[sixrings]

Perhaps if you put energy into rebutting our claims instead of quoting poorly written articles and calling people who like the subway members of "Ford Nation", maybe you wouldn't be losing this battle.

There’s a handful of people in here on separate sides arguing in circles. Then the few people on either side like the comments as if that approval is a signal of winning arguments and the thread continues. It’s silly because no one is actually open to changing their positions. There’s plenty of better articulating people on here or stevemunro himself which have explained why this makes no sense but the pro subway crowd deep down is just concerned they are getting a subway no matter the expense and or time line. What happened to the champion coffey1 and or onecity. You don’t write like him but maybe even he got tired of the circle debate. That or he changed his name again. Anyways have fun going in circles. There is no winners in here. We’re all losers for wasting our time.

Syn is was nice catching up and I’ll check back in 2022.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Can you provide a link that shows low floor light rail is slower?

From link about the Region of Waterloo's Ion.



The maximum speed of the Flexity Freedom light rail vehicle is 80 km/h. See link.

Speed in this case is dictated by the corridor and stop spacing, which are windier and much greater on the RT corridor respectively. It also relies on human inputs, which have a delay associated with them (see reaction factors in traffic equations). The latter are generally negligible, but they have an affect, and you can definitely feel it on iON. Finally, low floor light rail has so many unbelievable restrictions in Toronto (and Waterloo for that matter, I'm a huge supporter of iON, but my god some of the speed restrictions are absurd) that, at least on street corridors, they have a name associated with slow travel.

In terms of dwell, it's certainly greater on LRT systems, especially low floor systems (the exception is NYC because of their insanely long station announcements and the need to close 2 sets of doors). There are fewer doors, far more choke points (due to the low floor nature of the vehicle), and, at least with the flexity freedoms, the door closing procedure takes longer. These dwell issues aren't significant when ridership levels are optimal (1-5K PPHPD, depending on the number of vehicles per train), but as Ottawa, and the Streetcar network have proven, once you approach the upper capacity limits (which you most certainly will on an extended RT during rush hour), everything falls apart.

One could also make the argument, at least in the LRT vs Subway debate, that the lack of a transfer at Kennedy to STC/Sheppard users is of time-savings value.

 

[Johnny Au]

Bro every time someone posts a screenshot, I just scrutinize their tabs

Bruh wtf are those tabs O.O

...and even their bookmarks, their browser addons/extensions, and their apps they have pinned and/or opened onto the taskbar/dock.

To prevent scrutiny, it's always a good idea to use the Snipping Tool (Windows) or ⌘+Shift+4 (Mac). Better yet, use an addon that only takes a screenshot of the webpage or part of a webpage.

 

[W. K. Lis]

...and even their bookmarks, their browser addons/extensions, and their apps they have pinned and/or opened onto the taskbar/dock.

To prevent scrutiny, it's always a good idea to use the Snipping Tool (Windows) or ⌘+Shift+4 (Mac). Better yet, use an addon that only takes a screenshot of the webpage or part of a webpage.

Best to include a link for copyright purposes, even if it goes to a "user pay" site. I tend to cut-n-paste from a "user pay" site, just in case others can't get in.

 

[ARG1]

Can you provide a link that shows low floor light rail is slower?

From link about the Region of Waterloo's Ion.



The maximum speed of the Flexity Freedom light rail vehicle is 80 km/h. See link.

Interesting that at no point did you bring up the fact that we're comparing the low floor LRT to ICTS, so a stronger point of comparison would be the ART Bombardier Mark 3. Those vehicles have a higher acceleration, higher capacity, lower dwell time, are fully automated meaning that you can pack more trains closer together, and are high floor meaning that they're more comfortable to stand or sit in. Instead of upgrading the RT to use these new vehicles and fixing any quirks of the RT, the choice for the Scarborough LRT was to rebuild it entirely to use an objectively inferior transit mode, meaning at the end you spend more money for something objectively worse.

