[BurlOak]

Unless more ICTS routes were created, and would ensure such lines would be off the road unlike LRT.

Sky Train has smaller tunnels, and less cost and high capacity. Maybe this is what we should use for the DRL. It may be easier to fit through downtown, could have tighter curves and maybe is could go over the YUS and not under. It may even stay elevated after crossing the Don Valley.

 

[Rainforest]

Sky Train has smaller tunnels, and less cost and high capacity. Maybe this is what we should use for the DRL. It may be easier to fit through downtown, could have tighter curves and maybe is could go over the YUS and not under. It may even stay elevated after crossing the Don Valley.

This suggestion might be reasonable.

But Bombardier itself quotes the capacity limit of a MkIII - based system at about 25,000 pphpd; whereas a conventional HRT subway can handle up to 35,000 - 40,000.

The current peak projection for DRL is 17,000 pphpd, and that should be in the MkIII's range. But in order to retain room for further growth, it might be better to build conventional subway, even if it costs 20% more.

 

[drum118]

Sky Train has smaller tunnels, and less cost and high capacity. Maybe this is what we should use for the DRL. It may be easier to fit through downtown, could have tighter curves and maybe is could go over the YUS and not under. It may even stay elevated after crossing the Don Valley.

Considering how may ICTS lines are used around the world, why put an white elephant back in Toronto when the first one never work in the first place??

I would build the DRL as a subway from day with long platforms as you are going to need it down the road unless you build it as an LRT that can branch off at the ends as well use the rail corridors.

If you do that, you need to think about using double deck cars also. If you look at various systems around the world, underground systems are being design for double deck cars.

My fear for Eglinton that it will end up being another Yonge Line down the road with no ability to increase ridership. To offset that issue would require more east-west routes on either side of it.

The DRL should go over the Don Valley and no reason why it should not regardless what it is in the first place.

 

[Rainforest]

Btw, could an ART-type system / light metro be a suitable solution for Sheppard? That would be cheaper to build than a conventional subway extension, and can dramatically improve travel times from the remote north-eastern parts of Scarborough to the rest of the city. (I assume that such line will not terminate at STC, but will either stay on Sheppard or divert to STC and then continue further east.)

In order to eliminate the transfer at Don Mills, it will be easier to convert the existing subway section to high-floor light metro than to convert it to low-floor LRT.

Of course, one drawback of such solution is that we will have an additional rail technology within the city (subways, ART, Transit City LRT, conventional streetcars, and mainline rail; all mutually incompatible).

 

[Rainforest]

My fear for Eglinton that it will end up being another Yonge Line down the road with no ability to increase ridership. To offset that issue would require more east-west routes on either side of it.

In part, this can be mitigated if they extend the fully grade-separate section from Brentcliffe to Don Mills. That's less than 3 km, given that the Don Mills station will be underground anyway and the portal will be located west of Don Mills.

They don't need to tunnel from Brentcliffe to Don Mills; just place the line on the south side of the road instead of in the median.

It might cost a bit more than street-median alignment if a separate LRT bridge over West Don is required. But it will allow very frequent ATO service from the Don Mills interchange all the way to Jane. At 2 min headways (30 trains per hour) and 500 - 600 riders per train, the central section of the line should be able to support a volume of 15,000 - 18,000 pphpd. This is significantly more than all recent peak projections for Eglinton, and hence should provide enough room for growth.

 

[M II A II R II K]

To accommodate long range travel, the emphasis should be on the commuter rail lines with convenient transfers and pay options.

High density downtown areas should add short rapid transit lines for convenient connections and getting around efficiently. And for shortcut lines that aren't intended to play a significant role can for sure be ICTS.

 

[nfitz]

The current peak projection for DRL is 17,000 pphpd, and that should be in the MkIII's range. But in order to retain room for further growth, it might be better to build conventional subway, even if it costs 20% more.

Indeed. That's the 2031 estimate for the DRL from Pape to downtown, and then back to the Bloor line. If they extend it north from Pape to Eglinton, to intersect the Eglinton line, then it could be higher.

17,000 is higher than the 2031 for the Bloor-Danforth line after the DRL is built.

 

[snowystar]

But Bombardier itself quotes the capacity limit of a MkIII - based system at about 25,000 pphpd; whereas a conventional HRT subway can handle up to 35,000 - 40,000.

Bombardier's website state that the limit for the system is 51,000 pphpd (although with wider 6-car trains, possibly less seating, and crush load).

From Vancouver's study, it it determined that capacity of 25,000 pphpd is achievable with current 68m train at max frequency. With longer train that fit within the 80m platform, capacity of slightly higher than 30,000 pphpd is possible.

