or CP or whoever owns those rail lines has to say about the city deciding they are going to build LRT or monorails over top of their ROW? What have the potential riders told you about their desire to have diesel engines passing (or maybe even traveling in the same direction) under their LRT? (They probably wouldn't want to open the windows and may want to bring along ear plugs.)

Or did you just draw pretty lines on a map and determine that you had an obvious and near-ultimate solution?

 

[sixrings]

obviously I havent researched it at the level you require to be suficient.. I was just taking the OLD DRL idea and proposing instead of spending too much digging or using lines which I assume will be used more frequently in the future build over existing infrustructure. I was simply offering another alternative. However maybe it is just as complicated...

 

[Asterix]

However maybe it is just as complicated...

Yes, maybe it just is.

That's what bugs me. Too many people make proposals for such major infrastructure and couch it in language that their idea could "easily" be done or built for a cheap price or otherwise is so obvious how could any of the expert planners not have seen it.

Those questions I asked were just off the top of my head and I am not a trained or professional transit/transportation person.

Is it too much to ask that people actually think for a few minutes about their 'solution' before opening themselves up for such critiques?

I realize the purpose of a message board is the exchange and discussion of ideas, but the level of that discussion can really be elevated if a little common sense was applied to what amount to very complex and expensive proposals.

 

[sixrings]

Those questions I asked were just off the top of my head and I am not a trained or professional transit/transportation person.

Is it too much to ask that people actually think for a few minutes about their 'solution' before opening themselves up for such critiques?

I realize the purpose of a message board is the exchange and discussion of ideas, but the level of that discussion can really be elevated if a little common sense was applied to what amount to very complex and expensive proposals.

Maybe you and Steve Munro can sit down and have a conversation together that's at your intellect level. Oh wait he might actually be frusterated with your amateur hour transit planning. I'm sure he'd be happy to let you know of your incompatence.

 

[Asterix]

Oh wait he might actually be frusterated with your amateur hour transit planning.

Which 'amateur hour transit planning' of mine might you be referring to?

I'm not the one saying 'they' should build an elevated line over heavy rail lines they don't own, to a rail station that doesn't have the spare capacity without connecting it to the primary intent of its name or asking how potential riders might feel about traveling over top of diesel engines.

Why the vehemence at being asked to take a moment's thought before posting?

 

[sixrings]

I acknowledge Im not a transit planner. At the same time I am not convinced that only the "experts" can figure out this transit mess. Actually the experts have gotten us into this mess. All Im saying is that sure the questions you raised may be helpful but in Torontos state we should "consider ALL" ideas before dismissing them. Quite possibly some of the proposals may have some hitches that need to be worked arround. But even expert suggestions would need tweaks before final production.

David Miller, as much as I support him, frusterated me at a TTC meeting when people where giving their suggestions, and instead of taking them in, got frusterated and basically said "well our experts have researched this, so its the right way." Well if you have your thoughts why ask for public consultation. I recognize that you didn't necessarly do this. But it still remains Toronto Transit needs to be rethought and we need as many people thinking about solutions as we can get. Making comments that belittle other people doesnt encourage conversation. And we need conversation.

 

[Asterix]

Actually the experts have gotten us into this mess.

The primary 'mess' as I see it is the dysfunctional funding process whereby detailed funded plans get tossed on a whim and we end up spending more time to studies and alternate plans than actually building anything.

That's not to say plans produced by the 'experts' are perfect, just that they are not the primary culprits for any 'mess'.

And we need conversation.

Agreed. But it doesn't hurt to make it a more intelligent conversation by thinking a moment before rushing to the keyboard, something I'm sure you'll also agree with.

 

[golodhendil]

The only way I would go for an LRT DRL is if the line was four-tracked under Queen with the DRL running express and the Queen streetcar running local. Most other configurations with LRT simply would not have enough capacity to meet the projected demand. Just a DRL East from Danforth to Union is projected to carry 17,500 pphpd on opening. That's one 6-car LRT train every ~3 min. With that line extended north to Eglinton, it could see 25,000 pphpd easily. That's one 6-car LRT train every 2 minutes. But those numbers are completely irrelevant, because you can't run 6-car LRT trains in-median (which it would be north of Eglinton on either side). So they would either have to short-turn at the end of the tunnels, or they would have to run 3 car LRT trains every 1 min 6 sec in order to meet that demand. It's just not economical.

Not that I necessarily support an LRT DRL, but even in that scenario why would you need a 6-car LRT? Rolling stock on the Frankfurt U-bahn or Cologne Stadtbahn can hold at least 200 per train (250 for some), and regularly run in couplets or triplets, including on their at-grade, street-median portions. Supposing that the line will see 25000 pphpd at peak even on the surface portion or that they somehow cannot/do not short-turn (unlikely), it means one 3-car train (75 m long) every 1.5 minutes, which is close to the peak street-median operation frequency on the Frankfurt U-bahn. (If Eglinton were to still be built as an LRT, it might even make sense to interline some Eglinton trains down this light rail version of the DRL, further decreasing the redundancy north of Eglinton. But now that's just dreaming.)

 

[sixrings]

I would think ANY DRL would be better then nothing.. So whatevers cheapest and we can build fastest I support.

If we do the SUBWAY ONLY approach and it costs 3 or 4 times as much, which would cause a huge uproar from people scared their taxes are going up, which causes nothing to get built, I dont think we accomplished anything.

ID rather do a LRT DRL for the immediate future and if 20 years from now we are actually transit focused then build a QUEEN Subway..