[lead82]

It appears to be a funding/operations issue. It seems what’s being advocated for is a rapid transit line with some parallel local services. But that would mean more TTC operators, more maintenance…so we try to design one solution (at-grade light rail. With frequent stops) with that handles everything, which obviously doesn’t work.

What operations issue? It’s the TTCs and City that insist on parallel local service that isn’t needed. Line 5 will have it for a reason I fail to understand as the stops there are also very close. Parallel local service they goes every 30mins is pretty useless when it’s faster to walk to the nearest stop. Those with mobility issues really require additional solutions like taxi service if they can’t walk 3-400m to a stop.

 

[asher__jo]

The planned stops are not far apart at all. They should be at least 1km apart. It’s the same problem as we have with Spadina, Queens Quay and St Clair. They were built as streetcar lines with insanely close stops that makes the vehicle travel speed super slow. The current route shows 21 stops over 15km. The problem stretch is Eglinton where there are too many mid block stops. The second issue is Toronto wont provide actual LRT signal priority so that LRT vehicles spend a minimum time waiting at lights. Stopping before an intersection for a light and then after for the stop contirbutes to slow travel time.

LRT should be rapid transit and not just a dedicated ROW. That’s not worth the investment long term. The problem is the political class wants to appease their local constituents and not serve the greater city good which is to move people efficiently and fast. Travel times is a huge concern for those without a car as it’s a huge disadvantage currently. Car is king because of speed and efficiency- even with our traffic congestion, car travel is still faster for over 90% of trips. These investments need to address this. It’s what Ford gets but many don’t understand.

I think signal priority is far more integral to speed than stop spacing. Think of how amazing Spadina would be if CARS were the second class citizens and not streetcars.

 

[Rainforest]

I think signal priority is far more integral to speed than stop spacing. Think of how amazing Spadina would be if CARS were the second class citizens and not streetcars.

How exactly would you make it "amazing" - give it a permanent green and block the cross streets with a permanent red?

Even if there wasn't a single car anywhere near Spadina, you would need a) enough time for the King, Queen, Dundas, College streetcars, and the Harbord bus to cross, and b) enough time for the massive amount of pedestrians to cross. Pedestrians cross at all of the above major streets, and at numerous smaller cross streets such as Adelaide, Nassau, Sullivan.

The street design of Spadina (frequent cross streets) and the abundance of pedetrians basically preclude fast transit operation.

Btw I am not against the Spadina streetcar, I think the distance it travels is so short that its speed is good enough.

 

[Rainforest]

I am thinking of a modified version of the latest LRT design:

The Eglinton and Kingston Road sections retain the close stop spacing, as the city wants. So, it can support multiple highrise / midrise buildings, and doesn't require parallel local bus service. The travel along this segment won't be fast.

If someone wants to get from the Kennedy Stn all the way to UTSC, they will take the subway to Scarborough Centre, and then the Ellesmere BRT. While the LRT will mostly serve shorter trips: commuting residents to Kennedy subway, same residents to a GO station, or students to UTSC.

But the Sheppard section has all mid-block stops removed, and isn't redesigned as an "avenue". It stops at the major intersections only: Markham Rd, Progress, Neilson, Morningside&Sheppard. The mid-block stops will have a local bus. That bus is needed anyway, to serve the part of Sheppard east of Morningside. (Even if the Zoo LRT branch is added, there will be a section of Sheppard east of Meadowvale that needs a bus.)

Thus, the Sheppard LRT section will provide a reasonably fast connection from Malvern to both Subway Line 2 and the Sheppard Line, and from the Sheppard Line to UTSC.

 

[asher__jo]

How exactly would you make it "amazing" - give it a permanent green and block the cross streets with a permanent red?

Even if there wasn't a single car anywhere near Spadina, you would need a) enough time for the King, Queen, Dundas, College streetcars, and the Harbord bus to cross, and b) enough time for the massive amount of pedestrians to cross. Pedestrians cross at all of the above major streets, and at numerous smaller cross streets such as Adelaide, Nassau, Sullivan.

The street design of Spadina (frequent cross streets) and the abundance of pedetrians basically preclude fast transit operation.

Btw I am not against the Spadina streetcar, I think the distance it travels is so short that its speed is good enough.

There's many mechanisms that have been discussed ad nauseam on here. Signal priority is merely a tool the traffic department refuses to use.

 

[allengeorge]

What operations issue? It’s the TTCs and City that insist on parallel local service that isn’t needed. Line 5 will have it for a reason I fail to understand as the stops there are also very close. Parallel local service they goes every 30mins is pretty useless when it’s faster to walk to the nearest stop. Those with mobility issues really require additional solutions like taxi service if they can’t walk 3-400m to a stop.

I’d no idea the report on the EELRT also advocated for parallel local service as well as the LRT running every 5 minutes.

 

[Northern Light]

How exactly would you make it "amazing" - give it a permanent green and block the cross streets with a permanent red?

Not your best argument.

Even if there wasn't a single car anywhere near Spadina, you would need a) enough time for the King, Queen, Dundas, College streetcars, and the Harbord bus to cross, and b) enough time for the massive amount of pedestrians to cross. Pedestrians cross at all of the above major streets, and at numerous smaller cross streets such as Adelaide, Nassau, Sullivan.

The LRT could function much better than it does now.

The issue is that it stops on the nearside of the light damn near 100% of the time, then proceeds on to a far-side stop where it, duh, stops again.

Pick one. You can move the stops to the nearside and the red is mostly irrelevant if well timed.

Or you can make sure that LRT vehicles are more likely than not to get a green when approaching a major light on Spadina.

The simple idea of prioritizing LRT movements over advance greens for left-turning cars would do wonders.

