[TheTigerMaster]

1?

Spadina Subway and Eglinton Crosstown. About 18 kilometres, or a 27% increase in the size of Toronto's subway network under mayor Miller.

 

[steveintoronto]

Spadina Subway and Eglinton Crosstown. About 18 kilometres, or a 27% increase in the size of Toronto's subway network under mayor Miller.

Crosstown is not a "subway" as per understood definition. It's LRT in tunnel. And LRT is standard gauge track, full North Am (or int'l)(UIC, see bottom of post) loading gauge, the same as RER.

Torontonians as a group still don't get the importance of this distinction, as per wit:

As the London Overground *subway* (it *isn't*!!! Pagliaro should know better, it's a full-sized BR gauge train) car hurtles through Central London, Mayor John Tory — one of those daily commuters from his Bloor St. condo to City Hall — makes straight for the way-finding map to snap a picture on his BlackBerry.

Among the happy, diplomatic tweets sporadically posted by the mayor’s staff during Tory’s three-day tour of the city last week — a visit largely focused on transit — the blurry photo appears online with a different tone: “Wept a bit when I saw this . . .”

In a city as old as London — where tunnelling actually uncovers mass burials of victims of the bubonic plague — there has been a lot of time to build a transit network befitting of a big city.

But as a teenage Toronto grapples with a network currently bursting with commuters while politicians have spent the past decade debating and re-debating what to build or whether to build some lines at all, there are crucial lessons here on how to move forward.

London transit experts agree that Toronto is perfectly poised for a boom in rapid transit — compact city, growing population — but first, it has to get the planning right.

“I think it’s quite vital for you,” said Nigel Foster, director at the U.K.-based, transport-centric Fore Consulting. “Every year, every day you delay it the solution will not change . . . You’ve just got to start.”

There are fundamental differences between the two cities, especially when it comes to financing. Transport for London, the agency in charge of public transit and roads, receives a massive annual subsidy from the national government. London also benefits from a congestion charge, which dings drivers $23 daily to go through a “charging zone” during weekday working hours.

But more than a problem of cash, Toronto has long suffered from a lack of political consensus on what to build — “subways, subways, subways” versus light rail — and how to prioritize — SmartTrack or a downtown relief line? What critics have called a lack of leadership at city hall has resulted in no new subway stops since the Sheppard subway line — a pet project of former mayor Mel Lastman — opened in 2002. Officials now say the lack of riders on that line is causing it to bleed money, requiring a possible $10-per-ride subsidy.

London’s Crossrail is big and beautiful, even from the squishy clay floor of the unfinished Farringdon station in the borough of Islington, just north of the city’s downtown core.

Tory was mesmerized as he toured the tunnel that will carry a new heavy-rail line across the city and outer boroughs. For the mayor, Crossrail has been the inspiration for his own plans for a heavy-rail line, dubbed SmartTrack [...]

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...-transit-torontonians-might-mind-the-gap.html

And only Tory and Torontonians (fortunately not all, the term "subway" complicates things for many) could equate Crossrail to SmartTrack, and not be laughed at by Londoners. It completely misses the point.

RER through-running is the answer, not little bits of subway or extensions here and there, with silly little names attached.

Edit to Add: Pagliaro means well, but she missed some crucial details. The following is also dated, but note the *funding model* that no-one in Toronto politics is talking about save for federalists and the Investment/Infrastructure Bank:

Kelly McParland: London builds a $24 billion subway while Toronto scraps over streetcars
Kelly McParland | August 10, 2013
[...]
Toronto is a big city, but not nearly the size of London, nor do the complexities of digging remotely compare. Yet London has managed to come up with the cash for a six-year, $24 billion project — the biggest civil engineering project in Europe — that will include nine new stations and connect to existing lines and above-ground rail, increasing rail capacity by 10 percent and bring 1.5 million people within a 45-minute commute of central London. The line is expected to carry up to 200 million passengers a year, through tunnels considerably larger than the existing tube channels.

They key to the equation is the money. A 2007 agreement split the Crossrail costs among the British government, the City of London and London businesses. The city will contribute more than $11 billion. Businesses will contribute $6 billion, partly through a business tax known as the Crosstown Business Rate Supplement.

