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

[Bojaxs]

Eglinton will have subway speeds in the part that's a subway, and surface LRT speeds in those parts.

Assuming underground trains will travel faster than street level trains, won't this leading to a bunching up of eastbound, surface level trains as they leave the underground portion? Not to mention trains in the underground portion don't have to deal with red lights between stations.

 

[evandyk]

They bunch up only in that the distance of the headway gets smaller but the time of the headway remains consistent. (ie The trains are closer together to maintain the three minute gap between them.)

Obviously it’s more complex in practice, but the mere fact of a difference in speeds doesn’t cause bunching by itself.

 

[T3G]

^ You can observe this in real time by taking a trip on the southern part of Line 1. Trains (should) fly along the northern part of the route, but south of Bloor, all the way to Eglinton West station, the line is very curvy and there are many timers along the trackside, so the speed of the service is much slower.

It is also a good case study to disprove basically every assertion UT has about subways in one fell swoop. Just because it's a subway doesn't mean it's very very fast, and despite the close station spacing along Line 2 it actually has a higher average speed than Line 1. Funny how that is.

 

[smallspy]

Assuming underground trains will travel faster than street level trains, won't this leading to a bunching up of eastbound, surface level trains as they leave the underground portion? Not to mention trains in the underground portion don't have to deal with red lights between stations.

A 5 minute headway underground is still a 5 minute headway above ground.

Will the trains be physically closer together above ground? Yes. But it's still 5 minutes apart.

Dan

 

[NotACop123]

One thing i've been thinking about recently is how overloaded to surface stops will get in the future once development settles in on the eastern portion of the line. Stops like Wynford are side platforms and they are due to see massive amount of development around it.

So while the underground stations will be able to accommodate higher loads due to wide centre platforms, some of the surface stops will see loads that may just exceed their capacity. And just imagine when there are service disruptions, it's going to be entertaining to see how bad the situation will get. Sure trains will have their lengths extended, but how will the surface stations accommodate high pedestrian counts.

Anyways that's just food for thought, and things we'll have to be concerned about in 15-20 years.

Don't worry in 20 years a new mayor will talk about converting the line to a proper subway and it'll be closed for 10 years.

 

[Rainforest]

One thing i've been thinking about recently is how overloaded to surface stops will get in the future once development settles in on the eastern portion of the line. Stops like Wynford are side platforms and they are due to see massive amount of development around it.

So while the underground stations will be able to accommodate higher loads due to wide centre platforms, some of the surface stops will see loads that may just exceed their capacity. And just imagine when there are service disruptions, it's going to be entertaining to see how bad the situation will get. Sure trains will have their lengths extended, but how will the surface stations accommodate high pedestrian counts.

Anyways that's just food for thought, and things we'll have to be concerned about in 15-20 years.

Isn't that the opposite? Surface platforms can be expanded by reconfiguring the street. The process may be disruptive and messy, but will not cost too much.

But, how can one expand the underground platforms if the need arises?

If the worries about the ECLRT capacity are justified at all, then I would be worried about the underground sections. They are built according to certain specs and with certain usage expectations. If the actual demand greatly exceeds those expectations, there might be no practical way to dig them bigger.

Edit: our intuition may be misleading us. We are used to seeing high capacity on underground transit (subways) and lower capacity on surface transit. It is easy to forget that subways have high capacity because they are built with that capacity in mind.

 

[zang]

Again, getting hung up on language. Rapid is not an absolute term, it's a relative one.

Will it be faster that the bus route that it is replacing? Yes. Will it be faster than a car? Maybe. It probably depends on the time of day and traffic conditions.

Dan

Comparisons to cars need to stop in general. We shouldn’t be asking “is this faster than a car?”; it should be about whether it moves a lot of people efficiently. There will always be those who feel it’s their right to drive as fast as they want, and some who out of spite will intentionally drive faster than the LRT.

The benefit of moving drivers onto fast transit means those “you’ll take the keys from my cold dead hands”-types will eventually have less traffic and get to drive faster anyway. One can just hope that speed/stop light cameras get more commonplace as an ancillary to the crosstown.

 

[drum118]

Don't worry in 20 years a new mayor will talk about converting the line to a proper subway and it'll be closed for 10 years.

It will be far longer than that if the existing underground stations can be expanded to 600'. If you are only remaining as current platform length, it will be less than that as the surface section would have to be place underground and the ramps to those surface underground stations removed. You have 2 options for the new underground section as either cut and fill or TBM and then build the stations. You have 2 creeks/rivers to go under that are very close to existing ramps that will be a major issue.

Only the section from Laird to Kennedy will have to be close with the rest of the line remaining in service.

Taking it one step further, you can reduce the closure time as well reduce cost by elevating the surface section. With protection in place, you can build the elevated section while the surface section is still operating and then been close to make the connections from the underground to the elevation line as well connections from the elevated stations to the current stations

 

[ARG1]

Isn't that the opposite? Surface platforms can be expanded by reconfiguring the street. The process may be disruptive and messy, but will not cost too much.

But, how can one expand the underground platforms if the need arises?

