[andrewpmk]

That massive station in Edmonton is connected to a bus terminal, and the structure would be a bit excessive for any location along that part of Eglinton East.

If Kennedy or Don Mills stations were above ground, the design you mentioned would be suitable for them. But they will be underground.

The capacity issue can be solved by short-turning 1/2 of trains at Don Mills, where the tunneled section ends.

Ferrand is too close to Don Mills and shoehorning the tunnel portal between the two stations means that there is no room for tail tracks east of Don Mills, which would make short turning easier to manage. It ought to be eliminated, as should Lebovic and Ionview. Eglinton is intended to be a high capacity, "express" light rail line, not a slower local light rail line like St. Clair.

Quite a few of the Calgary and Edmonton stations have pedestrian bridges. These should be seriously considered at Victoria Park and Warden stations. At a busy station this improves passenger flow during rush hours. Almost all the stations (other than the downtown section in Calgary) have fairly large platforms, not the tiny islands like St. Clair and Spadina. These small islands are fine for a tram line operating in a single vehicle configuration (like St. Clair), but might get overcrowded in rush hour at some of the busier stops on Eglinton.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

That massive station in Edmonton is connected to a bus terminal, and the structure would be a bit excessive for any location along that part of Eglinton East.

If Kennedy or Don Mills stations were above ground, the design you mentioned would be suitable for them. But they will be underground.

The capacity issue can be solved by short-turning 1/2 of trains at Don Mills, where the tunneled section ends.

Ferrand is too close to Don Mills and shoehorning the tunnel portal between the two stations means that there is no room for tail tracks east of Don Mills, which would make short turning easier to manage. It ought to be eliminated, as should Lebovic and Ionview. Eglinton is intended to be a high capacity, "express" light rail line, not a slower local light rail line like St. Clair.

Quite a few of the Calgary and Edmonton stations have pedestrian bridges. These should be seriously considered at Victoria Park and Warden stations. At a busy station this improves passenger flow during rush hours. Almost all the stations (other than the downtown section in Calgary) have fairly large platforms, not the tiny islands like St. Clair and Spadina. These small islands are fine for a tram line operating in a single vehicle configuration (like St. Clair), but might get overcrowded in rush hour at some of the busier stops on Eglinton.

The current specs call for 3000 mm wide stop platforms, minimum. Narrower by about 300 mm than a typical suburban traffic lane (3300 mm) along Eglinton.

 

[gweed123]

The current specs call for 3000 mm wide stop platforms, minimum. Narrower by about 300 mm than a typical suburban traffic lane (3300 mm) along Eglinton.

You have to wonder how much the City could do with the extra couple of metres if they did a 4m central platform instead. I mean, I can understand side platforms for streetcars, because the vehicles only have doors on 1 side. But if you have dual doors, why not take advantage of that?

 

[Voltz]

You have to wonder how much the City could do with the extra couple of metres if they did a 4m central platform instead. I mean, I can understand side platforms for streetcars, because the vehicles only have doors on 1 side. But if you have dual doors, why not take advantage of that?

I'd say Eglinton is wide enough that they don't need to worry about it.

 

[M II A II R II K]

So the cars for this route probably will be green after all.

 

[andrewpmk]

There is definitely enough room on Eglinton to put wide centre platforms at the light rail stations. Eglinton Avenue through the Golden Mile area is a very wide road. Unlike, say, St. Clair, which is too narrow to do this, and the much lower demand on this route means that there is no real need to do so.

Pedestrian bridges or tunnels at major stops - this would cost extra $$$, but would definitely increase the capacity at busier stations. This is most useful at Victoria Park and Warden which will see large volumes of bus transfers. This design is seen not only in the Calgary and Edmonton LRT systems, but a number of very high capacity BRT systems like Mexico City <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:InsurgentesSurWMetrobus.JPG>, Istanbul <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mecidiyek%C3%B6y_Metrob%C3%BCs_Dura%C4%9F%C4%B1_cropped.jpg> and Guangzhou <http://thecityfix.com/blog/guangzhous-brt-revolutionizing-perceptions-of-bus-travel-in-china/>. Bermondsey, Pharmacy and Birchmount do not really need this as much, Wynford Dr is already grade separated so it does not need this and the stations at Ferrand and Ionview should be removed. My point is that Eglinton is going to be far busier than most other LRT lines in the world; building LRT with a long tunneled section is rare; so this type of thing is needed when running LRT close to its maximum capacity limit, if Metrolinx does not decide to built elevated rail instead.

