McGillicuddy
New Member
Truly. This argument that this project would be a roaring success if only the authorities had listened to reason and wisely chosen to make it significantly more complex and expensive...
Last edited:
|
|
|
Northern Light
Superstar
I basically agree with this.
I don't think the rolling stock and the choice of power being third rail or panto would make any material difference. But, there is no question that full grade separation does, on average, produce a better, faster service, more consistently, albeit, on average, at higher per km construction cost, maintenance cost, and lengthier construction time.
As has been discussed ad nauseum now, there is zero excuse for Finch being anywhere near as slow as it is, its not even close.
Taking this over to Eglinton, there is a case to be made for complete grade separation (when we were in design, not now); based on the scale of density now set to be approved on Eglinton.
But, there are also intermediate choices.
Keeping the line under/above road level until about Victoria Park; and subsequently not allowing any mid-block stops that don't intersect transit routes, along with proper transit priority (including going ahead of left-turning cars where applicable)...would also have offered greater potential.
Given the debacle over Finch, I'm not sure we see the Crosstown debut in February as currently forecast. There will be clear pressure to deliver a much better day one offering than Finch and I'm not sure they're positioned to do that today.
TBD
This I 100% agree with!
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
Not meaning to yank ML out from under a bus of their own making - but - the first mention of signal priority for Eglinton in this thread was made in message # 162 posted on April 6, 2009. (reading the first few pages of this thread from that era is actually quite thought provoking - some things have sure changed, others have not).
Over the years where EAs and plans were done and redone, plenty of commentary about signal priority happened.
it's worth noting history - how in that planning and replanning, TTC and ML were at loggerheads, to the extent of spawning talk that ML would take over TTC altogether - a silly idea, but evidence that many were convinced that nothing less than a total takeover would uproot TTC and City policy. One has to assume that ML was more amenable to using the technology, and the City was the opposing authority. This is reflected in the original speed and trip timing projections.
It is ludicrous that TTC staffers are now portraying signal priority as something new and unfamiliar in North America. That ought to be dealt with as deliberate attempt to mislead TTC Commissioners and City Councillors. Or incompetence.
Either way, had this project not included a handover to TTC, and had ML had a freer rein to override City decisions, one has to think there would be lots more signal priority included. Perhaps the valid criticism of ML is that they played too nice.
- Paul
Cobra
Senior Member
Better speed, unimpeded by traffic lights on an artery such as Eglinton knowing TTC MO with operating rail vehicles at grade - yeah, the nutjobs had no clue in retrospect
urbanclient
Active Member
Yes, yes, yes. And yet we still have people making the poorly informed and/or bad faith choice to cheerlead for the City council, transportation services, TTC board and/or TTC staff. For some it almost seems like it's just to stick it to Metrolinx. As if this is team sport. Metrolinx is far from exemplary and often reminds everyone they are incompetent. But that doesn't mean they're the ones predominantly responsible for why Line 5 and 6 have such low average speeds / long trip times. As much as I'd love it to be true that Metrolinx is solely to blame for this fiasco, the preponderance of evidence afaik points more towards the City and TTC. Whether it's more the City or more the TTC doesn't matter much to the public. Whether it's a 40/60 Metrolinx/Toronto split or a 10/90, I don't know and I don't think it matters, as long as we get some progress ASAP. End of Q1 2026 couldn't come sooner.
Bojaxs
Senior Member
The point is these LRTs are slow without slow zones.
If the TTC did a better job of maintaining the tracks the subways would be faster on a regular basis.
But the LRTs will always remain slow.
Bojaxs
Senior Member
Line 5 IS complex and expensive! Unecessarily so. That's the big issue with it.
I would even wager that the Ontario line will be less complex than Line 5.
T3G
Senior Member
LRTs will remain a little slower than subways, but trivially so. And the biggest drawback to their speed is stop spacing, which is what you want, unless you want to blow even more money running parallel shuttle buses for those who can't walk far distances.
