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

[WislaHD]

Isn't 3,500 pphpd a pretty decent count for a line that runs mostly on surface?

That's higher than for any of the busiest bus routes in this city, and higher than the forecast for Sheppard East LRT at its busiest point (approching Don Mills Stn, 3,000 pphpd).

Sheppard East should also be a BRT.

It was proposed as an LRT to forever end talk of a subway extension. That did not work out as Miller thought.

 

[Rainforest]

Sheppard East should also be a BRT.

It was proposed as an LRT to forever end talk of a subway extension. That did not work out as Miller thought.

OK, but which of the other Transit City light rail lines (except SLRT and the central section of Eglinton) would beat that 3,500 pphpd forecast?

The practical limit for a street-median LRT is about 7,200 (300 riders per 2-car train, times 24 trains an hour for the 2.5-min average frequency).

So, if we say that 3,500 pphpd is too little, and 7,000 is almost too much, then we have a pretty narrow range where LRT is desirable.

I'd rather say that anything above 2,000 or 2,500, with a chance of further growth, is a decent LRT candidate; subject to the network factors being favourable.

 

[WislaHD]

So, if we say that 3,500 pphpd is too little, and 7,000 is almost too much, then we have a pretty narrow range where LRT is desirable.

Well it is. Nobody said LRT was a superior technology.

If we removed the technology from the conversation and just looked at the route, then a BRT is 100% adequate for Eglinton West.

ROW BRT can support up to 10,000 pphd. It is the optimal solution for most areas if done well. It is the done well part that I have little faith in TTC or Metrolinx doing.

but which of the other Transit City light rail lines (except SLRT and the central section of Eglinton) would beat that 3,500 pphpd forecast?

Crosstown East and the Waterfront LRTs.

 

[44 North]

ROW BRT can support up to 10,000 pphd. It is the optimal solution for most areas if done well. It is the done well part that I have little faith in TTC or Metrolinx doing.

Wait, 10k in a Transit City ROW setup? That'd be like 130 artics in the same direction every hour. Or one every ~30sec (<-am sick right now so can't do rudimentary math lol). But I don't think that's feasible what with all the stops and intersections. Even getting 5k pphpd in that kind of setup seems like an achievement. Would probably call for a Mississauga BRT solution, which is sort of akin to central Crosstown or S(L)RT in terms of infrastructure.

 

[WislaHD]

Wait, 10k in a Transit City ROW setup? That'd be like 130 artics in the same direction every hour. Or one every ~30sec (<-am sick right now so can't do rudimentary math lol). But I don't think that's feasible what with all the stops and intersections. Even getting 5k pphpd in that kind of setup seems like an achievement. Would probably call for a Mississauga BRT solution, which is sort of akin to central Crosstown or S(L)RT in terms of infrastructure.

No, not in a Transit City ROW setup, more like an Ottawa Transitway sort of setup, which can do 10,000pphd and 200 buses an hour at morning peak I believe.

But that is exactly my point about how TTC/Metrolinx would screw it up. Why stick to the Transit City center median setup when you have a wide ROW and a mostly unused Richview corridor? Unlike the train, the BRT could actually skirt around the townhomes at Widdicombe which means no expropriation. You would have no need for elaborate grade separations and you would not need to eliminate the middle stops.

It is okay to think about BRT the same way you would an LRT or above-ground subway, as opposed to a regular bus route.

Now maybe you still wouldn't get to 10,000 pphd even with that setup, but we are talking about a route that barely breaks 2,000 pphd west of Jane.

 

[44 North]

No, not in a Transit City ROW setup, more like an Ottawa Transitway sort of setup, which can do 10,000pphd and 200 buses an hour at morning peak I believe.

But that is exactly my point about how TTC/Metrolinx would screw it up. Why stick to the Transit City center median setup when you have a wide ROW and a mostly unused Richview corridor? Unlike the train, the BRT could actually skirt around the townhomes at Widdicombe which means no expropriation. You would have no need for elaborate grade separations and you would not need to eliminate the middle stops.

