[nfitz]

It's not off-topic at all. The question posed was about the operational cost delta between different technologies. Is it cheaper to operate a fleet of buses, an LRT system or a heavy rail system? If the TTC wanted to it could replace all its planned LRTs with Volvo 7500 bi-articulated buses and run them at crush load. If they did that it might save them a substantial amount of capital costs, but it would cost them a lot more on the operational cost side. On Eglinton that very calculation was done during the EA and the finding was LRT is the most cost-effective mode for this corridor.

I see no more need to wonder about how many vehicle you'd need if you ran at crush mode compared to how many camels we'd need if we wanted to be more green.

Who'd ever plan to run a service using crush loading?!?

No agency in North America, including Mexico City or New York, achieves vendor quoted crush capacity.

Though the streetcars leaving Exhibition loop after an event are very impressively packed. But everyone gets on at the same place, and packs themselves in. None of this on/off business And even then I don't think they achieve crush capacity - but that's routinely the highest loadings I've consistently seen. Though perhaps BD or Yonge rushhour subway replacement shuttles are similar ... but I've never been been dumb enough to take one ... walking is always faster.

 

[howl]

I see no more need to wonder about how many vehicle you'd need if you ran at crush mode compared to how many camels we'd need if we wanted to be more green.

Who'd ever plan to run a service using crush loading?!?

Though the streetcars leaving Exhibition loop after an event are very impressively packed. But everyone gets on at the same place, and packs themselves in. None of this on/off business And even then I don't think they achieve crush capacity - but that's routinely the highest loadings I've consistently seen. Though perhaps BD or Yonge rushhour subway replacement shuttles are similar ... but I've never been been dumb enough to take one ... walking is always faster.

To make the comparison valid you need to run the best-case/worst-case scenarios. If the best-case for buses can't stack up to the comparable LRT numbers then you are sure you are making the right choice of technology. If you like you're free to run the calculation with whatever capacity numbers you feel comfortable with and you'll find the delta is actually even larger than my best-case scenario. Of course once you do that someone else will come along as say "But what if the City bought the Volvo 7500 biarticulated bus?"

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Over capacity, in India:

Would not be even allowed in Toronto.

 

[nfitz]

To make the comparison valid you need to run the best-case/worst-case scenarios. If the best-case for buses can't stack up to the comparable LRT numbers then you are sure you are making the right choice of technology. If you like you're free to run the calculation with whatever capacity numbers you feel comfortable with and you'll find the delta is actually even larger than my best-case scenario. Of course once you do that someone else will come along as say "But what if the City bought the Volvo 7500 biarticulated bus?"

To make comparison valid simply use the TTC peak loading values. We've all seen what happens when you increase these, and service deteriorates. And use the Metrolinx value for Eglinton - which seems about 10 people too high, but is close enough.

 

[Palma]

There is a town hall meeting with Metrolinx by phone with area residents. I find the questions are not necessarily answered. I probably have more info from this forum than what I have heard.

One woman asked what are the population numbers was picked to justify expense (she mentioned she lived near Hilltop and Old Park) but she did mention Laird. She said she has lived in the area and buses are empty.

Metrolinx talked about modelling, ridership on the bus, future growth, etc and that whenever he was riding the bus it was packed. Its just nonsense

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

During non-peak hours, buses heading west on Eglinton are empty at Brentcliffe and Laird. Perhaps that is what she was referring too.

Most passengers (not from Flemingdon Park) are picked up between Laird and Redpath.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Hmm I wonder why it comes above ground at Laird..

 

[44 North]

Off-topic, but are the underground stations for the Crosstown designed to be easily lengthened in any way? Say, to handle 4-car operation and 20,000 peak?

 

[nfitz]

Off-topic, but are the underground stations for the Crosstown designed to be easily lengthened in any way? Say, to handle 4-car operation and 20,000 peak?

It's entirely on-topic.

No. Though the current length should be able to handle 20,000 if they convert to heavy-rail - which would fit in the tunnels.

 

[ehlow]

Off-topic, but are the underground stations for the Crosstown designed to be easily lengthened in any way? Say, to handle 4-car operation and 20,000 peak?

It says in the EA:

The platforms will be 96 metres long to accommodate a three-car train without requiring additional
construction or structural work outside the tunnel. Additionally, should demand warrant, these platforms
can be extended even further, limited only by the vertical alignment constraints and special trackwork

From:
Section 2.3.1.2
http://thecrosstown.ca/the-project/reports/EglintonCrosstownLRTEnvironmentalProjectReport

 

[44 North]

No. Though the current length should be able to handle 20,000 if they convert to heavy-rail - which would fit in the tunnels.

But such conversion isn’t such a cut and dry procedure. By having to put in high level platforms at each station, rejig stairs and elevators...wouldn’t it be about on par in terms of costs/complexity as converting Sheppard to LRT? Or was it always part of the plan for underground Crosstown to potentially convert to heavy rail in the future?

It says in the EA:

Ah, makes sense. I wonder what will be more realistic in ~50-100 years: extend the stations for 4 or 5-car LRT, or convert to 4, 5, 6-car heavy rail.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

A five-car light rail train would be about the same length as a six-car heavy rail subway train. While only 2.64 m in width, the light rail vehicles are wider than the Montréal Metro train cars (2.5 m) but narrower than the Toronto heavy rail subway car (3.15 m).

 

[nfitz]

But such conversion isn’t such a cut and dry procedure. By having to put in high level platforms at each station, rejig stairs and elevators...wouldn’t it be about on par in terms of costs/complexity as converting Sheppard to LRT? Or was it always part of the plan for underground Crosstown to potentially convert to heavy rail in the future?

Never part of the plan. Yes, would be costly ... but doable. Really though if they ever exceed capacity on Eglinton ... just build another line on St. Clair or Lawrence ...

Ah, makes sense. I wonder what will be more realistic in ~50-100 years: extend the stations for 4 or 5-car LRT, or convert to 4, 5, 6-car heavy rail.

Or build a line on St. Clair or Lawrence ...

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Never part of the plan. Yes, would be costly ... but doable. Really though if they ever exceed capacity on Eglinton ... just build another line on St. Clair or Lawrence ...

Or build a line on St. Clair or Lawrence ...

Or a LRT along Finch West and/or Sheppard East.

 

[nfitz]

Or a LRT along Finch West and/or Sheppard East.

I'd think that would be too far away to have much impact. Besides ... I'd think that by 50 years from now, this would have probably been finished already ...