Toronto, meanwhile, has been approved for billions of dollars in funding from the province, but needs many billions more to meet its ambitions. The biggest proponent of subways is Mayor Rob Ford, but he’s also the staunchest in refusing to consider “funding mechanisms” that come down to an array of taxes, levies, tolls and other charges. He has yet to propose a reasonable alternative, but was given new hope when the new premier, Kathleen Wynne, allowed her Transport Minister, Glen Murray, to pledge another $1.4 billion towards a Scarborough subway, $400 million less than needed. They’re still fighting about where the rest will come from. [...]

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...n-subway-while-toronto-scraps-over-streetcars

I take issue with McPharland as much as anyone, but he nailed this, almost four years ago.

The big change since then? *Less money is going to flow from the Province!*

They're learning to say "enough is enough". Don't get me wrong, Queen's Park are the ones responsible for making Toronto the sorry mess it is, the Toronto Act is a freakin' joke in terms of constitutionality as implied v. written clause, but it's now going to fall to the Feds via the Investment Bank to see through the projects that Toronto needs to do, and do right, *along with* the GTHA.

Have rickshaws plying the new oh-so-trendy neighbourhoods of Leslieville, but there's no money for subways. Unless they want to bring back the Opium Trade...

Images for UIC loading gauge






More images for UIC loading gauge

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

The Crosstown will be an urban rail-based rapid transit project running in a tunnel with subway level capacity, frequency and stop-spacing. It is a subway to all but the most nerdy of transit nerds.

 

[steveintoronto]

The Crosstown will be an urban rail-based rapid transit project running in a tunnel with subway level capacity, frequency and stop-spacing. It is a subway to all but the most nerdy of transit nerds.

Really? Tory and Ford couldn't have said it any better.

Meantime, speaking of "nerds", how Toronto-centric do you wish to be?
What is the difference between streetcar, LRT and subway? LRT vehicles are smaller and slower than subways, but travel faster and carry more passengers than streetcars or buses. ... LRT can also run underground, like subways, as is planned for much of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT.
Light Rail Transit (LRT) FAQs | Toronto Environmental Alliance
www.torontoenvironment.org/campaigns/transit/LRTfaq

[...]
[Why not just build subways?

• It costs more to build. A lot more. Subways cost an average of $300 million per km. LRT is $100 million per km for surface routes and $250 million for underground routes.

• It costs more to maintain. Not only are underground stations more expensive to build, but, they also cost more to light, keep safe and secure, and clean.

• By spending less money per kilometre to build, our money literally takes us further. By some estimates, the Transit City plan would provide 10 times as many people with access to transit than the subway extension Mayor Ford is proposing.

• Speed is a trade off with access. Subways go faster by providing stations further apart. LRT stops can be closer together, meaning shorter walks and easier access.

• LRT can be built faster. Some lines could open in as little as two years. The existing Sheppard subway extension took a decade.

• Subway isn’t needed everywhere. While an area like Finch West or Sheppard East badly needs more service than a bus can provide, it does not have nearly the amount of ridership required to justify a subway (usually about 20,000 passengers per hour in rush hour is the “floor” for subways. The Yonge line sees about 30,000 passengers in the morning rush hour. The Finch West LRT has fewer than 3,000.

• Being above ground is good for business. When the ride is fast and smooth, passengers like being above ground, where they look can out the window, and see passing businesses as they go by. Some studies have shown that subways, especially when stations are spaced far apart (as on the Sheppard subway line) can actually hurt local business by discouraging passengers from getting off to shop and dine.

• Subway construction takes longer and requires digging large sections of road, and thus is much more disruptive for local businesses, residents, car and bus traffic and pedestrians.]
[...]
Above link

So build the tunnel for LRT gauge, just as the Crosstown is being done and run tram-trains, as described fully referenced and detailed prior, as *world leading cities are doing* at a lower cost than the orphaned TTC model, run the trams through if apt on Queen or King where the tunnel ends at University, and then continue boring to connect through the RER for completion some years later.

What's not to like about that other than the present status quo which *IS NOT FUNDED!* If catenary is installed at 25kV 60 Hz AC, the standard (almost modern universal, RER is using it) it will be future ready, and Bombardier can provide some of the excess order for Flexities in the dual-mode version that will run on both the TTC streetcar voltage/current, and the RER standard, to allow run-through onto King/Queen, Crosstown, wherever.

Canadian pension and investment funds are building these systems in other nations, why is it so beyond the capacity of the Toronto Mindset to not consider doing it here?

And for the record, I'm a Centrist. But I'm also a fiscal realist. Show me the money!

Here's a very popular competitor to the Flexity running in many North Am cities, built in California, BBD have a dual-mode equiv running in a number of cities:

The Siemens S70 or Avanto is a low-floor light rail vehicle (LRV), streetcar, or tram manufactured by Siemens Mobility, a division of Siemens AG.

