[Steve X]

If City Planning and Metrolinx really want this thing built, they'll modify the crosstown schedule such that the Crosstown West construction starts at Renforh, and Crosstown East (Kennedy to UTSC) will start at UTSC, both starting at end-of-year 2017. That'll thwart any efforts to cancel after the 2018 provincial and 2018 municipal elections.

It's not that easy to start before 2018. The EA amendment is not the problem if council cooperates. Metrolinx proposed two amendments before they started construction, one for the the elevated alignment over Black Creek and another to extend the tunnel to Don Mills. Only one got through. They also completed the design for Kennedy Station.

The bidding and tendering process takes much longer. The Crosstown LRT when through a year long phase to request for qualifications. (Finch West LRT is still in this stage). To get a competitive price, they'll have to do this again. Otherwise they can hand the extension to the current consortium since they will be maintaining the LRVs and carhouse for the next 30 years. There isn't a lot of time for Metrolinx to re-evaluate both Crosstown West and East, have open houses and complete the EA amendments by the end of the year. Then gather the funds and tender the project out by end of 2017. It takes months for the consortium to design the alignment and schedule the construction timeline. Getting the contract in by early 2018 is really tight. If they can get it though, a 2021/2022 opening is possible.

The EA only accounts for 10-30% of the design work. The consortium bidding for it still has to do the majority of the design before they get the project which takes time.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Crosstown West and East are being reviewed and potentially redesigned. That might necessitate a new EA. Transit EA's typically take about 6 to 8 months, though I'd expect any Crosstown West and Crosstown East EA revisions to not take as long, since they're redesigning only parts of the line.

This would be an 'addendum'; a revision to an existing EA. This would take minimal time once a design is decided upon.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Quick question about the capacity of the Eglinton Line:

Eglinton Line's claims capacity is 15,000 pphpd. This is with (40 trains/hour)(3 cars/train)*(130 passengers*car)

40 trains/hour * 130 passengers/car * 3 cars = 15,600 passengers per hour at peak point

The problem with this is that it seems to assume that we're 3 using Flexity Freedom cars coupled together. This setup has quite a bit of "dead space" between the cars, because between each car would be the couplers and two compartments for drivers. Wouldn't a single, long articulated train (similar to the TR's) allow Eglinton to have significantly higher capacity than 15,600 pphpd?

 

[rbt]

The problem with this is that it seems to assume that we're 3 using Flexity Freedom cars coupled together. This setup has quite a bit of "dead space" between the cars, because between each car would be the couplers and two compartments for drivers. Wouldn't a single, long articulated train (similar to the TR's) allow Eglinton to have significantly higher capacity than 15,600 pphpd?

Yes. A few modifications may be made to boost capacity of Eglinton.

Out of the gate I would expect Eglinton frequencies to be restricted to prevent overloading Yonge. We cannot put an additional 30kpph onto Southbound Yonge (15k from East Eglinton and 15k from West Eglinton).

Ultimately, for Eglinton capacity to be an issue there needs to be a few hundred thousand people going to destinations on Eglinton during morning rush. That's not going to happen during the first decade, and probably not the second or 3rd decade either.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

They're projecting 5,600 approaching Yonge. Capacity won't be an issue for several decades.

 

[crs1026]

Out of the gate I would expect Eglinton frequencies to be restricted to prevent overloading Yonge. We cannot put an additional 30kpph onto Southbound Yonge (15k from East Eglinton and 15k from West Eglinton).

I would hate to see that happen. All we need is a mixed message where we don't welcome every transit rider out there. Eglinton capacity needs to be kept comfortably above demand.

The fact that it's even floated as a potential scenario is another argument to get the DRL moving.

- Paul

 

[Steve X]

There is no way they can get 40 trains/hour through Eglinton Station. 34 is a more realistic number for ATO. The Crush load for the Flexity Freedom is 251. 130 is TTC's number for comfort. Metrolinx used a higher number in it's calculation. It would be nicer if they got the longer LRVs that Edmonton and Ottawa are getting. If we get the 45m LRVs instead of the current 30m LRVs, then we remove some space. On the maintenance side, the facility is designed for 30m LRVs so it's no possible to change to a TR design since trains that long don't fit in the yard.