It is okay to think about BRT the same way you would an LRT or above-ground subway, as opposed to a regular bus route.

Now maybe you still wouldn't get to 10,000 pphd even with that setup, but we are talking about a route that barely breaks 2,000 pphd west of Jane.

Ok cool. I honestly haven't followed any Crosstown West (or E of Kennedy) all that much in years. Tho I've been of the opinion that the low West numbers were always as a result of the slower Transit City setup. Similar to the buried Eglinton-Scar Subway report feel like once we remove the local service and traffic lights it would attract a lot more. Did we ever see numbers of what grade-separation would offer all the way to Pearson? No energy to check, but wonder if in the early SmartTrack avec Spur days we were given projections for the Spur.

 

[WislaHD]

Ok cool. I honestly haven't followed any Crosstown West (or E of Kennedy) all that much in years. Tho I've been of the opinion that the low West numbers were always as a result of the slower Transit City setup. Similar to the buried Eglinton-Scar Subway report feel like once we remove the local service and traffic lights it would attract a lot more. Did we ever see numbers of what grade-separation would offer all the way to Pearson? No energy to check, but wonder if in the early SmartTrack avec Spur days we were given projections for the Spur.

Yah, that is how we renewed the conversation with Eglinton West.

SmartTrack study found that the Crosstown West LRT would have higher ridership than fully-grade separated SmartTrack concept, even with the TTC fare.

edit: Found one more burried in a presentation slide:

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Crosstown West will have higher all day boardings than the SRT. 39,536 vs 38,570.

 

[WislaHD]

Crosstown West will have higher all day boardings than the SRT. 39,536 vs 38,570.

Well, comparing a 2031 number to a 2015 number.

I am not convinced how much of a 'success' it is for the Crosstown West case though. The 32 Eglinton West route has 38,000 riders a day currently, granted, much of that is generated between Keele and Yonge.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Well, comparing a 2031 number to a 2015 number.

I am not convinced how much of a 'success' it is for the Crosstown West case though. The 32 Eglinton West route has 38,000 riders a day currently, granted, much of that is generated between Keele and Yonge.

32A EGLINTON only goes to RENFORTH STATION (as of November 22, 2017). With the Crosstown LRT, the light rail trains would go to the PEARSON TRANSIT HUB, serving the YYZ airport.

 

[smallspy]

No, not in a Transit City ROW setup, more like an Ottawa Transitway sort of setup, which can do 10,000pphd and 200 buses an hour at morning peak I believe.

So...and apples and oranges comparison then.

The ultimate upset capacity limit of an LRT in the same situation as you're describing is in the 30,000pphp-range, so what's the point of the comparison?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Rainforest]

Crosstown East and the Waterfront LRTs.

Oh yes, I forgot about Waterfront East, with a much higher forecast. I guess that's because it wasn't in the original Transit City list.

Well it is. Nobody said LRT was a superior technology.

If we removed the technology from the conversation and just looked at the route, then a BRT is 100% adequate for Eglinton West.

ROW BRT can support up to 10,000 pphd. It is the optimal solution for most areas if done well. It is the done well part that I have little faith in TTC or Metrolinx doing.

BRT has its role, but I'd rather have light rail on Eglinton West. A mode shift at Mt Dennis would perpetuate the transfer and reduce the appeal of transit. The whole point of building the LRT tunnel under central Eglinton was taking advantage of the relatively cheap transfer-free surface extensions outside the central sections.

In terms of capacity, 2,000 is fine for BRT, but 3,500 will get it pretty busy. With artics carrying up to 120 riders per bus, that would take 29 full buses per hour. That's manageable, but the cost of driver salaries will be considerable. Even when the driverless technology is adopted, the cost of maintaining so many vehicles will be considerable. On the other hand, just 12 light-rail trains per hour (300 riders per train) can handle the same demand.

 

[Rainforest]

Yah, that is how we renewed the conversation with Eglinton West.

