[Tdot_one]

There is no analysis. It's fact. STC is not the centre of the universe, and being a "major growth node" does not justify a subway. The increase in ridership will not even come close to needing a subway. I'll take the word of the TTC, and Metrolinx over your assumptions any day.

Are you sure? Those ridership simulations are heavily political as well. The extension into York is hardly economically, but since funding is cleared, it's been pushed. Funds are limited and thus there is a push for local, limited catchment LRTs.

The STC area is the largest employment generator East of Yonge. Not only that, but the level of intensification from Kennedy to Markham is going to be huge. The corridor is going to be several times more dense than the targets around Danforth. Ironically, unlike STC, the corridor is viewed as "sufficient" for subway-use.

However, there is very little evidence that LRTs at Malvern will even amount to much. That capital could be going into the STC instead. I have a feeling that many have limited exposure to more extensive transit systems worldwide. For instance, Melbourne (and Sydney) trains and trams have terrible ridership levels.

That is despite the network being several times more extensive than the TTC, and believe me, the the tram network is a joke. The reason why TTC operates better is due to efficiency. Not due to walk-in ridership, but actually due to its feeder bus routes. The vast majority of the TTC's subway ridership is through this mode.

Is the light rails going to be feeded by buses? From what I see that isn't the case. Areas like Malvern are less dense than the Bloor corridor which also largely depends on feeder buses. I don't see how those LRTs are going to benefit the majority, when walk-in ridership will be very limited.

Finally, TTC predictions are hardly scientific. The data hasn't been reviewed and we've seen cooked up books that justified ICTS and what not. This agency, like Hydro One et al, does incur loses and thus influences around social policy. The fact is, the TC's primary aim is to turn those corridors into affluent, transit-oriented spaces. Population density will fall, but tax revenue will rise substantially. It has very little to do with the feeder buses that will still have to serve the sprawls.

 

[Tdot_one]

Also according to TTC, the two full-sized LRV vehicles can carry 8,000 passengers per hour. The previous RT carried around 5,000. I remember well (despite not living on on the BD line) that additional buses had to be used in order to fill augment RT size. Those buses, from what I've seen, appeared to be full even after the rush hour.

How does an overhead of 3,000 pph suggest that the LRT wouldn't end up full very quickly?

 

[Voltz]

Also according to TTC, the two full-sized LRV vehicles can carry 8,000 passengers per hour. The previous RT carried around 5,000. I remember well (despite not living on on the BD line) that additional buses had to be used in order to fill augment RT size. Those buses, from what I've seen, appeared to be full even after the rush hour.

How does an overhead of 3,000 pph suggest that the LRT wouldn't end up full very quickly?

Because it will be using three car LRT trains

 

[Dan416]

The only absurd thing is that Toronto is being force-fed band-aid solutions that will cost billions of dollars but do nothing to add to rapid transit in the city.

 

[Rainforest]

Also according to TTC, the two full-sized LRV vehicles can carry 8,000 passengers per hour. The previous RT carried around 5,000. I remember well (despite not living on on the BD line) that additional buses had to be used in order to fill augment RT size. Those buses, from what I've seen, appeared to be full even after the rush hour.

How does an overhead of 3,000 pph suggest that the LRT wouldn't end up full very quickly?

Unlike other TC routes, S(L)RT will remain fully grade-separate, and that allows longer trains and more frequent service. They expect to run 3-car trains (up to 500 people per train) on 3'20'' headways (18 trains per hour) - that translates to capacity 9,000 pphpd. But they probably can reduce the headways to 2 min with manual operation (30 trains per hour, 15,000 pphpd), or 1.5 min with ATO (40 trains per hour, 20,000 pphpd). Such volume will not be reached (and if it was, BD subway would have hard time accommodating people boarding west of Kennedy).

There are a few other reasons to prefer subway extension to STC: eliminating the transfer; eliminating the need of large platforms and stairs at Kennedy to handle that transfer; cheaper transit east of STC; a possibility to use the former SRT corridor to expand Agincourt - Markham - Stouffville GO service. But capacity alone should not be an issue if they choose S(L)RT over subway extension.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Can anyone find out more information on SEPTA's (Philadelphia) upgrading to a Bombardier CITYFLO* 450 CBTC (ATP/ no ATO)? This link hasn't been updated.

The CBTC system was placed in service during night owl operation at 12:01 am on May 24, 2005 with the intention of increasing the service to include weekends during the summer and finally full 24/7 service in the late summer 2005.