The street design of Spadina (frequent cross streets) and the abundance of pedetrians basically preclude fast transit operation.

I disagree. Its fairly easy to model an average trip time at 1/3 less than what it is now, and ambitiously one might hope for better.

I would argue for cutting 2 stop on the Spadina portion (maybe 3) but for sure Willocks and Sullivan which do given distances between stops and trip generation stats; do not merit their place.

Stop alignment from Queen to King may offer the option of one further reduction but its a bit more complex and tempered by limits on platform capacity.

Btw I am not against the Spadina streetcar, I think the distance it travels is so short that its speed is good enough.

Again, disagree. Its painfully, and more importantly, needlessly, slow.

 

[Rainforest]

The issue is that it stops on the nearside of the light damn near 100% of the time, then proceeds on to a far-side stop where it, duh, stops again.

Pick one. You can move the stops to the nearside and the red is mostly irrelevant if well timed.

Or you can make sure that LRT vehicles are more likely than not to get a green when approaching a major light on Spadina.

The simple idea of prioritizing LRT movements over advance greens for left-turning cars would do wonders.

I guess this makes sense. If an streetcar is standing at the intersection, then it gets a brief "through" phase for the streetcar only, then the regular left-turn phase, and then the regular "through" phase for all vehicles.

I disagree. Its fairly easy to model an average trip time at 1/3 less than what it is now, and ambitiously one might hope for better.

I would argue for cutting 2 stop on the Spadina portion (maybe 3) but for sure Willocks and Sullivan which do given distances between stops and trip generation stats; do not merit their place.

Stop alignment from Queen to King may offer the option of one further reduction but its a bit more complex and tempered by limits on platform capacity.

Cutting some stops sounds reasonable. But slashing 1/3 of the trip time, even with all the tricks in place, seems a bit too optimistic. Although it would be nice.

 

[toronto647]

Plans for another smaller, stand-alone Scarborough rail line draw fire

Critics say current plans repeat the shortcomings of the soon-to-be-decommissioned Scarborough RT.

www.thestar.com

 

[Rainforest]

Plans for another smaller, stand-alone Scarborough rail line draw fire

Critics say current plans repeat the shortcomings of the soon-to-be-decommissioned Scarborough RT.

www.thestar.com

"Metrolinx provided a different account, however, with agency spokesperson Anne Marie Aikins saying in a statement to the Star that the province hasn’t changed the alignment of the subway since 2020, and “protections are in place” in its design to allow for an extension of the Crosstown into Scarborough.

“As plans advance for the proposed Eglinton East LRT, we will continue to work with our partners at the City of Toronto to implement the best possible transit solution,” she said."

Either the city is telling the truth, or Metrolinx is telling the truth. It can't be both ways.

 

[allengeorge]

Plans for another smaller, stand-alone Scarborough rail line draw fire

Critics say current plans repeat the shortcomings of the soon-to-be-decommissioned Scarborough RT.

www.thestar.com

Branding the new proposal and it’s technology as “an experiment” seems a bit much.

Also, I agree with a lot of other poster: if we wanted it to be through-running, the entire Eglinton Line should have been grade-separated, and stop-spacing should really be rethought.

 

[Northern Light]

Branding the new proposal and it’s technology as “an experiment” seems a bit much.

I agree; though the problems w/the optics are pretty obvious. You have a report suggesting that a transfer, not merely from Line 2, but the ECLRT will be needed, which may be entirely reasonable, but which will instantly recall for people here the SRT transfer to Kennedy that so many disliked. A transfer not merely disliked because its a transfer, but because it was also a convoluted transfer requiring one to traverse multiple levels and escalators etc.
The report then goes on to suggest that may we should use smaller vehicles............ The SRT of course also used relatively small vehicles and its capacity was relatively quickly maxed out; leaving people to immediately think of overcrowding.
The cherry on top is the travel time being the same as it is today, or perhaps even negligibly worse. The version of the EELRT as proposed in the report I would oppose; I simply don't see any ROI.

Also, I agree with a lot of other poster: if we wanted it to be through-running, the entire Eglinton Line should have been grade-separated, and stop-spacing should really be rethought.

Based on the enormous development proposals for the Golden Mile area, burying the whole thing was pretty much essential (if what's proposed gets built, there is a good chance it will exceed the design capacity in a comparatively short time)

 

[CapitalSeven]

Here we see the result of years of pandering to Scarborough's martyr complex over transit. The report clearly calls for off-the-shelf technology, even naming companies who make the vehicles. Baffling enough that they can spin this into a lament about untested technology, worse that the Star doesn't point this out, and goes on to group the new plan with the old SRT on the basis that they are standalone. Bad community activism, bad journalism. Neither helps in determining whether the plan is any good.

 

[ARG1]

Based on the enormous development proposals for the Golden Mile area, burying the whole thing was pretty much essential (if what's proposed gets built, there is a good chance it will exceed the design capacity in a comparatively short time)

Actually, I think if the Golden Mile section of Line 5 was an independent line, there would be no problem with the at grade section at Golden Mile. A highly dense area is the perfect location for a local on street LRT/Streetcar line with tighter stop spacing, and the type of environment where even me - one of the biggest LRT "Haters" on the board would say it makes sense. The problem with the section isn't the proposed density, but the fact that it's not an independent line and is in fact a segment of a much longer crosstown route that will go all the way to the airport.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

It probably IS worth looking at shifting the break in line over to Don Mills. There ought to be lots of room for a surface terminal in the bus area once the OL opens, it absolutely is one of the cleaner ways of handling the system being what it is, and conceptually there shouldn’t be a lot of additional cost beyond needing another terminal for the Eastern line.

For that matter, I wonder if a single platform might actually be alright for the main crosstown…. Cross platform would be nice if it is feasible.