The S70 is in use, or on order, by several light rail systems in the United States, where Siemens refers to this model only as the S70.[1] In this field, it competes mainly with Bombardier and Kinki Sharyo low-floor LRVs and modern streetcars manufactured by Inekon and Brookville Equipment Corporation.

In Europe, Siemens's Combino and Avenio models are the preferred offerings for purely light rail or tramway systems; and the same S70 model, under the name Avanto, is principally sold to tram-train systems which, in whole or part, share their tracks with heavy rail trains. Here its principal competitors are Bombardier’s Flexity Link tram-train and Alstom’s Citadis Regio-Citadis/Citadis-Dualis tram-train variants. To date, the Avanto has been sold to two tram-train operations in France.[2]
[...]
Most S70 vehicles are double-ended, with operating controls at both ends and doors on both sides. An exception is the 40 cars in service on Portland's MAX system, which are single-ended and have cabs at only one end of each car. However, they have doors on both sides and in service they always operate in pairs, coupled back-to-back, so that each consist has operating cabs at both ends.[7]

The S70/Avanto can be configured to operate on various overhead power supplies. The Avantos ordered for France are dual voltage, capable of operating on 750 V DC when running on tram or light rail tracks and on 25 kV AC when running on main line tracks. The vehicles operating in Paris currently operate on AC only; its DC capabilities will not be used until an extension of the current line to Montfermeil is completed.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_S70

 

[44 North]

Question: Would the cost of the DRL 'long' will drastically reduce if the labour force and the construction itself were fully automated?

Stem cell research has come a long way, maybe we can have lab-grown DRL.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Spadina Subway and Eglinton Crosstown. About 18 kilometres, or a 27% increase in the size of Toronto's subway network under mayor Miller.

One of those is an LRT though. An underground LRT, sure, but an LRT.

The original plan for the Eglinton LRT (the one Miller concocted) was for an at grade Eglinton LRT too.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

LRT vehicles are smaller and slower than subways,

Again, not necesarially true. The Crosstown will be operationally faster than the Bloor-Danforth line in the tunneled portion.

Just goes to show how much of this discussion is a debate on semantics.

 

[steveintoronto]

Again, not necesarially true. The Crosstown will be operationally faster than the Bloor-Danforth line in the tunneled portion.

Just goes to show how much of this discussion is a debate on semantics.

Semantics you aren't reading correctly, evidently. Of course LRTs can go faster than subways, shall we enter into a debate of thrust-to-weight ratios and tractive effort and adhesive forces?

The best Flexities and Aventos will go far faster than any subway car the TTC now has. And that's *exactly* my point! Why get stuck with yesterday's tech?

 

[steveintoronto]

One of those is an LRT though. An underground LRT, sure, but an LRT.

The original plan for the Eglinton LRT (the one Miller concocted) was for an at grade Eglinton LRT too.

Agreed! It boggles me how the mantra mimes have flipped the debate. But that's Toronto's problem! It's more lingo, logos and mantras than looking for vastly better ways of doing things.

Here's the stock on-street S-70 version made in the US, 105 kph:

S70 / S200 - Light Rail Solutions for North America


With the delivery of more than 1100 vehicles Siemens is the market leader in the Light Rail market in North American. To be able to fulfill the localization requirements in the USA Siemens manufactures modern high and low floor light rail vehicles in its own work in the Californian town Sacramento already since 1984. In 1995 Siemens delivered the first low floor vehicle for Portland which is specially developed for North American. This unique, experienced know-how guarantees the highest reliability for the operator as well as for the passengers. The S70 platform was developed to meet the fast increasing demand for modern low floor vehicles in North American. The 70% low floor vehicle design and the maximum speed of 105 km/h make the S70 the comfortable and fast alternative to the car.

Besides the vehicle S70 Siemens also provides the Canadian and U.S. market with high floor light rail vehicles. Recently in October 2013 the Canadian metropolis Calgary ordered 60 vehicles of the new platform S200, which continues with the over thirty years' success story of Siemens high floor vehicles in Calgary. The S200 is the consequent further development of the predecessor types SD100 and SD160 with application of the approved construction method and components in S70.

• Siemens STS in the USA

Acceleration and braking rates are also greater than any subway vehicle the TTC now has, or most likely ever will.

