Despite what Ford says The Streetcar in Toronto is here to stay.

[Ansem]

Honestly, I could care less about LRT or HRT on Eglinton.

If they are willing to make the plateforms longer and 100% grade separated. I don't see a problem.

Montreal's Metro trains the flexcity tram are almost the same width

Montreal Future MPM-10:
152,4 metres (exactly 500 feet) X 2,5 metres

Toronto Flexicity:
1 set
28 metres X 2.54 metres
***Question is how long will the plateforms be? (if someone knows the answer...)

I have nothing against Eglinton having LRT
I'm a 100% against the portion of the way stopping at red lights
I'm a 100% against the TTC not even studying alternative to make the Crosstown 100% grade separated (elevated, Richview Corridor)



My view on sheppard LRT

A-Wrong Technology : Should be a subway (I won't rewrite all of the reasons why)

B-They should look at a compromise
HRT : Downsview to Agincourt --> South to STC now or later
LRT : Agincourt to Morningside (or the zoo)

C-If Miller/Giambrone were serious on Sheppard East they would have :
1-A stop every 800 metres with the 85 bus (every 30 minutes) instead of 400m
2-South on McCowan to STC
I'm a 100% against SELRT because of the 2 points above

 

[Asterix]

Honestly, I could care less about LRT or HRT on Eglinton.

So you care something about it then?

If they are willing to make the plateforms longer and 100% grade separated. I don't see a problem.

***Question is how long will the plateforms be? (if someone knows the answer...)

http://www.toronto.ca/involved/proj...n_lrt/pdf/2009-11-20_display_panels_part1.pdf

Slide 8: "Surface platforms are 90m long."

Slide 9: "Platform length will be 60m initially, and expandable to 90m."

I'm a 100% against the TTC not even studying alternative to make the Crosstown 100% grade separated (elevated, Richview Corridor)

Just because you weren't paying attention doesn't mean they didn't study it. Have a look through the referenced slides, particularly slide 7 which explains why they are not going with subway technology. That and other slides explain the justification for surface running with level crossings. Note how they greatly limit the opportunities for cars to do left turns in front of the trains.

These slides have been available online for quite a while. They were present at the many open houses for the project. When one complains that the TTC never studied subways or 100% grade separation, it just shows they haven't bothered to be aware of what exists and what has happened before they started complaining.

For more information, see:
http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/eglinton_crosstown_lrt/index.htm

 

[Ansem]

So you care something about it then?

I mean't I dont mind LRT as long as the plateforms are long. Thanks for the answer

Just because you weren't paying attention doesn't mean they didn't study it. Have a look through the referenced slides, particularly slide 7 which explains why they are not going with subway technology. That and other slides explain the justification for surface running with level crossings. Note how they greatly limit the opportunities for cars to do left turns in front of the trains.

These slides have been available online for quite a while. They were present at the many open houses for the project. When one complains that the TTC never studied subways or 100% grade separation, it just shows they haven't bothered to be aware of what exists and what has happened before they started complaining.

For more information, see:
http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/eglinton_crosstown_lrt/index.htm

What's wrong with having LRT 100% grade separated? It doesnt have to be underground the whole way.

I don't accept that we can't do better with the above portion on Eglinton. You have a lot of faith on the signal priorities. I have serious doubts just by looking at Spadina and St.Clair...

 

[Asterix]

What's wrong with having LRT 100% grade separated? It doesnt have to be underground the whole way.

I don't accept that we can't do better with the above portion on Eglinton. You have a lot of faith on the signal priorities. I have serious doubts just by looking at Spadina and St.Clair...

Looking through their various documents and presentations, part of the design is to keep with the overall city development plan for Eglinton and that includes ease-of-access to surface level transit. Plus the fact that 100% grade separation (whether tunnel, trench or elevation) would cost several times more per km. Do we have any spare change lying around for that added expense?

Stop spacings are also going to be much farther apart on the surface than either St Clair or Spadina.

 

[Justin10000]

I find it distressing when people believe you need 100% grade separated transit to attract riders. The LRV's are going to be much faster than the bus. That alone is a significant improvement.

