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

[Rainforest]

We should keep in mind that Eglinton line has a good chance to open in 10 years. But, DRL will reach Eglinton in 20 - 25 years at best. At present, we have no funding and no design even for DRL Phase I south of Danforth.

There will be a lengthy period when Eglinton line is the only rapid transit serving the Eglinton / Don Mills hub.

Therefore, I would focus on capacity west of Don Mills (towards Yonge subway); that section is critical. I would not spend money on grade separation between Don Mills and Kennedy, as there will be less demand on that section.

Furthermore, I would not go for full interlining of Eglinton and SRT. That would divert too many riders from Danforth subway to Eglinton, and likely overwhelm both the section of Eglinton approaching Yonge, and Yonge subway south of Eglinton.

Partial interlining of Eglinton and SRT would be best option. Something like this:

North of Kennedy Stn: a train every 2.5 min
From Kennedy to Don Mills: a train every 5 min
West of Don Mills: a train every 2.5 min

 

[M II A II R II K]

There's always the rail corridors for extra service and relief.

 

[ssiguy2]

They could save some money by making the underground stations smaller suchas 70 meters and use the savings to help pay for an elevated section from DM to Kennedy. It would save a small fortune in operating costs due to automation and 50 meter stations have the capacity of 100 meter stations with any route that has an at grade section to say nothing od far superior reliability and speed.

I wouldn't count on the TTC having enough vision to build a station of 2 levels to accomodate a DRL. They are spending a small fortune on the Spadina ext but didn't have the forsight to do the same for Sheppard West station eventhough a Sheppard ext west to Spadina is inevitable.

 

[nfitz]

It would save a small fortune in operating costs due to automation and 50 meter stations have the capacity of 100 meter stations with any route that has an at grade section to say nothing od far superior reliability and speed.

Building underground stations rather than just having shelters along the road greatly increases operating costs. Automation doesn't save much money in terms of operating costs.

 

[Rainforest]

There's always the rail corridors for extra service and relief.

In theory, yes. But in reality, capacity of all GO corridors except Lakeshore remains very low to divert any noticeable amount of riders from TTC subways, or Eglinton LRT when it is built. GO remains focused on the out-of-416 services, and furthermore, they have not yet figured out how increase the Union capacity enough to meet even their out-of-416 mandate, let alone play a greater role within 416.

I'd like to see GO lines helping TTC within 416; but unless we have specific GO projects with committed funding, we can't ignore capacity constraints of TTC lines in the hope that rail corridors will help somehow.

 

[Rainforest]

They could save some money by making the underground stations smaller suchas 70 meters and use the savings to help pay for an elevated section from DM to Kennedy. It would save a small fortune in operating costs due to automation and 50 meter stations have the capacity of 100 meter stations with any route that has an at grade section to say nothing od far superior reliability and speed.

Building smaller underground stations would be a poor foresight. You can change the operation mode later on, and combine the benefit of larger stations with the benefits of automated operations. You can't expand the stations just as easily.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

They could save some money by making the underground stations smaller suchas 70 meters and use the savings to help pay for an elevated section from DM to Kennedy. It would save a small fortune in operating costs due to automation and 50 meter stations have the capacity of 100 meter stations with any route that has an at grade section to say nothing od far superior reliability and speed.

You propose Toronto build small stations like what you have on the Canada Line... Small stations that will be extremely expensive to expand in the future. Why would Toronto be that short-sighted?

 

[11th]

Building smaller underground stations would be a poor foresight. You can change the operation mode later on, and combine the benefit of larger stations with the benefits of automated operations. You can't expand the stations just as easily.

There are some who say/said Eglinton will never have the ridership to support some form of higher order transit beyond what's being currently planned .

 

[TheTigerMaster]

You propose Toronto build small stations like what you have on the Canada Line... Small stations that will be extremely expensive to expand in the future. Why would Toronto be that short-sighted?

Why WOULDN'T Toronto be short sighted? It's kinda our thing.

 

[ssiguy2]

Building underground stations rather than just having shelters along the road greatly increases operating costs. Automation doesn't save much money in terms of operating costs.

I wasn't talking about underground stations but was referring to the DM to Kennedy section which should be elevated.
I think the Canada Line stations are definately too small but my point was that the extra money used for 100 meter LRT stations still has lower capacity than the 50 meter Canada Line stations as Canada Line uses standard Metro cars but due to having total grade separation it can run every 90 seconds. The absolute most any at grade system can run would be every 3 minutes eepecially when the at grade doesn't include railroad crossing barriers like CTrain or Edmonton LRT.

50 meters is too small which is why I said 70 meters but if Toronto is worried about capacity then 50 meter Metro station in a grade separated system is better than 100 meter stations of at grade. Also I don't see how the at grade stations will be any cheaper to maintain than elevated stations. Remember an elevated station wouldn't be 100 meters and there would only be one at each station while the Eglinton LRT will have 100 meter at grade stations but 2 at each location for the different direction of the trains.

 

[BurlOak]

Furthermore, I would not go for full interlining of Eglinton and SRT. That would divert too many riders from Danforth subway to Eglinton, and likely overwhelm both the section of Eglinton approaching Yonge, and Yonge subway south of Eglinton.

We do not want to divert the riders from B-D subway? We want then all to take B-D all the way to Yonge station?

Before the DRL, as long as transfers from ECLRT to Yonge transfers remain less than those from B-D to Yonge, it will still be the Bloor station that restricts capacity on the Yonge line. After the DRL, it would be preferable to have multiple options to transfer to the DRL, not all occuring at Pape station, which will be hard to retrofit into a major interchange.

