kEiThZ
Superstar
So if I understand this correctly, there's going to be a bus terminal at Progress and Sheppard? What for? Which routes would it serve?
|
|
|
- Thread starter Dan416
- Start date
kEiThZ
Superstar
I still think the transfer hasn't been optimized. Why isn't the SRT at track level and the other two LRTs on top? There will be far more people transferring from the SRT to the subway than any other type of transfer activity at that station. It's great that they knocked off two levels for the transfer. But nine yards does not a first down make.
Dan416
Senior Member
Maybe having the SRT at track level would make it too difficult to extend the subway to STC in the future? I'm not overly familiar with Kennedy so I'm just guessing.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
Probably they will optimize the routes so that there aren't so many routes going to SCC. Probably routes that replace 131, 134, 169 and probably 102 would enter the station.
kEiThZ said:
For the reason than more people will go between subway and SRT they are on different levels. On different levels they only go up one floor, and on the same level they go up one floor and down one floor. It would be very difficult to have the SRT on the same level as the subway platform without needing to go up and down stairs without changing the current position of the subway tracks and platforms which would require closing the subway portion of the station during construction, and the design of such a station is complicated by the fact this is the end of the line for the subway so the track the SRT would be connecting to would alternate.
Last edited:
officedweller
Senior Member
That's right.
Even though EC/SM LRT and the subway are at the same elevation, the transfer is worse because both are centre platforms - the transfer requires you to go up and then down to move between platforms (since you can't cross the tracks).
With the single-sided SRT platform, you move across the mezzanine and then down to the subway's centre platform - easy.
Even though EC/SM LRT and the subway are at the same elevation, the transfer is worse because both are centre platforms - the transfer requires you to go up and then down to move between platforms (since you can't cross the tracks).
With the single-sided SRT platform, you move across the mezzanine and then down to the subway's centre platform - easy.
Rainforest
Senior Member
The design seems reasonable for the most part.
One concern is the volume of transfers at Kennedy. Terminating all 3 LRT lines there helps with the line management, but on the other hand, it increases the demand for capacity of platforms, walkways, stairs etc. In contrast, if some of the vehicles run through the station (Eglinton - SLRT or Eglinton - SMLRT), their passengers will not contribute to the transfer flow.
Another concern is the routing and cost of the northern section. They decided to use the Sheppard East maintenance yard, and analyze the options of connecting the SLRT tracks to Sheppard. That proves that the 3-car trains can run in the street-median ROW. Nevertheless, they insist on running SLRT fully grade separate all the way to Malvern Centre.
If half of the SLRT service will turn back at the Sheppard / Progress station anyway, should they route the other half east along Sheppard to Neilson, and north in the middle of Neilson to Malvern Centre? Wouldn't that be cheaper, and provide better local service?
One concern is the volume of transfers at Kennedy. Terminating all 3 LRT lines there helps with the line management, but on the other hand, it increases the demand for capacity of platforms, walkways, stairs etc. In contrast, if some of the vehicles run through the station (Eglinton - SLRT or Eglinton - SMLRT), their passengers will not contribute to the transfer flow.
Another concern is the routing and cost of the northern section. They decided to use the Sheppard East maintenance yard, and analyze the options of connecting the SLRT tracks to Sheppard. That proves that the 3-car trains can run in the street-median ROW. Nevertheless, they insist on running SLRT fully grade separate all the way to Malvern Centre.
If half of the SLRT service will turn back at the Sheppard / Progress station anyway, should they route the other half east along Sheppard to Neilson, and north in the middle of Neilson to Malvern Centre? Wouldn't that be cheaper, and provide better local service?
Fresh Start
Banned
^ That's precisely what I've been telling the group. There should be some direct interface between the Sheppard ROW and the SLRT for ease of transfer interchange, and Neilson (whether ending at Sewell, mall entrance or McLevin) would make far more sense for a potential Malvern terminal than Tapscott/Sewell. Planners need to start acting like the customers they're planning these lines for. Shops, apartments, townhouses, businesses and a community centre are all oriented to Neilson; Tapscott/Sewell is just roaming pasture. Why force people to jog or take a bus to go one stop over back and forth. If we were to build a LRT down the median of Neilson, we could design in a way such that buses could also use the right-of-way (a possibility given the infrequent scheduling of LRT up the Malvern spur). Speed of travel in-between Malvern Town Centre and Sheppard-Markham should be a secondary focus if the line is being designed to carry local passengers whom stem from many points throughout the Malvern region.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I think space and speed at the issues. It's far faster to go up the corridor from Sheppard to Malvern Town Centre than it is to run east on Sheppard and then north on Neilson. The other issue is space. Though, I haven't seen it in these plans, there was previously a proposal to have a bus terminal at MTC. There's limited space for a bus terminal at the corner or Neilson and McLevin unless they want to expropriate land. But there's already land reserved beside the No Frills for the station. Either way would work, but the corridor is prbably cheaper and faster.