 

[cacruden]

To attract riders that have other options - you have to focus on efficiency, and comfort. Personally, if given the option - I will not stand out in the slush waiting for bus or LRT. I am also very impatient, I don't want to spend longer than 45 minutes to any destination. I don't think I am that much different than most other people.

Grade separation provides speed, and I have not seen LRT/Subway type systems implemented in Toronto - that provide speed of transit - without grade separation. LRT may be cute, but in Toronto - most of what has been implemented is poor. Underground rail/stations - allow me to wait for the next train relatively comfortably in winter. Without that type of implementation - I don't see the cost of implementing LRT being worth it.

 

[lafard]

We do have a full LRT in Toronto. The 501 averages about 28km/h on the Queensway.

Subway from Dundas West to Old Mill = 6 minutes
501, Humber loop to Ronces, = 7 minutes.

These two are directly comparable in level of transit service they provide. Difference is, the 501 is a fraction of the cost.

 

[Asterix]

To attract riders that have other options - you have to focus on efficiency, and comfort.

See slide 12:
http://www.toronto.ca/involved/proj...n_lrt/pdf/2009-11-20_display_panels_part1.pdf

What faster options will you be choosing instead of the LRT? With the dedicated right of way, it will be very close to a private car on the surface and faster on the underground portions.

In a perfect world, I think you'd have great difficulty finding anyone who wouldn't prefer subways over LRT, streetcars or buses. But we don't live in a perfect world with infinite amounts of money. There is simply no business case to be made to build 100% grade separated subway on the eastern and western sections of Eglinton.

With a limited amount of funds, many would rather provide higher level of transit to more people than providing marginally higher transit (subway vs LRT) to a much smaller number of people.

 

[gweed123]

See slide 12:
http://www.toronto.ca/involved/proj...n_lrt/pdf/2009-11-20_display_panels_part1.pdf

What faster options will you be choosing instead of the LRT? With the dedicated right of way, it will be very close to a private car on the surface and faster on the underground portions.

In a perfect world, I think you'd have great difficulty finding anyone who wouldn't prefer subways over LRT, streetcars or buses. But we don't live in a perfect world with infinite amounts of money. There is simply no business case to be made to build 100% grade separated subway on the eastern and western sections of Eglinton.

With a limited amount of funds, many would rather provide higher level of transit to more people than providing marginally higher transit (subway vs LRT) to a much smaller number of people.

How about BRT? If we're dealing with finite amounts of dollars, why not build 3-4km of BRT for every 1km of LRT? I'm not saying build a BRT tunnel for the central portion of Eglinton, but a lot of the predicted ridership is WELL WITHIN the range of BRT. If you trust the numbers for the western portion of Eglinton (which I don't, I think they're wayyy off), 5,400 pphpd is right in the range of peak operating efficiency of a dedicated ROW BRT service.

The SELRT would make even more sense as a BRT. You're forcing a transfer at Don Mills anyway, why does the vehicle you're transferring from/to NEED to be an LRT vehicle?

 

[gweed123]

I find it distressing when people believe you need 100% grade separated transit to attract riders. The LRV's are going to be much faster than the bus. That alone is a significant improvement.

I find it quite distressing when people believe that curbside BRT isn't rapid transit...

 

[Asterix]

How about BRT?

According to slide 7, referenced above:

"The forecast travel demand falls within the upper range for Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT); however this technology has limited ability to serve any potential ridership increase in the corridor above the forecast."

Also explained in the panels is why they are tunneling the central portion: because they don't have the room on the surface to dedicate lanes (whether to LRT or BRT). Tunneling BRT is asking for a whole lot more engineering to deal with ventilation, among other things.

 

[gweed123]

According to slide 7, referenced above:

"The forecast travel demand falls within the upper range for Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT); however this technology has limited ability to serve any potential ridership increase in the corridor above the forecast."

I call bullshit. The Transitway in Ottawa leading into downtown carries WELL OVER 5,400 pphpd (officially listed as 10,500 pphpd, average day is around 8,000 pphpd). The only reason this section is congested is because of the arrangement going into downtown. Getting into the "upper range" of BRT is around 9,000 pphpd, not 5,400. Funny how they discredit BRT now, but the original proposal Eglinton West proposal called for a subway + BRT combo. It wasn't in the "upper range" then.

