[M II A II R II K]

We won't know what form the route will end up taking since they're making this up as they go along.

 

[sixrings]

Presumably there will be bonusses and penalties for early or late completion. How much bonus would be given out if they completed the SRT with a shutdown of less than a year.

If the operator is paid based on passenger kilometres, it would be in their interest to interline the SRT and Eglinton to keep people as long as possible.

I imagine that the operator will have very little leeway in what they can do (in terms of design) just to avoid an unwanted result.

would they not just use the trains already ordered for hurontario or something... that way they really arent out any money..

 

[snowystar]

I'm guessing the best comparison will be to Vancouver, since the TTC will now have a mix of private and public routes. Ssiguy2 or anyone else familiar with their transit operations, how would you rate the service on the Canada Line? Are trains more crowded and run less frequently than they should? Is integration with the rest of the network poor? Etc.

• The trains are crowded, but all SkyTrain lines are crowded during peak hours so there's not much difference
• The frequency are not that good at night - every 6 min after 7pm and every 10min after 11:30pm. Train alternate between each of the two branches so frequency is halved there (12min, 20min)
• They seems to be focused more on customer service and reliability than providing lots of service. For instance, the stations are clean, attendants and cleaners are everywhere, and they have high train spare ratio (20%, compared to the other lines at 3-6%)
• With regarding to integration - most people wouldn't know if the line is run by a private company unless they're following the news

 

[k10ery]

• They seems to be focused more on customer service and reliability than providing lots of service. For instance, the stations are clean, attendants and cleaners are everywhere, and they have high train spare ratio (20%, compared to the other lines at 3-6%)

Service frequency on the Canada Line is determined by the government and specified in the operations contract. It is hard to imagine it working any other way on Eglinton. At the end of the day, private operation makes little difference. It just affects:

- the influence of politicians and unions on operational decisions and costs
- the cost risks to which taxpayers are exposed

Seem totally reasonable to give it a try.

 

[officedweller]

I imagine that the operator will have very little leeway in what they can do (in terms of design) just to avoid an unwanted result.

... and therein lies the potential problem - a P3 operator may not want to assume the risk of taking over a inefficiently designed project (i.e. the risk of financial penalties during the operations phase for poor on-time performance or poor service availability)

 

[BurlOak]

No.

What I have ALWAYS stated would be the best option for the Eglinton Crosstown is to combine it with the existing SRT using the existing SkyTrain technology. The TTC is going to be spending nearly $1 billion on changing the SRT to LRT. Changing it to LRT is actually the most expensive option and has the lowest capacity of subway/metro, SkyTrain, monorail, or LRT. This is because LRT is the only one of those technologies that requires a complete revamp of the existing RT stations due to the overhead power catenarys which requires "raising the roof" of the stations.......expensive and time consuming.

In 2006, the proposal was Mark II.

Engineering comes up with Design A, estimated at $20M.
Planning says it does not meet the requirements of the stakeholders so they propose Plan B.
Plan B awarded at $30M.
Contractor proposes to modify design and do "A" for $20M and split the $10M saving evenly.
Planning and Senior Management are happy that they saved $5M.

This is a common theme that seems to repeat quite regularly.

 

[ssiguy2]

The trains come about every 3 minutes & 30 seconds all days and the frequency is determined by Translink. Due to Translink always wanting to not run all trains to ensure back-ups if needed the train frequency cannot be increased due to a limited number of trains. As I understand Translink is considering running more trains in rush hour and have them "short-turn" at Bridgeport Station which is where all suburban buses begin/end their routes including the busy White Rock/South Surrey and Ladner/Twassen Ferry Terminal routes.

Transfers are seamless and the stations and trains are always clean and well maintained. Unless you actually knew that the Canada Line is run by a private partner you would never guess it.

 

[dowlingm]

SRT needs almost total replacement - not just vehicles but other stuff which hasn't been replaced because the system is due to be axed. There is limited saving to be made by bringing in Mark 2s and it involves changes to the station designs on the rest of the alignment which is what, 3 times the length of the SRT as it now exists between the west and east extensions?

If Mark 2 actually gets proposed, which requires changes to the SRT guideway anyway because of the larger size and a fully grade separated line with high level platforms, elevators and so on, it makes more sense to simply make the Eglinton-RT line a subway using 4 car sets from the T1 fleet, like Sheppard but with refitted Automatic Train Operation to reflect the higher frequencies required, with 6 car TRs cascading to the BD line to stay ahead of that line's growth. Having two sorts of grade separate transit made little sense before - it makes none now.

That said, I would stick with the current plan.

 

[snowystar]

If Mark 2 actually gets proposed, which requires changes to the SRT guideway anyway because of the larger size and a fully grade separated line with high level platforms, elevators and so on, it makes more sense to simply make the Eglinton-RT line a subway using 4 car sets from the T1 fleet, like Sheppard but with refitted Automatic Train Operation to reflect the higher frequencies required, with 6 car TRs cascading to the BD line to stay ahead of that line's growth. Having two sorts of grade separate transit made little sense before - it makes none now.

I'm not sure what do you mean by larger size. The TBM diameter used for Eglinton is 6.7m, and the one going to be used for Vancouver's Evergreen Line is only 5.7m. Even Canada Line with 3m train only used a 6.1m wide TBM. Regarding to platform length, since the automated line can run at least twice as often as the at-grade LRT line, theoretically the train would only need to be half as long to carry the same amount of people.

