Toronto Eglinton Line 5 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[lead82]

I think the full grade separation at the major intersections are helpful. It could be a simple tunnel design like we have at St. Clair West station where the streetcar dips into the station and comes back out the other side. We wouldn’t need a loop so all that’s required is to build simple side platforms and accessible access from the intersection. For minor stops the ok street LRT will he just fine.

 

[crs1026]

I believe Kipling has the best benefits to cost ratio. My top two would be Martin Grove and Kipling.

I believe that the EA and the recent review both commented that the level of congestion at Kipling would depend a lot on how well Martin Grove is solved. A good Martin Grove design might address Kipling, although as I noted earlier, it is already a traffic mess. Kipling and MG would be my top two also.

I don't understand the rationale for city staff saying these "dips" are operationally difficult. There is plenty of room to keep the grades reasonable. The biggest issue might be sightlines of LRV's approaching the platform (ie being sure there isn't an LRV occupying the platform, leading to risk of a rearend collision), but surely simple signalling plus reasonable grades would address this.

Is the intended surface platform design intended to be a single pedestrian exit/entrance, feeding to the pedestrian crossways at the intersection itself? That's a fair walk for a two-car LRV trainset (maybe three cars one day). I would have expected exits at both ends of the platform, or in the middle. I wonder how signalling for those pedestrian crossings would affect traffic flow. The timing has to be enough to allow a volume of pedestrians, and not just a single passenger, to reach the curbside. There could be 40-50 people getting off one tram at a major intersection. All the more reason why underground platforms and passageways to reach the sidewalks makes sense.

- Paul

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

The congestion at Martin Grove & Eglinton is already packed during the rush hours. I would expect to see even more congestion (from non-YYZ commuters) as Eglinton gets redeveloped over time. Plant World, for example, will be replaced by high density (see link). I would expect to see even more development all along Eglinton to increase density, congestion, and more users for the LRT.

Possible development at 4000 Eglinton Avenue West (where Plant World is today).

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The congestion at Martin Grove & Eglinton is already packed during the rush hours. I would expect to see even more congestion (from non-YYZ commuters) as Eglinton gets redeveloped over time. Plant World, for example, will be replaced by high density (see link). I would expect to see even more development all along Eglinton to increase density, congestion, and more users for the LRT.

Possible development at 4000 Eglinton Avenue West (where Plant World is today).

What an ugly building.

 

[jcam]

It pains me to hear a suggestion that we should be doing grade separation for the "perception of rapid transit". Because we have nothing else that $500M couldn't be spent on. Its like the request to tunnel the Barrie line overpass....that price tag worked out to approximately $700k PER property that abutted the section being elevated, yet people said this was a reasonable use of dollars. Thankfully Metrolinx never went for it.

 

[Rainforest]

It pains me to hear a suggestion that we should be doing grade separation for the "perception of rapid transit". Because we have nothing else that $500M couldn't be spent on.

Well, if selling light rail to the public is not important, and we are OK with having big plans but few lines in service, then let's ignore the perception.

Its like the request to tunnel the Barrie line overpass....that price tag worked out to approximately $700k PER property that abutted the section being elevated, yet people said this was a reasonable use of dollars. Thankfully Metrolinx never went for it.

That's grade-separated anyway; overpass vs tunnel isn't that important IMO. Not really a case to compare.

 

[MisterF]

Crossing arms aren’t some panacea - it won’t allow the trains to have a green wherever and whenever.

The limiting factor is that pedestrians need at least 30 seconds for north/south movements across Eglinton Avenue, including around 20 to 25 seconds for the “flashing hand” signal, warning them that they’ll soon no longer be able to cross. If a train comes up to an intersection where pedestrians have the north/south walk signal, the train is going to have to wait until the 30 second walk phase is complete until proceeding. With trains crossing any intersection every 1.5 minutes, this is going to happen quite frequently.

If what you're saying is true, then it would stand to reason that the CTrain stops at red lights quite frequently. Can you confirm that this is the case? More than likely, the traffic signals and crossing arms detect a train coming far enough away to make these kinds of conflicts very rare.

Cities from Calgary to Edmonton to Seattle to Salt Lake to Minneapolis have LRT lines designed this way. It's not new or unproven.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

If what you're saying is true, then it would stand to reason that the CTrain stops at red lights quite frequently. Can you confirm that this is the case? More than likely, the traffic signals and crossing arms detect a train coming far enough away to make these kinds of conflicts very rare.

Cities from Calgary to Edmonton to Seattle to Salt Lake to Minneapolis have LRT lines designed this way. It's not new or unproven.

I'm not intimately familiar with the C-Train, but I can speak on Seattle. In that system, the stations are extremely far apart; around 2.5 kilometres between stations. These distances are highly unusual for light rail and conventional metro systems.

