Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[TOareaFan]

What does having no fare booth/collection have to do with 24/7 operation?

I think the implication is that it lowers the amount of staff that is needed to operate. The argument usually goes that the lower the variable cost the more of your fixed cost you can recover by extending your hours of operation.

My bet is that anyone who would be using a line at that time is likely a metropass holder anyway and you are not likely going to drive more revenue with 24/7 operating stance.

 

[golodhendil]

^ my point was more that, as far as I know, systems that run 24/7 don't tend to have automatic / no fare collection and systems that have automatic fare collection don't tend to run 24/7, so there's really no practical examples of such a correlation. But, I am not necessarily ruling out the possibility that this could happen on Eglinton, if the demand is there and the cost-benefit analyses say so.

 

[Second_in_pie]

^ my point was more that, as far as I know, systems that run 24/7 don't tend to have automatic / no fare collection and systems that have automatic fare collection don't tend to run 24/7, so there's really no practical examples of such a correlation. But, I am not necessarily ruling out the possibility that this could happen on Eglinton, if the demand is there and the cost-benefit analyses say so.

Speaking of which, would it make sense for the TTC to run the subways 24/7 once they get automatic train control and platform screen doors in? There's no cost for personnel on the trains themselves, so I don't see how much it could hurt... it's probably less expensive than running the night busses anyways.

 

[Irishmonk]

Speaking of which, would it make sense for the TTC to run the subways 24/7 once they get automatic train control and platform screen doors in? There's no cost for personnel on the trains themselves, so I don't see how much it could hurt... it's probably less expensive than running the night busses anyways.

I can pretty confidently say, without a clue what the actual operational costs are, that running a couple of all night buses is vastly cheaper than keeping an entire subway line open, regardless of degrees of automation. Plus, I believe the subway has to be closed for a few hours at night just for maintenance purposes.

 

[golodhendil]

I really have no idea what's the cost of running the trains vs running the buses (though I have a feeling the buses might still be a tad cheaper / more cost-effective). Also, I don't think ATC will eliminate personnel; many systems with ATC still do have a driver there as a backup and it sure won't happen in Toronto, if anywhere. Besides, the main reason a subway system can't run 24/7 is because of the need for nightly maintenance, and I don't think that problem can be dealt with by anything short of triple/quadruple-tracking the subway.

And PSD? Is that even going to happen in our lifetime? lol

edit: ^ got beaten to it

 

[W. K. Lis]

The other reason, other than fare collection, that I think that the Eglinton LRT could be running 24/7, is that the blue night schedule in the very early morning would be further apart than the regular schedule. Which means a single track could be shared for both directions wherever there is maintenance required and if enough crossovers are used for passing.

 

[kEiThZ]

Isn't 850m spacing a bit much for LRT? That's quite a walk from the half way point.

 

[Hypnotoad]

I was wondering if it was possible for to be connected with RT? (Sorry, never saw Kennedy Station from the outside)

Be thankful you've been been to Kennedy station.

Or is that you've never seen Kennedy from the outside? I'm confused.

Regardless, I agree that combining the redeveloped SRT with the Eglinton line is worth looking into. At the very least, the transfer for three transit lines at Kennedy should be revisited. There is an opportunity here to connect the SRT to the Eglinton line so that there are one line. Failing that, there should at least be a more logical connection point so that subway passenagers, LRT passengers and SRT passengers are able to transfer more efficiently. There is a lot of redundant space at Kennedy and it is surrounded by parking lots on both side and the Eglinton Bridge. It can be fixed and it should be done.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think connecting the SRT to Eglinton would preclude a more effective level transfer between the SRT and the Bloor-Danforth line. The latter is probably more important for the majority of commuters from Scarborough.

 

[GTS]

I don't hold any position on this idea, but I was wondering if constructing the Eglinton LRT into two seperate lines would make sense. Have one Eglinton East LRT that would service the area from Kennedy Station to Yonge/Eglinton Station in the east and then have a West Eglinton LRT That would service the Yonge/Eglinton subway station in the east travel westward to the airport and/or Mississauga. This would be more along the lines of the present day 32 and 34 bus routes. I think most riders would be getting off and on this proposed Eglinton LRT at the Yonge/Eglinton subway station anyways. If this route was divided into two seperate routes the headways might be more manageable and you wouldn't run into the problems of cars bunching that Toronto cross town streetcar route has to deal with. The TTC should look at all the problems that 501 Queen car has before they just jump into another cross town route. If the headways are managed better this, or these, LRT lines would be able to move much more people more efficiently.