 

[KhalilHeron]

Interesting that at no point did you bring up the fact that we're comparing the low floor LRT to ICTS, so a stronger point of comparison would be the ART Bombardier Mark 3. Those vehicles have a higher acceleration, higher capacity, lower dwell time, are fully automated meaning that you can pack more trains closer together, and are high floor meaning that they're more comfortable to stand or sit in. Instead of upgrading the RT to use these new vehicles and fixing any quirks of the RT, the choice for the Scarborough LRT was to rebuild it entirely to use an objectively inferior transit mode, meaning at the end you spend more money for something objectively worse.

The rt and certainly an upgraded rt with new trains is definitely capable of operating at higher speeds than say a flexity freedom would, though his response was actually to you saying busses are usually faster. I still honestly don't get what was so great about the lrt plan. It didn't solve any problems better than the rt could with new trains, and was sooo much more expensive. What was so attractive about slower, lower capacity trains?

 

[EnviroTO]

God this is one of the most idiotic things I've ever read.

> Transit City - A sensible plan

What exactly about Transit City was sensible? Placing a ton of LRT lines that slower than their bus counterparts while calling them "Rapid Transit?" Having the DRL terminate at Danforth with the rest of the way being a surface median LRT? I see a lot of people around here claiming that the Ontario Line is bad because there aren't any immediate plans to reach Sheppard, but then these same people go on to claim that Transit City was the best plan the city ever had and, newsflash people, your precious DRL only terminated at Danforth. How about the Sheppard East LRT where people would have to stupidly take a linear transfer at Don Mills station for no reason. Sheppard Subway not cost effective? The plans to electrify and offer frequent service on the Stouffville Line has brought a ton of new developments near Agincourt Station, we could absolutely build a subway under Sheppard and with the right zoning policies we could create a high density corridor along Sheppard to justify the cost. How about the Eglinton Crosstown where a good chunk of it is underground even pre ford. Newsflash folks, if your LRT line is 50% underground and still costs more per km than most subways around the world, you should probably reconsider your transit mode. The only lines in Transit City that made any sort of sense are Finch West, Waterfront West, and Scarborough-Malvern. THAT'S IT.

So you wrote :"this is one of the most idiotic things I've ever read" and then wrote that? Is that rant tongue-in-cheek or am I supposed to take that seriously.

Placing a ton of LRT lines that slower than their bus counterparts while calling them "Rapid Transit?"

LRT is not slower than buses. Flexity LRT has a max speed of 80km/h and being electric accelerates well. Were you watching Speed on your phone while stuck in traffic on a streetcar when you came up with that?

Having the DRL terminate at Danforth with the rest of the way being a surface median LRT?

The plan wasn't to terminate at Danforth... the plan was to fund building the subway to Danforth because a needs based assessment indicated the downtown needed a relief line. That is like saying the plan for the Sheppard Line was to end at Fairview... no that wasn't the plan... the plan was to end at SCC. Transit City lived in the real world where cost and need matter in planning. This is why so many of the Transit City plans are actually getting built... because the real world matters.

I see a lot of people around here claiming that the Ontario Line is bad because there aren't any immediate plans to reach Sheppard, but then these same people go on to claim that Transit City was the best plan the city ever had...

I don't think there is anyone who is a Transit City supporter saying that the issue with the Ontario Line is that it doesn't go further. That sounds like something you would say. I think Transit City folk are more likely to say building something is better than nothing. Other than Transit City, nothing is getting built at this moment.

How about the Sheppard East LRT where people would have to stupidly take a linear transfer at Don Mills station for no reason. Sheppard Subway not cost effective?

I don't know how to respond to that because I don't even understand the point you are trying to make. I really have to believe this rant must be tongue-in-cheek or you are 12 years old. Let me try my tongue-in-check response: "This is crazy! How about the 787 where people would have to stupidly take the jetway at Pearson for no reason. Concorde not cost effective??" How did I do? I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your tirade because it simply doesn't show any ability to reason. Donald is that you?

 

[afransen]

LRT is not slower than buses. Flexity LRT has a max speed of 80km/h and being electric accelerates well. Were you watching Speed on your phone while stuck in traffic on a streetcar when you came up with that?