So again, why does DRL have to be the "subway" as commonly used in Toronto lingo? (Here's a hint: Third Rail)

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Semantics you aren't reading correctly, evidently. Of course LRTs can go faster than subways, shall we enter into a debate of thrust-to-weight ratios and tractive effort and adhesive forces?

The best Flexities and Aventos will go far faster than any subway car the TTC now has. And that's *exactly* my point! Why get stuck with yesterday's tech?

LRT's require larger tunnels than subways do. Larger tunnels = more expensive tunnelling and maintenance. The DRL will need to be tunneled for it's entire stretch, not to mention that at full build-out, would have ridership surpassing the capacity of even fully grade-separated LRT.

Subway just makes sense.

 

[adrianaliu]

LRT's require larger tunnels than subways do. Larger tunnels = more expensive tunnelling and maintenance. The DRL will need to be tunneled for it's entire stretch, not to mention that at full build-out, would have ridership surpassing the capacity of even fully grade-separated LRT.

Subway just makes sense.

rer tunnel is a good idea for the distant future as well. but it is not substitute for the relief line. rer cannot run at frequencies that would suffice because parts of the route share the tracks with other rail services. so if they build relief line, and begin having passenger trains on the midtown corridor, they can then begin planning for an rer tunnel through the core which would relieve union station by sending passengers into other stations. imo lrt is out of question, tram trains and lrts are nice flexible and innovative but they dont have the capacity to meet ridership demands. so I would stick with subways for drl.

 

[steveintoronto]

Subway just makes sense.

Uh huh. Your evidence please. I have already linked many studies, and examples, of *world class cities* (perhaps that excuses Toronto right there) that no longer build subways. They're such a poor business case.
The cost of tunnel bore is a very small factor in the debate, but it sure limits things come being part of a much greater whole later.

Think the Bloor Viaduct and the full loading gauge second deck. It's big enough to carry CP freights across, the original intention.

rer cannot run at frequencies that would suffice because parts of the route share the tracks with other rail services.

Be sure to tell that to London, they're going to have a hell of a disappointment when you set them straight on their 2.5 min headway through the main Crossrail section.

Last time I checked, freight services weren't projected for the DRL. The RER line(s) down the Don would still be fully functional. There would be the "express line" (to Union) and the "city loop". And they'd come in different flavours and colours too...

And when the VIA ex-O&Q HFR is up and running, it too could choose a number of destinations, including the CP Crosstown and/or terminating at Summerhill. Gosh...options, interchangeability, through services. What a concept, is Toronto ready for this?

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Most world class cities already have their versions of the Queen Subway built. They didn't slack on it for a 100 years like Toronto did. The ones that did, like New York City, are ripping off the bandaid and embracing the massive cost subways encur in todays dollars (Second Avenue subway).

I'm not familiar with London enough to commentate. My understanding is that the Crossrail project is a consequence to London realizing they couldn't afford to build like 3 subway lines in their core, and deciding to synthesize them into one mega-mega-project in the Crossrail. It would be like if we had the urgent demand to build subways in downtown on all three of King, Queen and Dundas and deciding instead to build one massive RER tunnel under Queen running at 2.5 minute frequencies. [I might be totally off-the-mark on this comparison, like I said my knowledge on London is limited]

As for why we don't do this in Toronto, we come to several issues once again:

• RER tunnel would be massive. If you think the DRL tunnel would be expensive, the RER is a whole other matter.
• The PATH system and other utilities impose a massive barrier to a tunnel wider than subway
• The stations would have to be substantially larger to accomodate commuter rail vehicles, which greatly adds to the cost
• We aren't talking about just a downtown Queen subway anymore, this is a SmartTrack on crack scenario. We'd have to completely transform the Milton, Kitchener, Stoufville and Richmond Hill RER lines.
• This involves the Missing Link on Milton and a completely new route for Richmond Hill. Whose going to negotiate with CP/CN and with what money?
• This came up as a concern in the SmartTrack thread, we are at the mercy of real frequency limitations of the rail corridors as we get closer to the core on the east end. The engineering literally prevents RER from running at that high frequencies without doing something insane like double-decking the rail corridor.
• The ridership just isn't there to warrant a RER-tunnel scenario.
• This requires fare integration structure, which sounds like a silly concern, but really is not when we are talking about this region......
• With what $$$ ??????

All this for arbitrary benefit. We wouldn't be able to have near as close station stop-spacing for example, nor would we be checking down other city building checkboxes like connecting priority neighbourhoods. We'd probably have to maintain local service too.

