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

[Rainforest]

The Expo line in Vancouver now deemed to have an ultimate capacity of 25,000-31,000 pphpd using 5-cars train with 75-93s headway. I wouldn't say it is much lower.

Yes, this is pretty close to Toronto subway's capacity. However, ICTS projects that I heard of in the Toronto context all had much lower capacity.

I suppose you can build a line that uses SkyTrain technology but aims at subway capacity. I just don't see how the SkyTrain technology will magically result in a better capacity / cost ratio than a conventional subway (which can use ATO, too).

 

[Rainforest]

Also, according to the TTC, it is going to take a truly unbelievable 5 years and $1 billion to change the SRT to LRT and a little 3 km extension. Vancouver's new 11 km Evergreen SkyTrain line which, unlike the new little extension of the SRT to Sheppard, will be totally grade separated, have large accessible stations complete with bus bays, automated, have twice the capacity, include a 1 km tunnel, and be built in 28 months is only costing $1.4 billion.

The TTC's project is actually similar in scope, cost, and duration:
- Fully grade-separated as well, and includes 1.2 km of tunnel (Centennial College to Sheppard)
- Total length about 10 km (existing SRT guideway plus extension to Sheppard)
- Bus terminal at Sheppard
- Total cost is close to 1.4 billion
- Will take 2 - 2.5 years to complete (I don't know where you got 5 years; they won't even start any work before 2015)

Actually, Metrolinx had a comparative study of the ICTS and LRT option for this corridor; ICTS actually came a tiny bit more expensive. The difference in cost is not, by itself, significant enough to switch from ICTS to LRT. But the fleet commonality benefits tipped the scale towards LRT.

 

[Paleo]

The Expo line in Vancouver now deemed to have an ultimate capacity of 25,000-31,000 pphpd using 5-cars train with 75-93s headway. I wouldn't say it is much lower.

75 seconds? Funny stuff. Toronto 6-car subway trains at that headway would theoretically have a peak line capacity of almost 53,000 pphpd.

 

[snowystar]

75 seconds? Funny stuff. Toronto 6-car subway trains at that headway would theoretically have a peak line capacity of almost 53,000 pphpd.

75 seconds is not a theoretical value for Vancouver's system - it has been done before. The minimum headway achieved on Expo Line was 77 seconds for special event service and after a service destruction. The line also ran at 80 seconds headway in peak period throughout the duration of the Olympics.

Did Toronto Subway did the same? Remember, longer train takes longer to clear a switch thus increase the minimum headway for the line. Fixed block train control system (as oppose to the moving block used in Vancouver) also sets a limit on the train headway.

 

[car4041]

75 seconds is not a theoretical value for Vancouver's system - it has been done before. The minimum headway achieved on Expo Line was 77 seconds for special event service and after a service destruction. The line also ran at 80 seconds headway in peak period throughout the duration of the Olympics.

Did Toronto Subway did the same? Remember, longer train takes longer to clear a switch thus increase the minimum headway for the line. Fixed block train control system (as oppose to the moving block used in Vancouver) also sets a limit on the train headway.

I'm not sure where we're going with this. Once the Yonge line is resignalled and extended north as planned, presumably we could (hypothetically) shorten our trains to match the length of the Expo Line trains and achieve the same possible minimum headways; conversely, if the Expo Line trains were lengthened to match our subway trains, their minimum headway would increase accordingly. Not sure how any of this says anything about the merits of either technology.

 

[blacktrojan3921]

My god when will construction start on this line? D|

 

[W. K. Lis]

My god when will construction start on this line? D|

My son, travel thee to the west end of Eglinton Avenue West, by the shores of the Black Creek. There, thy shall find construction verily has started at the east hillside towards Keele Street. For you shall find digging down in preparation for the boring machines surely has already begun even before winter even started past. Only once the shaft has finished and the base is level, only then can the boring machines begin their work going eastwards towards the rising Don River. So it has been written down in a blueprint, so it shall be done.

 

[ssiguy2]

Yes, this is pretty close to Toronto subway's capacity. However, ICTS projects that I heard of in the Toronto context all had much lower capacity.

I suppose you can build a line that uses SkyTrain technology but aims at subway capacity. I just don't see how the SkyTrain technology will magically result in a better capacity / cost ratio than a conventional subway (which can use ATO, too).

All things being equal I would agree but things are not equal.

The waste of money here is that the TTC is going to spend a fortune transfering the LRT to SRT with no benefit at all. If the entire Eglinton/SRT line was being built from sratch then I would use standard subway or monorail with the Sheppard to SM section totally grade separated using ROW and elevation. As it stands right now Toronto is spending a fortune for a system with the lowest capacity and the most expensive to build to boot.