The wide distances between stations allows the transit signal priority system to accurately predict when a train is coming. It can see that a train is a kilometre away, and know that it will be here in roughly 60 seconds, because it doesn't have intermediate stations adding variability to the schedule. It can the accordingly adjust the signal phases to accommodate the train.

With the Eglinton West LRT having stops every 1000 metres, that kind of set up will not be effective here. It might work if we drop half the stops, leaving stops only at Jane, Royal York, Kipling and Renforth. The LRT itself would be a lot faster, but you'd be forcing people to walk another 10 mins or so to their destinations, or forcing them to transfer to a bus. This isn't a very attractive option, in my opinion.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Well, if selling light rail to the public is not important, and we are OK with having big plans but few lines in service, then let's ignore the perception.

The bulk of criticism directed towards LRT comes from drivers concerned about losing traffic lanes (war on cars), which target intersection grade separations doesn't do much to address. Something tells me that the Rob Fords of the world will continue to whine about LRT, with or without the targeted separations.

 

[steveintoronto]

I'm not intimately familiar with the C-Train, but I can speak on Seattle. In that system, the stations are extremely far apart; around 2.5 kilometres between stations. These distances are highly unusual for light rail and conventional metro systems.

The wide distances between stations allows the transit signal priority system to accurately predict when a train is coming. It can see that a train is a kilometre away, and know that it will be here in roughly 60 seconds, because it doesn't have intermediate stations adding variability to the schedule. It can the accordingly adjust the signal phases to accommodate the train.

With the Eglinton West LRT having stops every 1000 metres, that kind of set up will not be effective here. It might work if we drop half the stops, leaving stops only at Jane, Royal York, Kipling and Renforth. The LRT itself would be a lot faster, but you'd be forcing people to walk another 10 mins or so to their destinations, or forcing them to transfer to a bus. This isn't a very attractive option, in my opinion.

Some excellent points in there.

I'm not intimately familiar with the C-Train, but I can speak on Seattle. In that system, the stations are extremely far apart; around 2.5 kilometres between stations. These distances are highly unusual for light rail and conventional metro systems.

I was just watching two vids on their system, reminds me very much of San Diego's, with tunnel and bridge sections, and priority signals on shared roadway. And far apart stations. They're not stops as much as stations, but I also noticed the Seattle model sharing the trackbed in tunnel with buses!

That's pretty unique, and a real plus to the LRT model and low level platforms. I wonder about exhaust fumes, but that raises the issue of electric buses, or at least fuel cell ones. If you can get a bus to run 'clean', sharing that tunnel with LRVs multiplies the investment many times over. My immediate impression (although far from accurate) was the Miss. Busway, except in tunnel for much of the distance, and sharing the RoW with LRVs.

I've got to Google on that. It may have a real down-side to it, but the concept is brilliant.

Addendum: Huge amounts of discussion in quality blogs on-line on it, I don't know how this hasn't been discussed for Toronto, even as an example to learn from:

The Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT), also referred to as the Metro Bus Tunnel, is a 1.3-mile-long (2.1 km) pair of public transit tunnels in Seattle, Washington, United States. The tunnel serves Downtown Seattle, running west under Pine Street from 9th Avenue to 3rd Avenue, and south under 3rd Avenue to South Jackson Street. It was used only by buses from its opening in 1990 until 2005, and since 2009 it has been shared by buses and light rail. The double-track tunnel and its stations, except Convention Place, constitute parts of the Central Link light rail line, which continues north to the University of Washington station and south through the Rainier Valley to Seattle–Tacoma International Airport as part of Sound Transit's Link light rail network. Its five stations are also served by King County Metro and Sound Transit Express buses that leave the tunnel north via Interstate 5, south via the SODO Busway, or east via Interstate 90. The DSTT is the busiest section of the Link light rail network, with an average of over 10,000 weekday boardings. It is owned by King County Metro and shared with Sound Transit through a joint-operating agreement signed in 2002. The Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel is one of two tunnels in the United States shared by buses and trains, the other being the Mount Washington Transit Tunnel in Pittsburgh, and is the only one in the United States with shared stations. [...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Seattle_Transit_Tunnel

 

[TheTigerMaster]

That's pretty unique, and a real plus to the LRT model and low level platforms. I wonder about exhaust fumes, but that raises the issue of electric buses, or at least fuel cell ones. If you can get a bus to run 'clean', sharing that tunnel with LRVs multiplies the investment many times over. My immediate impression (although far from accurate) was the Miss. Busway, except in tunnel for much of the distance, and sharing the RoW with LRVs.