 

[innsertnamehere]

they are projecting to never need to go below 3 minute timing, even my 2050, if I remember correctly..

 

[ssiguy2]

Vancouver's SkyTrain {except Canada Line which is standard subway/Metro} have stations that were made to be easily extended to 100 meters or 3 MK111 trains. The Expo Line will all be extended to 100 meters by 2020.
Also Toronto will not have an extra 50km of subway by 2021 but rather 8km for the Spadina extension. Regardless of whether you think LRT is a good choice or not it is not, under any definition, a Metro/subway system. It has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with it's application.

This is why SkyTrain and monorail are considered as Metro when making comarisons and LRT is not even when it is partially underground suchas in Edmonton but is considered a Metro in Manilla. The only real commonality between Metro/subway systems is whether it has total grade separation...........in other words to qualify for Metro/subway designation it has to, atleast hypothetically, be able to be operated automatically. Whether some of the technology is underground, elevated, or at grade is not relevant but whether it has total, complete grade separation and hence none of the TC projects qualify.

 

[drum118]

Edmonton would be class as a metro/subway

As it stands now, Madrid, Barcelona, Paris, Zurich, Copenhagen, Berlin and Stockholm use double deck trains as metro, as well regional rail on the same line. They also use single levels also.

Zurich Central Train Station underground station

 

[rbt]

Bombardier's website state that the limit for the system is 51,000 pphpd (although with wider 6-car trains, possibly less seating, and crush load).

Capacity is a function of total floorplate size (length and width of the train), frequency (signal system, acceleration/decelleration curve, station capacity), and willingness of your population to stand closely together.

Some subways (Picadilly) have low capacity; some are higher.

You can fit 20+ people into a volkswagon but it really only seats 4 to 5.



My huge problem with SkyTrain technology is there is a single vendor worldwide. In 30, 50, 75 years when you want replacement trains and other parts, there is only going to be a single vendor and Toronto will pay whatever price they want. The only other option is to replace the entire system and go to something multiple vendors will support and provide parts for.


In my business career I've seen vendor lockin directly cause millions of dollars in unexpceted costs when you want customization, upgrades, or modifications. They charge slightly less for that work than a complete system replacement would cost; fine if you only do it once but we know the SRT's usefulness will outlive the lifespan of the components.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

The TTC was never able to increase the capacity of the SRT because Bombardier stopped building the Mark I's, and Toronto would have had to pay a premium for new trains.
AnsaldoBreda has opened/will open more metro systems than ART and first system opened in 2002. ART technology is too complex. Why go with a rail system with a complex propulsion system, when you can simply purchase a conventional system?

 

[Hipster Duck]

My huge problem with SkyTrain technology is there is a single vendor worldwide. In 30, 50, 75 years when you want replacement trains and other parts, there is only going to be a single vendor and Toronto will pay whatever price they want. The only other option is to replace the entire system and go to something multiple vendors will support and provide parts for.

This is a fair critique in theory, but in practice we all know that Toronto buys from a single vendor - Bombardier - for political reasons, regardless of the technology. It's true that Vancouver is forced to buy its replacement rolling stock from Bombardier, but this has never been cited as being particularly costly problem for TransLink.

Considering how may ICTS lines are used around the world, why put an white elephant back in Toronto when the first one never work in the first place??

I'm not advocating an expansion of ICTS in Toronto, but it's unfair to say that ICTS "never worked" in Toronto because, in all fairness, Toronto used ICTS technology completely improperly. The benefits of ICTS are that you can substitute train capacity for frequency, running at extremely low headways. Toronto, of course, botches this by sending an SRT down the line every 5 minutes. The other benefit of ICTS is the combination of medium capacity, automation and speed, which makes it very effective for long distance, suburban trunk route commuting. What I mean by this is that ICTS really shines in denser suburbs (which would be practically all of Toronto outside of the old city) because it's much faster than an at-grade LRT but much cheaper than a subway. You can really cover a lot of ground in a short period of time on the Skytrain and the frequencies are unparalleled, even by Toronto standards. Of course, these benefits would only be apparent if the trips were long enough - for example, from New Westminster or Coquitlam into downtown - and if the trip times weren't contaminated by a forced transfer between modes to continue the majority of trips (i.e. most users of the SRT are simply continuing further west at Kennedy and are forced to transfer). It's unfair to judge the performance of ICTS on a 6 km stub route that's basically a forced-transfer from a subway line.

 

[nfitz]

This is a fair critique in theory, but in practice we all know that Toronto buys from a single vendor - Bombardier - for political reasons, regardless of the technology.

You forget that when they put the light-rail vehicles out to bid, that it was an open bid, and Bombardier was much, much cheaper than the next bid.