LRT, unlike subway, SkyTrain, or monorail, will require a massive refit of all the current SRT stations because it requires a very high clearance due to the catenary lines. LRT is the worse possible technology that the TTC could have used.

 

[nfitz]

LRT is the worse possible technology that the TTC could have used.

Could be worse ... could be monorail.

 

[car4041]

As it stands right now Toronto is spending a fortune for a system with the lowest capacity and the most expensive to build to boot.

What do you mean by lowest capacity? Assuming the RT continues to operate as an independent, fully grade-separated line (as planned), why would LRT trains have a lower capacity from ICTS trains?

 

[BurlOak]

What do you mean by lowest capacity? Assuming the RT continues to operate as an independent, fully grade-separated line (as planned), why would LRT trains have a lower capacity from ICTS trains?

I am sure glad transit planner did not build Ontario freeways. We would have 401 West as it is now, then perhaps it would switch to local service through Avenue, Yonge and Bayview with traffic lights at each, and then continue as a freeway to the East. I am sure the capacity at Rouge River or 410 would be comparable to any freeway in the world.

Sorry about the sarcasm, but it seems ridiculous to build a transit line and then break it up into 4 parts (West, tunnelled, East and SRT) when it could just as easily be built as continuous. Also, some of the biggest stops are near the ends (YYZ, STC). The main thing that prevents a STC rider from going to Don Mills/Eglinton is the planned poor service on Eglinton which forces them to transfer. I guess most people who favour the median LRT for Eglinton through Scarborough are also opposed to the DRL being extended to Eglinton - otherwise I cannot understand the logic.

means that artificially forcing poor service on one section is required to p

 

[BurlOak]

80%? I think you're forgetting that this is just the first phase of the Eglinton line; Weston/Jane is a temporary western terminus, with the ultimate goal being Pearson. The benefits of grade-separating the entire line need to be calculated over the entire planned length of the line. Choosing an obligatorily grade-separated technology like SkyTrain might make the 11km extension from Jane to Pearson (through a rather low-density area) too expensive to ever justify.

Jane may well be grade separated anyways - since most other intersecting lines are (Don Mills/Eg, Kennedy/Eg, SRT/Sheppard, Finch/Keele, Don Mills/Sheppard). Farther grade separation is also likely approaching YYZ. The other thing to note is that this stretch of Eglinton is probably the easiest segemtn of a transit line that could be grade-separated in all of Toronto.

I am not sure how low the population is on Eglinton West - we were planning on building a full subway there about 15 to 20 years ago. Also, the major destination is YYZ so even if it is lower density, the line will still get use.

 

[Paleo]

I am not sure how low the population is on Eglinton West - we were planning on building a full subway there about 15 to 20 years ago. Also, the major destination is YYZ so even if it is lower density, the line will still get use.

That was a political decision not a transportation one. Eglinton west barely qualified BRT let alone subway.

 

[car4041]

Sorry about the sarcasm, but it seems ridiculous to build a transit line and then break it up into 4 parts (West, tunnelled, East and SRT) when it could just as easily be built as continuous. Also, some of the biggest stops are near the ends (YYZ, STC).

Except for the SRT, it will be continuous. Just because it's not all grade-separated doesn't mean it's not continuous. And it couldn't "just as easily" be all grade-separated -- it would take much greater expense, so much that it would probably never happen at all.

The main thing that prevents a STC rider from going to Don Mills/Eglinton is the planned poor service on Eglinton which forces them to transfer.

I really don't think 2-car LRV trains running at 6-minute headways in a dedicated right-of-way leading to a tunnel can be considered "poor service". OK, it's not *quite* subway-level service, but the Danforth subway is already there and has plenty of capacity, so I'm not sure why diverting riders from it should be a priority.

I am not sure how low the population is on Eglinton West - we were planning on building a full subway there about 15 to 20 years ago.

The original Network 2011 plan was for a busway. It only became a subway for political reasons ("North York is getting a subway so we should too"). And like North York's subway, only a stub was planned to be built: from the Allen to Black Creek. It wouldn't exactly have been the most useful subway around. IMO the Transit City line is a far superior plan.

 

[Rainforest]

The waste of money here is that the TTC is going to spend a fortune transfering the LRT to SRT with no benefit at all. If the entire Eglinton/SRT line was being built from sratch then I would use standard subway or monorail with the Sheppard to SM section totally grade separated using ROW and elevation. As it stands right now Toronto is spending a fortune for a system with the lowest capacity and the most expensive to build to boot.

The SRT-to-LRT conversion does not make the project more expensive (although it might increase the construction time).

I found the link to Metrolinx's 2009 study; Option 1 is ALRT (=ICTS); Option 3 is fully grade-separate LRT on the same alignment (essentially, the current plan).

The table on Page 4 shows that Option 1 costs slightly more (not less) than Option 3.