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

[syn]

This line is under built and we will see it the moment the line opens. By the time the Golden Mile development opens up, the close stop spacing and on street nature of the eastern portion will make it painfully clear that more capacity is needed and it had to be grade separated.

There isn’t another good crosstown route between Bloor and York Mills and the city and province botched this one up.

It's going to take a lot more than the Golden Mile development to push this line over capacity.

It should serve the area well beyond our lifetimes.

 

[asher__jo]

It's going to take a lot more than the Golden Mile development to push this line over capacity.

It should serve the area well beyond our lifetimes.

From what I've seen it would add approximately 25k in residential units, however that is a phased approach likely to take a decade in a highly industrial/low density area. Crosstown can easily handle that. People read LRT and instantly assume it can't handle much, but the line is highly future-proofed.

 

[H4F33Z]

^^Better transit priority, should be able to serve us in the meantime.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

It's going to take a lot more than the Golden Mile development to push this line over capacity.

It should serve the area well beyond our lifetimes.

Yeah I’m pretty confident about Line 5’s capacity. Adding aggressive signal priority could add capacity to the east portion, as well as always running 3 car trains. The good thing about Line 5 is that its interchanges with Line 1 (x2), Line 2, and the Ontario Line should mean that lots of riders heading to the CBD will transfer after a relatively short trip, freeing up space for stations further down the line. Once GO RER is complete, and if fare integration happens, that’s even more opportunities to transfer off of Line 5.

 

[Northern Light]

For those discussing the capacity of the Crosstown, with a particular reference to the Golden Mile; this has been modeled as part of the Golden Mile Transportation Master Plan.

I have a post discussing it in the Golden Mile thread, here: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/golden-mile-secondary-plan-study.29852/post-1629916

For ease of discussion, I will simply cross-post the relevant info below:

****************

(the green is just to indicate what's from the cross-post, and differentiate it from the link)

Here's a link looking back at the modelling that led to the Transportation Master Plan:

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/97a2-CityPlanning_GoldenMile_TMPDraft_Part3.pdf

Volume to Capacity graphics start at page 165.

All show some portion of Eglinton in Red (meaning over capacity).

That is based on 2-car sets and 5-minute headway.

So that need can be met, in whole or in part by going to 3 cars, or tighter headways.

The underground stations are built for the 3-car version; I don't believe the outdoor section is set-up for that currently.

Aside from alterations; additional vehicles would have to be ordered.

But there is a further challenge in that the surface section is not proposed for ATC operation and the modelling that supports 3-car alignments on tighter headways in the core section may not support the extension of that service to the line's periphery.

But it might.....

Text from the report: (p. 171)

An analysis was conducted on the Preferred TMP scenario factoring in the growth along the Eglinton Avenue corridor beyond the study area including the Don Mills Crossing (DMC) Secondary Plan. When combining the growth in ridership anticipated by these two (2) studies, it is notable that the current plans for two (2)-car LRT trainsets operating at five (5) minute headways may not be sufficient with the full build out of these areas. It may be necessary to plan for service of up to three (3) minute headways and/or longer three (3)-car LRT trainsets.

As seen in Figure 9-12, the combination of both the GMSP Preferred Land Use Solution plus the Don Mills Crossing (DMC) Secondary Plan recommendations will result in ridership exceeding the capacity of the ECLRT at two (2)-car trainsets at five (5) minute headways. A sensitivity test conducted as part of the DMC study included the effect of the Relief Line North (RLN) project which connects a new subway line to the ECLRT. The addition of this project results in an overall increase to ECLRT ridership.

Given these potential constraints on ECLRT capacity, north-south transit priority improvements would be beneficial additions to the transit network to provide additional mobility choice.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Unfortunately, Toronto's Transportation Department currently has a pro-automobile and anti-transit & anti-pedestrian bias. Didn't always been that way. Back in the 1950's, they were more pro-pedestrian for example.

From link.

‘Point Your Way to Safety’: The complicated history of crosswalks in Ontario

In the mid-1950s, growing frustration over careless drivers and an increasing number of pedestrian fatalities led to a controversial innovation: pedestrian crosswalks

Up through the mid-1950s, provincial laws offered little protection for pedestrians and their right-of-way to cross intersections. In the decade following the Second World War, municipal police forces campaigned against jaywalking, while the province frequently rejected municipal requests for pro-pedestrian signage.

Sam Cass wanted to fix this. A traffic engineer who became Metro Toronto’s roads and traffic commissioner in 1954, he worked on a test project for a marked crosswalk that was introduced in February 1956 at the intersection of Rolph Road and Southvale Drive, in Leaside (then an independent town within Metro Toronto). Designed to help students, the crossing was marked with “zebra stripes” —similar to those used in England at the time — and a “School Crossing Stop When Occupied” sign. Driving through the crosswalk while it was occupied earned a motorist a maximum fine of $10. Cass warned, though, that the new system was no substitute for knowing basic safety rules.

