[OnTheIce]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

You and I both know you can't drive much more than a block in most parts of Toronto without having to change lanes. Sooner or later, the right lane is either a turning lane or somebody is stopped/parked in it.

And taking away 1 lane in either direction is going to make that better? So you'll have 1 lane blocked up with someone turning right and only 1 lane for all the other cars.

Beaver, picture this for a second....

You're driving West along Eglinton Ave at Warden Ave. The centre lane is for LRT's. There's someone turning right and someone turning left. Both lanes are now blocked while they wait for the cars to turn left and right.

Sound like a good idea?

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

The number of city busses operating on simultaneously on a route is a known cause traffic delays. Since the LRT is on a dedicated line and not mixed with traffic, a breakdown is of no concern to motorists.

So having a few busses in 1 curb lane causes traffic delays, but removing an entire down the centre won't?

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Well, I have to admit I thought the idea was stupid too (low floor LRTs) because Edmonton already has regular LRT (high floor) and mixing the two seemed silly - but after going to a couple info sessions with the City of Edmonton I came around - it really looks like a win-win to me.

In Edmonton, do the trains run along the curb lane?

Actually, in Edmonton, the LRT occupies the centre of the road, leaving a lane or two beside it.

When it comes to an intersection, the lights turn red and traffic stops to allow the LRT to cross the intersection (just like the way regular trains operate - they don't stop for road traffic either).

[bootlegga]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Boots, Edmonton is tiny and pretty new. Toronto is the biggest city in Canada and part of a conurbation bigger than most provinces by population. I'm not sure things that work easily in Edmonton are a go in the Big Smoke. Just saying.

Sorry, but there are lots of cities around the world that are much older and similar in size (or even larger) to Toronto that have LRT (many European cities call them trams instead of LRT though) - so this isn't some country mouse solution to a city mouse problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_li ... it_systems

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Sorry, but there are lots of cities around the world that are much older and similar in size (or even larger) to Toronto that have LRT (many European cities call them trams instead of LRT though) - so this isn't some country mouse solution to a city mouse problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_li ... it_systems

Trams are what we call streetcars, they are not LRT's.

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Sorry, but there are lots of cities around the world that are much older and similar in size (or even larger) to Toronto that have LRT (many European cities call them trams instead of LRT though) - so this isn't some country mouse solution to a city mouse problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_li ... it_systems

Trams are what we call streetcars, they are not LRT's.

Fair enough - Wikipedia seems to use the terms interchangably (the Docklands Light Rail in London isn't called a streetcar, but strongly resembles one IMO) and generally notes that LRT/LRV (light rail vehicles) have the ability to use multiple cars and reach higher speeds than streetcars.

$1:

LRVs generally outperform traditional streetcars in terms of capacity and top-end speed, and almost all modern LRVs are capable of multiple-unit operation. Particularly on exclusive rights-of-way, LRVs can provide much higher speeds and passenger volumes than a traditional streetcar. Thus a single-unit streetcar capable of only 70 kilometres per hour (43 mph) operating on a shared right of way is not generally considered “light rail”. The latest generation of LRVs is considerably larger and faster, typically of length of 29 metres (95 ft) with maximum speed around 105 kilometres per hour (65 mph).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail

But if you check the list of cities with LRT around the world, there are some large and old cities on that list, like Manchester, Mexico City, Dallas, Hong Kong, Stadtbahns in German cities, Rome, etc. which was the point of posting that link.

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail

But if you check the list of cities with LRT around the world, there are some large and old cities on that list, like Manchester, Mexico City, Dallas, Hong Kong, Stadtbahns in German cities, Rome, etc. which was the point of posting that link.

I did some calculations regarding the LRT this week-end. Let's look at some numbers.

Based on the reports from Toronto, the average speeds are:

-Subways- 32 km/h
-LRT 22km/h
-Bus at 18 km/h

So for the average trip from the farthest East Station( Kennedy) to Young/Eglinton travel times would be: (12.6km ride)

Bus: 43 Minutes
LRT: 35 Minutes
Sub: 24 minutes

Keep in mind, that the LRT stations will be 850m apart whereas bus stations are 300m apart. Subways are similar to LRT at 870m apart.

Is saving 8 minutes going to make people suddenly reconsider using public transit along these routes? I just don't think so.

[BeaverFever]

1) They won't have to stand outside while 5 or 6 fully packed busses zoom past them and the ride will be more pleasant since it's less packed.

2) Most of the people travelling to Yonge from Kennedy would probably go South on Kennedy and take the Bloor subway, since most would be headed to work/entertainment in the downtown core anway. The number of people travelling from Kennedy along Eglinton who aren't destined for the core is just too small to generate the fare required for subway operating costs.

[OnTheIce]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

1) They won't have to stand outside while 5 or 6 fully packed busses zoom past them and the ride will be more pleasant since it's less packed.

2) Most of the people travelling to Yonge from Kennedy would probably go South on Kennedy and take the Bloor subway, since most would be headed to work/entertainment in the downtown core anway. The number of people travelling from Kennedy along Eglinton whore aren't destined for the core is just too small to generate the fare required for subway operating costs.

They may not have to stand outside long, but they have to walk over double the distance to get to the stops.

Regardless of where the people are going, doesn't discount the fact that the LRT isn't that much faster than a bus.

Secondly, Beaver what do you say to all those businesses that are now cut off from traffic from the opposite side of the street?

Since you can't turn left except at designated lights, businesses are now going to be cut off from 1/2 of the drive-by traffic.

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail

But if you check the list of cities with LRT around the world, there are some large and old cities on that list, like Manchester, Mexico City, Dallas, Hong Kong, Stadtbahns in German cities, Rome, etc. which was the point of posting that link.

