[Rainforest]

One thing i've been thinking about recently is how overloaded to surface stops will get in the future once development settles in on the eastern portion of the line. Stops like Wynford are side platforms and they are due to see massive amount of development around it.

So while the underground stations will be able to accommodate higher loads due to wide centre platforms, some of the surface stops will see loads that may just exceed their capacity. And just imagine when there are service disruptions, it's going to be entertaining to see how bad the situation will get. Sure trains will have their lengths extended, but how will the surface stations accommodate high pedestrian counts.

Anyways that's just food for thought, and things we'll have to be concerned about in 15-20 years.

Isn't that the opposite? Surface platforms can be expanded by reconfiguring the street. The process may be disruptive and messy, but will not cost too much.

But, how can one expand the underground platforms if the need arises?

If the worries about the ECLRT capacity are justified at all, then I would be worried about the underground sections. They are built according to certain specs and with certain usage expectations. If the actual demand greatly exceeds those expectations, there might be no practical way to dig them bigger.

Edit: our intuition may be misleading us. We are used to seeing high capacity on underground transit (subways) and lower capacity on surface transit. It is easy to forget that subways have high capacity because they are built with that capacity in mind.

 

[zang]

Again, getting hung up on language. Rapid is not an absolute term, it's a relative one.

Will it be faster that the bus route that it is replacing? Yes. Will it be faster than a car? Maybe. It probably depends on the time of day and traffic conditions.

Dan

Comparisons to cars need to stop in general. We shouldn’t be asking “is this faster than a car?”; it should be about whether it moves a lot of people efficiently. There will always be those who feel it’s their right to drive as fast as they want, and some who out of spite will intentionally drive faster than the LRT.

The benefit of moving drivers onto fast transit means those “you’ll take the keys from my cold dead hands”-types will eventually have less traffic and get to drive faster anyway. One can just hope that speed/stop light cameras get more commonplace as an ancillary to the crosstown.

 

[drum118]

Don't worry in 20 years a new mayor will talk about converting the line to a proper subway and it'll be closed for 10 years.

It will be far longer than that if the existing underground stations can be expanded to 600'. If you are only remaining as current platform length, it will be less than that as the surface section would have to be place underground and the ramps to those surface underground stations removed. You have 2 options for the new underground section as either cut and fill or TBM and then build the stations. You have 2 creeks/rivers to go under that are very close to existing ramps that will be a major issue.

Only the section from Laird to Kennedy will have to be close with the rest of the line remaining in service.

Taking it one step further, you can reduce the closure time as well reduce cost by elevating the surface section. With protection in place, you can build the elevated section while the surface section is still operating and then been close to make the connections from the underground to the elevation line as well connections from the elevated stations to the current stations

 

[ARG1]

Isn't that the opposite? Surface platforms can be expanded by reconfiguring the street. The process may be disruptive and messy, but will not cost too much.

But, how can one expand the underground platforms if the need arises?

If the worries about the ECLRT capacity are justified at all, then I would be worried about the underground sections. They are built according to certain specs and with certain usage expectations. If the actual demand greatly exceeds those expectations, there might be no practical way to dig them bigger.

Edit: our intuition may be misleading us. We are used to seeing high capacity on underground transit (subways) and lower capacity on surface transit. It is easy to forget that subways have high capacity because they are built with that capacity in mind.

Hypothetically you can significantly increase headways with a fully grade separated line, something that isn't possible on the surface section. Full grade separation with (maybe?) improved signalling will signal a massive capacity boost without the need of any form of platform extensions.

 

[Dan416]

Comparisons to cars need to stop in general. We shouldn’t be asking “is this faster than a car?”; it should be about whether it moves a lot of people efficiently. There will always be those who feel it’s their right to drive as fast as they want, and some who out of spite will intentionally drive faster than the LRT.

The benefit of moving drivers onto fast transit means those “you’ll take the keys from my cold dead hands”-types will eventually have less traffic and get to drive faster anyway. One can just hope that speed/stop light cameras get more commonplace as an ancillary to the crosstown.

The comparison to the car will never stop. People still drive along the QEW/Gardiner even though the Lakeshore line exists. And people who have a car will look at the amount of time a trip will take by car.

I take GO transit all the time. But I'm still driving all the time, to get groceries, visit my parents, etc. But I walk where possible, e.g. to Square One to go to the gym, etc.

