[sixrings]

Somehow I don't think Council will be too interested in an above-ground option in order to help with private partner profit. They stand a much better chance of being re-elected if they vote against such a proposal.

I would argue that you don't see to realize the political realities tied to that option.

Typically rbt I totally agree with your posts. But going through the golden mile I don't see where the nimbyism will come from that may cost politicians their careers. If ever a part of town made sense to go ahead elevated with out much nimbys to fight against it, it would be this section of eglinton. I'd argue that the lrt in median would have more nimbys from the car dealerships in the area than a elevated rail which wouldn't effect them.

 

[rbt]

Typically rbt I totally agree with your posts. But going through the golden mile I don't see where the nimbyism will come from that may cost politicians their careers. If ever a part of town made sense to go ahead elevated with out much nimbys to fight against it, it would be this section of eglinton. I'd argue that the lrt in median would have more nimbys from the car dealerships in the area than a elevated rail which wouldn't effect them.

It's less to do with the part of town and more just the general direction that Canada as a whole is going politically.

Various unions are going to try to tarnish the project just because it is P3 (including operating) and staff will likely not be unionized. The country (particularaly city centers) are strong supporters of Federal NDP at the moment.

Media will paint it as the little guy (there will be a few nimby's) against some random foreign company milking profits from the city.

Councillors stand to gain nothing by supporting an elevated structure less than a year before re-election. 1/3rd of council will vote against it just because of the way Ford treated the project earlier in his term; regardless of the cost/benefits to the city.


My opinion would be different if we had a Conservative majority in Ontario because council really wouldn't matter; but we don't (yet) and McGuinty has bent over backward to try and support councils will.

 

[sixrings]

I don't necessarily see the huge support for ndps and liberals that you do. In the last election it showed how much people were not happy with mcguinty with that minority. As for our city mayor. Conservatives will even admit that RF is incompetant but that doesn't mean that they will vote for a liberal or a ndp. Stintz looks like our future mayor and she will be conserative. As for liberal people which includes myself. I think there are many liberals who believe that the unions have taken too much control. Police is my biggest union frustration as well as TTC booth people. But that's a personal bias because I don't necessarily trust cops and I think the ttc service is complete crap. Its not that difficult to be polite is it. But they don't need to because of the unions. But hey that's just my perception of what's happened recently. I don't see a liberal winning next as mayor at least.

 

[ssiguy2]

So you would save staffing costs buy burying the line for the full length? Or building underpasses at every cross street? Or what? Elevated guideway? I don't see how you would save money in the medium term.

No.

What I have ALWAYS stated would be the best option for the Eglinton Crosstown is to combine it with the existing SRT using the existing SkyTrain technology. The TTC is going to be spending nearly $1 billion on changing the SRT to LRT. Changing it to LRT is actually the most expensive option and has the lowest capacity of subway/metro, SkyTrain, monorail, or LRT. This is because LRT is the only one of those technologies that requires a complete revamp of the existing RT stations due to the overhead power catenarys which requires "raising the roof" of the stations.......expensive and time consuming.

No other city on the planet would tear down a rapid transit system and replace with one which will have lower capacity and yet more expensive to run. The only logical cost effective option for the Eglinton/Scar is to extend the SRT northeast to Malvern and west along Eglinton. They could elevate the northeast section and elevate along Eglinton until roughly Don Mills. This would result in twice the capacity, a far more reliable system, better service levels, and cost much less to operate. Much of the needed funds for the whole line would come from the savings of not having to revamp all the stations and not having to build a totally new LRT garage/maintenance centre. Simply improve the short turns to accomodate the MK111 cars and add the heating mechanism on the rails and Bob's your uncle.

Vancouver's SkyTrain has proven itself to be very cost effective, reliable, frequent, fast, safe, and with the new MK111 trains very comfortable, smoothe, quiet, and pleasant.

Would I use the SkyTrain if starting from scratch?....No but because much of the line is built then it only makes sense to extend the line. The reality of the situation is that Eglinton requires a completly grade separated line. Due to the savings of not having to spend a fortune {and a lot of time} by not changing the SRT to LRT, Metrolinx could very easily to get a company to chip in a hefty amount to create a seemless, grade separated Eg/Scar/Mal line to help build and run it as they would see real returns due to being automated.

