The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

The yonge line has other capacity increases to help in the mean time remember. The spadina extension is expected to take a bit of the pressure off of it in just over a year when it opens, and then the new signalling system will allow the TTC to increase frequencies. Those should hold the line off until the DRL can get built.

There is truth to that; the morning commute from Downsview to downtown is far less crowded than along Yonge. However a sizable number of people using the Yonge line are being fed in from the Sheppard Subway, and with the additional new condo towers under construction along Sheppard near Bessarion and Don Mills stations it's likely to grow.

A westerly extension of the Sheppard Subway to Downsview could be of help.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

There is truth to that; the morning commute from Downsview to downtown is far less crowded than along Yonge. However a sizable number of people using the Yonge line are being fed in from the Sheppard Subway, and with the additional new condo towers under construction along Sheppard near Bessarion and Don Mills stations it's likely to grow.

A westerly extension of the Sheppard Subway to Downsview could be of help.

That would really help to justify the Sheppard Line. Also, when the Yonge extension happens, there is more options for riders.

[caltrane74]

A nonstop line from Sheppard-Yonge to Downsview could help with issues on the Yonge line. But let's be honest downtown Toronto is the fastest growing area in the region and transit cannot keep up, two new subway lines into the downtown core from the Northeast and Northwest are urgently required and construction has to begin as soon as possible. Thankfully, it looks like the province and metrolinx are fast tracking it and can keep it from falling into local dumb suburban/urban politics.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by caltrane74

A nonstop line from Sheppard-Yonge to Downsview could help with issues on the Yonge line. But let's be honest downtown Toronto is the fastest growing area in the region and transit cannot keep up, two new subway lines into the downtown core from the Northeast and Northwest are urgently required and construction has to begin as soon as possible. Thankfully, it looks like the province and metrolinx are fast tracking it and can keep it from falling into local dumb suburban/urban politics.

Agreed that it can wait.

A DRL extended north of the 401 should be the next line. That would alleviate Line 1.

Which should be done next, SRT or extending Sheppard?

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Agreed that it can wait.

A DRL extended north of the 401 should be the next line. That would alleviate Line 1.

Which should be done next, SRT or extending Sheppard?

I'm in favour of a Sheppard extension but I'm unsure if it needs to be a heavy rail subway or an LRT. Closing the gap between the two branches of Line 1 would be helpful.

[SteelTown]

New Renderings Showcase Proposed Hamilton LRT in Action















http://skyrisecities.com/news/2016/06/new-renderings-showcase-proposed-hamilton-lrt-action

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I'm in favour of a Sheppard extension but I'm unsure if it needs to be a heavy rail subway or an LRT. Closing the gap between the two branches of Line 1 would be helpful.

By making it as a continuation of the the Sheppard line you reduce the transfers of someone continuing down Sheppard past Yonge-Finch

[1overcosc]

Has anyone looked at converting the Sheppard subway from subway to LRT? Then you could eliminate the transfer at Don Mills, and the extension to Downsview could be cheaper too.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Has anyone looked at converting the Sheppard subway from subway to LRT? Then you could eliminate the transfer at Don Mills, and the extension to Downsview could be cheaper too.

You would need to shut down the line to convert it from 3rd rail to pole. The real question is whether there is the height for it.

[ainvan]

Does anyone know why Toronto is hostile to skytrain style transit outside downtown?

Skytrain is cheaper to build, faster than LRT, and has lower maintenance cost than subway.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You would need to shut down the line to convert it from 3rd rail to pole. The real question is whether there is the height for it.

Can always buy vehicles with both 3rd rail shoes and pantograph. Real delay would be in figuring out platform height and width versus the vehicles. Could always do high floor heavy rail, in which case just throw pantographs on the existing rolling stock.

[ssiguy]

Or conversely you could build LRT with catenary and then when if goes downtown is can run of electric. It's quite common in more historic cities where the visual pollution of the wires is a concern. Dallas uses the technology for it's streetcar.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ainvan

Does anyone know why Toronto is hostile to skytrain style transit outside downtown?

Skytrain is cheaper to build, faster than LRT, and has lower maintenance cost than subway.

3 letters: SRT

The SRT has poisoned the residents to LIM technology and elevated rail.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by ainvan

Does anyone know why Toronto is hostile to skytrain style transit outside downtown?

Skytrain is cheaper to build, faster than LRT, and has lower maintenance cost than subway.

There's no space. Existing corridors are well used and it would be ugly as sin running down the middle of a street.

We have the original concept line for Skytrain too.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You would need to shut down the line to convert it from 3rd rail to pole. The real question is whether there is the height for it.