Finch - Vaughan: 38.39 km distance, travel time: 79 minutes, for an average speed of 29.16 km/h
Kennedy - Kipling: 26.23 km distance, travel time: 52.5 minutes, for an average speed of 29.98 km/h
Cedarvale - Bloor-Yonge: 11.47 km distance, travel time: 27 minutes, for an average speed of 25.49 km/h
Waterloo ion: 19 km end to end, travel time: 43 minutes, for an average speed of 26.51 km/h
Prague suburban lines:
Dědina - Dejvická: 7 km, 16 minute travel time = 26.25 km/h average speed
Výtoň - Libuš: 12 km, 28 minute travel time = 25.71 km/h average speed
Sídliště Barrandov - Slivenec: 2 km, 4 minute travel time = 30 km/h average speed
Sídliště Řepy - Anděl: 8 km, 18 minute travel time = 26.67 km/h average speed
Bílá Hora - Malostranská: 8 km, 20 minute travel time = 24 km/h average speed
LRT is a great way to unlock rapid transit and capacity for a far lower price than the subway. The fact that we don't do that falls squarely at the feet of the TTC, that's all. And "The point is these LRTs are slow without slow zones" isn't really an accurate statement, if the speed is kneecapped by the agency, it doesn't really matter what the maximum allowed track speed is, it's still a de facto slow zone. The LRT cars are capable of much superior performance compared to the atrocities the TTC is doing with them.
Last edited:
zang
Senior Member
I think if anything’s to blame, it’s PPPs and the lack of knowledgeable construction & design staff on permanent payroll.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Yes, the PPP was a fiasco but only for construction and design. The operational issues are 100% on the City.
It's called follow the money. When you control the money, you control. Full stop. It is the City that sets the fares. It is the City that runs the municipal roads. It is the City that sets the speed limits. It is the City that funds the TTC. It is the City that controls lights & signals. It is the City that controls parking. The TTC is just a division of the City that runs a certain type of vehicles on the road and that's it. The City ultimately controls EVERYTHING about the TTC. It is the City that determines whether you will close down a stop/station. If the City decides that the TTC will do this-or-that, no matter how stupid the policy may be, the TTC MUST do it whether they like it or not. This is why every issue, such as this one, has to go to Council and/or the Mayor's office in the first place. This is why St.Clair and Spadina have signal priority design but are not allowed to use them.........the City tells them they can't and the TTC has no choice to follow their dictates.
If Toronto didn't have such a two-faced, incompetent, and gutless wonder of a Mayor and Council, this would not be an issue. This is NOT an operational issue but purely a political one. There is NO reason why Finch should not be able to cut these travel times in half to 20 minutes. Absolutely none. If Edmonton can just open it's 12.6 km street running LRT for a travel time of 19 minutes using the same low-floor trains, there is no reason why Toronto cannot at least match that on an 10.5 km line. If they say they can't, that is, at best, a bad excuse and at worse, a bold faced lie.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
Quite damning? Kennedy to Mount Dennis and Kennedy to Bloor GO are almost exactly the same distance - about 18.5 km. We never expected that Line 5 would be as quick to go 18.5 km as Line 2, with the frequent stops on the outdoor section.
The UP travel time from Bloor to Weston is only 4 minutes!
I really doubt there are many people travelling from Kennedy to Mount Dennis in one go.
Steve X
Senior Member
Once they complete that direct passage at Dundas West to Bloor GO, it’s an alternative way to get around the city.
You’re right, I doubt people will travel like that. Perhaps if it’s Mount Dennis to the Golden Miles shopping area, line 5 will still be better, especially if you’re carrying a whole bunch of stuff.
pw20
Senior Member
How long until the line east of Laird is closed and Laird to Don Mills is rebuilt, so that Don Mills and everything west (including the Eglinton West extension) is fully grade separated and east of Don Mills becomes the genesis of the Eglinton East LRT?
In theory if you had a maintenance facility in the East End, and the Ontario Line was open you could have an Eglinton East LRT running from science centre east, which would funnel traffic to and from the Ontario Line.
In theory if you had a maintenance facility in the East End, and the Ontario Line was open you could have an Eglinton East LRT running from science centre east, which would funnel traffic to and from the Ontario Line.
fungus_eater
New Member
If Eglinton line doesnt WOW after finch, say goodbye to further LRT expansions in toronto.
nfitz
Superstar
I don't know if you'd even have to close the line. The only place where automobile traffic crosses the track is at Leslie.
If you were to grade separate, I'd think the easiest thing to do is to widen the CP span over Eglinton, and keep the eastbound turning lanes for Leslie on the north side of the tracks, between the Laird and Don Valley portals.
I don't see that precludes grade-separating at Leslie. Do you antipicate slow LRT service between Laird and Pearson?