Forgotten said:
There's both positive and negative to take from this. The positive is we might actually get out from under the crappy Queen street line that the city employed Ryerson planning rejects came up with. The negative continues to be Metrolinx insisting on using crappy sardine can Skytrains instead of building the real subways we should be building.
Click to expand...
Maybe we should go back to the pre-Keesmaat days when this whole thing was just a concept.
 
BurlOak said:
Maybe we should go back to the pre-Keesmaat days when this whole thing was just a concept.
Click to expand...

She was part of the problem and it's time to clean up her mess but using tiny Skytrains will only create another problem. No one should believe those fake capacity numbers the Skytrain fanboys throwaround because you need to cram more people into the same amount of space to get it to look on paper like it's in the same league as Toronto's real subways when it isn't.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
This has nothing to do with negativites of elevated transit or SRT or NIMBYism - it has to do with preferential treatment of who gets to know what goes where. You can't tell the public that everything is up in air, nothing to tell you on one hand, and then turn around and talk to developers that no, really, it's going here and there. It undermines the trustworthiness of the org.

AoD
Click to expand...

I want to also add that Leslieville is historic and has charm - Scarborough has none of that.
 
Forgotten said:
She was part of the problem and it's time to clean up her mess but using tiny Skytrains will only create another problem. No one should believe those fake capacity numbers the Skytrain fanboys throwaround because you need to cram more people into the same amount of space to get it to look on paper like it's in the same league as Toronto's real subways when it isn't.
Click to expand...
2.65m wide Vancouver SkyTrains are indeed too small.
Finding an alternate train to the TTC subway that can handle curves and grade better does make some sense. I think 120m platforms, with Spanish Solution 3 track interchange stations would likely produce similar capacity to the Yonge Line with it's 150m long platforms - and large dwell times at a few key stations the govern the entire operation.
 
pman said:
Elevated is not only cheaper, it doesn’t necessarily mean the apocalypse. For example, the S-Bahn is a surface/elevated system that traverses a lot of Berlin residential neighbourhoods that seem to do just fine with it. The residential area of the elevated Hackescher Markt station, where my son used to rent, is pleasant lively and liveable. Plus, great transit. I get that a lot of folks in Leslieville want subways, subways, subways. But the cost is becoming so high that we’ll build very little rapid transit if we insist it all be buried. And the NIMBY arguments put forward by Toronto politicians and residents’ associations to oppose pretty much everything always do seem mostly completely uninformed by the experience of the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

Nobody wants elevated rail in their neighbourhood. I agree it can be a good thing, but that depends on a number of considerations.

I can understand why Leslieville residents want it underground - it makes sense in the city.

The biggest reason to put it underground is capacity. The Ontario Line as presently proposed isn't going to provide the capacity this project needs.
 
Forgotten said:
She was part of the problem and it's time to clean up her mess but using tiny Skytrains will only create another problem. No one should believe those fake capacity numbers the Skytrain fanboys throwaround because you need to cram more people into the same amount of space to get it to look on paper like it's in the same league as Toronto's real subways when it isn't.
Click to expand...
BurlOak said:
2.65m wide Vancouver SkyTrains are indeed too small.
Finding an alternate train to the TTC subway that can handle curves and grade better does make some sense. I think 120m platforms, with Spanish Solution 3 track interchange stations would likely produce similar capacity to the Yonge Line with it's 150m long platforms - and large dwell times at a few key stations the govern the entire operation.
Click to expand...

"Metrolinx concluded that the Ontario Line should be built with provision for trains of up to approximately 100 metres length and assuming a 3.0 metre car width."

They're expecting it would be wider(3m vs 2.65) and longer (100m vs 76m) than the Skytrain rolling stock. The exact dimensions will be what the winning consortium will offer.

From the Business Case.
 
My understanding is that Metrolinx has been thinking more in line with use the rolling stock for REM than for the Skytrain, which are a bit larger and more typical of modern metro systems. The Skytrain system is on the smaller end of typical, while Toronto's system is large, and Metrolinx is looking for something in the middle.
 
syn said:
The biggest reason to put it underground is capacity. The Ontario Line as presently proposed isn't going to provide the capacity this project needs.
Click to expand...

Capacity and elevation have no relation. Only grade separation and other infrastructure matter.

Sydney Metro just opened the first phase which is elevated (Later phases go underground in the city. Sound familiar?) and has an 'ultimate' capacity of over 40k pphpd because they safeguarded the stations for a train length of 170m. I can't find a published official width for the train, but based on the photos it looks like less than TR's 3.2m.
 
Last edited:
syn said:
The biggest reason to put it underground is capacity. The Ontario Line as presently proposed isn't going to provide the capacity this project needs.
Click to expand...
The biggest reasons to put things underground include:
1. Use of available space
2. Operational improvements (running trains underground from an operator's perspective is a lot easier than aboveground) due to lack of icing and wet tracks.
3. Increasing train speeds — larger turning radii and faster speeds due to no risks of weather changes.

Capacity doesn't improve with aboveground alignments, capacity improves with train sizes and frequency.
 
Adjei said:
Another hit piece by the Toronto Star. When it was elevated LRT for folks in Scarborough, it was A-Okay. We never heard anything about the negativities of elevated transit. Now that the Ontario Line is proposing elevated through Leslieville, it's armageddon. How many of the Toronto Star writers are living in Leslieville or close to there. I guess this is what they called Not In My Backyard. I wonder why going underground through here like what the Toronto Star wants isn't being called a waste like what we heard out in Scarborough. Before when OneCity used to make these arguments, I thought he wasn't making much sense, now I see where he is coming from. The hypocrisy in this city is sickening.
Click to expand...
Holy crap, what a ridiculous assertion.
 
innsertnamehere said:
then explain why its ridiculous. Doesn't seem that crazy to me.
Click to expand...
Because proper journalism was done, and he turned it into a Ford-like Scarborough vs. Leslieville rant while ignoring the findings of the article. Basically, developers are being given preferential information. Regardless of how one feels about elevated transit through Leslieville (and to be honest, I don't have a huge issue with it).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top