LRT's require much larger tunnels (The confederation line requires 20m tunnels.) There's also no point in converting one mode to another. You only go upwards (eg Street car -> LRT -> Skytrain -> Subway -> High speed rail) and when you go upwards you start removing stops and increase speeds. You can't go in the opposite direction because the stations do not exist and would be financially nonviable to expand the tunnels.

Third rail + LIM allows for smaller tunnels (eg 5 meters, eg Skytrain (10 meter single bore evergreen line, 6.1 for the Canada line (wider cars, non-LIM) ), Subway cars are larger (6.8m), and LRT requires even larger tunnels for the pantograph (6.8 for Eglinton light rail.) TTC's subway is 5.2-5.4meter tunnels.

You also have different loading gauges and rail gauges since the TTC subway isn't standard gauge.

If a city is hellbent on LRT, there can not be a single tunnel in the system, because tunnels cost more the larger they are. Once a tunnel is introduced, the costs skyrocket and you may as well have just built a subway to begin with as you burned all your capital costs savings from not building a subway by building tunnels larger than the subway option.

Cities that build subways, are building them with the assumption of growth. Cities that build LRT are actively trying to limit growth, which never works.

[matt602]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

There's no space. Existing corridors are well used and it would be ugly as sin running down the middle of a street.

We have the original concept line for Skytrain too.

The Scarborough RT line is something that never should have existed as far as I'm concerned. It was originally envisioned as a high speed lightrail line much like the Eglinton Crosstown and should have been built that way. Even an extension of the Danforth line would have been better. When I lived in Scarborough I dreaded having to take that thing anywhere and would often take a bus instead if I could spare the extra time.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by matt602

The Scarborough RT line is something that never should have existed as far as I'm concerned. It was originally envisioned as a high speed lightrail line much like the Eglinton Crosstown and should have been built that way. Even an extension of the Danforth line would have been better. When I lived in Scarborough I dreaded having to take that thing anywhere and would often take a bus instead if I could spare the extra time.

Yes and no. ICTS technology was developed to be in between light rail systems of the 1980s and subway. I would say the lack of sales was in part to increased capacity to light rail making the tech redundant. Bombardier has reinvented the tech once they purchased it from Ontario but, still, it hasn't really taken off. There is some risk in going with this system because of that.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Can always buy vehicles with both 3rd rail shoes and pantograph. Real delay would be in figuring out platform height and width versus the vehicles. Could always do high floor heavy rail, in which case just throw pantographs on the existing rolling stock.

Yeah, I think there are workarounds. For one, the TTC could just use a separate high floor LRT with boarding specs roughly similar to the existing height of the platform (the platform edge can be extended relatively easily if the existing cars are too wide for on-street LRT) and with a third rail pickup that's disabled when the line surfaces east of Don mills.

It would mean that the Sheppard LRT would be an orphaned division with vehicles that couldn't be used on any other LRT line, but it's not like there's much sharing of rolling stock between the lines now, anyway.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by Kisai

LRT's require much larger tunnels (The confederation line requires 20m tunnels.) There's also no point in converting one mode to another. You only go upwards (eg Street car -> LRT -> Skytrain -> Subway -> High speed rail) and when you go upwards you start removing stops and increase speeds. You can't go in the opposite direction because the stations do not exist and would be financially nonviable to expand the tunnels.

Third rail + LIM allows for smaller tunnels (eg 5 meters, eg Skytrain (10 meter single bore evergreen line, 6.1 for the Canada line (wider cars, non-LIM) ), Subway cars are larger (6.8m), and LRT requires even larger tunnels for the pantograph (6.8 for Eglinton light rail.) TTC's subway is 5.2-5.4meter tunnels.

You also have different loading gauges and rail gauges since the TTC subway isn't standard gauge.

If a city is hellbent on LRT, there can not be a single tunnel in the system, because tunnels cost more the larger they are. Once a tunnel is introduced, the costs skyrocket and you may as well have just built a subway to begin with as you burned all your capital costs savings from not building a subway by building tunnels larger than the subway option.

Cities that build subways, are building them with the assumption of growth. Cities that build LRT are actively trying to limit growth, which never works.

There are plenty of subways that use overhead power (many lines in China, for example), so there must be an advantage to doing so even if the tunnels are a bit larger.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

There are plenty of subways that use overhead power (many lines in China, for example), so there must be an advantage to doing so even if the tunnels are a bit larger.

I'm not exactly an electrical engineer, but could it be because you can use AC with overhead but you're restricted to DC with a third rail?

AC motors have a lower power demand on start, so maybe they're useful in rapid transit systems where the train is starting up all the time.