[reaperexpress]

Isn't there a speed limit through intersections though? I thought someone mentioned that. I suppose the stops on either side would prevent higher speeds in any case. But if they ever wanted to eliminate the Aga Khan Museum stop, as some here have suggested, or expand automatic train control, wouldn't the intersections be a limiting factor?

The speed limit is mostly irrelevant to the question of whether LRVs can receive priority at signals. Obviously it's annoying to have those speed restrictions (and we should work to remove them), but they don't hinder your ability to operate signal priority effectively.

With lower speeds, you need a longer red clearance time, but then you don't need the yellow light to be as long. So the speed limit definitely does reduce green time for the LRV, but it's not by that much.

 

[Sauga89]

The speed limit is mostly irrelevant to the question of whether LRVs can receive priority at signals. Obviously it's annoying to have those speed restrictions (and we should work to remove them), but they don't hinder your ability to operate signal priority effectively.

When you say we should work to remove them, do you mean we should work to eliminate at-grade crossings on the line? Or that the TTC/Metrolinx should not be imposing speed limits at intersections?

If it's the former, then this is what Rupasinghe was talking about. If it takes the same time to get onto Eglinton eastbound from the DVP whether you get off at Wynford or Eglinton, then the southbound off-ramp light at Eglinton would be a touch redundant if Aga Khan station closed.

If you mean the latter, aren't intersections still an issue for automatic train control? Reliability issues come to mind as well. What happens when someone runs a red and collides with a train at rush hour?

I was thinking that instead of a clover leaf design (for which there are safety concerns), it might not be too expensive to elevate the northbound off-ramp over both Eglinton and the DVP. Preventing left turns on the southbound ramp by diverting traffic to the Wynford exit would free up a lane on the existing southbound off-ramp. That lane could then be used as a new northbound off-ramp.

 

[reaperexpress]

When you say we should work to remove them, do you mean we should work to eliminate at-grade crossings on the line? Or that the TTC/Metrolinx should not be imposing speed limits at intersections?

If it's the former, then this is what Rupasinghe was talking about. If it takes the same time to get onto Eglinton eastbound from the DVP whether you get off at Wynford or Eglinton, then the southbound off-ramp light at Eglinton would be a touch redundant if Aga Khan station closed.

If you mean the latter, aren't intersections still an issue for automatic train control? Reliability issues come to mind as well. What happens when someone runs a red and collides with a train at rush hour?

I was thinking that instead of a clover leaf design (for which there are safety concerns), it might not be too expensive to elevate the northbound off-ramp over both Eglinton and the DVP. Preventing left turns on the southbound ramp by diverting traffic to the Wynford exit would free up a lane on the existing southbound off-ramp. That lane could then be used as a new northbound off-ramp.

View attachment 714400

We should remove the speed restrictions so trains can travel through the existing intersection configuration at 60 km/h. Why would we spend millions of dollars in infrastructure construction when we could achieve the same results using signal programming and a change in TTC policy?

I strongly support infrastructure solutions in places where signal timing is running up against a major constraint, like at Vic Park / O'Connor / Pharmacy. I'm just pointing out that the DVP ramps are not a place where signal timing is particularly constrained. In fact the east DVP intersection is probably the least constrained signal timing along the entire line, thanks to the lack of pedestrians and the very simple signal phasing.

 

[lastcommodore]

With the cost to date of $9.3 billion for Line 5, and $2.9 billion for line 6, the cost is about a third of that of subway, not half (yeah, even when you correct for the length of surface vs underground and the line lengths - two equations two unknowns).

And that's just the construction. The long-term O&M (not including TTC operations cost) is closer to one-quarter.

Meanwhile the 18-km Mississauga transitway cost $600 million a decade ago. And about a decade ago the 19-km Waterloo ION LRT cost $820 million.

Perhaps it's not as simple as BRT is 1/10th the cost of an LRT. Perhaps you mean applying red paint on roadways?

Costs have been mentioned. I feel called upon to be annoying.

In terms of raw cost, the cited numbers for 5 and 6 is 9300m and 2900m, however accounting for inflation I put these at 11200m and 3100m respectively.
Thus, per km, we get ~600m/km for 5 and ~300m/km for 6. Assuming the 7 km of on-street section of 5 was built at the cost of 6, the on-street section cost 2100m to construct, and the underground 9100m, for an underground cost of 750m/km, or 2.5x 6FW.

I would also caution "Well, this shows that on-street LRT is definitely 2.5x cheaper than subway," because the 6FW was drastically more expensive than it should be. 10 Hurontario, ION Cambridge, and Hamilton LRT are all set to be cheaper than 6fw (Fingers crossed!), and 5 also had its finaegering wrt to costs.

The Mississauga Transitway and ION are a bit more interesting, and are hard to compare for costs due to reused ROWs which is rare in Toronto. MT excluding the highway/reused is 10.3km total for ~65m/km, and ION including the reused rail ROW is 58m/km. Again I would not read into these numbers too much because they are whole different beasts- the MT is a whole new ROW while the ION reuses existing streets and old rail ROW.
A bit more fair of a comparison would be Viva, which was 67m/km of dedicated BRT, and the planned ION Cambridge which is estimated to be ~200m/km.