The purpose of the project is to install a modern state-of-the-art Positive Train Control system, defined as a Communications Based Train Control (CBTC) system in SEPTA’s Light Rail Tunnel to improve safety while maintaining efficient rail car movements.

SEPTA’s Light Rail Tunnel is 2.5 miles long and contains two main tracks for a total of five track miles. Five light rail surface routes converge into the tunnel at two different portals. Ridership in the tunnel is approximately 90,000/day utilizing a fleet of 112 light rail vehicles. The new CBTC system will support 60-70 rail cars/hour with 30+ rail cars normally operating in the tunnel during the worst-case peak hour under the present scheduling. In the event of a delay, the number of rail cars in the tunnel could be much greater than 30 rail, however, the CBTC system will be capable of handling up to 75 rail cars/hr as well as multiple berthing of cars in all stations.

The CBTC system will provide train separation and civil speed control with continuous over-speed protection and overlay on the existing wayside indication system with minor modifications. All track circuits are of the single rail type and will remain in service. The single interlocking will be upgraded to a processor type at a later date. There will be no ATO or ATS functionality except a mimic display and the ability to apply slow zones at the central control facility.

A 30 month implementation schedule was anticipated with the vehicle equipment installation being the critical path as no more that two cars per week could be taken out of service. At present, carborne equipment has been installed on all 112 vehicles. All wayside tunnel work is completed and tested. Formal testing of the system with four vehicles has been completed and operational tests are being performed on the remaining vehicles.

I'm assuming that they are having problems with their system. If it was successful, the system could be used with Transit City and the S(L)RT. Bombardier's information looks like just advertising at this link.

CITYFLO 450 is a communication-based train control (CBTC) moving block system designed for metros with drivers. The system is used for moving block semi-automatic running of trains (STO) on segregated tracks and has the potential for upgrading to a driverless system.

 

[origin]

Many of the Transit City billboards have been removed, replaced by generic TTC logo billboards (e.g. Millwood, O'Connor)

 

[W. K. Lis]

One component of Transit City are bicycle lanes (to the temperament of drivers).

Lately, I have seen an article on Copenhagen's new bicycle rest bars. See this link for the article.

Something for Toronto to think about adding to the bicycle lanes. May also serve to guide pedestrians to the crosswalk as well.

Why not start with the existing bicycle path on Eglinton Avenue West in Etobicoke?

 

[W. K. Lis]

See this link for why Hamilton is looking to Europe for light rail plans and not Toronto.

 

[RedRocket191]

Not to be nitpicky, but when they talk about "The Bad" they talk about mixed traffic streetcars, not the proposed transit city LRT.

 

[Justin10000]

And becase the CLRV's cannot be coupled together. Of course, they can be if the TTC really wanted to.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The CLRV's were originally built for coupling. The couplers were removed, when the TTC decided to go with ALRV's.

 

[GTS]

Their were a number of articles today in the Feb. 5/10 The Mirror, Scarborough community paper. It reports, what has been known or guessed for awhile, that the SRT will be replaced with a light rail line. I know it isn't exactly Transit City stuff but this line will share the same types of cars that the Transit City routes will use and can share storage yards. Their is another article about the storage yard planned for the Sheppard East LRT and possibly the SRT, now LRT, cars using the same storage facilities at 8304 Sheppard Ave. just north of Conlins Rd. Their are a couple of articles about Giambrone as well and his run for mayor.

This is going to be one expansive rapid transit network when all these routes are complete.

To go back to the SRT line, when it is converted to LRT it is to terminate at Sheppard for now, maybe when more funds come the much needed extension to Malvern Town Center might happen. I hope it does because a high percentage of RT riders come from this area presently. It would show the city is commited to bringing good transit services to areas that already use transit more then average.

I hope when they do convert the SRT line to LRT they use a center platform at Scarborough Town Center. That way both directions of this route can share stairs, escalators and elevators.

 

[kettal]

Not to be nitpicky, but when they talk about "The Bad" they talk about mixed traffic streetcars, not the proposed transit city LRT.

TTC certainly got the dumbest fare system as far as streetcars go. Other systems were using conductors 100 years ago, fares were collected while the tram is in motion.

 

[k10ery]

Not to be supernitpicky, but the article says what is bad about Toronto is trams don't run on dedicated tracks but what is good about Portland is "Cars, LRT mingle together".

As if that weren't enough, IIRC we fought a couple of wars to keep Strasbourg in France, and the Spec has gone and given it to the Germans for nothing. Sigh.