Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[lead82]

The stations along Eglinton certainly wont be the busiest, especially those east of DVP. It makes sense to have stops closer together in dense areas, but not in suburban areas. The stops on Eglinton resemble the proximity to that of the B-D line. Especially towards the east end when stops are less than 500m apart.

Toronto is good at building local transit, but that is not what we need. Toronto needs to improve the time it takes to get around. This line should have been designed with some speed in mind to find a good balance between serving local stops but also allowing for a fairly fast ride across the middle of the city.

 

[RyLucky]

My preference (and personal belief, although I know there are lots of perspectives on ability) is to space stations 1.6 km, and focus on platform access and pedestrian paths to stations. Walking 800 m to a station is not too much to ask of most people, and bus /bike can do last mile.

 

[dowlingm]

They run on the exact same type and size of rail, Thomas. 115lb/yd.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Not to mention that freights and light rail will run on the same actual track in Waterloo. Isn't there something about better/worse rail profiles for different applications though?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

My preference (and personal belief, although I know there are lots of perspectives on ability) is to space stations 1.6 km, and focus on platform access and pedestrian paths to stations. Walking 800 m to a station is not too much to ask of most people, and bus /bike can do last mile.

Note that the walking distance is 800 metres + whatever distance their origin is from Eglinton (or whatever street). So if someone lives 800 metres from Eglinton, they could have up to a 1.6 km walk to the subway.

 

[officedweller]

K, I think I did the (somewhat accurate) math to see the weight of our "heavy rail" and "light rail" vehicles. I used the length and width to get the area, then divided that into vehicle weight. Couldn't find the Flexity Freedom weight tho.

CLRVs are 38.6 square metres and 22,685kg (588kg/sq m)
Outlooks are 76.7m2 and 48,200kg (628kg/sq m)
T1s are 72.22m2 and 33,095kg (458kg/sq m)
TRs are 72.8m2 and 34,167kg (469kg/sq m)

I guess the takeaway is that the "light" vehicles are actually heavier than the "heavy" vehicles. This isn't a surprise seeing that 'light' tends to refer to the level of infrastructure used on the line, and not the actual vehicle weight.

Great figures.

Of course, the "light" in "light rail" refers to capacity.
There's light rail (LRT), intermediate capacity rail (ICTS/SkyTrain/mini-Metro) and heavy rail (metros).

One reason that LRT vehicles are heavier in weight is because they are designed to run in mixed traffic - so they need to structurally withstand crashes with other road vehicles. Trains used on exclusive rights of way (ICTS and metros) are not designed to account for accidents with cars and trucks.

 

[RyLucky]

Note that the walking distance is 800 metres + whatever distance their origin is from Eglinton (or whatever street). So if someone lives 800 metres from Eglinton, they could have up to a 1.6 km

1.6 km stations are still the best way to create the most area within 800m of a station

 

[Palma]

Cl The purpose of ECLRT is not to get those from Etobicoke and Scarborough out of their cars, it is to give those who already take the bus a somewhat smoother ride.

does metrolinx or the city of toronto know this?

 

[W. K. Lis]

1.6 km stations are still the best way to create the most area within 800m of a station

1.6 km is the distance between Bloor & Yonge and Dundas & Yonge.

 

[RyLucky]

1.6 km is the distance between Bloor & Yonge and Dundas & Yonge.

Yup. Don't forget, stations themselves can be up to about 100m, and with PATH entrances and multiple exits you can bring the station closer to people

 

[smallspy]

Not to mention that freights and light rail will run on the same actual track in Waterloo. Isn't there something about better/worse rail profiles for different applications though?

Absolutely, there are. But that really comes more into its own in locations such as curves and specialwork, and really becomes more of a factor as the rail wears down from its original profile. On tangent track using new rail, the type of wheels really won't make that much of a difference.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Rainforest]

The purpose of ECLRT is not to get those from Etobicoke and Scarborough out of their cars, it is to give those who already take the bus a somewhat smoother ride.

Although they tried to design ECLRT primarily for local service, it will be much faster then the mixed-traffic bus; just because the street is extremely congested during the rush hours. The mixed-traffic bus is just unusable at times, it crawls at 5-7 kph, hardly faster than a pedestrian walks.

And, that's not entirely due to the construction; I used to live in the Bathurst / Eglinton area 10+ years ago, well before the ECLRT construction started, and yet the bus was very slow.

 

[k10ery]

Would you have speed data for 509, 510, 512, or 501 west of Romcy?

