Millennium Line - Evergreen Extension | Completed

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

The cross section on the bottom looks a bit different from my mental image. I believe MIPS was saying the tunnel width was the limiting factor for not using a wider trainset.



As you can see above, the escapeway is still fairly wide. I think there has to be room for a person walking outside the dynamic envelope of the train to meet safety regulations. When the train is going around the smallest turning radius is when this would use up the most of the tunnel cross section.



You can see above, that there is space outside the dyanmic envelope for a person. Different jurisdiction maybe? I've got some people around my office I can ask.

I wouldn't want to be in a train tunnel when a train comes through.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That is what I meant.

Realistically, it would be nice if the subway was extended to Scarborough Town Centre and then convert the SRT to the Crosstown.

Not going to happen, but still would be nice.

Until the subway gets to Scarborough town center, they have to keep the SRT limping along, so they are doing a minimal refurb of the Mk I cars so they will keep running until the 2030's

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

this:




http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/photo...st-portal-mile-130-2-cascade-subdivision


above the portal is the old Georgia Street viaduct, and behind that is the roof of the Beatty Armoury.

The curve of the tunnel from this portal to Dunsmuir is still under the former Greyhound block (future library) and Beatty St. the rest of the tunnel was demolished for the new condos at Georgia/Beatty.

There is supposed to be an access hatch on the condo parking lowest level so annual inspections can be done.

and the north portal on the waterfront:



Today it has Portal Park above it (Cordova & Thurlow)


it looks like there were some waterfront mansions in the background

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

The cross section on the bottom looks a bit different from my mental image. I believe MIPS was saying the tunnel width was the limiting factor for not using a wider trainset.

The bottom level is exactly as it looks. They poured a lot of concrete to support the track above.


Image courtesy of...the City of Vancouver??

OTherwise yes, the lower level is a lot narrower as opposed to the top where the power rail is mounted to the floor because the wall is too far away.

As you can see above, the escapeway is still fairly wide. I think there has to be room for a person walking outside the dynamic envelope of the train to meet safety regulations. When the train is going around the smallest turning radius is when this would use up the most of the tunnel cross section.

Yep. The regulations basically prevent someone being steamrolled by a train as it goes around the corner.

They've already suggested having the old Mk I cars scrapped and replaced with -- hold your pants -- streetcars.

The SRT is probably the only place on earth where I'd wish they would take the technology out of use. The line never was and never will be designed even for the Mark I and it came back to bite them so damn hard that if it wasn't for Vancouver the technology would of been doomed.

[jsbertram]

[QUOTE=MIPS;7536948]The bottom level is exactly as it looks. They poured a lot of concrete to support the track above.

>snip<

most of the new concrete on the lower level was used to build the lower skytrain track base, otherwise there was no room (height) to stack the skytrain tracks.

The bottom of the CPR tunnel walls were underpinned so the train old track-bed could be dug down about 2 feet for the new skytrain track base .

as seen in the cut-through view from Kisai, the dark-gray tracks under car 203 are lower & replace the former CPR track-bed.

Pretty smart to make the lower skytrain track effectively a new box inside the old CPR tunnel, with the top of the box being the new track-bed and cable ducts for the upper skytrain tracks.

[casper]

Originally Posted by MIPS

The bottom level is exactly as it looks. They poured a lot of concrete to support the track above.

...
The SRT is probably the only place on earth where I'd wish they would take the technology out of use. The line never was and never will be designed even for the Mark I and it came back to bite them so damn hard that if it wasn't for Vancouver the technology would of been doomed.

I have never understood the problem with the SRT. It is a transit system that works. It can be fully automated (the way the technology is used in the rest of world).

So the turns are to tight for Mark II or II cars. The technology is not proprietary, you have a Canadian and some Japanese manufactures who would likely be more than happy to sell new cars if a good sized order came in.

Would it not be better to spend money on extending the system and removing the drives instead of converting it to a different technology.

The underlying technology is well proven and in use in Vancouver, New York, and Asia.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by casper

I have never understood the problem with the SRT. It is a transit system that works. It can be fully automated (the way the technology is used in the rest of world).

So the turns are to tight for Mark II or II cars. The technology is not proprietary, you have a Canadian and some Japanese manufactures who would likely be more than happy to sell new cars if a good sized order came in.

Would it not be better to spend money on extending the system and removing the drives instead of converting it to a different technology.

The underlying technology is well proven and in use in Vancouver, New York, and Asia.

The problem is that the TTC does everything in it's power to run it inefficiently, retrofitting it to have drivers, using drivers, cars have to be trucked for maintenance (no OMC), reduced the frequency, and many other acts of neglect.

Versus Vancouver where it was run as designed.

[MIPS]

Versus Vancouver where it was run as designed.

This is the biggest thing against the SRT. Excluding union meddling, semi-automation and various bugs in the system initially the RoW is simply not designed for the technology. Forget the MK II and Mk III the MK I as ambitious as its turning system is almost can't handle the first turn out of Kennedy and the turnaround on the other side of the station is abandoned because it's simply too tight a turn. Hell the technology doesn't even need a turnaround.