After the Leaside test proved successful, Metro Toronto officials opened discussions with the provincial government about implementing more crosswalks throughout Ontario, writing their use and rules into the Highway Traffic Act. At the time, there were no penalties for pedestrians who crossed against red lights — or pretty much anywhere, as long as they didn’t impede traffic. “There’s a widely held police opinion,” Globe and Mail city columnist Ron Haggart observed in 1957, “that it’s almost impossible to prove that a pedestrian has impeded automobiles unless [they’re] hit by one.”

On September 15, 1958, the first 200 signed crosswalks debuted across Metro Toronto. They consisted of white stripes painted on the road and a black and white “Pedestrian X” sign, similar to those still in use. There were no advance-warning signs and no lighting. When a pedestrian entered the crosswalk, vehicles were expected to stop. The new system was publicized through a $15,000 education program that included newspaper ads and cards given to schoolchildren.

“We intend to protect pedestrians despite themselves,” Cass told the press.

On day one, a Telegram reporter stood for half an hour at a crosswalk on Queen Street East and saw 33 motorists and two streetcars ignore crossing pedestrians. Day two, which was declared Pedestrian Safety Day, saw the first fatality, when a five-year-old was struck near her school in York Township. Politicians who had reservations about the crosswalks quickly demanded an end to the program. Metro Toronto chairman Frederick Gardiner believed that the crossings blended into the “forest of signs” clogging Metro’s roads. He ordered that no more signs be put up; Toronto mayor Nathan Phillips suggested that existing ones be papered up. The press felt that the signs were inadequate, as motorists were given no notice that they were coming to a crosswalk. Metro police and traffic officials held an emergency meeting: they saved the program and recommended the immediate installation of yellow advance-warning signs in cases where motorists had less than 300 feet (91 metres) to see the crosswalk.

Cass saw little value in making radical, on-the-fly improvements to the crosswalks, arguing that they were merely a traffic-control device — not a magical guarantee for safe crossings. He believed that winter snow cover made more road markings useless. “Motorists don’t need ding dongs, flashers, or fireworks,” he told the Telegram, “but they do need a sense of responsibility.” Other traffic officials rejected calls for zebra crossings and special markings, saying that motorists would be confused if they encountered different approaches in different municipalities.

On September 23, Metro council voted 15-2 to improve crosswalk visibility through measures such as painting a large X ahead of the crossing, installing advance-warning signs near schools and areas with poor visibility, and prohibiting vehicles from parking or stopping within 30 feet of a crossing. The two opposing votes came from Toronto city councillors who wanted pedestrian-activated traffic lights (which Cass claimed would increase accidents by 100 per cent).

The following month, council approved the installation of overhead yellow floodlights. Cass felt that they would cost too much, impede traffic flow, and give pedestrians a false sense of security. Gardiner still thought the program was being implemented too quickly — and without sufficient study. Leaside mayor Charles Hiscott refused to install the lights, because he believed they would temporarily blind motorists (his town chose diamond-shaped yellow lights).

The next stage in Toronto’s crosswalk evolution came during Metro’s safety week in June 1959, when Gardiner introduced the “Point Your Way to Safety” campaign. The kickoff had a ghoulish touch: 81 people representing 1958’s traffic fatalities donned black shrouds and marched around Gardiner as a funeral dirge played. More than 1 million leaflets with instructions on how to cross safely were handed out across Metro. Signs were placed at crosswalks urging people to point their finger while crossing.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Early statistics supported the crosswalk program. Over the first two months of operation, in 1958, traffic accidents fell by 24 per cent across Metro, though they remained high in rapidly suburbanizing areas, such as Scarborough. After the first year, pedestrian fatalities were down 12 per cent; injuries, 20 per cent.

The province took notice. Transport minister John Yaremko considered using Metro’s system as the basis for a plan that would be available to all Ontario municipalities. “I think crosswalks are the greatest pedestrian safety measure since construction of sidewalks began,” Yaremko told the Globe in December 1959. After Yaremko endorsed the program in September 1959, traffic officials in such cities as Ottawa requested crosswalk funding in upcoming municipal budgets. The province permitted the installation of large warning signs about the crosswalk program on major entrance routes into Metro Toronto.

Hamilton questioned the province’s preference for the Metro system. City traffic director W.E. Ewens believed that his proposed system — based on ones in place in parts of Western Canada and the United States that gave pedestrians right-of-way at every intersection — was superior. Signs and markings, he said, distracted drivers, forcing them to take their eyes off the road, and road markings were of no help in bad weather. Ewens angered Toronto officials when he claimed that, after several deaths following the introduction of crosswalks, an unnamed official had told him, “So what? We’re getting $1 million worth of publicity free.” He felt, he said, that “they were buying publicity with human lives.”