I think his point was that buses/BRT can run express, while LRT cannot?

I don't think there is anyone who is a Transit City supporter saying that the issue with the Ontario Line is that it doesn't go further. That sounds like something you would say. I think Transit City folk are more likely to say building something is better than nothing. Other than Transit City, nothing is getting built at this moment.

Well, GO Expansion/Smart Track is getting built (after a fashion). And a bunch of BRTs.

 

[EnviroTO]

Well, GO Expansion/Smart Track is getting built (after a fashion). And a bunch of BRTs.

True. But again, that is because money doesn't grow on trees and BRTs are relatively inexpensive, and because the cost benefit on GO expansion is obvious. For a fraction of the cost of subways they can create urban rail. I remember a member of this forum or its predecessor, AreBe, which always made the case for making better use of the rail corridor all the time saying "its right frigging there". That is the thing about seeing how transit works and doesn't work around the world is that it gives you a different perspective. You go to Tokyo and you see how heavy rail can be urban rail. You go to Brussels and see how trams can become pre-metro can become metro. Here our precedents are GO trains on inconvenient schedules (until more recently), streetcars stuck in traffic, and subways built properly with surface transit routed to the stations... so that is what the future solution many propose looks like because that is what they know.

 

[EnviroTO]

Building LFLRT on Eglinton Ave and Don Mills should not be deemed "sensible" by any measures.

Why? Do you believe it will be over capacity? Do you dispute the fact that as compared to a subway all the way to Kennedy that money was saved? What measure do you use in your assessment of where transit should go and the form it should take?

Also, converting a high-floor rapid transit service to a low-floor one, while it has its benefits, is not "sensible" either tbh.

Ideally they would have built Sheppard the same as Eglinton from the start knowing that they didn't have the money to get to SCC with subway. But we are left with the outcome of a subway or die mentality that leaves Sheppard east of Don Mills with 35 years of nothing. Of course if someone is assessing the actual benefits of transit then "something is better than nothing", but if one is simply religious about subways then nothing is better because it is "the principle of it all".

I call out the idea of converting the Sheppard subway to pre-metro as a convenience improvement in that it eliminates a transfer and would more likely lead to a westerly extension. Often people will make an argument against the transfer at Don Mills as rationale why the Sheppard East LRT is a bad idea, but often when given the choice of conversion to pre-metro vs leaving it as-is, the option they select is to leave it "as-is", because it isn't about the service level or the convenience but rather a desire to have subways because they are the best.

 

[north-of-anything]

I think an infill station on the Stouffville line at Lawrence East would be easier to build in the future than an infill station on Line 2 at Lawrence East. I'd much rather have a Lawrence East BRT that connects both to Line 2 and Ontario Line North, though.

 

[slapped_chicken]

I have a question, it's probably been answered before but this thread is huge. Does LIM reliability actually suffer during snowfall or very cold temperatures? I do see a large uptick in delays and shutdowns on the RT during the winter (before the world ended, I used to ride the RT Monday-Friday to get to DT) - but is that a product of the technology itself (which I've heard people say) or is it a result of deferred maintenance combined with old, wonky trains? Or perhaps this particular implementation of LIM tech (ICTS?) was not up-to-par with Toronto's environment?

Now if LIM in general is indeed unreliable in our environment when compared to subways/LRTs, well RIP. But if it isn't, then we're building a 6+ billion dollar subway just because we don't like to climb 3 flights of stairs at Kennedy, lol. The transfer does become an issue during crush hour when that terminal becomes very crowded, but we could just fix that transfer for less money if we need to (i.e., build a short tunnel and dig a new station box, then demolish the elevated guideway).

 

[Reecemartin]

I have a question, it's probably been answered before but this thread is huge. Does LIM reliability actually suffer during snowfall or very cold temperatures? I do see a large uptick in delays and shutdowns on the RT during the winter (before the world ended, I used to ride the RT Monday-Friday to get to DT) - but is that a product of the technology itself (which I've heard people say) or is it a result of deferred maintenance combined with old, wonky trains? Or perhaps this particular implementation of LIM tech (ICTS?) was not up-to-par with Toronto's environment?

