[Johnny Au]

Maybe ICTS would be cheaper to maintain if it were a maglev like it was conceived to be.

Maglev is expensive. I believe that there are no working Maglev systems in Canada.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Then ICTS is worth it if much of the route has to be elevated, as opposed to elevated LRT.

 

[BurlOak]

There is one very important part about the ART technology that you've forgotten to add.

It is hugely expensive to maintain, and hugely expensive to expand. It has all of the same sub-systems of a subway - lighting, signaling, traction power, etc. - and so you can't easily create low-cost expansions in locations like the middle of streets or on the ground of hydro corridors. It is to the point of being within the same costs as a subway on both, and yet with only half of the capacity.

Does underground LRT not require lighting, signaling, power, etc.

Are the maintenance costs for subways, SkyTrain, and underground LRT of similar magnitude?

Expansion is a red herring since I am sure TTC will say you can not operate a line if it is too long. I think Pearson to Malvern is probably long enough.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Okay, he's the thing:


Will metrolinx take any cues, or implement anything from this report? I'm betting no.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Does underground LRT not require lighting, signaling, power, etc.

Are the maintenance costs for subways, SkyTrain, and underground LRT of similar magnitude?

Expansion is a red herring since I am sure TTC will say you can not operate a line if it is too long. I think Pearson to Malvern is probably long enough.

A SUBWAY, or METRO, is defined as an underground electric railroad. A subway can be heavy rail, light rail, or rubber-tyred. They can be of different sizes, in width, height, or lengths of cars.

 

[BurlOak]

A SUBWAY, or METRO, is defined as an underground electric railroad. A subway can be heavy rail, light rail, or rubber-tyred. They can be of different sizes, in width, height, or lengths of cars.

I suppose you are catching me on a technicality. Of course I meant HRT. Based on your answer, I would assume the answer is NO difference in operating cost.

 

[drum118]

I suppose you are catching me on a technicality. Of course I meant HRT. Based on your answer, I would assume the answer is NO difference in operating cost.

There are various operation cost depending on the type of service as well type of vehicle. Also the length of the line underground and if more than there is more than one section underground.

A single streetcar as Boston or Philly will have a higher cost than TTC subway or the Eglinton line. You need more of them to carry the same load factor as a metro with drivers eating up that cost.

You can add regional rail and commuter rail to the mix if they are electric and that becomes a different operation cost.

Not easy to use a paint bush for all of them without looking at service level, ridership and vehicles for each one.

 

[cbrown2009]

I realize I may be a little late with this post (busy weekend), but on the subject of the Finch corridor, the style of BRT wasn't specified. Would queue jump lanes & artics be sufficient to handle the ridership demand or would fully separated bus only lanes be required? Could adding a limited stop service help or would that just add to the current problem of bus congestion? If full bus-only lanes are required, wouldn't it be better to go LRT because, while capital costs would be higher, there are some savings to be had on the operations side by requiring less vehicles and therefore less drivers, less maintenance costs on LRTs vs buses, no fuel requirements for LRTs & LRT vehicles that last about twice as long (30-35 years) as buses (15-18 years)?

 

[smallspy]

Does underground LRT not require lighting, signaling, power, etc.

It does. But that's not what we're arguing here.

Are the maintenance costs for subways, SkyTrain, and underground LRT of similar magnitude?

Very close, yes. But again - not the point.

Expansion is a red herring since I am sure TTC will say you can not operate a line if it is too long. I think Pearson to Malvern is probably long enough.

And you missed the point on this one.

The long-promised Malvern extension of the SRT would only be capable of running to Malvern Town Centre if the line is built as either a subway or ICTS (and frankly, as a subway, even that's not likely to happen). It's not feasible to build either to points beyond, as there are too many spread nodes that need to be served.

That was the beauty of running LRT - you could have cars arrive from the ROW to the south-west, and then continue on a number of different routes, any of which could run on the surface or a ROW depending on how busy the forecasted ridership for the line was. Ditto for a line along Ellesmere, or north along Kennedy - both of which had been foreseen as being necessary in the future by the 1970s reports.

You can't do any of that with an ICTS or subway, as your construction costs are multiple factors higher than surface LRT.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Hipster Duck]

A SUBWAY, or METRO, is defined as an underground electric railroad. A subway can be heavy rail, light rail, or rubber-tyred. They can be of different sizes, in width, height, or lengths of cars.

Is the Chicago el not a metro? There are some lines that do not run underground at all.

Is Queen's Quay a metro station? It's served by a railway-based vehicle that's running underground.

The vehicle matters. Whether it's underground doesn't.

 

[innsertnamehere]

A subway by denfinistion is W. K. Lis's post, but a Metro isn't a Metro is a grade seperated electrified rail system running on its own corridor (no electrified GO trains) with frequent service. In that way Ottawas LRT system will qualify as a Metro, but some Chicago lines don't (I think its the brown line?) due to at grade crossings.

 

[ShonTron]

The outer-most sections of the Brown (Ravenswood), Pink (Douglas/Cermak), and Purple (Evanston) Lines use grade crossings, but the Chicago L is most certainly a Metro; these are merely unique exceptions.

