Eglinton-Crosstown Corridor Debate

[fanoftoronto]

I'd think he simply mis-spoke or there was a typo. The 5,000 to 5,400 is well documented in the EA. I wonder if there's something higher in the Metrolinx business case report for Eglinton ... which I don't think has seen the light of day yet.

Not sure your basis for saying that it seems more accurate ...

It is probably a mistake made by Giambrone since the article says "seven thousand" and not "7000" so it's probably not a typo.

As for my basis for accuracy, I don't think 5400 is a reasonable estimate seeing that Sheppard estimate is only 3000 and a subway was justified there a mere 8 years ago. So, I doubt the accuracy of the TTC estimates. I will take back my comment that 7000 might be more accurate because I just don't know.

7000.. 5400.. It's still well within the range of LRT capacity. What's the big deal? Hell Giambrone claims the Yonge line will carry 45,000 passengers per hour with ATO.

Isn't 8000 the magical number when SRT becomes more viable. At least complete grade seperation according to the EA and the Open House slides.

And I believe Yonge will carry 45,000 with ATO. Right now it carries somewhere around 34,000. With ATO, we can get 1.5 times the number of trains we can move now, so 45,000 seems correct.

 

[nfitz]

Isn't 8000 the magical number when SRT becomes more viable. At least complete grade seperation according to the EA and the Open House slides.

Not sure what you mean by Scarborough Rapid Transit (SRT) becoming more viable ... but for the Eglinton line, it WILL be grade-separated from near Keele to near Leslie. If you look in Appendix N of the EA the peak load of 5,000 is between Dufferin and Eglinton West station. West of Keele is only 3,500 and east of Leslie is 4,200. East of Don Mills Road is 4,000, and east of Victoria Park is only 3,000.

And I believe Yonge will carry 45,000 with ATO. Right now it carries somewhere around 34,000. With ATO, we can get 1.5 times the number of trains we can move now, so 45,000 seems correct.

The combination of ATO, the new TR trains, the 7th car, and a centre platform at Bloor-Yonge may get you 45,000. The real bottleneck is Bloor-Yonge, and that won't be a cheap fix.

 

[fanoftoronto]

Not sure what you mean by Scarborough Rapid Transit (SRT) becoming more viable ... but for the Eglinton line, it WILL be grade-separated from near Keele to near Leslie.

My bad, by SRT I mean SRT technology.

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

Page 7 shows that an 8000 ridership validates complete grade separation, not just median ROW. I don't know what they mean by SRT technology since it doesn't work right now and has less capacity than an LRT along the same line with grade separation. Maybe they mean Mark 2 and longer trains. Take a pick.

As for the ridership demand, I'll believe it when I see it. This is why I don't support an Eglinton LRT right now. Build the Finch and Sheppard LRT's first. Toronto doesn't know LRT's (in their proper fashion). The first stretch of the Yonge subway had very low ridership estimates when compared to the real ridership after opening. Why? Because they couldn't forecast for a new technology. Well, LRT is a new technology in Toronto. If it's extremely well recieved, we'll be in huge trouble.

 

[kettal]

if passengers at bloor-yonge can get onto the first train that shows up, not have to wait for one with enough room to squeeze in, it will reduce crowding in station problems

 

[ssiguy2]

Even in the Eglinton tunnel there are still too many stations. Yes the LRT with large 100 metre stations will have more than enough capacity for a very long time. It's not the speed of the tunneled section that is the concern it east and west of it. After the tunnel the stops are every 2 to 3 blocks. That negates the whole tunnel as they come out moving at the speed of a bus stopping for all the lights and left hand turns. If they were to build the tunnel and then have stations every 1 to 1.25 km with underpasses where they aren't stopping then it could really be fast and more dependable. What they have planned now is a SF Muni.
If they were to use that model for all it's TC lines then the thing might be worth it.
I also agree with M 11 A 11 R 11 K that Toronto needs more diagonal lines. It has a whole raft of rail line jetting out from Union in all directions and Toronto is probably the only city that doesn't take advantage of them. It's not rocket science to use the infastructure you already have but maybe for the manderines at metrolinx and the TTC it is.

 

[leopetr]

Even in the Eglinton tunnel there are still too many stations.

It has wider station spacing than Bloor-Danforth. Ergo, there are not too many stations.

Bloor-Danforth spacing:
- Jane to Runnymede: 700m
- Runnymede to High Park: 900m
- High Park to Keele: 450m
- Keele to Dundas West: 650m
- Dundas West to Lansdowne: 800m
- Lansdowne to Dufferin: 600m
- Dufferin to Ossington: 800m
- Ossington to Christie: 550m
- Christie to Bathurst: 650m
- Bathurst to Spadina: 600m
- Spadina to St. George: 350m
- St. George to Bay: 850m
- Bay to Yonge: 230m

Average Bloor subway station spacing Jane to Yonge: 625m

Eglinton spacing:

Average Eglinton LRT station spacing Jane to Yonge: 770m

 

[Fresh Start]

The spacing gap in-between Dufferin and "Caledonia" is much too wide. There should be another station added in the vicinity of Montcalm Ave.

