[nfitz]

Well, that's a very interesting definition of "rapid transit" you have. But it doesn't fit with the rest of the world. I guess by your definition, the London Underground isn't rapid transit - nor for that matter is the Sheppard subway ... or heck, any of our subways outside of weekday rush-hour!

 

[rbt]

Indeed. By those two requirements the Finch bus counts at certain times of the day but I don't believe Chicago would have a single line in the entire city except for the loop itself (if you allow for interlining creating the necessary frequency level). Blue and Red lines get close (4 to 7 minutes) during morning/afternoon rush-hours.

Calgary gets down to 5 minute frequencies. They will be disappointed to know ssiguy does not approve of their system.

More than half of the New York subway system doesn't qualify either. As you mentioned, neither does half of the London Underground.

 

[gweed123]

I already said the GO expansion was great but it's not rapid transit. Rapid transit comes every 3 minutes and most importantly you don't pay an extra fare to go the same distance.
Until the GO within the city of Toronto boundaries is made part of the standard TTC fare then it is a commuter only system. That is fine as it serves that segment well but offers little to the average city dweller going across town or wants to get somewhere quick without paying twice the fare.
All the frequencies in the world won't make the GO Georgetown a DRL at Dundas West.

I don't think you'd find many people in Berlin who don't consider the S-Bahn to be rapid transit. And that's pretty much what GO is proposing.

 

[BMO]

I don't think you'd find many people in Berlin who don't consider the S-Bahn to be rapid transit. And that's pretty much what GO is proposing.

I think saying GO is proposing something like the S-bahn is misleading, I would say GO is proposing something more like the RER in Paris.

The S-Bahn is essentially just a large distance subway line at grade. The RER is a regional train system that does more local stops closer in the core, but is by no means on the same level as the S-bahn.

 

[Justin10000]

I think saying GO is proposing something like the S-bahn is misleading, I would say GO is proposing something more like the RER in Paris.

The S-Bahn is essentially just a large distance subway line at grade. The RER is a regional train system that does more local stops closer in the core, but is by no means on the same level as the S-bahn.

Both the RER and S-Bahn are regional systems with high frequency, and that is exactly what GO is planning.

 

[gweed123]

Both the RER and S-Bahn are regional systems with high frequency, and that is exactly what GO is planning.

Exactly. The stop spacing closer to the core may be a bit different, but the fundamental premises of the systems are the same: high-frequency electrified trains running on or parallel to regional rail lines designed to bring people from the further regions of the metropolis into the city centre.

 

[Minato ku]

Paris has also many non RER suburban trains with high frequencies.
RER and S-bahn are basicly the same thing, some S-Bahn lines are more like metro than other lines.
It is the same with the RER.

Anyway Paris RER carry a lot more people than any S-bahn system existing.
The RER A carry more than 1 million passengers everyday.
The RER B carry 900,000 passengers per day.

In Germany, it would be the ridership of the whole network, not of a single line.

That's the reason why Toronto never gets anything built.
The huge Paris expansion of 125km by 2025 of the city's Metro to serve more of the outer areas of the city will be nearly completely elevated. Few cities can afford the large underground costs of construction and even where they can nearly all cities explore elevation/at grade BEFORE they consider tunneling.

Infact this huge extention is mostly underground, only few part will be overground.

 

[ssiguy2]

GO is a commuter system and quite a good one at that but not a true rapid transit system. The frequency isn't there, the trains are relatively slow due to being diesel, and they have a premium fare.
How many Torontonians use the Dundas West station to take the GO to get downtown?............hardly any. Who would wait three times as long in rush hour, pay twice the fare for a slow moving train? Plus GO is only good if you are going directly to Union.
GO is a commuter service nut Toronto also needs an extensive subway/rapid transit system for the masses. I bet nearly all people who take a car also have access to a car but such is not the case with a large number of TTC riders.
BTW, I see you earlier mentioned the Yonge extension. Why include that if there is no funding?

 

[drum118]

Here is the one
[video=youtube;HMij_t1BKCQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMij_t1BKCQ[/video]

 

[gweed123]

Here is the one
[video=youtube;HMij_t1BKCQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMij_t1BKCQ[/video]

I don't see any logical reason (other than NIMBYism) why this can't be placed in the median of a roadway. This would also be perfect for a strip of green like the Richview corridor.

