kettal
Banned
Yes, it's going to be just horrible! Blood on the streets, snow on the uh, tracks. Guns everywhere! The only solution is bloor-danforth subway into Scarborough.
I gotta agree with all your points there, but if Sheppard deserves a full subway, Eglinton, DRL, Dundas, Hurontario, Highway 2, Viva Blue and Viva Purple all deserve fully blown subways too.
and I am happy to report to you that this "blue line" is indeed planned to be extended and converted to LRT
Good lord, and this comes with a smiley face!!!
I only heard that this might be an extension of the green line... any more info on this plan to make an LRT instead? In fact, I would support having a "orange line" or a "dark blue" line that goes to m'sauga. I'd also like to see a black line go from the airport to the eglinton line (which does not exist I regret)
TTC picks Bombardier to supply streetcars
HANDOUT IMAGE
This rendering shows a proposed TTC streetcar design from Bombardier.
Proposed streetcar designs
Bombardier
This rendering shows a proposed TTC streetcar design from Bombardier.
Siemens
This rendering shows a proposed TTC streetcar design from Siemens.
Choose text size
Report typo or correction
License this article
TTC site Apr 24, 2009 05:00 PM
Comments on this story (65)
TESS KALINOWSKI
Transportation Reporter
In a move bound to have Thunder Bay residents cheering today, the TTC has chosen Montreal-based Bombardier for its billion-dollar streetcar contract.
The TTC announced this morning that it has chosen Bombardier's Flexity Outlook car as the base model on which to customize a sleek, new Euro-style ride for Toronto.
At least 25 per cent of the car must be made with Canadian parts and labour and Bombardier has said its Thunder Bay plant is ready to roll.
Bombardier beat out Siemens Canada — part of a German-based company — for the contract worth between $1.25 billion and $3 billion.
The initial order will be for 204 30-metre long cars to replace the TTC's existing 30-year-old fleet of 248 Canadian Light Rail Vehicles (CLRVs) and Articulated Light Rail Vehicles (ALRVs) that run on 11 city routes.
The contract will also include an option to build another 364 cars to run on the city's planned Transit City light rail lines into the suburbs.
The cars have the capacity to carry about twice as many people as the old version. They will feature an enclosed driver compartment, boarding from all doors and a computerized fare system to accommodate the new fare technology the TTC is likely to introduce in coming years.
The first of the cars are scheduled to be in the city for testing in 2011 and will be in service by 2012, TTC officials said.
The recommendation to have Bombardier build the cars will go before city councillors on the Toronto Transit Commission for approval Monday.
The award follows about two years of controversy. The TTC went to a strictly monitored request for proposals process on the streetcar contract after it awarded the contract for new subway cars to Bombardier in 2006 without negotiating with competing manufacturers.
The $710 million deal was designed to support the struggling Thunder Bay economy. But Siemens and some city councillors said it might have robbed Toronto taxpayers of the opportunity to get a better deal on the subway cars.
But when the TTC started the RFP process for the streetcars only two companies submitted bids: Bombardier and a small British firm, TRAM Power.
The TTC said both bids failed to meet its requirements and suggested that Bombardier's car, versions of which run in cities around the world, wasn't technically able to take Toronto's tight turns.
The RFP was cancelled and the TTC went to a negotiated bidding process using the same technical specifications. Bombardier re-entered the race and was joined by Siemens.
Chairman Adam Giambrone stressed today that the streetcars represent "the No. 1 ask of the City of Toronto for the (federal) stimulus dollars."
"We will be looking to negotiate with Bombardier for a higher Canadian content," Giambrone told reporters, adding that "we have to assume that there may be additional cost" for this.
The contract price doesn't include a new maintenance facility required for the larger vehicles, estimated to cost $345 million, which Giambrone suggested would likely be located in the city's port district.
"The new LRVs will be low-floor, quieter, have features such as air conditioning for greater customer comfort, and be able to carry almost twice as many people as the TTC's current streetcars do," the commission said.