To put this in other words, I would file a downtown RER tunnel next to replacing the Gardiner with a tunneled highway+subway.

 

[steveintoronto]

"WislaHD, post: 1209463, member: 57468"

As for why we don't do this in Toronto, we come to several issues once again:

• RER tunnel would be massive. If you think the DRL tunnel would be expensive, the RER is a whole other matter.
• Read my posts. I even posted in pictures, what more does it take? Same loading gauge.
• 
  
• The PATH system and other utilities impose a massive barrier to a tunnel wider than subway

You go under them.

• The stations would have to be substantially larger to accomodate commuter rail vehicles, which greatly adds to the cost

I'm sorry? Stations are cheaper. Already detailed.

• We aren't talking about just a downtown Queen subway anymore, this is a SmartTrack on crack scenario. We'd have to completely transform the Milton, Kitchener, Stoufville and Richmond Hill RER lines.

No you wouldn't. You might have to get a new mindset though. This is *nothing* to do with SmartTrack. Stop using jingos and mimes. I already addressed that point in detail.

• This involves the Missing Link on Milton and a completely new route for Richmond Hill. Whose going to negotiate with CP/CN and with what money?

How big is your strawman? Missing Link would make everything better. So because the Missing Link isn't presently funded, you build the DRL like you've always done subways with money that also doesn't exist? Is Descartes in on this somewhow? You build for *future compatibility* and by using trams, you can run through on the surface, you know, like the King Transit Mall? And later, that same tunnel up through Papetown can easily host RER, as well as LRVs *intermixed*...as I've stated and linked many times, *as is done in Europe* and in the US. Meantime, you get your DRL *and* surface run-through via street running LRVs.

• This came up as a concern in the SmartTrack thread, we are at the mercy of real frequency limitations of the rail corridors as we get closer to the core.
  
• So many presumptions, where to begin? The LRVs and RERs alike will be reversible. You increase frequency on the centre section where the greatest need is. Just like *Crossrail*!!! How many times do I have to reference that, and the Paris RER? (which is now integrated with some tram-lines, all detailed and referenced in previous posts.
  
• We literally cannot run RER that quickly without doing something insane like double-decking the rail corridor.

Ah yes, Torontonians dictating to the world how they can't do what they're already doing. Already detailed. Read the posts. Express can run down the Don Valley, locals can be mixed with LRVs, same track, same gauge, same loading profile, same power supply, same platform height. Already being done in Europe. Karlsruhe been doing it for over a century.

• The ridership just isn't there to warrant a RER-tunnel scenario.

Is this a *relief* line or not? You are now completely debasing your own case. Go right ahead and make this for local overhead only. Good luck with your business model.

• This requires fare integration structure, which sounds like a silly concern, but really is not when we are talking about this region......

Already addressed. There seems to be an ingrained inability to read. Fares will be integrated long before your touted version of DRL comes into existence. If ever.

• With what $$$ ??????

lol....exactly. And where is it for DRL? Already detailed. Your subway has hit the buffers.

RER tunnel would be massive. If you think the DRL tunnel would be expensive, the RER is a whole other matter.

Same gauge as Eglinton Crosstown. You do realize this is for EMUs', don't you? I posted the loading gauge sizes prior.

Here's an excellent article at this very publication (UrbanToronto) detailing "CityRail" (actually extant in Sydney, Oz, but I digress)(Sydney is an excellent model to study)

Updated - The CityRail Concept: Real Regional Rail for the GTA
July 6, 2012 5:00 pm | by Jonathan English | 14 Comments
Jonathan English's new column on transit continues following last week's inaugural article on the OneCity transit plan. This week we look at CityRail, a concept which would bring rapid transit to underserved areas of Toronto and across the GTA sooner and at less cost than other methods. Could a version of this concept get traction here?

This article is shared with the blog Transit Futures.
[...]
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2012/07/cityrail-concept-real-regional-rail-gta

What I'm proposing is hardly radical or new. It's unfortunate that some Torontonians are still stuck in the past. What is new is incorporating the DRL into a branch of RER.

 

[BurlOak]

This is the Ford mantra of "subways, subways, subways."

Ford was the one who supported the LRT - the continuous Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown. And this was in his first year when he had the most power.
Ford used the words "subways, subways, subways" because that is what the people understand to be grade-separated transit. When shown the continuous LRT, Ford supported it because it met his, and the public's main need.
It was Stintz, GDB, Mitzi Hunter, the Scarborough Liberals - they where the ones who turned it into "only subways are acceptable".