It's funny, people continually denegrate the Canada Line due to it's small stations and those are very valid concerns. At the same time, Toronto will be spending 3 times as much on a line that will have lower capacity, speed, reliability, and be more expensive to run. This is why Vancouver has expanded it's rapid transit by 70 km in the last 25 years and Toronto has by only 7km.

 

[car4041]

No other city on the planet would tear down a rapid transit system and replace with one which will have lower capacity

Why do you keep saying the capacity will be lower? The conversion of the RT to LRT involves a huge increase in capacity. The LRT cars will be wider than the RT cars and the trains will be longer.

 

[dowlingm]

If capacity is the issue then the argument should be to halt the LRT at Kennedy and extend the subway via Danforth Road/McCowan (to minimise the costs involved with turning Kennedy station on an angle and allowing the subway a reasonably gentle east/north direction change without expropriating half of the neighbourhood). It's not like the existing SRT provides much catchment, it's mainly point to point between STC and Kennedy, much of it in turn fed by buses from Malvern etc. which could be redirected to the new subway terminus. That would increase loads on BD but that could in turn be dealt with by getting DRL TBMs moving between downtown and Pape/Danforth and continuing to Eglinton/Don Mills.

The LRT is being built as LRT because it is going to be partially at grade. You use different vehicles for grade separated alignments because they are cheaper, not having to worry about side impact. This was something Ford and his advisors failed to grasp when they wanted Eglinton buried but use the same vehicles.

From an industrial policy point of view the main thing is to get an LRV assembly line going. Those LRVs will go to Kitchener, possibly Ottawa and might have a chance at further orders in Alberta currently being supplied from California. Apart from Vancouver nobody in Canada is likely to commission a new or extended ICTS line if for no other reason than that few other Canadian cities get as little snow as they do, a frequent reason for SRT shutdowns.

 

[ssiguy2]

Why do you keep saying the capacity will be lower? The conversion of the RT to LRT involves a huge increase in capacity. The LRT cars will be wider than the RT cars and the trains will be longer.

Because some of the LRT will be at grade. Any at grade system that effects local roads in the slightest has a maximum frequency of every 3 minutes and even that's pushing it as that means a LRT train crossing a street every 90 seconds. A grade separated SkyTrain can run every 80 seconds each way. The new MK111 cars are also wider than the MK1s and have much higher capacity. Vancouver is extending it's platforms on the Expo line to accomodate 3 MK111 cars. That is 105 meters and could handle 9 MK1 cars but using MK111 those same stations have the capacity of 11 MK1 cars.

As far as extending Kennedy up to STC that is lunacy. Again that means ripping down a transit line to put up another one. If they are going to extend the BD line then it should head east to Kingston and the use the existing rail ROW to head further east into Scar.

 

[Hipster Duck]

No other city on the planet would tear down a rapid transit system and replace with one which will have lower capacity and yet more expensive to run.

Ha ha. Almost. Toronto can always take solace that it's not Boston. Boston's transit planning makes Toronto look like Zurich.

 

[car4041]

Because some of the LRT will be at grade.

You were talking about the Scarborough RT. None of that is, or will be, at grade. Capacity on the RT is being significantly increased by the LRT conversion.

 

[W. K. Lis]

In regard to having a private operator operate the LRT instead of the TTC, one just has to look at the city (sorry, cities) above Toronto.

Veolia Transportation is a private transit operator in York Region, and has some 170 bus operators being represented by the Amalgamated Transit Union 113. The same ATU 113 also represents the bus, streetcar, and subway operators in the Toronto Transit Commission. I think any private operator of the LRTs within Toronto could end up having its operators represented by ATU 113.

The only difference will be that any private operator will have to be subsidized up to a point where the shareholders return will be more than what they would get if they invested their money in a GIC or term deposit. It will either that the private operator would have to be subsidized MORE than what the TTC would get, or the private operator will declare bankruptcy and walk away with the pubic taxpayer holding the (empty cash) bag.