I wouldn't quite call Ottawa's system a Metro, but more of a high-concept LRT, like Calgary, Edmonton, or Buffalo. Buffalo's LRT is almost completely underground (exception being the downtown Main Street section), Edmonton the opposite (downtown being underground).

The Metro systems in the United States and Canada are as follows:
Boston Red, Orange and Blue Lines (except Ashmont-Mattapan "High Speed Line")
New York Subway
Port Authority Trans-Hudson*
SEPTA Market Street Elevated and Broad Street Subway
PATCO Camden Line*
Baltimore Metro Subway (not the LRT)
Washington Metro
Atlanta MARTA Rail
Miami Metrorail (not the Metromover)
Cleveland Red Line**
Chicago L
Los Angeles Metro Red and Purple Lines (not the Expo, Gold, Blue or Green Lines)
Bay Area Rapid Transit*
San Juan Tren Urbano***
Montreal Metro
Toronto Subway
Vancouver SkyTrain/Canada Line***

(* - operates more like a commuter-type operation than a traditional metro, but has most metro characteristics ** - low frequencies and shares track with light rail vehicles *** - light metro)

 

[snowystar]

"In Vancouver ... one of the many complaints about the Canada Line is that it uses standard subway technology and not SkyTrain as the SkyTrain is noticeably faster and the Canada Line has already had reliability issues which the SkyTrain never has."

Did someone really just say that the SkyTrain in Vancouver has never had reliability issues? Um, the SkyTrain has reliability issues on almost a daily basis. It's a running (pardon the pun) joke. I take no position on the Canada Line, though anecdotally (granted, not to be confused with actual evidence), I've never heard a complaint about it or had cause to express one myself.

You're exaggerating... SkyTrain had reliability of 99.6%, which is about a complete system shut-down for 2.5 hours per month. I take it daily and personally I've only been through one shutdown (although it didn't affect the segment I'm using) and 3 delays of 5-30min. Other than that, there's no problem.

There is one very important part about the ART technology that you've forgotten to add.

It is hugely expensive to maintain, and hugely expensive to expand. It has all of the same sub-systems of a subway - lighting, signaling, traction power, etc. - and so you can't easily create low-cost expansions in locations like the middle of streets or on the ground of hydro corridors. It is to the point of being within the same costs as a subway on both, and yet with only half of the capacity.

And yet they got money to build even more expensive system. The "lighting, signaling, traction power, etc." are also needed for LRT too... Its funny that in Vancouver, that statement would read "the LRT system is within the same cost as SkyTrain (80-100M/km vs 100-120M/km) yet with half the capacity (7500-15000pphpd vs 25000-30000pphpd)".

 

[Long Island Mike]

The outer-most sections of the Brown (Ravenswood), Pink (Douglas/Cermak), and Purple (Evanston) Lines use grade crossings, but the Chicago L is most certainly a Metro; these are merely unique exceptions.

I wouldn't quite call Ottawa's system a Metro, but more of a high-concept LRT, like Calgary, Edmonton, or Buffalo. Buffalo's LRT is almost completely underground (exception being the downtown Main Street section), Edmonton the opposite (downtown being underground).

The Metro systems in the United States and Canada are as follows:
Boston Red, Orange and Blue Lines (except Ashmont-Mattapan "High Speed Line")
New York Subway
Port Authority Trans-Hudson*
SEPTA Market Street Elevated and Broad Street Subway
PATCO Camden Line*
Baltimore Metro Subway (not the LRT)
Washington Metro
Atlanta MARTA Rail
Miami Metrorail (not the Metromover)
Cleveland Red Line**
Chicago L
Los Angeles Metro Red and Purple Lines (not the Expo, Gold, Blue or Green Lines)
Bay Area Rapid Transit*
San Juan Tren Urbano***
Montreal Metro
Toronto Subway
Vancouver SkyTrain/Canada Line***

(* - operates more like a commuter-type operation than a traditional metro, but has most metro characteristics ** - low frequencies and shares track with light rail vehicles *** - light metro)

ST: I agree with you on these definitions - allow me to correct these names - and add information -
Philadelphia:
SEPTA Market-Frankford Subway-Elevated - and - PATCO Lindenwold High-Speed Line
(The original line before PATCO operation was the Camden-Locust Subway or Bridge Line)
The PATCO Line does operate like a Metro in the Subway/Bridge portions and as a commuter
type operation from Broadway/Walter Rand TC-Camden to Lindenwold - the route once was a
Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines commuter line - NJT's Atlantic City Line connects today
at Lindenwold for service to Philadelphia's 30th Street Station and A.C.
SEE: www.ridepatco.org and www.septa.org

LI MIKE

 

[JayBeeGooner]

Cleveland RTA Red Line does not have low frequency. In fact, the frequency is quite good for a single heavy rail line in a rustbelt city. It's better than than many other North American metros.

http://www.riderta.com/routes/redline/schedules/current

Washington's metro network has awful frequencies. I remember waiting over 20 minutes for a train on a Saturday!