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

[BurlOak]

Assuming 300 per train and maximum 40 trains per hour (90 second headway) the Canada Line will do 12,000pph. That's lower than what Eglinton would be capable of if it were to be run at the same frequency in the grade separated portion at least.

Money-wise if people want cheap, they can go cut and cover otherwise shut up about cost.

Steve Munro even recently suggested that he still has concerns that Metrolinx want to use SkyTrain technology on Eglinton - or possibly only for the SRT upgrade since they are not planned to be connected now - I could not quite interpret his comment.

http://stevemunro.ca/?p=6221&cpage=1#comments (May 8, 2012 at 1:16 pm)

I would say that the boat on this has long past. If Metrolinx really wanted this, it could have been done when the Ford Memo was in place and the shorter shutdown of the SRT would have been an additional selling point. Since Metrolinx was quiet as a mouse at that time, I suspect they are committed to LRT.

 

[unimaginative2]

Yes, that's about what I reckon the ultimate maximum is as well, close to 15,000. Not that fat though ... and it is narrow than a Toronto subway car, which is about 15 cm wider, at 3.15 m. Eglinton cars are 2.65 m - 35 cm narrower than Canada Line.

Much lower capacity on Canada Line compared to a subway. 1/3 the length gives you 1/3 the capacity.

Yes, but the capacity of a subway is completely irrelevant: the Canada Line is higher or comparable to the capacity of the Eglinton line, and it's fully grade-separated to boot. And it's less than half the price.

 

[Hipster Duck]

To what extent does the Eglinton line's high price tag come from the number of underground stations? Surely some of them (eg. Oakwood and Chaplin, possibly Laird) could be axed. It wouldn't provide a perfect substitute for the local bus services, but it would probably save hundreds of millions.

 

[datamouse]

I can only assume that if in all the years ICTS technology has been around they haven't developed a solution to the snow problems there's no way Metrolinx would touch the tech for Toronto. It's a shame really as the technology is good, just not for the province that developed it.

 

[snowystar]

I can only assume that if in all the years ICTS technology has been around they haven't developed a solution to the snow problems there's no way Metrolinx would touch the tech for Toronto. It's a shame really as the technology is good, just not for the province that developed it.

As far as I remember, there isn't much problem in Vancouver due to snow (and yes, it does snow in Vancouver - a couple years back Vancouver received well over 1 metre of snow within a span of about 10 days). The most common issues with the system during winter weather are actually:
1. Door freeze over
2. Freezing rain on SkyBridge causing track and switch to freeze over
3. Trees fall onto track due to the weight of snow
4. Weight of snow set off guide way intrusion system

Problem 1 and 2 would occur in any above-ground system, and they are reducing the chance of happening by de-icing at stations and install switch heater. Problem 3 occurs at the at-grade or trenched sections of the track, and many of the trees has since being cut down. Problem 4 is due to automation, not LIM itself, and they can run the train manually during bad weather as a workaround for this issue.

 

[nfitz]

Yes, but the capacity of a subway is completely irrelevant: the Canada Line is higher or comparable to the capacity of the Eglinton line, and it's fully grade-separated to boot.

Then why does the Gilbert article say differently?

 

[smallspy]

BTW - why is the Caledonia station so deep? Is that to avoid interference with the GO line (but even then, the separation look excessive)? It seems deeper than it needs to be. That secondary entrance should be downgraded to an emergency exit.

Geography. The station is on a hillside, with Keele to the west at a considerably lower elevation.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Thoughtless Miscreant]

To what extent does the Eglinton line's high price tag come from the number of underground stations? Surely some of them (eg. Oakwood and Chaplin, possibly Laird) could be axed. It wouldn't provide a perfect substitute for the local bus services, but it would probably save hundreds of millions.

"Wouldn't provide a perfect substitute" is an understatement. Take out Laird station and you're looking at 2.3km between Bayview and Leslie, with an uphill stretch both ways in between. The hilly 1.3km between Avenue and Bathurst ain't pretty either.

At a certain point people have to be able to walk to the station. The spacing on the central section of Eglinton is already wider than on the equivalent section of Bloor. If it gets much wider it just won't be useful for local service at all.

 

[Ansem]

"Wouldn't provide a perfect substitute" is an understatement. Take out Laird station and you're looking at 2.3km between Bayview and Leslie, with an uphill stretch both ways in between. The hilly 1.3km between Avenue and Bathurst ain't pretty either.

At a certain point people have to be able to walk to the station. The spacing on the central section of Eglinton is already wider than on the equivalent section of Bloor. If it gets much wider it just won't be useful for local service at all.

They should run a bus service every 30 minutes like the Yonge bus. At that price (250/KM) you want that line to be as fast as possible.

Drop oakwood, Chaplin and Laird

 

[nfitz]

They should run a bus service every 30 minutes like the Yonge bus.

That section between Eglinton and York Mills? Yonge bus runs every 15-minutes off-peak on a Sunday! Surely this should be avoided.

Easy solution for the larger gaps between Laird and Yonge is to simply keep running the Leslie bus to Eglinton station - it covers the problematic bit in the current design very well.

 

[Thoughtless Miscreant]

They should run a bus service every 30 minutes like the Yonge bus. At that price (250/KM) you want that line to be as fast as possible.

Drop oakwood, Chaplin and Laird

Who cares how fast the LRT goes if your only options for getting to a station are walking 20 minutes or waiting 30 minutes for a bus ride? The amount of speed gained would barely be noticeable for passengers, but the amount of inconvenience added for the people who actually live on the line would be massive.