Partial interlining of Eglinton and SRT would be best option. Something like this:

North of Kennedy Stn: a train every 2.5 min
From Kennedy to Don Mills: a train every 5 min
West of Don Mills: a train every 2.5 min

If there is partial interlining, what happens if riders still continue on Eglinton to Yonge? There would be no room for anyone to get on along this stretch. The only solution then would be to artificially lower the speed of the ECLRT along this stretch - just to keep eastern Scarberians off of it.

 

[nfitz]

I wasn't talking about underground stations but was referring to the DM to Kennedy section which should be elevated.

Stations, be they underground, at surface like Ellesmere, or elevated like Midland, are going to add a lot to operating costs.

There's no need for extra capacity on Eglinton between Don Mills and Kennedy. If you at the Demand Forecasting Report in the EA, the 2031 ridership may well be 5000 per direction per hour eastbound at Allen, 4500 per hour eastbound at Yonge, and 4600 westbound at Yonge, but it's only 3,700 westbound at Bermondsey/Wynford (where it becomes grade separated) and 900 eastbound at Wynford or Kennedy.

We really want to grade separate the LRT for a peak-point ridership of 3,700 when we can have a capacity in of 753 passenger in a 3-car Eglinton train. With your estimated 3-minute maximum frequency (20 trains per hour) the capacity is 15,000 per hour.

So essentially for this section at the peak we are at 25% of capacity in 2031, and your suggesting we spend $billions extra grade-separate to increase capacity?

 

[Rainforest]

We do not want to divert the riders from B-D subway? We want then all to take B-D all the way to Yonge station?

We want most of them to take B-D all the way up to Pape (or whatever station is chosen for the DRL interchange), and then transfer to DRL.

If DRL reached Eglinton / Don Mills, then yes we could have them stay on SRT-Eglinton and then transfer to DRL at Don Mills.

But I expect at least a 15 year gap between DRL reaching B-D and DRL reaching Eglinton.

Before the DRL, as long as transfers from ECLRT to Yonge transfers remain less than those from B-D to Yonge, it will still be the Bloor station that restricts capacity on the Yonge line. After the DRL, it would be preferable to have multiple options to transfer to the DRL, not all occuring at Pape station, which will be hard to retrofit into a major interchange.

Bloor station is the most obvious bottleneck, but not the only one. Eglinton LRT approaching Yonge, Yonge / Eglinton interchange, and Yonge line between Eglinton and Bloor could be at risk as well.

I agree that having Pape as the only transfer point to DRL is not ideal, but this is all we are going to have for DRL Phase I, until it is extended further north.

If there is partial interlining, what happens if riders still continue on Eglinton to Yonge? There would be no room for anyone to get on along this stretch. The only solution then would be to artificially lower the speed of the ECLRT along this stretch - just to keep eastern Scarberians off of it.

I do not suggest extreme measures like artificially lowering the speed. I merely suggest a balanced service configuration that addresses all travel patterns.

My proposal is to run one long-range Eglinton-SRT branch, going all the way from Malvern to Pearson, on say 5 min headways; and supplement it with two short branches on two busiest (and grade-separate) sections: STC to Kennedy station, and Don Mills to Jane. Those branches can run on 5-min headways as well, resulting in the combined 2.5-min headways on the two busiest sections.

In that case, Scarberians heading mid-town (Yonge / Eglinton area etc) still have a direct route there. At the same time, the majority of Scarberians heading downtown will use B-D and DRL.

And the branch short-turning at Don Mills will ensure that riders boarding there (or transferring from 54 Lawrence East, 25 Don Mills, and 100 Flemmingdon Park) do not have to squeeze into trains coming from Scarborough.

 

[Rainforest]

There are some who say/said Eglinton will never have the ridership to support some form of higher order transit beyond what's being currently planned .

The ridership of this centrally located line will strongly depend on the service design, speed, and the presence or absence of alternative routes.

Local demand, originating on Eglinton or in the vicinity of it, will never exceed the capacity of in-median LRT.

But demand from transferred riders could be much greater than that, dependent on the above mentioned factors.

It that sense, it is possible to overbuild Eglinton transit as well as to under-build it.

 

[BurlOak]

That's a good question. One thing that this opens up the possibility for is a redesign of Don Mills Station (if it's deeper, it will have to be redesigned). Given Metrolinx's recent announcement regarding the DRL, this may provide a good excuse to design a fully integrated intermodal facility, so the DRL can just be 'plugged in' when built, as opposed to having to be shoehorned in into a less than optimal connection.

Maybe have the Eglinton platform as a deep platform, with a future perpendicular DRL platform directly above it? Theoretically the DRL can be cut-and-cover until it has to cross the river (for which it can be a bridge followed by a tunnel under Thorncliffe Park). So having the Eglinton platform be the deep platform and the DRL be the shallow platform may be an advantage for both. With this I'm assuming of course that a trench will be dug in the Science Centre parking lot on the west side of Don Mills. Certainly appears to be easier than going either directly under the road or on the east side of the road.

I do not have any info on the Don Mills Station design. Assuming 3m are needed for utilities, 4m for a Mezzanine, and 5m for a transit line. If Eglinton is under DRL, it would be located about (2x5 + 4 + 3) 17m below grade to track level. Add on a couple of metres rise in Eglinton from DM to DVP, and this means about a 20m rise to get to grade, in about 500m. This is a 4% grade (probably more with vertical curves) which is kind of steep.

If Eglinton is the higher station, it would be about 12m rise to the surface, and if you wanted to elevate it over the DVP it would have to rise about 7m more for clearance and structure. This would be a slightly steep incline. I think they may need to find a way of eliminating the Mezzanin level and having the "mezzanine" below the ECLRT in spots and above the DRL in other stops. This could bring the ECLRT closer to the surface and reduce the grade. I am not sure what utilities there are along DM, but moving both line as close to the surface as possible should really be looked at.