If the worries about the ECLRT capacity are justified at all, then I would be worried about the underground sections. They are built according to certain specs and with certain usage expectations. If the actual demand greatly exceeds those expectations, there might be no practical way to dig them bigger.

Edit: our intuition may be misleading us. We are used to seeing high capacity on underground transit (subways) and lower capacity on surface transit. It is easy to forget that subways have high capacity because they are built with that capacity in mind.

Hypothetically you can significantly increase headways with a fully grade separated line, something that isn't possible on the surface section. Full grade separation with (maybe?) improved signalling will signal a massive capacity boost without the need of any form of platform extensions.

 

[Dan416]

Comparisons to cars need to stop in general. We shouldn’t be asking “is this faster than a car?”; it should be about whether it moves a lot of people efficiently. There will always be those who feel it’s their right to drive as fast as they want, and some who out of spite will intentionally drive faster than the LRT.

The benefit of moving drivers onto fast transit means those “you’ll take the keys from my cold dead hands”-types will eventually have less traffic and get to drive faster anyway. One can just hope that speed/stop light cameras get more commonplace as an ancillary to the crosstown.

The comparison to the car will never stop. People still drive along the QEW/Gardiner even though the Lakeshore line exists. And people who have a car will look at the amount of time a trip will take by car.

I take GO transit all the time. But I'm still driving all the time, to get groceries, visit my parents, etc. But I walk where possible, e.g. to Square One to go to the gym, etc.

Personally I think the speed of the Eglinton line IS important. And I find the idea that the speed of the transit doesn't to be self defeating.

Of course a subway will never be faster than the car off peak. But during peak congestion hours, I think at a minimum, a comparable trip along the same route SHOULD be faster by something like the Eglinton line. The biggest problem is most people's origins and destinations won't be directly on the same LRT or subway route.

I don't think speed should be the ONLY factor, but it should be an important factor, and for most of the line I think they did reach a good balance of stops/stations. I do think in the east end they went overboard with the stops, but I'm not really familiar with the area so I can't really say for sure.

 

[Rainforest]

Hypothetically you can significantly increase headways with a fully grade separated line, something that isn't possible on the surface section. Full grade separation with (maybe?) improved signalling will signal a massive capacity boost without the need of any form of platform extensions.

There are multiple limits in the system. Some are based on the train capacity and frequency, some on the stations design.

We might reach such a frequency that the trains can carry all passengers who want a ride, but the stairs / escalators at the key interchanges (Yonge, Allen Rd, Science Centre) cannot handle the flow.

I don't know the capacity limit for each design element. Generally, all design elements are roughly consistent, no point to oversize one. Thus if the demand greatly exceeds the design expectations, then any element might become the bottleneck.

 

[crs1026]

Maybe someone with a better calculator than mine can calculate for us. What is the elapsed time between platforms spaced a typical distance apart for a Flexity tram that accelerates to a top speed of 80 km/h versus a top speed of 50-60 km/h ?

My bet is - maybe a few seconds' difference.

The issue for the Crosstown is not whether the trams move quickly. The issue is how much the traffic signalling will delay them. And how much of that type of delay is placed in the schedule.

- Paul

 

[Voltz]

Here we go....

We were promised rapid transit.

Billions of dollars and over a decade of construction, for this?

We could have built a subway with the amount of time & money we spent constructing this LRT.

We would be lucky if an Eglinton subway made it east of Yonge in the current round of construction, and it would never go east of Don Mills,

 

[Rainforest]

I don't think speed should be the ONLY factor, but it should be an important factor, and for most of the line I think they did reach a good balance of stops/stations. I do think in the east end they went overboard with the stops, but I'm not really familiar with the area so I can't really say for sure.

They want to build a sea of highrises in that area. To attract more residents to transit, they want an LRT stop within a walking distance from the entrances. Kind of reasonable.

Eglinton will be OK in terms of speed. Even if the eastern section disappoints, that line has a long tunnel in the center and the west end. Thus, the combined travel time will be still good, and a lot better than the notoriously slow Eglionton bus.

I am more worried about the speed of Finch line. It is almost entirely on surface, no tunnels for a speed boost. IMO, it doesn't need to be as fast as a car, but it needs to offer a noticeable speed improvement over the bus in order for the riders / general public to desire more LRTs built.

 

[crs1026]

I am more worried about the speed of Finch line. It is almost entirely on surface, no tunnels for a speed boost. IMO, it doesn't need to be as fast as a car, but it needs to offer a noticeable speed improvement over the bus in order for the riders / general public to desire more LRTs built.

My theory would be that an LRT that represents a heated, air conditioned vehicle that rides smoothly, arrives promptly and reliably, and offers some improvement in personal space will be welcomed by those accustomed to the bus, regardless of its speed.

A crowded bus which pitches standees around every time the car ahead slows to make a right turn, lurches over potholes, and stops more frequently pales in comparison.

When I have paced LRT's on Eglinton by car, the leading reason I fall behind is a transit bus making its stops.

I'm pretty confident the LRT will be seen as an improvement. But slow pace imposed by a lax schedule, and forcing operators to dog it to not get ahead of schedule, will not be attractive, sure.

- Paul