[Voltz]

^
Well who knows what the stations on the Eglinton LRT will look like, And its trains will be bigger than Vancouver's.

 

[taal]

Where exactly do you plan to build an elevated line over many stretches of Eglinton.......................... of course underground is more expensive

 

[Irishmonk]

Eglinton Crosstown

Speed:
22Km/h on surface
30 Km/h underground

I'm curious where these speed numbers come from. (Please don't say Wikipedia.)

 

[waterloowarrior]

I'm curious where these speed numbers come from. (Please don't say Wikipedia.)

http://www.toronto.ca/involved/proj...pdf/2009-06-15-to-25_display_boards_part1.pdf

slide 8

 

[Irishmonk]

^ Thanks Waterloo.

I had no idea our subways averaged a paltry 30 km/h. Usain Bolt is faster than that.

 

[Whoaccio]

Where exactly do you plan to build an elevated line over many stretches of Eglinton.......................... of course underground is more expensive

Cough, cough, cough.

Also, the Canada line is about half underground, whereas only 1/3rd of Eglinton has ever been seriously considered for tunneling. If we can't put a 7m wide viaduct along a 30m wide suburban arterial, most of which has 10-20m building setbacks and part of which has a 70m wide former highway ROW, where on earth can we put a viaduct? Lets be real here people.

Well who knows what the stations on the Eglinton LRT will look like, And its trains will be bigger than Vancouver's.

To the later, bollux. The Canada Line operating with 2-car trains has more capacity than the Eglinton LRT despite having smaller trains, mainly because operating without red lights allows more effective scheduling. To the former, how can Eglinton possibly have more expensive stations? More than 2/3rds of the "stations" will be glorified bus-stops, whereas all of the Canada Line's are at least stations (i.e. not bustops) even if they are smaller than what Torontonian's consider typical for a subway station.

Anybody who thinks Toronto is getting anything other than screwed by getting a slower system, with less capacity, for more money (per km) is simply unreasonable.

 

[Asterix]

^ Thanks Waterloo.

I had no idea our subways averaged a paltry 30 km/h. Usain Bolt is faster than that.

Subways hit a max speed around 70 km/h. They have to slow down and stop when they come to stations because most patrons aren't too keen at getting on/off at that speed. Accounting for deceleration/accelerations, 30km/h seems a reasonable average.

 

[CodeMonkey]

Anybody who thinks Toronto is getting anything other than screwed by getting a slower system, with less capacity, for more money (per km) is simply unreasonable.

Yes, the only reason we're really going towards a LRT option is so the union doesn't have a fit over losing their high paid jobs if the TTC decides to automate the subways.

 

[Second_in_pie]

^ Thanks Waterloo.

I had no idea our subways averaged a paltry 30 km/h. Usain Bolt is faster than that.

One day last year, I needed to get to Union to catch my Go Train, running really late (as usual.) There was some holdup at St. George, and in a spark of insanity, I decided to ditch the subway and run to Union. Somehow, I made my train with a couple minutes to spare.

And Eglinton could easily have a fully separate ROW. Tunneled between Keele/Jane and Laird/Don Mills, ROW in the Richview Corridor, and an easy elevated ROW from Laird/Don Mills to Kennedy. When you count in the savings they could get by using the Richview lands, an Eglinton Crosstown Subway could cost less than the Canada Line per kilometer, couldn't it?

 

[Whoaccio]

^
The 140m/km line cost implies an average cost over the entire line. Given that 2/3rds of the line is characterized by bus stops as opposed to stations, those bus stops by definition would reduce the *average* station cost. On a per-km basis, I find it incredible that comparing a line that is 72% longer with fewer "stations", could have higher cost of stations. It is simply ridiculous. I actually thought it was mathematically impossible. Somehow in the back of my head, I always figured that all things being equal a system with greater station density would have higher capital costs/km. Leave it to the TTC and its apologists though to show that a system with average "station" spacing of about 2.5km can actually have higher relative station costs than a system with stations every 1.2km.

I will say it again. If anybody thinks something that is slower, carries less people and costs more is a good deal, they are unreasonable. By all conceivable transportation metrics this hodgepodge of LRT is a joke. If we got Calgary C-Train style costs and performance things would be different (which, I would add, would be quite possible on Eglinton), but we pay subway prices for something that stops at red lights for the love of god.

 

[Paleo]

Do any of those price tags include yards and rolling stock?

Eglinton Crosstown

Speed:
22Km/h on surface
30 Km/h underground

Cost:4.6 Billion-->33KM
Cost per KM: Approx 140 millions

VS

Canada Line Vancouver

Speed: Average 45 Km/h
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver)

Cost 2 Billion
Cost per KM:approx 104 Millions

-------------------------------------------------------
Montreal Metro Trains :
Train Length: 152.4 m (9 car train set)-1 Train=16.9m
Car Width: 2.5 m

VS

Canada line Trains:
Train Length: 41 m (2 car train set)-1 Train=20.5m
Car Width: 3 m
-------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion:
-Canada line will be faster
-less expensive
-better looking stations http://www.cbc.ca/bc/features/soundslides/canadaline/
-most likely bigger trains than Eglinton LRT...

Something is seriously wrong here....

 

[Whoaccio]

^
I'm pretty sure both the Eglinton line and Canada Line include their rolling stock and maintenance yards.

 

[EnviroTO]

Eglinton will be 11km of bored tunnel, with between 11 and 13 underground stations plus 19km at grade.

Canada line is 19km total, mostly above ground or cut-and-cover with 8 below ground stations.

Not really an apples to apples comparison.

 

[rbt]

Probably why they have been pressing for some kind of Skytrain or Canada Line-like system instead of streetcars that stop at red lights.

Most of the ridership will be in the central underground section which could run 90m trains every 60 seconds (Automatic Train Control, platform doors, etc.) with LRT and still have every 5th train do the full route from Kennedy to Pearson.

It's also possible to run four 180m trains then a fifth 90m train for every 5 minute block. This would put the capacity well above the current Yonge line for the tunnelled segment while still stopping at red lights for the small percentage of clients going the full distance.

The signalling and electronics package is pretty much independent of the rolling stock provided it follows a guided path.


Actually the more I consider many arguments against Transit City, the more I like the Transit City plan.

In the odd event that a 90m train every 5 minutes is insufficient for the street in 2040 and the works department is still against running more frequent service (current limitations to transit priority is the works department, not TTC); then the tunnel can be pretty easily extended with minimal interruption to service.

 

[rbt]

EDIT: rbt, aren't the trains above ground on Eglinton limited in size? I'm pretty sure that overly long trains create a lot of issues when stopping at above ground stations, as well as at level crossings.

Trains in the tunnel are limited in size too. You won't see any 400m long trains travelling through like the Eurostar.

They'll be limited to the minimum intersection distance (space for a station) + slop. Luckily, the intersections are really far apart in the surface portions.

90m trains (three 30m-car consists) were considered for the SRT replacement and have been discussed in the Eglinton design. Tunnels *may* be level for 180m sections allowing for future expansion to 180m trains in the underground section (roughly 8 T1 cars in length).

Either way, rolling stock has not been selected. Until that is done and we know whether it will be single tunnel or twin, we really don't know anything.


Calgary runs 73m trains on the surface with plans to expand to 97m trains (4-car consists).