Although Hamilton mayor Lloyd Jackson and police chief Leonard Lawrence supported the Metro system, Ewens had the backing of Hamilton city council. Several delegations visited Queen’s Park between 1960 and 1962 in hopes of convincing the province to rethink its position or to let Hamilton go it alone. “We say it’s either our system or none,” Hamilton city councillor and pedestrian subcommittee chair John Munro told the Globe. Pedestrians interviewed by the Hamilton Spectator didn’t care which system was adopted, as long as they had some form of protection.

Back in Metro Toronto, modifications continued. A test conducted at a downtown crosswalk in July 1960 saw pedestrians carry red flags instead of pointing, saving self-conscious adults the embarrassment of sticking out their fingers. One person told the Globe that the flags were “the most ridiculous thing I ever saw.” According to Cass, the pilot ended because they couldn’t maintain the flag supply. (The flag idea did reappear from time to time: one deputant during a 1966 hearing noted that they were used in Japan.) Metro’s traffic bylaw was updated in November 1961 — it now included “No Passing” signs in advance of crosswalks and banned vehicles (including streetcars) from passing within 100 feet of the crossing. The province added weight to these changes by slapping violators with three demerit points.

Hamilton’s hopes were defeated on May 31, 1962, when transport minister Leslie Rowntree announced that Metro’s system would become the provincial standard. He believed that Hamilton’s would be too difficult to enforce properly. At least 17 other municipalities used the Metro system and had seen positive results; for example, Barrie had not experienced any pedestrian fatalities since adopting crosswalks three years earlier. In Metro, the fatality rate had declined 15 per cent. Some Hamilton officials remained bitter, but the issue faded away.

One demand that still hadn’t been satisfied was proper lighting. In 1963, police proposed that seniors tie a white handkerchief around their arm to improve their visibility at night. By spring 1966, the public, politicians, and coroner’s juries had all called for the installation of flashing lights at Metro’s crosswalks. Cass resisted the idea, claiming that numerous communities were getting by just fine without them, that they were distracting, and that they’d cost $500,000 to install. Despite Cass’s objections, four sign-and-light combinations were tested out that year; illuminated black-and-yellow boxes were rolled out the next.

Half a century later, the effectiveness of pedestrian crosswalks is still being debated, as drivers in a hurry don’t always seem inclined to acknowledge them or other pedestrian-safety mechanisms. Ideas laughed at in the past, such as red flags and armbands for seniors, have been revived — and met with criticism again. And, as in the past, calls have been made to improve enforcement. Perhaps, as a September 1958 Daily Star editorial concluded, “The big improvement must come from drivers themselves; and that, it seems, will be brought about by being stern, even harsh, with ignorance and infractions.”

 

[SaugeenJunction]

For those discussing the capacity of the Crosstown, with a particular reference to the Golden Mile; this has been modeled as part of the Golden Mile Transportation Master Plan.

I have a post discussing it in the Golden Mile thread, here: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/golden-mile-secondary-plan-study.29852/post-1629916

For ease of discussion, I will simply cross-post the relevant info below:

****************

(the green is just to indicate what's from the cross-post, and differentiate it from the link)

Here's a link looking back at the modelling that led to the Transportation Master Plan:

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/97a2-CityPlanning_GoldenMile_TMPDraft_Part3.pdf

Volume to Capacity graphics start at page 165.

All show some portion of Eglinton in Red (meaning over capacity).

That is based on 2-car sets and 5-minute headway.

So that need can be met, in whole or in part by going to 3 cars, or tighter headways.

The underground stations are built for the 3-car version; I don't believe the outdoor section is set-up for that currently.

Aside from alterations; additional vehicles would have to be ordered.

But there is a further challenge in that the surface section is not proposed for ATC operation and the modelling that supports 3-car alignments on tighter headways in the core section may not support the extension of that service to the line's periphery.

But it might.....

Text from the report: (p. 171)

An analysis was conducted on the Preferred TMP scenario factoring in the growth along the Eglinton Avenue corridor beyond the study area including the Don Mills Crossing (DMC) Secondary Plan. When combining the growth in ridership anticipated by these two (2) studies, it is notable that the current plans for two (2)-car LRT trainsets operating at five (5) minute headways may not be sufficient with the full build out of these areas. It may be necessary to plan for service of up to three (3) minute headways and/or longer three (3)-car LRT trainsets.

As seen in Figure 9-12, the combination of both the GMSP Preferred Land Use Solution plus the Don Mills Crossing (DMC) Secondary Plan recommendations will result in ridership exceeding the capacity of the ECLRT at two (2)-car trainsets at five (5) minute headways. A sensitivity test conducted as part of the DMC study included the effect of the Relief Line North (RLN) project which connects a new subway line to the ECLRT. The addition of this project results in an overall increase to ECLRT ridership.