The higher percentage of these riders will be getting off at Yonge anyways why build a line for the small percentage of riders who want to get from Kennedy Station to the airport? Like I said I don't hold a position on this I just want to hear what others have to say to justify another cross-town route. I know the 501 Queen streetcar isn't seperated from traffic but this line has a lot of problems that the Eglinton crosstown route might inherit.

 

[sjc]

If this route was divided into two seperate routes the headways might be more manageable and you wouldn't run into the problems of cars bunching that Toronto cross town streetcar route has to deal with. The TTC should look at all the problems that 501 Queen car has before they just jump into another cross town route.

Bunching up near Yonge shouldn't happen because they are running underground from around Leslie to Keele with limited stops.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Regardless, I agree that combining the redeveloped SRT with the Eglinton line is worth looking into. At the very least, the transfer for three transit lines at Kennedy should be revisited. There is an opportunity here to connect the SRT to the Eglinton line so that there are one line. Failing that, there should at least be a more logical connection point so that subway passenagers, LRT passengers and SRT passengers are able to transfer more efficiently. There is a lot of redundant space at Kennedy and it is surrounded by parking lots on both side and the Eglinton Bridge. It can be fixed and it should be done.

Kennedy is going to become a massive Transit Hub, and I don't have much of a problem with that as long as they make transfers more bearable. The plan is for Kennedy to be the Terminus of not 3 lines, but 5: Eglinton, Danforth, the extended SRT, the Kingston Road Streetcar, and the Scarborough LRT. It will certainly need to be a more efficient station by the time they're all finished.

All I have to say is that whatever the rest of Transit City will be based on, Eglinton will need more than that. Whether it's Scarborough-RT like, or if it's a subway, it needs more than the regular LRT that the rest of Transit City is getting. I agree with you Brandon, Transit City is definitely growing on me too, but with Eglinton as the central line of Transit City according to David Miller himself, it's only logical that it will be better than the other lines in terms of performance. I'm not begging for subway, but something higher than LRT.

And then, I will just kick myself there isn't signal priority. We should have that on Spadina, Harborfront, and St. Clair already, it'd just be laughable if it still wasn't allowed by the time Eglinton's done.

 

[ellett44]

Suppose that the Eglinton Crosstown does get signal priority, hence ensuring a decent speed for the service, would there still be a negative vibe surrounding this addition? From all that I've read, Eglinton does not have the demand necessary to make a subway worthwhile (at least for now). So if capacity is not a concern (that is the LRT can handle it) and if decent speed can be attained, through the underground portion and signal prioritization, doesn't the Eglinton LRT represent a positive foot forward for transit in Toronto?

 

[doady]

Suppose that the Eglinton Crosstown does get signal priority, hence ensuring a decent speed for the service, would there still be a negative vibe surrounding this addition?

The Eglinton LRT should not be on-street in the first place, for several reasons:

1. It will directly connect to the Airport, and therefore speed is very important
2. 10km of it will already be underground, and therefore already off the street
3. There is a large ROW available along much of Eglinton West
4. It will connect to the the Mississauga Transitway, which will be below grade
5. Slower on-street operations will limit the maximum length of the line, and therefore limit the potential of extension into Mississauga; it will already be a very long line to begin with

Bottom line is that the Eglinton LRT is a line with potentially a very large regional impact, and therefore it should be as fast and as high capacity as possible, and that means that all the above ground portions should be below grade or elevated and have proper stations instead of stops. It should be a true rapid transit line, especially considering its length and its potential length; and especially considering the fact that it will connect to other true rapid transit corridors at both ends: the Mississauga Transitway and the Scarborough RT.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Looking at a map of Eglinton West, 427, and 401, I was wondering if the LRT should be on an exclusive right-of-way (using bridges and underpasses) or a level non-exclusive right-of-way (controlled with traffic lights and transit priority). The car traffic in that area is at a snail's pace during the rush hours, and having transit priority signals in that area could leave stragglers over the tracks. Making it exclusive from at least just west of Martin Grove Road to the airport terminals, could be more expensive, but would have better service for the transit users and safer for the light rail vehicles.