A final TL;DR on my thoughts wrt to prices for solutions, in the current context of Toronto: Median BRT is ~70m/km, LRT is ~200-300m/km, and I can't say I have any good data on subways/grade separated- but I think 700m/km is a reasonable lower bound, and the recent subway projects in Toronto are set to be far higher to the potential bn/kms.

 

[81-717]

Metrolinx is responsible for the cost of net new trains for SSE, 7 of them. These are currently structured as an optional add-on to the TTC Line 2 train contracts along with 7 trains for the YNSE. I assume they are in the Mx budget, but I don't know that.

Hopefully the contract for the main batch has been awarded by now, which I would assume is the case, judging by this, though last I heard at the beginning of the year it was still "in negotiation".

 

[GenerationLee]

On Monday, there was a man waiting for the 32D Eglinton West bus on Emmett Avenue. Had to tell him that the 32D is dead, kaput, gone, no longer in service, replaced by the 73B (and Line 5), etc..

Later in the day during rush hour, also noticed people waiting on Eglinton Avenue for a bus that comes every 10 to 20 minutes as the 34 Eglinton. Don't people listen or watch the news? Don't people read the notices at the bus stops?

Well, its out of instinct for many of us. I'm still going to take a bus on Eglinton over the Crosstown, simply because its faster to get to the subway (8/10 times) than going down the escalators, getting to a train, and finding the right escalator up to train level.
Once the Shuttle bus is gone, I'll probably be more keen on taking the Crosstown, but in general, this is going to be a big adjustment period for lots of people.

Like, technically its less convenient for to get to Leslie or Donlands station now that the 56 is gone, and I gotta walk to a station, take a train, tgen a bus to either destination - but for most people, this isnt a problem as thry dont live along Eglinton.

 

[JSF-1]

I come baring some gifts. I went down to the reference library today to get some info on the Eglinton West Subway line for my video on the Eglinton Crosstown and thought I would share some of my findings. I will first start with something that blew my mind when I read it. These are from reports from 1984 and 1985, take a read...

 

[A 6264]

Folks... anyone suggesting that the city should build fly-overs or fly-unders at intersections would be better served spending their time making imaginary transit maps or cardboard WWF championship belts. It's all ridiculous. Just thank your lucky stars it's faster than Line 6. None of these intersections are going to be reconfigured. Put away the wacky tobacy.

I completely agree. Even during construction, and in the last 5 years when construction was essentially completed and we were down to tweaking and testing, this forum has been swamped with posters insisting that certain stations need to be added or removed, intersections need to be redesigned, the above-ground section needs to be torn out and changed to underground or elevated, etc. And the same thing on Line 6's forum. It's all very well to say, they should have done this or that. But to think it's viable to make major changes when we're having such a big issue just to get the darn lines open, is crazy. We can learn from our mistakes and do better when we build future lines, but that's it. What's been built is going to stay as it is. Even if it's not ideal, it's good enough, and what we have is how it will be for many years to come. It's not a problem.

The only historical exception I can think of, is that when University, Bloor and Danforth subways were built, the TTC had no idea what the lines should be, and were still experimenting after they opened. When they figured it out, they had a white elephant lower Bay platform that was only used for a few months. Also, when Yonge subway was extended, some complained the stations were too far apart, and a few decades later the TTC agreed and one station was added between 2 others.

 

[reaperexpress]

Folks... anyone suggesting that the city should build fly-overs or fly-unders at intersections would be better served spending their time making imaginary transit maps or cardboard WWF championship belts. It's all ridiculous. Just thank your lucky stars it's faster than Line 6. None of these intersections are going to be reconfigured. Put away the wacky tobacy.

Spoken like someone who has never seen a modern light rail line anywhere other than Toronto. Calgary, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Seattle, they all use grade separations at major intersections.

Ultimately when we're saying "X intersection should have had a flyover/flyunder" the purpose is to highlight lessons learned for future lines.

If we pretend that the existing line is above criticisms because it exists, we are doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes.

 

[JSF-1]

This next post is just a couple of maps:

 

[JSF-1]

Some more maps and station diagrams (for the busway which would be converted to LRT

):

 

[JSF-1]

Here are the route alignment plates from the 1980's:

 

[JSF-1]

Finally these images are from a 1992 report as part of the "Let's Move" plan

 

[A 6264]

Here are the route alignment plates from the 1980's:

Thanks for posting all that. When they showed diagrams of intersections, my first thought was, I'd love to see if they have a suggestion for Eglinton and Leslie! But it was really about the west end (Etobicoke) primarily.

 

[A 6264]

Spoken like someone who has never seen a modern light rail line anywhere other than Toronto. Calgary, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Seattle, they all use grade separations at major intersections.

Ultimately when we're saying "X intersection should have had a flyover/flyunder" the purpose is to highlight lessons learned for future lines.

If we pretend that the existing line is above criticisms because it exists, we are doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes.

Sometimes I think several of us are in agreement, and only think we're disagreeing with each other.