Personally I think the speed of the Eglinton line IS important. And I find the idea that the speed of the transit doesn't to be self defeating.

Of course a subway will never be faster than the car off peak. But during peak congestion hours, I think at a minimum, a comparable trip along the same route SHOULD be faster by something like the Eglinton line. The biggest problem is most people's origins and destinations won't be directly on the same LRT or subway route.

I don't think speed should be the ONLY factor, but it should be an important factor, and for most of the line I think they did reach a good balance of stops/stations. I do think in the east end they went overboard with the stops, but I'm not really familiar with the area so I can't really say for sure.

 

[Rainforest]

Hypothetically you can significantly increase headways with a fully grade separated line, something that isn't possible on the surface section. Full grade separation with (maybe?) improved signalling will signal a massive capacity boost without the need of any form of platform extensions.

There are multiple limits in the system. Some are based on the train capacity and frequency, some on the stations design.

We might reach such a frequency that the trains can carry all passengers who want a ride, but the stairs / escalators at the key interchanges (Yonge, Allen Rd, Science Centre) cannot handle the flow.

I don't know the capacity limit for each design element. Generally, all design elements are roughly consistent, no point to oversize one. Thus if the demand greatly exceeds the design expectations, then any element might become the bottleneck.

 

[crs1026]

Maybe someone with a better calculator than mine can calculate for us. What is the elapsed time between platforms spaced a typical distance apart for a Flexity tram that accelerates to a top speed of 80 km/h versus a top speed of 50-60 km/h ?

My bet is - maybe a few seconds' difference.

The issue for the Crosstown is not whether the trams move quickly. The issue is how much the traffic signalling will delay them. And how much of that type of delay is placed in the schedule.

- Paul

 

[Voltz]

Here we go....

We were promised rapid transit.

Billions of dollars and over a decade of construction, for this?

We could have built a subway with the amount of time & money we spent constructing this LRT.

We would be lucky if an Eglinton subway made it east of Yonge in the current round of construction, and it would never go east of Don Mills,

 

[Rainforest]

I don't think speed should be the ONLY factor, but it should be an important factor, and for most of the line I think they did reach a good balance of stops/stations. I do think in the east end they went overboard with the stops, but I'm not really familiar with the area so I can't really say for sure.

They want to build a sea of highrises in that area. To attract more residents to transit, they want an LRT stop within a walking distance from the entrances. Kind of reasonable.

Eglinton will be OK in terms of speed. Even if the eastern section disappoints, that line has a long tunnel in the center and the west end. Thus, the combined travel time will be still good, and a lot better than the notoriously slow Eglionton bus.

I am more worried about the speed of Finch line. It is almost entirely on surface, no tunnels for a speed boost. IMO, it doesn't need to be as fast as a car, but it needs to offer a noticeable speed improvement over the bus in order for the riders / general public to desire more LRTs built.

 

[crs1026]

I am more worried about the speed of Finch line. It is almost entirely on surface, no tunnels for a speed boost. IMO, it doesn't need to be as fast as a car, but it needs to offer a noticeable speed improvement over the bus in order for the riders / general public to desire more LRTs built.

My theory would be that an LRT that represents a heated, air conditioned vehicle that rides smoothly, arrives promptly and reliably, and offers some improvement in personal space will be welcomed by those accustomed to the bus, regardless of its speed.

A crowded bus which pitches standees around every time the car ahead slows to make a right turn, lurches over potholes, and stops more frequently pales in comparison.

When I have paced LRT's on Eglinton by car, the leading reason I fall behind is a transit bus making its stops.

I'm pretty confident the LRT will be seen as an improvement. But slow pace imposed by a lax schedule, and forcing operators to dog it to not get ahead of schedule, will not be attractive, sure.

- Paul

 

[Rainforest]

Maybe someone with a better calculator than mine can calculate for us. What is the elapsed time between platforms spaced a typical distance apart for a Flexity tram that accelerates to a top speed of 80 km/h versus a top speed of 50-60 km/h ?

My bet is - maybe a few seconds' difference.

The issue for the Crosstown is not whether the trams move quickly. The issue is how much the traffic signalling will delay them. And how much of that type of delay is placed in the schedule.

