Eglinton-Crosstown Corridor Debate

[Dan416]

The design is supposed to stop bunching and spacing issues. It seems to be a bit early to be complaining that the design isn't working, when operations have yet to begin.

I guess the only answer to that is "we'll see". I'm just using Toronto's current light rail vehicles (LRVs) as a guide.

 

[nfitz]

I guess the only answer to that is "we'll see". I'm just using Toronto's current light rail vehicles (LRVs) as a guide.

I don't see how it's comparable. None of the current dedicated-track services use larger vehicles; and they all have closely spaced traffic signals!

 

[Dan416]

I don't see how it's comparable. None of the current dedicated-track services use larger vehicles; and they all have closely spaced traffic signals!

Comparable or not, that's what we have in Toronto, and that's what the TTC has experience with.

 

[Rainforest]

Bunching does not happen on subways since they are tightly managed, not due to some inherent characteristics of the technology. Nothing prevents TTC from managing the tunneled portion of Eglinton LRT in the same manner.

The risk to the operation of tunneled section from an LRV or car breaking down and blocking a surface section can (and must) be mitigated by installing short-turn facilities near both ends of the tunnel. It will be really stupid if such facilities are not built.

 

[kettal]

Just one driver having a mishap with a LRT will demonstrate the weakness of linking up the on-street and sub-surface portions of Eglinton. Or a LRT breaking down before the tunnel. Or problems with snow. Etc. There are a myriad of extra operational risks associated with running LRT on the surface. Linking the at-grade and below-grade portions merely imposes the at-grade risks on the below-grade portion risking reliability even further.

This is a terrible argument. If a subway car breaks down near Rosedale Station, or (as you so eloquently put it) "has problems with snow" in this area, is that not going to bring the subway system to a halt in the exact same way as your fearmongering LRT disaster scenario?

Need I remind you that the surface tracks have many crossovers, sometimes even triple tracks, so if there is an obstruction it can be avoided. Which is even better than most of our subway system can claim.

 

[kettal]

Comparable or not, that's what we have in Toronto, and that's what the TTC has experience with.

It's just unfortunate that Toronto is the only city in the universe, and there are no other cities who have any experience with this matter. Nothing that works in other cities can possibly ever work here!

 

[kettal]

I find the transfer double-standard re: Eglinton versus Sheppard. A transfer is okay for Sheppard, but not for Eglinton where it'd make more sense. I'd prefer a subway for the tunneled portion, and as others have pointed out, it's not permanent as the subway gets extended toward the extremities in the future. I absolutely do NOT like the underground section coupled with the on-street portions. It really doesn't make any sense from any perspective. For the TTC, it's going to be a nightmare to run.

Is there a double standard? Find me one person who says the Sheppard transfer is a good thing? Me? I'd like to see Sheppard subway converted, personally.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I think the argument was that if the TTC was using that as a reason, they'd be having a double standard. And it certainly seems that way, as they're opposed to doing the Subway+BRT scenario as described here, but are more than happy to split Sheppard in half, and much more permanently than simple bus lanes would.

 

[gweed123]

This is a terrible argument. If a subway car breaks down near Rosedale Station, or (as you so eloquently put it) "has problems with snow" in this area, is that not going to bring the subway system to a halt in the exact same way as your fearmongering LRT disaster scenario?

His concern is legitimate. LRT vehicles have a lower ground clearance than HRT vehicles, therefore snow is more of an issue.

The bigger issue however is interaction with vehicles and pedestrians (pedestrians being the big one). When was the last time a subway train hit a pedestrian (ignoring suicides and pushings at stations, etc)? When was the last time a subway train was in a collision with a car?

A line of this much importance should not have to take this into account. At the very least, the entire line should be grade-separated.

 

[kettal]

You'd be surprised how many suicides happen in the TTC tunnels. The media does not report it out of respect. Usually it results in a few hours of service interruption. (as a side note, LRTs are a lot faster at stopping, making a successful suicide more challenging)

There certainly is the possibility of car or pedestrian interference, but it's really not that significant, and safer driving needs to be enforced regardless of if an LRT is there or not.

Grade separation is good where it is cost effective, but there are many sections of this line where it would be so underutilized that it's not even worth it.

 

[Second_in_pie]

You'd be surprised how many suicides happen in the TTC tunnels. The media does not report it out of respect. Usually it results in a few hours of service interruption. (as a side note, LRTs are a lot faster at stopping, making a successful suicide more challenging)

I agree with the first part. Too many times has my trip back home been interrupted by "a person at track level" (with all the respect possible)

But as for the second, it's only because they move so slow! I believe subways hit about 70 or 80 km/h in tunnels, and there's no way a LRT would go that fast at the surface. There's no way they will be allowed to go over the speed limit (which is 60 for most arterials I think,) and they'll have to be even more cautious than cars and busses are.

If you've seen one of these true LRTs (long trains,) you can get a feeling of just how much inertia they have when moving. Even when going at 40 km/h, they take a relatively long time to stop. Maybe not as much as a subway, but then a Subway is going almost twice as fast with twice as many cars.

I have to admit though, I think someone would rather take their life in/on/with a subway rather than LRT. With LRT, it'll make a big mess and disturbance among a lot of people in a way that a subway wouldn't. Since I believe that most people are good, I assume that even in the face of death, people try to avoid the unnecessary suffering of others. There's probably also a lot more demand for suiciding in the subway than other transit modes confused I haven't heard of a lot of stories of people jumping infront of busses or streetcars, yet subways seem to be a widespread problem. Perhaps it's the relative painlessness, maybe there's a deeper meaning that busses and streetcars lack (I'm going too far into this, aren't I?)