 

[ssiguy2]

We won't know what form the route will end up taking since they're making this up as they go along.

Unfortunatly I think you are right.

Transit planning has become and embarrassing farce. I would say if funny but the long suffering commuters of Toronto aren't laughing.

 

[Rainforest]

I'm not sure what do you mean by larger size. The TBM diameter used for Eglinton is 6.7m, and the one going to be used for Vancouver's Evergreen Line is only 5.7m. Even Canada Line with 3m train only used a 6.1m wide TBM. Regarding to platform length, since the automated line can run at least twice as often as the at-grade LRT line, theoretically the train would only need to be half as long to carry the same amount of people.

dowlingm talked about the cost of SRT upgrade/extension, not about the Eglinton line.

The main cost components of the SRT upgrade/extension are:
- Extension from McCowan Stn to Centennial College and Sheppard Ave.
- Rebuilding the curve between the Ellesmere Stn and Midland; the existing curve is OK for old MK-I vehicles, but is too tight for either LRT or for new MKs.
- Rebuilding the Kennedy terminus; the existing one is too small and located too far from the subway platform.

All those costs are mandatory, whether ICTS (new MKs) or LRT technology is selected for the Scarborough line.

Retaining ICTS certainly won't save $1 billion compared to LRT; I doubt that it will save anything at all. The TTC's 2009 study predicted very close costs for both options.

On the other hand, using LRT will result in some future operational savings if several street-median LRT lines are built in Toronto. ICTS cannot run in street median, and is not interoperable with LRT.

 

[sixrings]

dowlingm talked about the cost of SRT upgrade/extension, not about the Eglinton line.

The main cost components of the SRT upgrade/extension are:

- Rebuilding the Kennedy terminus; the existing one is too small and located too far from the subway platform.

.

If it is a interlined line with eglinton then the people can transfer at yonge once instead of being forced to transfer once at kennedy and once at yonge. Obviously the counter argument will be that the yonge line is over capacity. The counter counter argument is that the DRL will go up to eglinton and don mills anyway so again there is only one transfer instead of 2.

 

[BurlOak]

dowlingm talked about the cost of SRT upgrade/extension, not about the Eglinton line.

The main cost components of the SRT upgrade/extension are:
- Extension from McCowan Stn to Centennial College and Sheppard Ave.
- Rebuilding the curve between the Ellesmere Stn and Midland; the existing curve is OK for old MK-I vehicles, but is too tight for either LRT or for new MKs.
- Rebuilding the Kennedy terminus; the existing one is too small and located too far from the subway platform.

I assume you mean tunnel and not curve at Ellesmere. I thought the concern was tunnel size (width) and not radius, although I suppose radius and width are related since longer vehicles need a wider tunnel to make a curve.

This, however, is still open to debate.

In 2006, TTC stated that there "may be a need to provide for widening of the safety walkway along side the existing track and to make track modifications within the Ellesmere tunnel" (http://www.toronto.ca/srtstudy/pdf/srt-strategic-plan-report.pdf).
In 2006, Steve Munro stated that "At first it was thought that even Mark II’s would not fit, but they seem to think now that this is not the case" (http://stevemunro.ca/?p=216#comments)
In 2012, Steve Munro stated that "The Mark II cars won’t fit through the tunnel either" (http://stevemunro.ca/?p=6538)

So, the answer to the question of whether the existing curve/tunnel is ok.

Probably ok, Thinks its ok, not ok.

pretty simple and important question - it is amazing that the answer has not been definitively given.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I'm not sure what do you mean by larger size. The TBM diameter used for Eglinton is 6.7m, and the one going to be used for Vancouver's Evergreen Line is only 5.7m. Even Canada Line with 3m train only used a 6.1m wide TBM. Regarding to platform length, since the automated line can run at least twice as often as the at-grade LRT line, theoretically the train would only need to be half as long to carry the same amount of people.

Ouch. So, to make a few leaping assumptions and Grade 11 math, if a Canada line train is approximately the same width and height (if not length) as a TTC subway car, and if it only requires a 6.1m bore instead of a 6.7m bore, over a 10 km tunnel length (not including station boxes), excavating for a LRT will require the removal of an additional 240,000 cubic meters of fill; a LRT-width third rail system like ICTS would have saved almost 400,000 m3 of fill removal.

All this so we can run a narrower light rail vehicle with low platform boarding.

I'm not even suggesting that we could have substituted the LRT for a subway or even a 2-car Canada line train. Had we used some kind of high floor LRT like Calgary with 3rd rail pickup for the tunneled portions, we would probably have saved a pretty penny on the excavation costs, plus you wouldn't have to worry about all the other negatives of low platform systems, such as narrow interiors above the trucks and people wandering onto the tracks to see when the next train is coming.

 

[snowystar]

Ouch. So, to make a few leaping assumptions and Grade 11 math, if a Canada line train is approximately the same width and height (if not length) as a TTC subway car, and if it only requires a 6.1m bore instead of a 6.7m bore, over a 10 km tunnel length (not including station boxes), excavating for a LRT will require the removal of an additional 240,000 cubic meters of fill; a LRT-width third rail system like ICTS would have saved almost 400,000 m3 of fill removal.

The 4 TBMs currently used by Spadina extension are 6.13m in diameter. I suppose it is the same-sized TBM used in Canada Line, and the different is just due to rounding.