Also explained in the panels is why they are tunneling the central portion: because they don't have the room on the surface to dedicate lanes (whether to LRT or BRT). Tunneling BRT is asking for a whole lot more engineering to deal with ventilation, among other things.

I specifically stated in my previous post that they shouldn't do a BRT tunnel for the central portion of Eglinton. I was referring specifically to western portion (ie the Richview area).

 

[Asterix]

I call bullshit. The Transitway in Ottawa leading into downtown carries WELL OVER 5,400 pphpd (officially listed as 10,500 pphpd, average day is around 8,000 pphpd). The only reason this section is congested is because of the arrangement going into downtown. Getting into the "upper range" of BRT is around 9,000 pphpd, not 5,400.

Ok, you call BS. TTC says one thing and you believe otherwise and any mentioning of the fact that professional experts produced the TTC studies will just get rejected by saying 'they munged the facts to fit their agenda'. Unfortunately they didn't hire you to do their planning.

I'm not familiar with the Ottawa Transitway, but does it not have the BRT is their own lanes? If so, that is simply not an implementable solution for the central portion of Eglinton - either you are in mixed traffic or you go underground. The former isn't going to do much of anything to improve capacity or speed than what exists right now.

 

[gweed123]

Ok, you call BS. TTC says one thing and you believe otherwise and any mentioning of the fact that professional experts produced the TTC studies will just get rejected by saying 'they munged the facts to fit their agenda'. Unfortunately they didn't hire you to do their planning.

I counter your quote with a quote from the City of Ottawa (who knows a thing or two about BRT, and are just as much "experts" as the TTC): "Ottawa’s expected rapid transit demands are estimated to range from 3,000 to 15,000 passengers per peak hour per corridor depending on the exclusivity of right-of-way provided. Both LRT and BRT can adequately accommodate this range of transit ridership." (http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/papers/white/rapid_transit_en.html)

I'm not familiar with the Ottawa Transitway, but does it not have the BRT is their own lanes? If so, that is simply not an implementable solution for the central portion of Eglinton - either you are in mixed traffic or you go underground. The former isn't going to do much of anything to improve capacity or speed than what exists right now.

It's a mix of dedicated ROW with grade separation, dedicated ROW without grade separation, and curbside lanes. And I say again: I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CENTRAL PORTION OF EGLINTON. I agree that a rail tunnel is the right way to go. I'm talking about the WESTERN portion, through the Richview corridor. You can built a dedicated ROW BRT service through the Richview corridor (with grade separation at some intersections, without at others) for less than building an LRT ROW down the middle of Eglinton West. It's cheaper. It's more effective. It can easily carry the projected ridership. It won't screw up traffic flow on Eglinton.

 

[Asterix]

"Ottawa’s expected rapid transit demands are estimated to range from 3,000 to 15,000 passengers per peak hour per corridor depending on the exclusivity of right-of-way provided."

Sure, and that's with an exclusive right of way, something that for whatever reason (maybe TTC, maybe city wishes, maybe community input, I don't know) was not going to happen with Eglinton.

It's a mix of dedicated ROW with grade separation, dedicated ROW without grade separation, and curbside lanes. And I say again: I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CENTRAL PORTION OF EGLINTON. I agree that a rail tunnel is the right way to go. I'm talking about the WESTERN portion, through the Richview corridor.

Ok, I get it now. You want to put a mode transfer to the west. Aren't there enough complainers about the mode change at the end of the Sheppard stubway?

You can built a dedicated ROW BRT service through the Richview corridor (with grade separation at some intersections, without at others) for less than building an LRT ROW down the middle of Eglinton West.

Just curious how you'd do this grade separation at some intersections. Would you be trenching your BRT under the cross-streets or elevating it to bridge them? Both would add significant engineering work and cost.

What cross-streets would you be doing this grade separation? At the major ones passengers might want to be transferring to north/south routes (and so would have to ascend/descend a level to get their connection). The minor ones probably wouldn't have the traffic loading to present much of an impact on Eglinton through traffic, particularly if they got some transit priority to the signals.