Given these potential constraints on ECLRT capacity, north-south transit priority improvements would be beneficial additions to the transit network to provide additional mobility choice.

Thats great background, thanks. I thought that the plan was to operate 3-car sets during peak, and two car sets on the off peak right from day one? Am I crazy or has this changed?

 

[44 North]

I never would've expected 3-car on the in-median portions. But would expect an ultimate frequency definitely higher than 5min for said portion (as 2-car). Sure there'd be bunching abound. But 5min seems a bit low. What's 504 King like at peak, 2min?

As for people's concerns about capacity, where were you guys in other threads. Waterfront LRT was projected to have something like 10k pphpd, using a single unit Outlook (aka streetcar). Nobody said anything. But for Eglinton 8k using a multi-unit train is now supposedly maxed-out capacity?

 

[superelevation]

I know what you mean about transit outperforming expectations. But I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison.

The Canada Line is the only north-south rapid transit connection route, is the only rapid transit to YVR from day one and still is, and Vancouver has a policy of mandatory high-density rezoning around stations with an emphasis on TOD.

The Crosstown is competing (kind of) with the Bloor Line for east-west trips as well as UPE for downtown airport trips, and Toronto resists every zoning application going through the many yellow-belt 'stable' neighbourhoods it runs through. There's also the fact that the airport extension is not yet planned, only an extension to Renforth is planned to open by the early 2030s.

Toronto is way behind in creating TODs along transit lines. Hopefully, that will change with the forced zoning reforms implemented a few years ago.

The UP does not really serve a lot of airport jobs such as at ACC, and the price / connectivity really weakens it.

There is also lots of high density going in around Crosstown stations so if we think that is the only thing driving ridership (it isn't) then it should be the same for both.

The vast majority of Torontonians live North of Bloor and a significant number live North of Eglinton so it isn't as simple of a competition as you may suggest either.

At the end of the day Toronto has more than triple the population of Vancouver + Richmond as well so that really ought to factor in.

From what I've seen it would add approximately 25k in residential units, however that is a phased approach likely to take a decade in a highly industrial/low density area. Crosstown can easily handle that. People read LRT and instantly assume it can't handle much, but the line is highly future-proofed.

Highly future proofed is an exaggeration, Metrolinx has had consistently poor estimates regarding patronage on their lines. (Again see UP Express) The East West rapid transit market is really underserved in Toronto especially as you move North.

With regard to comments about Waterfront LRT / Streetcar etc. nobody is talking about it because like GO RER it's a piecemeal program, but good luck getting those capacity levels without extremely high frequencies.

 

[asher__jo]

I never would've expected 3-car on the in-median portions. But would expect an ultimate frequency definitely higher than 5min for said portion (as 2-car). Sure there'd be bunching abound. But 5min seems a bit low. What's 504 King like at peak, 2min?

As for people's concerns about capacity, where were you guys in other threads. Waterfront LRT was projected to have something like 10k pphpd, using a single unit Outlook (aka streetcar). Nobody said anything. But for Eglinton 8k using a multi-unit train is now supposedly maxed-out capacity?

I imagine that service will be more frequent on underground section to Laird with overlapping service from Mount Denis to Kennedy. So you'll have roughly 2 minute frequency Mount Denis to Laird and 5 minutes from Laird to Kennedy.

 

[toronto647]

I imagine that service will be more frequent on underground section to Laird with overlapping service from Mount Denis to Kennedy. So you'll have roughly 2 minute frequency Mount Denis to Laird and 5 minutes from Laird to Kennedy.

Do you mean Laird or Leslie?

 

[nfitz]

Seems pretty close to capacity to me.

How? Looks well under the 10,000 capacity with 60-metre trains and 3-minute headways.

Capacity is 15,000 if they switched to 90-metre trains, which is what it is built for. And I bet they could increase headways to better than once every 3 minutes if this was really necessary decades from now ...

I never would've expected 3-car on the in-median portions.

Why not? They've built 90-metre platforms. The project reports discuss 90 metre trains.

 

[Streety McCarface]

As for people's concerns about capacity, where were you guys in other threads. Waterfront LRT was projected to have something like 10k pphpd, using a single unit Outlook (aka streetcar). Nobody said anything. But for Eglinton 8k using a multi-unit train is now supposedly maxed-out capacity?

Nobody ever believed that — most people probably weren't paying attention because that project has gone nowhere.

 

[cplchanb]

I think at this point they would rather build a line that is either just right or a bit undersized so the capacity can justify the line so that if it did fill up quickly, they can lobby for extensions and expansions.
However I would caution against treating projected riderships as gospel. Remember what was the sheppard line and their claimed ridership?

Never came.