Image courtesy of Transit Toronto

It's a legacy of the original CLRV/ALRV idea that was planned.
In theory you could still upgrade the system but the solution would be to demolish the Kennedy platform and turn and build inline with the track in the parking lot.
You'll never see it happen simply because the GTA is nothing but politics and it's a Harris-free Zone.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by casper

I have never understood the problem with the SRT.

It's EXACTLY the same reason that Vancouver politicians want to tear down the Georgia and Dunsmuir Viaducts.

They have a stick in their craw from a political battle 30/40 years ago.
They can't let it go.

In the case of the viaducts, it's the "anti-freeway" staff/planners/politicians who want it erased.

For the SRT, it's the staff/planners/politicians who had the ALRT rammed down their throats by the Province of Ontario (instead of an express streetcar line).

It's political, not logical.

Ideally, the Elginton-Crosstown would have been MKII/III and would have interlined with the Scarborough RT at Kennedy, for a one seat ride from Scarborough to Yonge-Eglinton Station (rather than further overloading transfers at Bloor-Yonge Station)

********

Originally Posted by MIPS

In theory you could still upgrade the system but the solution would be to demolish the Kennedy platform and turn and build inline with the track in the parking lot.

Apparently a new in-line subway station was studied by the TTC - so a new in-line SRT station could also be built.

Posted at Urban TO from a TTC study quoted by Steve Munro


http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/ttc...ty-of-toronto-design-phase.2975/page-501

[GMD]

"I have never understood the problem with the SRT. It is a transit system that works."

No, it doesn't work. Have you ever been on it?

The critical thing, which Surrey sadly doesn't seem to realize, is that it is not (in this instance) the technology or the politics - it is the huge drawback to forcing a transfer to carry on in the same direction, vs. just carrying on without transfer.

I remember we lived out of town to the Northeast of Toronto and we would park and ride the TTC downtown for Jays games, shopping, etc. The SRT was the logical point of debarkation as it was easily the closest rapid transit link, but after waiting for SRT to come, making the transfer from one line to another and then waiting for the Bloor-Danforth line to come, it was just too time consuming and annoying, so after trying SRT a couple of times, we switched to Yorkdale instead and coming down that way.

Later on in life, living in Toronto, it was still a royal pain to ever have to switch on and off the SRT.

It drives me nuts to see Surrey blithely carrying on with their plan to repeat these errors, but what can you do - the parallels are so many and so obvious, but they just refuse to see them.

I was just out in Surrey today, marvelling at the remarkably ugly new developments at Fraser Highway and 64th, thinking to myself - does Surrey *want* to be Vancouver's equivalent of poor, unloved, crime-ridden Scarberia? Surely not, but why can't they get their act together and do things right?

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by GMD

It drives me nuts to see Surrey blithely carrying on with their plan to repeat these errors, but what can you do - the parallels are so many and so obvious, but they just refuse to see them.

I was just out in Surrey today, marvelling at the remarkably ugly new developments at Fraser Highway and 64th, thinking to myself - does Surrey *want* to be Vancouver's equivalent of poor, unloved, crime-ridden Scarberia? Surely not, but why can't they get their act together and do things right?

Just to flip the script a bit, It's not the SRT technology that's the problem in Toronto, that could have been a monorail, or even a standardized standard-gauge LRT line and it would have been the same problem.

In Surrey, the same thing, that could be a monorail and the exact same transfer problem would exist as a LRT. Extending the Skytrain makes the most sense.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by casper

I have never understood the problem with the SRT. It is a transit system that works. It can be fully automated (the way the technology is used in the rest of world).

So the turns are to tight for Mark II or II cars. The technology is not proprietary, you have a Canadian and some Japanese manufactures who would likely be more than happy to sell new cars if a good sized order came in.

Would it not be better to spend money on extending the system and removing the drives instead of converting it to a different technology.

The underlying technology is well proven and in use in Vancouver, New York, and Asia.

Never mind Toronto's rejection of the RT in its existing state, but what really puzzles me is the rejection of an RT refurbishment - as in full refurbishment and reconstruction where necessary, not just the vehicles. A refurbishment would have enabled the line to be fully compatible with Mark IIs and IIIs and solve all of the underlying design problems. It's not even that this particular rejection is the fault of one side (i.e. the pro-subway crowd) or the other, just about everyone is united in thinking that the SRT is at the end of its life and needs to be replaced by something else. And, it honestly drives me nuts.

This is despite a study (yes, this *was* studied!) finding that refurbishing the RT would have not only been the least expensive option (costing $400 or so million), it would have been the soonest completion and was the only option for a Scarborough transit expansion, other than subway, that would not require some sort of long-term closure of rail rapid transit service. The plan to replace it with LRT (as an extension of Line 5 Eglinton) would have meant the SRT closes for 36 months, as in there is no rapid transit to Scarborough at all for 36 months. It's funny, for the longest time, leaders and people in Scarborough were actually willing to live with that.

The RT debacle has me convinced that Toronto as a whole as a really backwards city in planning effective rapid transit. Why am I not surprised that the City of Surrey has shelled out taxpayer dollars to sponsor a self-described pro-LRT planner from Toronto to wax LRT poetry at city hall next month...