- Paul

510 runs at 12.3 kph during morning rush - down from 14.1 kph before the Queen's Quay refurb. I guess that's the scheduled speed - doesn't allow for the effect of short turns, etc. Even off peak (early Sunday morning) it is not much better. The street design is just a disaster for LRT.

501 Long Branch to Humber runs at 17.1 kph at peak, and 25.1 kph extreme off peak. That last is a pretty impressive number and a sign what one can do with separated ROW, better stop spacing, and all door boarding/POP. There is hope!

 

[RyLucky]

The purpose of ECLRT is not to get those from Etobicoke and Scarborough out of their cars, it is to give those who already take the bus a somewhat smoother ride.

That's actually an interesting point - whether intentional and a conscious decision or not. Given the close station spacing, you point is a fair one to make.

Who should we invest to serve better: existing inner-city transit users or "beyond (or near) the tax boundary" suburbanites? Both, but in what proportion? Whether TTC or Metrolinx, is the ultimate goal not the same: to provide people better, faster, safer mobility options?

I can understand both sides of the issue. Most Torontonians don't see why their tax dollars and should go towards rewarding and serving those who choose to live out in the sprawl. Fair point. However, I think proponents of this argument overlook the fact that we already share road and transportation infrastucture regardless. If our goal is to reduce congestion, we ought to give drivers another option, don't we? There are huge areas of the GTA with ZERO transit access. York Region District School Board is currently bringing up about 100 000 students to believe that driving is the norm. Now, undeniably, this is a failure of urban planning and land use in the GTA, but labelling it as such does nothing to solve the problem. Everyone in the GTA needs basic transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access before they can make a choice how to commute, and until they have it, congestion everywhere will get worse.

Another problem with only serving transit users who already use transit is that it creates an urban/suburban divide. These politics result in a less-equal, more disparate society. This is how we got Rob Ford. Putting the distant suburbs before ourselves may be a necessary compromise. In the end, so long as we take action, it still inevitably improves our mobility.

 

[bobbob911]

I can't believe the goal of ECLRT is not to increase transit ridership. I also think you vastly overestimate the number of people who *choose* to live in Scarborough. There are many desirable areas but mostly people live there because its the only place they can afford, or its where their family/support network are. Adding transit to the inner suburbs is hardly "enabling sprawl".

(Disclaimer - I live in Scarborough)

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

That's actually an interesting point - whether intentional and a conscious decision or not. Given the close station spacing, you point is a fair one to make.

Who should we invest to serve better: existing inner-city transit users or "beyond (or near) the tax boundary" suburbanites? Both, but in what proportion? Whether TTC or Metrolinx, is the ultimate goal not the same: to provide people better, faster, safer mobility options?

I can understand both sides of the issue. Most Torontonians don't see why their tax dollars and should go towards rewarding and serving those who choose to live out in the sprawl. Fair point. However, I think proponents of this argument overlook the fact that we already share road and transportation infrastucture regardless. If our goal is to reduce congestion, we ought to give drivers another option, don't we? There are huge areas of the GTA with ZERO transit access. York Region District School Board is currently bringing up about 100 000 students to believe that driving is the norm. Now, undeniably, this is a failure of urban planning and land use in the GTA, but labelling it as such does nothing to solve the problem. Everyone in the GTA needs basic transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access before they can make a choice how to commute, and until they have it, congestion everywhere will get worse.

Another problem with only serving transit users who already use transit is that it creates an urban/suburban divide. These politics result in a less-equal, more disparate society. This is how we got Rob Ford. Putting the distant suburbs before ourselves may be a necessary compromise. In the end, so long as we take action, it still inevitably improves our mobility.

The issue is effectiveness - if you are providing "gold-plated" service right off the bat in the hopes of permanently changing commuting patterns - your failure at the experiment will prove exceedingly costly. Keyword is basic - if you can't even demonstrate the success in that, promoting capital expenditure heavy transit to areas that can't support it is a lose-lose - inability to provide high level of service commensurate to demand where it can support (because the resources were diverted) and providing it where it can't. Political expediency is exactly why things are the way they are now.

You want to avoid the divide? Easy - partially localize the cost of providing transit (capital and operating). Nothing prevents excessive asks when everyone is asked to put some of their skin into it as a precondition to service improvement. The finer grain that "local" is the better. As to reduction of congestion - is that the goal? Or is it about improving transit access independent of congestion?

As to station spacing for ECLRT - the problem isn't with the underground section in general bu the at grade stretch. Nothing that couldn't be rectified eventually - and if you want truly speedy service across the city (let's face it, you'd probably do it as a cross-regional commute), you probably need GO for that.

AoD