SmartTrack study found that the Crosstown West LRT would have higher ridership than fully-grade separated SmartTrack concept, even with the TTC fare.

View attachment 127311

View attachment 127310

edit: Found one more burried in a presentation slide:

View attachment 127313

Light rail does very well compared to the mainline heavy rail alternatives. However, I believe that's not because slower is better ; rather, that's because mainline heavy rail would have too few stops to adequately serve the area.

It is entirely possible that a better designed light rail (grade-separated at the major intersections, but still with sufficient number of stops to cover the area) would result in a higher ridership than a basic-design light rail.

There is a significant end-to-end component of the potential ridership (between RER and Spadina subway on one end, and the Airport south employment cluster and Mississauga Transitway on the other end). The scale of this component is likely sensitive to the travel speed.

 

[WislaHD]

So...and apples and oranges comparison then.

The ultimate upset capacity limit of an LRT in the same situation as you're describing is in the 30,000pphp-range, so what's the point of the comparison?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

BRT has its role, but I'd rather have light rail on Eglinton West. A mode shift at Mt Dennis would perpetuate the transfer and reduce the appeal of transit. The whole point of building the LRT tunnel under central Eglinton was taking advantage of the relatively cheap transfer-free surface extensions outside the central sections.

In terms of capacity, 2,000 is fine for BRT, but 3,500 will get it pretty busy. With artics carrying up to 120 riders per bus, that would take 29 full buses per hour. That's manageable, but the cost of driver salaries will be considerable. Even when the driverless technology is adopted, the cost of maintaining so many vehicles will be considerable. On the other hand, just 12 light-rail trains per hour (300 riders per train) can handle the same demand.

Light rail does very well compared to the mainline heavy rail alternatives. However, I believe that's not because slower is better ; rather, that's because mainline heavy rail would have too few stops to adequately serve the area.

It is entirely possible that a better designed light rail (grade-separated at the major intersections, but still with sufficient number of stops to cover the area) would result in a higher ridership than a basic-design light rail.

There is a significant end-to-end component of the potential ridership (between RER and Spadina subway on one end, and the Airport south employment cluster and Mississauga Transitway on the other end). The scale of this component is likely sensitive to the travel speed.

Yup, there are pros and cons with every option. BRT has much lower capital costs but higher operating costs in the long run to LRT.

The point of the comparison is that, we might have objective reasons besides ridership for building rapid transit on this corridor, which is a perfectly acceptable conclusion to have. Ridership is just one (rather important) measure after all.

For instance, there are time savings, but the at-grade LRT might be slower than the conventional bus route (which I believe was the reason why buses were brought up), so that is clearly a problematic design in this measure.

Another one is the end-to-end component as Rainforest was saying. Are we designing this route for people to reach the airport with their luggage painlessly? If so, time savings are not as important (people can and will plan around that) as much as comfort and not having a transfer.

The problem is that City Planning has no clear objective with what they want out of Crosstown West, and it shows in their latest reports and recommendations, and by extension, with us speculating about it in this thread. Some of their pros and cons for alternative designs seem to be about street beautification and public realm rather than about moving people.

 

[Rainforest]

Another one is the end-to-end component as Rainforest was saying. Are we designing this route for people to reach the airport with their luggage painlessly? If so, time savings are not as important (people can and will plan around that) as much as comfort and not having a transfer.

I am more concerned about the employees traveling to the job locations south of the airport.

Air travellers, at least, will have UPX as an alternative. UPX costs more, but still a small fraction of a typical air fare.

Employees can't use UPX unless their jobs located in the terminals; the south employment lands are not connected to the terminals by any usable form of transit.

The problem is that City Planning has no clear objective with what they want out of Crosstown West, and it shows in their latest reports and recommendations, and by extension, with us speculating about it in this thread. Some of their pros and cons for alternative designs seem to be about street beautification and public realm rather than about moving people.

Yes, that's an issue. There is a group in City Planning (and perhaps in the TTC as well) that is so focused on public realm and social equality that the mandate to actually move people takes a back seat for them.