I did some calculations regarding the LRT this week-end. Let's look at some numbers.

Based on the reports from Toronto, the average speeds are:

-Subways- 32 km/h
-LRT 22km/h
-Bus at 18 km/h

So for the average trip from the farthest East Station( Kennedy) to Young/Eglinton travel times would be: (12.6km ride)

Bus: 43 Minutes
LRT: 35 Minutes
Sub: 24 minutes

Keep in mind, that the LRT stations will be 850m apart whereas bus stations are 300m apart. Subways are similar to LRT at 870m apart.

Is saving 8 minutes going to make people suddenly reconsider using public transit along these routes? I just don't think so.

The difference isn't only 8 minutes - the difference is also BILLIONS of dollars. Surface lines can be built for much less than sub-surface lines. This line is going to be 19-20 km long. Underground lines cost $250-$300 million per km, so the cost for this single line is about $5 BILLION. Surface lines can be built for $50-$75 million per km - or the $1 BILLION budgeted for this line.

For a guy who's always complaining about taxes, which option do you want to pay for? The $1 billion line (already funded BTW) or a $5 billion line that will get partially built now. I don't mind paying taxes to support services, but I know which one I'd choose.

From the article;

$1:

The available $1-billion budget would have only paid for two or three subway stations, likely bringing transit as far as Victoria Park Avenue before the money ran out.

LRT is affordable and almost as fast as subways are - for a fraction of the price. For the price of Ford's underground dream, Toronto can have as many as FIVE LRT lines. That's sure to alleviate traffic issues.

[andyt]

Talk about stating the obvious - really shouldn't have to be said. Of course subways are better overall, because they don't take up any surface room. Same with our Skytrain. But Surrey's mayor doens't want further Skytrain expansion in her city, because she can get far more transit for the same buck with LRT.

Have to admit tho, in a city with lots of snowfall, subways might be the preferred option. Keep moving people even when the streets are snowed in.

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

For a guy who's always complaining about taxes, which option do you want to pay for? The $1 billion line (already funded BTW) or a $5 billion line that will get partially built now. I don't mind paying taxes to support services, but I know which one I'd choose.

Always complaining about taxes? Sorry, you're mistaken. I'll happily pay more for a subway.

bootlegga bootlegga:

LRT is affordable and almost as fast as subways are - for a fraction of the price. For the price of Ford's underground dream, Toronto can have as many as FIVE LRT lines. That's sure to alleviate traffic issues.

Doing something just because it's the only option available at that price isn't the best practise, IMO.

I'm of the motto "do it right, once". This is a second rate solution.

For this to be a viable solution, it should be considerably faster than existing methods. It's not. Spending billions to go 4kph faster isn't right.

And for you to suggest it will alleviate traffic issues just shows that when you don't know the area, your opinions make little sense. Not every LRT is the same, just looking at capacity numbers tells 1/4 of the picture.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

Talk about stating the obvious - really shouldn't have to be said. Of course subways are better overall, because they don't take up any surface room. Same with our Skytrain. But Surrey's mayor doens't want further Skytrain expansion in her city, because she can get far more transit for the same buck with LRT.

Have to admit tho, in a city with lots of snowfall, subways might be the preferred option. Keep moving people even when the streets are snowed in.

Snow doesn't affect Edmonton's LRT at all - and the majority of it is above ground.

[andyt]

I wonder how you guys do it. If we get snow or even just ice, the Skytrain seems to always have some sort of problem or another. Guess the designers never figured on Vancouver getting any snow. How does your LRT send power to the units? Skytrain uses an electrified third rail, and I think a lot of the problems come from that.

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

For a guy who's always complaining about taxes, which option do you want to pay for? The $1 billion line (already funded BTW) or a $5 billion line that will get partially built now. I don't mind paying taxes to support services, but I know which one I'd choose.

Always complaining about taxes? Sorry, you're mistaken. I'll happily pay more for a subway.

My bad...I thought you were one of the many here who hate paying taxes.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

LRT is affordable and almost as fast as subways are - for a fraction of the price. For the price of Ford's underground dream, Toronto can have as many as FIVE LRT lines. That's sure to alleviate traffic issues.

Doing something just because it's the only option available at that price isn't the best practise, IMO.

I'm of the motto "do it right, once". This is a second rate solution.

For this to be a viable solution, it should be considerably faster than existing methods. It's not. Spending billions to go 4kph faster isn't right.

And for you to suggest it will alleviate traffic issues just shows that when you don't know the area, your opinions make little sense. Not every LRT is the same, just looking at capacity numbers tells 1/4 of the picture.

This isn't a second rate solution - it's a 21st century solution as opposed to the early 20th century one you and Ford want.

It's not billions - it's one billion for this line. Your subway plan is the one that would cost billions.

And you don't think FIVE surface train lines won't alleviate traffic more than ONE subway line. Really? I'd say your opinion on this issue is the one that makes little sense.

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

This isn't a second rate solution - it's a 21st century solution as opposed to the early 20th century one you and Ford want.

It's not billions - it's one billion for this line. Your subway plan is the one that would cost billions.

And you don't think FIVE surface train lines won't alleviate traffic more than ONE subway line. Really? I'd say your opinion on this issue is the one that makes little sense.

And you think this project will come in on budget? The last time Toronto tried a project like this, they came in 100% over budget and 2 years late.

You and the others who support LRT have provided zero information on how this will increase ridership and decrease traffic.

Remember, these lines aren't going into areas that have no transit so it's not like a flock of people will suddenly start using the LRT.