 

[rbt]

I don't see any logical reason (other than NIMBYism) why this can't be placed in the median of a roadway. This would also be perfect for a strip of green like the Richview corridor.

True but the current SRT has quite a bit more capacity than this thing, and that's with the vehicle shortage. So, you're talking about something with similar capacity as a 2 lane BRT.

If you built it with capacity matching Eglinton, the stations would need to be quite a bit larger. Chicago loop stations are smaller than what would be required today without code changes, so imagine something over the street larger than that. I'm going to be a NIMBY due to stations.

Also curious as to how our firecode would deal with a large vehicle that doesn't have any emergency exit capability. Inflatable slides?

The Pearson Airport train gets away with it due to the low capacity. A single ladder truck could unload it in an hour. A stuck train with 900 people on board would result in a 4 alarm call just for the equipment to unload everybody. I've been trapped in gondola's on more than one occasion for more than a few hours while they roped people down -- not an easy thing to do when everybody on board is physically fit. A typical Eglinton train during rushhour in 2020 will have ~200 people who have severe difficulty with stairs (assumption of boomers still taking the train into their 60's and obesity continuing to worsen).

 

[ssiguy2]

The Bombardier monorails sold to Sao Paulo are 3 meters wide like the TTC subway cars so have higher capacity than an LRT train of the same length.
For elevated transit monorails are far superior to any other form of transit in all categories.
Seeing Eglinton is a tunnel, why they chose LRT is beyond me. Seeing it totally grade separated the stations of 100 meters will have lower capacity than if those same stations used metro or monorail as LRT trains are thinner.
I would think tunneled LRT would also take longer to build due to the overhead wires that need to be built in the tunnels unlike metro or monorail.

 

[rbt]

The Bombardier monorails sold to Sao Paulo are 3 meters wide like the TTC subway cars so have higher capacity than an LRT train of the same length.

It needs to be big enough to comfortably hold two full trains unloading (100%) simultaneously. If the capacity of the train goes up, so must the capacity of the station. If a train has the same capacity as a typical subway train, then so must the station.

That means Sheppard sized stations (platform width, vertical transport of an elevator, two escalators, and stairs) are the minimum.

Pretty huge structure to toss over-top of an intersection and worse if they are side platforms (two elevators, 4 escalators, 2 sets of stairs).

No thanks. Make it street level.

 

[Justin10000]

If the trains are 3 meters wide, the beams are going to have to be huge to support the trains. Huge stations, huge beams. But I think a monorail might be fine for Sao Paulo. I understand the traffic in the city is horrendous, and the streets are really open, which should be OK for massive elevated monorail structures.

 

[Electrify]

True but the current SRT has quite a bit more capacity than this thing, and that's with the vehicle shortage. So, you're talking about something with similar capacity as a 2 lane BRT.

If you built it with capacity matching Eglinton, the stations would need to be quite a bit larger. Chicago loop stations are smaller than what would be required today without code changes, so imagine something over the street larger than that. I'm going to be a NIMBY due to stations.

Also curious as to how our firecode would deal with a large vehicle that doesn't have any emergency exit capability. Inflatable slides?

The Pearson Airport train gets away with it due to the low capacity. A single ladder truck could unload it in an hour. A stuck train with 900 people on board would result in a 4 alarm call just for the equipment to unload everybody. I've been trapped in gondola's on more than one occasion for more than a few hours while they roped people down -- not an easy thing to do when everybody on board is physically fit. A typical Eglinton train during rushhour in 2020 will have ~200 people who have severe difficulty with stairs (assumption of boomers still taking the train into their 60's and obesity continuing to worsen).

For the record, those German systems are built at more of a people mover scale, rather than full light/heavy rail capacities. The Chiba monorail is easily the best contemporary example of suspended monorail in an urban setting. Straddle monorails these days tend to have platforms along the length of the train, while suspended monorails would use chute slides like in an airplane in case of an emergency.

As for the footprint of stations, you can check out Google Street View in a number of cities to decide for yourself how tolerable they are. Personally, while light rail is perfectly fine when executed properly in the proper environment, when it comes to grade separated transit we are going to have to make some tough choices in the future. Are we going to run it under the street, with expensive costs and complex construction? Or are we going to run it above the street, with less expensive and complex construction and costs, but a stronger visual impact?