But bottom line, don't think that LRTs have a better stopping power than subways. Whether it's for a person wishing to end their life, a little old lady with her walker, or a dog broken free from it's leash, LRTs will not be able to stop on a dime, and will definitely not be able to reach top speeds because of that.

There certainly is the possibility of car or pedestrian interference, but it's really not that significant, and safer driving needs to be enforced regardless of if an LRT is there or not.

Are you kidding me? Of course it can be significant! Any sort of vehicle crash along the route will hamper a LRT. An intersection crash (remember, we're talking Eglinton and Martin Grove, Kipling, Islington, Don Mills and Warden here,) would prove fatal to the system. A subway, believe it or not, operates completely independently from the road. Ergo, no on road problems can slow it down.

That said, I really don't mean to attack LRT as a mode. I've said several times, there's many places that I think LRT would work quite well (most notably Finch West, Islington, and all the Downtown streetcars.) But it is by no means a one size-fits all means of transportation as Miller is proposing. It can be relatively cheap compared to subway, and has obvious benefits over mixed traffic busses in speed, and over BRT in capacity and passenger comfort. But it certainly has it's limits.

Grade separation is good where it is cost effective, but there are many sections of this line where it would be so underutilized that it's not even worth it.

What sections in particular would be so underutilized it's not even worth it? Considering that grade separation on the Richview corridor might only be an extra $100 million/km (double the cost,) I don't see how about the same ridership as the B-D past Keele isn't worth it. If you don't believe me, take a look at just how the line's going to work. There's already a slew of apartment blocks from Martin Grove to Jane that hold tens of thousands of people. Add in a substantial amount of the commuter ridership from Martin Grove, Kipling, Islinton, Royal York, Scarlett and Jane, there could easily be fifty thousand people per day coming from the section west of Jane alone (not counting Pearson.)

 

[nfitz]

Comparable or not, that's what we have in Toronto, and that's what the TTC has experience with.

Hang on ... I've figured out who you are ... you arr the guy who was writing to the Toronto Star in 1951 saying that there was no point building the subway down Yonge, because the TTC's only experience in running vehicles on rails was on the streetcars, that didn't go anywhere, because they were stuck in traffic.

 

[Second_in_pie]

^^ Well then I guess that development on Bloor is really "condos on a highway" then.

If you take a look, on Bloor we have Kipling, Islington, Royal York, Old Mill and Jane.
On Eglinton, we'd have Martin Grove, Kipling, Islington, Royal York, Scarlett and Jane.

Now tell me what stations have been "skipped." If you're saying skipping stations on Eglinton would be a disaster, you only have to look 4 km south to se a successful example of the exact same spacing.
I'm not saying Eglinton's going to be the exact same kind of super-friendly neighborhood street the Bloor is through Etobicoke, in fact my money's on it not being like that. I'm just saying that that kind of stop spacing is more than acceptable. And I don't think that LRT is going to make Eglinton any more of a friendly neighborhood street than a subway would, in case you were wondering.

The same could also be said for Yonge, which in fact has a worse stop spacing than Sheppard in between Eglinton and Sheppard. Would you consider that portion of Yonge a "shitty sterile street?" If it's all about stop spacing, I'd expect Yonge to be even more sterile and more full of shite than Sheppard, yet that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[gweed123]

This is the difference between a real avenue anchored by LRT with stops that people can actually walk to, vs. subways with stops too far apart like Sheppard.

Nobody walks on Sheppard, it's a shitty sterile street, and the subway only serves those lucky enough to live on top of it. It's great if you want to live in a skyscraper condo, but a city needs more than condos on a highway.

Eglinton is to become an avenue with a real neighbourhood street, this can't be achieved when you start skipping stations. There are many included in the LRT plan which you'd "have to look up"...

I would imagine the spacing would be more like B-D than Sheppard. This is what irks me about the Eglinton LRT, with all these stops so close together, it takes the "rapid" out of "rapid transit".

In my fantasy map, I've outlined some possible stations for the Eglinton subway. From Jane to Don Mills, I count 14 stations (consider that B-D from Jane to Pape is 19). Considering that B-D has stations really close together near the YUS loop, 14 is a pretty similar stop spacing.

 

[kettal]

^^ Well then I guess that development on Bloor is really "condos on a highway" then.

If you take a look, on Bloor we have Kipling, Islington, Royal York, Old Mill and Jane.
On Eglinton, we'd have Martin Grove, Kipling, Islington, Royal York, Scarlett and Jane.

Now tell me what stations have been "skipped." If you're saying skipping stations on Eglinton would be a disaster, you only have to look 4 km south to se a successful example of the exact same spacing.
I'm not saying Eglinton's going to be the exact same kind of super-friendly neighborhood street the Bloor is through Etobicoke, in fact my money's on it not being like that. I'm just saying that that kind of stop spacing is more than acceptable. And I don't think that LRT is going to make Eglinton any more of a friendly neighborhood street than a subway would, in case you were wondering.

The same could also be said for Yonge, which in fact has a worse stop spacing than Sheppard in between Eglinton and Sheppard. Would you consider that portion of Yonge a "shitty sterile street?" If it's all about stop spacing, I'd expect Yonge to be even more sterile and more full of shite than Sheppard, yet that doesn't seem to be the case.

The section of Bloor arounf Kipling & Islington is indeed very dull and highway like. I rode my bike on that part of Bloor once and I won't be repeating it any time soon.

Yonge & York Mills is a dead zone. If you're between Lawrence & Eglinton, you have to catch an infrequent bus (unless you really like walking)