TTC engineering staff – previously worried that Bombardier's vehicles could not negotiate tight turns on the Toronto track network – "is satisfied that Bombardier's proposed car will operate safely in Toronto."
The decision on funding faces a June 27 deadline beyond which Bombardier's price is no longer guaranteed.
Giambrone observed that the city, province and federal government traditionally split such spending evenly, but "the funding charts often get incredibly complex."
Thunder Bay New Democrat MP Bruce Hyer welcomed the announcement, which "will bring some hope to workers that are left behind by the Conservative government."
NDP Leader Jack Layton, who represents a Toronto riding, added in a statement that parts for the streetcars will come from various Ontario plants and "now it's time for the federal government to do its part and allow the City of Toronto to use its share of the stimulus package for this project."
-with files from The Canadian Press
The high-floor light rail vehicles are designed for light-rail networks with platform heights of approximately 900 mm.
Dimensions
•Length (over anti-climbers): 22698 mm (74' 5-5/8'')
•Length (over coupler faces): 22787 mm (74' 9-1/8'')
•Width (over side sheets): 3134 mm (10' 3-38'')
•Maximum width: 3150 mm (10' 4'')
•Height (rail to roof): 3658 mm (12' 0'')
•Height (rail to top of floor): 1105 mm (43-1/2'')
•Doorway width (side, clear opening): 1524 mm (5' 0'')
•Doorway width (end, clear opening): 711 mm (28'')
•Doorway height (side): 1930 mm (6' 4'')
•Floor to ceiling height (high ceiling): 2184 mm (7' 2'')
•Wheel diameter (new): 711 mm (28'')
•Truck wheelbase: 2134 mm (7' 0'')
•Truck centre distance: 16459 mm (54' 0'')
•Track gauge: 1495 mm (58-7/8'')
That has got to be the best word to describe what's going on right now with Transit City right now. I agree with you, well at least that Miller's really not a bad Mayor. IMO, Giambrone really isn't doing very well as head of the TTC.Now that Miller and Giambrone (which I don't think are horribly bad people by any means) have had their light rail orgasm, maybe they can seriously focus on building a DRL subway after the initial Transit City lines.
If LRT is going to provide such good service, I ask you this: Why not just build the DRL as a LRT line? I'm not attacking your ideas at all, but I'm curious as to what the answer is and have been for a pretty long while. The same goes for why Sheppard has to be a full subway.
The City seems to have everyone thinking that LRT is the new subway, so what really is the difference between LRT and Subway that certain things deserve LRT and others deserve Subway? If it's built to accommodate 3 units and will have the same capacity as a subway, with apparently a negligible difference between the speed of the two, what's the point of Subways? Perhaps we're looking at this the wrong way... the only problem is I'm not sure what that means.
That doesn't quite answer my question, but it is the point that I'm trying to get across. It would seem that LRT is better than Subway in every way, so what's the point in building subway anymore in that case? Building the DRL as a LRT wouldn't be any less expensive than building it as subway, so why don't we decide to build it as LRT?The major difference is that LRT can run on roads, while subways can't. Theoretically if the DRL was made with LRT, but was always underground, it would handle the demand.
LRT that runs on the road surface has limitations to it's capacity in comparison to a subway. Transit City's avenues are not skyscraper-lined streets, and they're not zoned to be either, so the surface routes should be more than capable for their purpose.
Downtown, as I'm sure you know, has a much higher density than the Avenues being discussed in the context of Transit City
Hope this answers your question.
That doesn't quite answer my question, but it is the point that I'm trying to get across. It would seem that LRT is better than Subway in every way, so what's the point in building subway anymore in that case? Building the DRL as a LRT wouldn't be any less expensive than building it as subway, so why don't we decide to build it as LRT?
900mm isn't compatible with TTC subway 1105mm, so I don't think the Eglinton LRT will be immediately 'subway compatible' and convertable to a TTC heavy rail network without shutting the entire system down.