Toronto's potential Rail Deck Park will have to deal with exhaust from large diesel trains, that likely produce thousands times more emissions than a bus. That'll be dealt with with extensive active ventilation systems.

 

[steveintoronto]

Toronto's potential Rail Deck Park will have to deal with exhaust from large diesel trains, that likely produce thousands times more emissions than a bus. That'll be dealt with with extensive active ventilation systems.

Actually the answer to both is electric.

Seattle's was hybrid bus:

[...]
Metro began testing a fleet of new hybrid diesel-electric buses in 2002, intending to use them in the bus tunnel before and after the conversion to joint bus-rail operations.[169] The first few of a planned fleet of 235 hybrid diesel-electric articulated buses began operating on tunnel bus routes in June 2004.[170] The Breda dual-mode trolleybuses were removed from the tunnel in January 2005 and would later be refurbished into electric-only trolleybuses for use on the city's trolleybus network.[48] The last day of trolleybus operation in the tunnel was January 24, 2005, with only a single dual-mode bus in service on the final day.[171][172]
[...]

Link above. Excellent lengthy article.

 

[crs1026]

The wide distances between stations allows the transit signal priority system to accurately predict when a train is coming. It can see that a train is a kilometre away, and know that it will be here in roughly 60 seconds, because it doesn't have intermediate stations adding variability to the schedule. It can the accordingly adjust the signal phases to accommodate the train.

The other issue with gates is that on Eglinton, there will be north-south queues at intersections at peak. There is potential for drivers to stop on the tracks and then have the gates come down on top of them. That's a lot more complicated to solve. I don't know if Edmonton or Calgary have that experience or deal with that somehow. The obvious solution is for drivers to not advance onto the tracks until there is room to drive off them, but we are talking Toronto drivers and the stop-look-and-proceed-when-safe could impact the flow of the queues. Seems very undesirable to me.

The case study I would point to is LA's Gold line. It's grade separated until a short stretch in South Pasadena, where there are gates, some of them restricted by the traffic light cycle on intersecting streets. The Gold Line is a wonderful example of a "zoom" LRT - until you hit that stretch, and until you realise that that LRT is stopped and waiting for its turn in the traffic light cycle. The contrast is striking.

The bulk of criticism directed towards LRT comes from drivers concerned about losing traffic lanes (war on cars), which target intersection grade separations doesn't do much to address. Something tells me that the Rob Fords of the world will continue to whine about LRT, with or without the targeted separations.

Well, the kind of separations we are talking about for Eglinton have the potential to preserve all the auto lanes that exist today. Drivers will complain during construction, yes. But the selling point of all that extra expense is preserving auto flow. Unlike say King, Eglinton is not the place to be talking "fair share of the roadway". It's such an important road and funnel/portal/chokepoint from the 401-427 network to the west end of the city. We need it to be as auto-friendly as possible, as well as LRT-friendly. This has to be win-win, not win-lose.

- Paul

 

[MisterF]

I'm not intimately familiar with the C-Train, but I can speak on Seattle. In that system, the stations are extremely far apart; around 2.5 kilometres between stations. These distances are highly unusual for light rail and conventional metro systems.

The wide distances between stations allows the transit signal priority system to accurately predict when a train is coming. It can see that a train is a kilometre away, and know that it will be here in roughly 60 seconds, because it doesn't have intermediate stations adding variability to the schedule. It can the accordingly adjust the signal phases to accommodate the train.

With the Eglinton West LRT having stops every 1000 metres, that kind of set up will not be effective here. It might work if we drop half the stops, leaving stops only at Jane, Royal York, Kipling and Renforth. The LRT itself would be a lot faster, but you'd be forcing people to walk another 10 mins or so to their destinations, or forcing them to transfer to a bus. This isn't a very attractive option, in my opinion.

What evidence do you have that it won't work with 1000 m station spacing? In Calgary the stations tend to be 1-1.5 km apart, with some stations being in the 800 m range. Same thing with the Blue line in Minneapolis. So the evidence seems to suggest that a design with crossing arms and 1000 m station spacing does work.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

What evidence do you have that it won't work with 1000 m station spacing? In Calgary the stations tend to be 1-1.5 km apart, with some stations being in the 800 m range. Same thing with the Blue line in Minneapolis. So the evidence seems to suggest that a design with crossing arms and 1000 m station spacing does work.

Can you provide a specific example in Calgary of stations with 1000 metres or less stop spacing with at-grade street crossings? I just took a look at the Calgary system on Google Maps, and for the most part the stations were 1.3 km apart, or significantly further. Stations that were less than 1000 metres apart all had no at-grade street crossings between them (so no need for signal priority).

Not saying you're wrong. I just can't find any examples of what you're claiming.