- Paul

Depends on the acceptable acceleration .. if we assume 0.2 g (= 2 m/s^^2), then:
80 kph = 22.2 m/s, can be reached in 11.1 s
60 kph = 16.7 m/s, can be reached in 8.4 s

 

[crs1026]

Depends on the acceptable acceleration .. if we assume 0.2 g (= 2 m/s^^2), then:
80 kph = 22.2 m/s, can be reached in 11.1 s
60 kph = 16.7 m/s, can be reached in 8.4 s

So, assuming the same rate of deceleration, and two stops 800 m apart....with no traffic light restrictions.....

80 km/h -
11.1 seconds to accelerate to top speed = 247m
13.8 seconds to travel 307 m at top speed
11.1 seconds to decelerate = 247m
Total - 36.0 seconds

60 km/h
8.4 seconds to accelerate to top speed - 140m
31.2 seconds to travel 520 m at top speed
8.4 seconds to decelerate - 140m
Total - 48.0 seconds

We are debating about 12 seconds per stop? The escalator to the subway level takes longer than that....

Please check my math

- Paul

 

[Rainforest]

My theory would be that an LRT that represents a heated, air conditioned vehicle that rides smoothly, arrives promptly and reliably, and offers some improvement in personal space will be welcomed by those accustomed to the bus, regardless of its speed.

A crowded bus which pitches standees around every time the car ahead slows to make a right turn, lurches over potholes, and stops more frequently pales in comparison.

When I have paced LRT's on Eglinton by car, the leading reason I fall behind is a transit bus making its stops.

I'm pretty confident the LRT will be seen as an improvement. But slow pace imposed by a lax schedule, and forcing drivers to dog it to not get ahead of schedule, will not be attractive, sure.

- Paul

I've rode TTC buses many thousand times, and TTC streetcars a few hundred times. Personally, I did not notice a huge difference in comfort.

The buses are usually warm enough in winter, and not too hot in summer. In terms of reliability, Queen and Dundas streetcar routes used to be worse than most of bus routes (not sure if this is still the case post-covid).

Reliability is independent on the vehicle type, it is greatly improved by dedicated lanes (which can be either LRT or BRT), otherwise depends on the active line management. Crowding can occur everywhere, I've been on crowded streetcars and subways countless times.

The only inherent advantage of a streetcar is a smoother ride, steel wheels vs rubber. But given that it costs a few billions to install a fully on-surface LRT on any long street - is the smooth ride alone worth the cost, or should a dedicated BRT for 1/3 of the cost be choosen.

Let's see what happens when Finch LRT is completed. I still hope it can operate at a decent speed (consistent with the early forecasts). If it does ~23 kph average, good enough. If it does 25, great.

But if it only manages 20 kph, or worse 18 kph just like the bus average - people will question whether a pair of BRT lanes was a better choice.

Edit: LRT must run faster than a mixed-traffic bus, because the LRT has 2 advantages by design: not sharing the lanes with cars, and having a wider stop spacing. So, if it LRT is not running faster, that doesn't necessarily mean LRT is a bad idea, but it certainly means the LRT operational practices have to be scrutinized.

 

[Rainforest]

So, assuming the same rate of deceleration, and two stops 800 m apart....with no traffic light restrictions.....

80 km/h -
11.1 seconds to accelerate to top speed = 247m
13.8 seconds to travel 307 m at top speed
11.1 seconds to decelerate = 247m
Total - 36.0 seconds

60 km/h
8.4 seconds to accelerate to top speed - 140m
31.2 seconds to travel 520 m at top speed
8.4 seconds to decelerate - 140m
Total - 48.0 seconds

We are debating about 12 seconds per stop? the escalator to the subway level takes longer than that....

Please check my math

- Paul

I think that's correct. If the above scenario, ~ 60 kph top speed is sufficient, no much use going above that.

It would more useful to attempt a "smart" transit priority, that extends or shortens the transit phases in order to reduce the chance that the LRV has to wait at the traffic light.

 

[zang]

I've rode TTC buses many thousand times, and TTC streetcars a few hundred times. Personally, I did not notice a huge difference in comfort.

TTC bus drivers (IME) tend to be more considerate with the braking and acceleration. I've been (in very minor ways) hurt riding MiWay buses. Not sure what's up with that agency, but they put some real heavy-footed drivers behind the wheel. That includes on the TransitWay. If you like getting thrown around, MiWay's the way; bonus injuries if it's a flexi-bus.