 

[Jeff]

The spacing gap in-between Dufferin and "Caledonia" is much too wide. There should be another station added in the vicinity of Montcalm Ave.

Debatable...nobody really uses the bus stops between Dufferin and Caledonia, from my experience, so I don't think there's a pressing need for a LRT stop between the two

 

[ssiguy2]

This is part of the problem with TC, even stops 4 or 5 blocks apart are far to close.
Ken, Bir, Ward, Phar, VP, GM, DM, Lai, Bay, MtP,Yon, Cha, Bath, sub, Oak,Duf, Cal,Kee, Wes, Jane, RO, Scar,Is ,Kip, MG, Ren, Com, Con, Peasron. Maybe Weston in the future but there is no way it should be even close to Bloor station density. It doesn't need it. An average of one station per kim is the minimum. Remember after Eg then Yonge line goes 1.4 km between stations. Rapid transit means exactly that and must be fast if Torontonians are to consider it worth taking or just another St.Clair. No stops at all between stations via underpasses and it could have subway speed.

 

[CapitalSeven]

ssiguy, your posts on this page are simply full of nonsense. The number of blocks between stations is irrelevant. In some places in the city a block is 100-200 feet. On the west part of Eglinton, the streets are half a kilometre apart. Four or five blocks would be two kilometres. Are you saying that LRT in that area should skip Islington because Kipling's too close?

Station spacing depends on the transportation mode, the cost of building stations, and the demand. You wouldn't space commuter rail stations half a kilometre apart, but for an LRT designed to be a higher order of local transit with low-cost stations, the spacing makes sense. The planned spacing for the surface part of Eglinton West is nearly identical to the subway from King to Bloor and Yonge to Bathurst. That spacing is appropriate for the core, but you wouldn't build subway stations that close in the suburbs. But LRT, why not?

The station spacing planned for the tunnel section of the line is probably an ideal compromise given the conditions and the mode. Running the line at grade with slightly closer stops on the surface segment will make those portions run somewhat slower, but eliminating stairs, mezzanines, and escalators, and having the more numerous stations will also save time for a lot of people, making up for the slower ride. This system as planned is a completely reasonable compromise, even if it's not what you would like to see.

This idea that comes up of using underpasses at major roads is also largely nonsense. The major roads are exactly where the stations need to be, so it would amount to an at-grade LRT with underground stations, probably doubling the cost due to the need for elevators. It's also very inefficient, as the vehicles would need to brake on downward slopes and pull away from the stations while climbing. Much more logical would be elevated stations with at-grade in between, although that would cost nearly as much.

 

[ssiguy2]

I didn't say that. All stations should be at grade {except the tunnel} as per the TC standard but there should be no at grade where it meets a light it isn't stopping for and use underpasses there. Seem less travel between stations.

 

[dunkalunk]

Can't you do the exact same thing without digging a trench by either
A) Right-in right out
or
B)Transit Priority lighting?

 

[ssiguy2]

Transit priority lighting doesn't work.
If one train goes thru the light by delayed green that means the train coming the other way has to stop. What if the train arrives at the station just as it is turning red? A TPS again won't work because it first has to stop to pick up the passengers at the station.
If TC is to work and be fast it must have limited stops and no stopping between stations. Metrolinx, Miller, and the TTC have continually reinforced that this will be RAPID transit but in it's current configuration that is not at all possible. With the system they have concocted they might as well save themselves a cool $8 billion and just use BRT lanes down the centre of the road way.

 

[rbt]

If TC is to work and be fast it must have limited stops and no stopping between stations. Metrolinx, Miller, and the TTC have continually reinforced that this will be RAPID transit but in it's current configuration that is not at all possible. With the system they have concocted they might as well save themselves a cool $8 billion and just use BRT lanes down the centre of the road way.

You are aware, of course, that BRT will dramatically increase the amount of land expropriation required? That's somewhat frowned on here.

So, what you are really left with is the Do Nothing scenario; not a BRT scenario.

 

[EnviroTO]

Of course transit priority works if properly implemented. Every level railway crossing is a form of priority signal. Proper transit signal priority means the transit signal goes to green soon after the vehicle enters the track leading up to the intersection and releases as they leave. If a vehicle is going the other way it is held green longer. Every train crossing works the same way and there are examples of stoplights tied into train signals as well. To conclude a fortune must be spent on grade separation is incorrect. What really matters is how many transit vehicles are on the line because that will determine how ofter traffic will be blocked by vehicles getting transit priority.