Now if LIM in general is indeed unreliable in our environment when compared to subways/LRTs, well RIP. But if it isn't, then we're building a 6+ billion dollar subway just because we don't like to climb 3 flights of stairs at Kennedy, lol. The transfer does become an issue during crush hour when that terminal becomes very crowded, but we could just fix that transfer for less money if we need to (i.e., build a short tunnel and dig a new station box, then demolish the elevated guideway).

The only issue is heavy icing on the LIM rail, while not ideal you could fix the whole issue with a snow shed which wouldn’t have to be all that big, it’s done in Sapporo and Moscow. It would easily save billions.

 

[Reecemartin]

So you wrote :"this is one of the most idiotic things I've ever read" and then wrote that? Is that rant tongue-in-cheek or am I supposed to take that seriously.



LRT is not slower than buses. Flexity LRT has a max speed of 80km/h and being electric accelerates well. Were you watching Speed on your phone while stuck in traffic on a streetcar when you came up with that?



The plan wasn't to terminate at Danforth... the plan was to fund building the subway to Danforth because a needs based assessment indicated the downtown needed a relief line. That is like saying the plan for the Sheppard Line was to end at Fairview... no that wasn't the plan... the plan was to end at SCC. Transit City lived in the real world where cost and need matter in planning. This is why so many of the Transit City plans are actually getting built... because the real world matters.



I don't think there is anyone who is a Transit City supporter saying that the issue with the Ontario Line is that it doesn't go further. That sounds like something you would say. I think Transit City folk are more likely to say building something is better than nothing. Other than Transit City, nothing is getting built at this moment.



I don't know how to respond to that because I don't even understand the point you are trying to make. I really have to believe this rant must be tongue-in-cheek or you are 12 years old. Let me try my tongue-in-check response: "This is crazy! How about the 787 where people would have to stupidly take the jetway at Pearson for no reason. Concorde not cost effective??" How did I do? I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your tirade because it simply doesn't show any ability to reason. Donald is that you?

Ok ok, these posts are getting out of hand but there’s definitely an unhealthy romanticism for transit city. I don’t comment much here these days but I will say this.

1) LRT is not slower than a bus because it’s got a high top speed is a silly argument, that’s like arguing that bikes are faster than most road traffic because going down a hill in perfect aero you can hit some crazy speed. LRTs that we are building are limited to traffic speeds, and because we (surprise to no one) won’t give good priority, they will sometimes be slower than buses because they will be caught behind turning cars etc.

2) If you’re building an LRT on Don Mills good luck justifying a subway anytime soon...

3) The linear transfer at Don Mills is an incredibly bad thing, it’s a symptom of transit planning based on a transit map than so many here are often critical of, there is not reason this should be the “real world”. I’ll note to you that our LRT lines are costing more than subways in some developed countries so this idea that we are getting a great deal with them is false. The transit city lines are being build because the political stars aligned, it’s not because they are sensible. Finch West is most likely not going to be faster than an express bus service would be and Eglinton has tons of well documented issues.

On the whole you are probably right that transit city supporters supported it because something is better than nothing. But that’s a prettttttty low bar to have for a massive transit spending spree. The truth is too, that both the LRT and Subway people are pretty much equally dogmatic just in opposite directions. If we dumped LRT and did stuff the way Vancouver has been for decades now we could have had the speed of the subway with a cost barely above our LRTs (as evidenced by Vancouver’s per km costs). But that would mean people need to accept that the blow back from stupid subway plans, were stupid LRT plans.

 

[robmausser]

The only issue is heavy icing on the LIM rail, while not ideal you could fix the whole issue with a snow shed which wouldn’t have to be all that big, it’s done in Sapporo and Moscow. It would easily save billions.

im wondering what would be cheaper, a snow shed or heating the nickel plated rail.