Either way, ATU 113 operators will be operating the LRTs, even if the TTC may not be directly.

 

[officedweller]

Unless they change it to exclusive RoW and automate it -
then it may be a different union in the computer control room...

You were talking about the Scarborough RT. None of that is, or will be, at grade. Capacity on the RT is being significantly increased by the LRT conversion.

I think he's thinking of the scenario where Eglinton trains are through run onto the SRT (in which case the at-grade sections of Eglinton could affect frequency on the SRT segment).

I think the bottom line is whether a P3 entity will come one board given all of the limitations imposed by the existing design choices that have been made (unless those decisions are revisited):
- operator driven LRTs (impacting operating costs and operational flexibility)
- at grade sections (impacting reliability and risk of penalties imposed on operator)
- segregated operations on Eglinton, SRT and Sheppard East segments (not to mention disconnected Finch West)(operational inefficiencies / duplication)
- big stations with multiple entrances and large mezzanines (impacting operations and maintenance)

 

[snowystar]

Vancouver is extending it's platforms on the Expo line to accomodate 3 MK111 cars. That is 105 meters and could handle 9 MK1 cars but using MK111 those same stations have the capacity of 11 MK1 cars.

No, they are not planning extending it beside some circulation improvement at key stations. The long term plan is to run longer trains (86m, or 2.5 times the length of current MkII units) at the current peak 93s headway. This would give a capacity of 25,600 pphpd, which is enough until 2041. There are still some room to spare though, as the minimum headway the current system can handle is 77s.

The proposal you mentioned (103m trains, 80s headway) would give 35,700 pphpd. Way overkill for Vancouver's system.

 

[ssiguy2]

They probably won't run them every 80 seconds but the point is that they have done so before and so it is possible. The new Expo extensions are being built to accomodate 3 MK111 cars. Remember that does not mean that they will run those every time as the Expo and Millenium lines are interlined so 2 trains will be MK111 for Expo and every 3rd train will be just 1 MK111 train for the Millenium line.

Whether they choose to run that often or those configurations are options but we are talking about potential capacity. Toronto's Eglinton will have less than half the capacity due to being able to run, at most, every 3 minutes and with that kind of frequency and at grade Toronto is going back to what they hate the most.......streetcar/LRT bunching.

 

[Electrify]

In regard to having a private operator operate the LRT instead of the TTC, one just has to look at the city (sorry, cities) above Toronto.

Veolia Transportation is a private transit operator in York Region, and has some 170 bus operators being represented by the Amalgamated Transit Union 113. The same ATU 113 also represents the bus, streetcar, and subway operators in the Toronto Transit Commission. I think any private operator of the LRTs within Toronto could end up having its operators represented by ATU 113.

The only difference will be that any private operator will have to be subsidized up to a point where the shareholders return will be more than what they would get if they invested their money in a GIC or term deposit. It will either that the private operator would have to be subsidized MORE than what the TTC would get, or the private operator will declare bankruptcy and walk away with the pubic taxpayer holding the (empty cash) bag.

Either way, ATU 113 operators will be operating the LRTs, even if the TTC may not be directly.

It will be most interesting to see if the private companies will be allowed any say in what the fares are set at. YRT, which contracts all routes to three different companies, has the highest fares and some of the poorest service in the GTA.

I'm guessing the best comparison will be to Vancouver, since the TTC will now have a mix of private and public routes. Ssiguy2 or anyone else familiar with their transit operations, how would you rate the service on the Canada Line? Are trains more crowded and run less frequently than they should? Is integration with the rest of the network poor? Etc.

 

[Platform 27]

It will be most interesting to see if the private companies will be allowed any say in what the fares are set at. YRT, which contracts all routes to three different companies, has the highest fares and some of the poorest service in the GTA.

The private contractors in York have no say over ticket prices. Their cost is set up front in whatever contract they reach with YRT, and it's up to YRT to set fares wherever they like to offset whatever portion of the operating costs they feel is appropriate.

The private contractor operating GO trains has no say over ticket prices. The private contractors that run school buses have no say over education taxes. The private contractor for garbage pickup in Toronto has no say over user fees. Why would people assume this will be any different?