 

[11th]

You have to wonder how much the City could do with the extra couple of metres if they did a 4m central platform instead. I mean, I can understand side platforms for streetcars, because the vehicles only have doors on 1 side. But if you have dual doors, why not take advantage of that?

It defeats half the purpose of having doors on both sides of the LRVs. (the other half being saving the cost/space? for turnaround loops)

 

[BurlOak]

The capacity issue can be solved by short-turning 1/2 of trains at Don Mills, where the tunneled section ends.

What is the current view of Metrolinx? DM seems set up for short turns, but is it every second or every third train. Also, will there be any (revenue) connection between ECLRT and SRT?

If they run any trains (i.e. Every second or third) from SRT to ECLRT then there is a great risk that they will run full with no room for boardings between Kennedy and DM. It will be very difficult to run frequent reliable service with the 15 intersections that exist in the 5.2 km. With the median portion being retained, I imagine that the ECLRT and SRT will not be connect and Eglinton will be a local line and the "crosstown" nickname should be dropped.

 

[innsertnamehere]

no revenue service between SRT and ECLRT, this has been established ever since the plan switched back to being on the surface a year ago. (for better or for worse, of course)

 

[nfitz]

no revenue service between SRT and ECLRT, this has been established ever since the plan switched back to being on the surface a year ago. (for better or for worse, of course)

I don't really think that's been fully established yet. Let's see what the revised Kennedy station plan is like when they release that ... and see if they've left a contingency in there for it.

 

[11th]

What is the current view of Metrolinx? DM seems set up for short turns, but is it every second or every third train. Also, will there be any (revenue) connection between ECLRT and SRT?

If they run any trains (i.e. Every second or third) from SRT to ECLRT then there is a great risk that they will run full with no room for boardings between Kennedy and DM. It will be very difficult to run frequent reliable service with the 15 intersections that exist in the 5.2 km. With the median portion being retained, I imagine that the ECLRT and SRT will not be connect and Eglinton will be a local line and the "crosstown" nickname should be dropped.

In terms of PR perspective, the Crosstown (and SELRT) is a failure. They call it "crosstown" and "rapid transit", yet it seems they are trying to keep as many elements of the current streetcar network as possible for the surface sections of the line.

 

[Dan416]

Why don't they use one central platform instead of side platforms for the on-street stops? Wouldn't it take up the same amount of space either way?

 

[gweed123]

Why don't they use one central platform instead of side platforms for the on-street stops? Wouldn't it take up the same amount of space either way?

I would think that would also make it safer, because you have a set of tracks between the vehicle lanes and the platform, instead of just a piece of supported glass. Wider platforms of course are also safer than narrower ones.

 

[datamouse]

I was disappointed to see this tweet from Councillor Carroll.

Charles ‏@fifty5
@shelleycarroll Will the Crosstown tunnels be wide enough to convert to a subway in the future?

Shelley Carroll ‏@shelleycarroll
@5fifty5 LRTs are for building grid. Don't shut down & convert them. Build more LRT grid, redistribute riders, build convenience. #TOpoli

I'm sure that would go over well in her ward if Sheppard achieved more ridership in 30 years that they will never get a subway.

 

[sixrings]

Shelley Carroll ‏@shelleycarroll
@5fifty5 LRTs are for building grid. Don't shut down & convert them. Build more LRT grid, redistribute riders, build convenience. #TOpoli

I was disappointed to see this tweet from Councillor Carroll.

I'm sure that would go over well in her ward if Sheppard achieved more ridership in 30 years that they will never get a subway.

I actually LOVE that response... I live on Eglinton but if it started getting congested in 20 years Id rather they build a LRT on Lawrence then convert Eglinton to Subway. The shut down of a line to convert it would be a inconvenience however the main reason that this sounds right is that it gets quality transit to other areas creating a larger network. I have said it a 1000 times before (gweed and I have debated), people including myself HATE buses. Subways, LRTs, Streetcars are fine for a lot of people. However if they have to start taking buses then they decide to either drive or get dropped off at a station. I cant understand why people would rather convert existing infrastructure then to create a larger grid?

For car drivers my dreams might be a nightmare (BTW since I bought my new car a year ago I drive anytime I cant take a SUBWAY or STREETCAR). However why not build something similar to the Legacy streetcar network but with LRTs north of Eglinton where the roads are wide enough?