[officedweller]

Part of that problem with having to wait for the SRT is the lack of vehicles for frequent service and the manual driven nature of the service (making frequent service more costly).

In terms of sticking to one technology - there's usually a point where capacity should step down to meet need (including future need). The SRT could have been upgraded and expanded to form a feeder system into the Subway (and run along Eglinton).

[casper]

Originally Posted by GMD

"I have never understood the problem with the SRT. It is a transit system that works."

No, it doesn't work. Have you ever been on it?

The critical thing, which Surrey sadly doesn't seem to realize, is that it is not (in this instance) the technology or the politics - it is the huge drawback to forcing a transfer to carry on in the same direction, vs. just carrying on without transfer.

I remember we lived out of town to the Northeast of Toronto and we would park and ride the TTC downtown for Jays games, shopping, etc. The SRT was the logical point of debarkation as it was easily the closest rapid transit link, but after waiting for SRT to come, making the transfer from one line to another and then waiting for the Bloor-Danforth line to come, it was just too time consuming and annoying, so after trying SRT a couple of times, we switched to Yorkdale instead and coming down that way.

Later on in life, living in Toronto, it was still a royal pain to ever have to switch on and off the SRT.

It drives me nuts to see Surrey blithely carrying on with their plan to repeat these errors, but what can you do - the parallels are so many and so obvious, but they just refuse to see them.

I was just out in Surrey today, marvelling at the remarkably ugly new developments at Fraser Highway and 64th, thinking to myself - does Surrey *want* to be Vancouver's equivalent of poor, unloved, crime-ridden Scarberia? Surely not, but why can't they get their act together and do things right?

With regard to the SRT... Not having to transfer from train to another is nice and in smaller cities with small systems you should expect that. Yes transfers are a pain. However if you go to a place like London, New York, Berlin or Tokyo you start to appreciate transfers as simply a fact of life.

As for Surrey extending Skytrain is better than building a street car system. The street cars are better than doing nothing.

[casper]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Part of that problem with having to wait for the SRT is the lack of vehicles for frequent service and the manual driven nature of the service (making frequent service more costly).

In terms of sticking to one technology - there's usually a point where capacity should step down to meet need (including future need). The SRT could have been upgraded and expanded to form a feeder system into the Subway (and run along Eglinton).

Even Vancouver has two technologies. The Canada line is based on different technology than the rest of the Skytrain system.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by casper

As for Surrey extending Skytrain is better than building a street car system. The street cars are better than doing nothing.

That depends on the streetcar. Surrey's current straight-down-the-middle LRT plan is probably going to increase gridlock, so that's actually worse than doing nothing.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That depends on the streetcar. Surrey's current straight-down-the-middle LRT plan is probably going to increase gridlock, so that's actually worse than doing nothing.

The only down-the-middle street car systems I have been on have been Toronto, Geneva and Melbourne. They are not bad, they probably due add to grid-lock for drives but at least they give Transit riders an advantage over regular car traffic.

Skytrain would still be a better option overall. Not certain if calling it LRT means its more segregated that street cars, or just helps on marketing.

[casper]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Never mind Toronto's rejection of the RT in its existing state, but what really puzzles me is the rejection of an RT refurbishment - as in full refurbishment and reconstruction where necessary, not just the vehicles. A refurbishment would have enabled the line to be fully compatible with Mark IIs and IIIs and solve all of the underlying design problems. It's not even that this particular rejection is the fault of one side (i.e. the pro-subway crowd) or the other, just about everyone is united in thinking that the SRT is at the end of its life and needs to be replaced by something else. And, it honestly drives me nuts.

This is despite a study (yes, this *was* studied!) finding that refurbishing the RT would have not only been the least expensive option (costing $400 or so million), it would have been the soonest completion and was the only option for a Scarborough transit expansion, other than subway, that would not require some sort of long-term closure of rail rapid transit service. The plan to replace it with LRT (as an extension of Line 5 Eglinton) would have meant the SRT closes for 36 months, as in there is no rapid transit to Scarborough at all for 36 months. It's funny, for the longest time, leaders and people in Scarborough were actually willing to live with that.

The RT debacle has me convinced that Toronto as a whole as a really backwards city in planning effective rapid transit. Why am I not surprised that the City of Surrey has shelled out taxpayer dollars to sponsor a self-described pro-LRT planner from Toronto to wax LRT poetry at city hall next month...

From a population perspective Vancouver should have a transit system half the size of Toronto, but it already has approximately the same amount of track. Toronto is quite focused on making their system as expensive as possible, while Vancouver is being a bit more balanced. I think Vancouver has the better strategy just now.

[Millennium2002]

I overheard that Burquitlam Station received a bus loop, so I went to take a look:



It looked pretty nice until I saw this bizarre S-curve at the rear end... I wonder who made this potentially expensive / unsafe oversight:



And finally, a shot of the front entrance from the mall side:



EDIT: Oops, the site didn't re-size the images to fit. I'm working on it...

[officedweller]

My guess is that in practice, the buses would probably leave from their pads at different times (not all loading simultaneously)