I would hate to see that happen. All we need is a mixed message where we don't welcome every transit rider out there. Eglinton capacity needs to be kept comfortably above demand.

The fact that it's even floated as a potential scenario is another argument to get the DRL moving.

- Paul

If we keep building transit, this won't happen. Bloor-Yonge is a good demonstration of not building new rapid transit in 3 decades.

 

[nfitz]

There is no way they can get 40 trains/hour through Eglinton Station. 34 is a more realistic number for ATO. The Crush load for the Flexity Freedom is 251. 130 is TTC's number for comfort.

There is no way one can get 250 on a Flexity. That's like 125 in the half-length CLRVs. Stand there when a CLRV is crush loaded, with people standing on all the steps, and it's going to be no more than about 80.

Any more than that, and you have people sitting on laps, and everyone else wearing a baby carrier.

Yes, Bombardier has published that number; but it's clearly absurd.

130 isn't comfort. 130 is squishy, and starting to slow down access/egress.

 

[Steve X]

There is no way one can get 250 on a Flexity. That's like 125 in the half-length CLRVs. Stand there when a CLRV is crush loaded, with people standing on all the steps, and it's going to be no more than about 80.

Any more than that, and you have people sitting on laps, and everyone else wearing a baby carrier.

Yes, Bombardier has published that number; but it's clearly absurd.

130 isn't comfort. 130 is squishy, and starting to slow down access/egress.

Shhh Metrolinx doesn't know that 130 is squishy when Bombardier published 251. At 15000pph with 34 trains (about 105 second headway), it would be 147 riders per car.

Bombardier's number is for in shape passengers in summer wear with no carry-on/strollers only.

 

[Markster]

If we keep building transit, this won't happen. Bloor-Yonge is a good demonstration of not building new rapid transit in 3 decades.

Yeah, the DRL is not just the Yonge relief line. It's also the Bloor Relief Line and the Eglinton Relief Line too!

If Eglinton is ever approaching capacity, then look at where the riders are coming from and going to, and give them an alternate way of getting there! Downtown bound people should eventually be transferring at the closest GO station to frequent GO service. Build rapid transit on Lawrence to intercept connecting buses sooner. Etc, etc, etc...

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yeah, the DRL is not just the Yonge relief line. It's also the Bloor Relief Line and the Eglinton Relief Line too!

If Eglinton is ever approaching capacity, then look at where the riders are coming from and going to, and give them an alternate way of getting there! Downtown bound people should eventually be transferring at the closest GO station to frequent GO service. Build rapid transit on Lawrence to intercept connecting buses sooner. Etc, etc, etc...

Not just that - but King and Queen Streetcar RL. Those two are maxed out.

AoD

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

They can move the cars around to the Finch West or Sheppard East LRTs, and replace the Eglinton cars with cars that have more segments.

`

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Meanwhile, for next weekend, February 19 to 21:

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Demolition for Forest Hill Station. From link.

• Four commercial and residential properties along the Eglinton Avenue West corridor will be demolished to make way for the construction of Forest Hill Station
• The properties are located at 842, 870, 874, 875 and876 Eglinton Avenue West
• The plaza at 876 Eglinton Avenue West will be demolished to provide a work site for workers. This property will not be part of the future Forest Hill LRT Station.
• For safety purposes, temporary fencing will be installed around each demolition site
• Demolition works will last for approximately three months, and are expected to begin as early as late-February 2016, subject to all relevant approvals
• Demolition works will take place between the hours of 7 AM and 5 PM

- See more at: http://www.thecrosstown.ca/news-med...ormerly-bathurst-station#sthash.0q1J5Fxw.dpuf

 

[Palma]

Why is the LRT now blue? First they were red, then green and now the photo posted above shows blue. Are we heading back to red?