Imagine for a second a Bloor Street where Runnymede and High Park didn't exist and the only transit between Jane and Keele was a bus that came twice an hour. Think of what a pain in the ass that would be!

If we're going to build this project we should build it right and put in transit that's actually convenient for the people who live and work on the corridor.

 

[Hipster Duck]

"Wouldn't provide a perfect substitute" is an understatement. Take out Laird station and you're looking at 2.3km between Bayview and Leslie, with an uphill stretch both ways in between. The hilly 1.3km between Avenue and Bathurst ain't pretty either.

At a certain point people have to be able to walk to the station. The spacing on the central section of Eglinton is already wider than on the equivalent section of Bloor. If it gets much wider it just won't be useful for local service at all.

Fair enough: Laird should probably stay.

The other two I still think are candidates for chopping. Chaplin is less obvious, but it's still a minor street with only a minor connecting surface route and almost no potential for development intensification (the property owners of Forest Hill are unlikely to allow their mansions to be redeveloped to higher density forms or other uses).

Oakwood is completely redundant. Not only is it a 5 minute walk from Eglinton West already, but the intersection of Oakwood and Eglinton will be served by a local bus, the 63, that already goes to Eglinton west subway station.

Imagine for a second a Bloor Street where Runnymede and High Park didn't exist and the only transit between Jane and Keele was a bus that came twice an hour. Think of what a pain in the ass that would be!

I see your point, but I don't think the stop-spacing on Bloor is anything we should emulate. For one, the BD was built in a different time (when you could do things like expropriate thousands of properties that are probably worth $1 million today and dig a giant trench) and place (even the urban parts of Eglinton are more suburban and dispersed in nature than Bloor). Furthermore, I think we should keep rapid transit rapid, and offer frequent, parallel bus service on the local sections. This seems to work fine on the 97 north of Eglinton, and certainly doesn't detract from the Yonge subway line's ridership and appeal.

 

[ssiguy2]

If the TTC or Metrolinx had any form of respect for the tax-weary citizens of Ontario. which they don't, the ONLY option would be to extend the SRT using SkyTrain.

SkyTrain is a proven, safe, comfortable, reliable, fast, high frequency, and efficient rapid transit system. On only has to look at Vancouver's SkyTrain to see that. It has been an incredible success and due to it's automation each trip on the Expo Line costs Translink a paultry 77 cents per rider. Considering Toronto and the TTC are always bitching about the lack of operational funding, SkyTrain is a logical choice. It is also manufactured by Bombardier which is the TTC defacto supplier and is a requirement for any funding coming from Queen's Park and everyone, including Bombardier itself, knows it.

Just because the TTC screwed up the SRT and has left it to rot has nothing to do with the technology and everyone to do with the TTC, Even the beloved Steve Munro speaks highly of the Vancouver SkyTrain system and clearly states that the reason for SkyTrain success is due to Translink and the reason for the SRT's failure is due to the TTC. It is also very reliable even in snow and it doesn't even have the heating mechanisms installed.

It is the most cost effective option for Eglinton due to the garage/maintenance centre already existing {yes it will needed to be expanded but that is far cheaper than building a brand new one}, there would be no massive funds needed to redo all the current stations which LRT will require. Remember due to the stupidity of using LRT not only will the tracks need to be replace, they will have to build all the overhead catenary wiring, and all the stations will have to have to "raise the roof" on the current SRT stations to accomodate the catenary. All this just for sake of Miller's wet dreams over LRT. All they have to do is put in the heating mechanisms, upgrade the one small section under the GO line to accomdate the new MK111 cars and problem solved.

With the hundreds of millions saved they could elevate the line from DM to Kennedy and make it one continous line, to say nothing of not having to shut down the system for years. It will also have over twice the capacity of LRT with similar sized stations due to the Eglinton line having to run at grade which essentially limits frequency to every 180 seconds per direction at the maximum. SkyTrain stations could be just 70 meters underground and still have far higher capacity than 100 meter LRT stations.

Toronto is building the most expensive LRT line on the planet yet using LRT will result in the lowest capacity and highest operational costs of any of the 4 train technologies of subway/metro, SkyTrain, LRT, or monorail.

Heads should be rolling over such an obscnely high cost line which will be the most expensive to operate and build, and be slowest and most unreliable due to running that small at grade section.

 

[car4041]

I see your point, but I don't think the stop-spacing on Bloor is anything we should emulate. [...] Furthermore, I think we should keep rapid transit rapid, and offer frequent, parallel bus service on the local sections.

You seem to be saying that the B-D line is not rapid transit. I have to disagree. I think the B-D stop spacing is ideal for the areas it runs through and would work equally well for the central section of Eglinton (much of which is not really that different from the Danforth in built form and density). The B-D stations are far enough apart that the line is reasonably quick, but close enough together that a parallel bus is not needed. Running both a subway and a frequent bus in the same corridor seems like a non-optimal duplication that we should avoid when possible, not an ideal that we should aim for. Also, it's highly unlikely that the parallel bus would actually be very frequent when most of the ridership in the corridor would be using the subway.

And in any case, I don't see how removing two stops from the Eglinton line would amount to "keeping rapid transit rapid". The increase in speed would be negligible, but the 1.3km gap between Bathurst and Avenue might be enough to force a parallel bus service that wouldn't otherwise be needed. Chaplin is a Chester-type station; it's never going to be the busiest stop on the line, but omitting it would leave a big transit black hole (with the added problem of the hills in the vicinity).

I agree that the case for Oakwood is weaker.

 

[M II A II R II K]

For Caledonia they could at least have a sidewalk entrance at the intersection and an underground path to get to the station.