Where the savings should have come from was along Progress. Why elevate east of McCowan? Why not just run it down Progress at-grade? That would save lots of money.
kEiThZ
Superstar
While I agree with the thrust of the argument, there's some serious distortions here. Not everything in Malvern is oriented towards Neilson. It's largely oriented along the east-west routes of McLevin and Sewells. Neilson just happens to intersect those streets. Malvern Rec Centre for example is only marginally closer to Neilson than the proposed station beside the No Frills is. The townhouse patches are all distributed along the East-West roads with pockets along Tapscott, Sewells and McLevin north of Sewells. The problem lies in the fact that there's lot of stuff east of Neilson and the line terminates west of neilson. If they simply brought the line closer to Neilson/McLevin (regardless of which direction they approach from) a lot of problems would be solved.
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
That terminal is a bit out of the way for a 102 Markham bus. And why would somebody prefer to transfer from the 102 here as opposed to Centennial College or Bellamy station? 134 I could undersand. But it raises an interesting question of whether they are just going to get rid of bus services along Progress altogether. The 131's another strange one. That's a northern route. It doesn't go anywhere near Sheppard till it hits McCowan. Why would it use a Progress terminal? Lastly, the 169? What bus are you referring to? Hunntingwood buses don't come anywhere near Malvern.
What I don't get about this station is why they scrapped the plan for a bus terminal at Malvern Town Centre (from the looks of it) and want to expropriate to build one here when only a handful of routes come this far south.
If they were on the same level why would you need to go up and down the stairs? Their whole sales pitch on this easy transfer, prior to now, was based on you getting off the SRT and just crossing the platform to catch your subway train. No escalators involved. So now they cheap out and because of construction costs and worries about construction impact we've got an escalator in there. Great. In a few years, that escalator will be about as serviceable as the others are right now and everybodyw will be grumbling again.
Given how many people will the transferring to the EC/SM LRTs this model is entirely flawed. It is the SRT that should be given priority in any transfer. They should have a single sided SRT platform mating with a single sided subway platform. Just like what's being proposed for Don Mills. The Eglinton and SM LRTs can even be left on the surface. There just won't be as many transfers as SRT-BD.
Last edited:
DavidH
Senior Member
Moving the B-D subway terminus from a double-platform to a single-platform arrangement would almost certainly mess up headways on the B-D.
The SRT can get away with a single platform given that they are going to build a loop for it, but the B-D needs to keep two platforms. I suppose that they could have an arrangement in which the two subway tracks are separated by a single SRT track, with platforms on either side of the SRT. They could then open both sides of the SRT vehicles for loading and unloading. Whether this is physical feasible is a unclear to me, and it would almost certainly require closing of Kennedy subway station for a period of time.
Unless I've mistaken, what's proposed at Don Mills is to put a single LRT track end-to-end with one of the two subway tracks, keeping both tracks in operation. This can be effective at Don Mills because the maximum length of walk is shorter (4 car versus 6 car subway train, and a shorter LRT train as well). Doing it at Kennedy would be less accessible, I'd argue, than going up an escalator and walking ten metres or so over to the SRT platform. I don't know if they seriously considered the arrangement, though.
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
This is what I was thinking too. And it's feasible. It would just cost them more.
DavidH
Senior Member
Would it be possible to construct the new subway platform and track first before decommissioning the existing subway track (where the SRT track would go)? This would depend on the width required for LRT vehicles versus subway (I don't have those numbers and don't have the time right now to go looking). If not, you'd have to go down to a single track at Kennedy during construction, which poses problems.
officedweller
Senior Member
A single SRT track would also limit SRT headways (moreso than the loop).
In addition, even though both sides of the SRT would open up, you would still end up with 2 separate westbound Subway platforms - and passengers entering the station from bus or the street (as well as from SRT) would have to decide which platform to access for the next train (the Lower Bay problem).
I suppose the two Subway platforms could be connectd at one end (with the SRT tailtrack ending in the middle of the Subway platform) but that could present a long walk as well to change Subway platfroms depending on where the access stairs are located (they would have to be on the wider platform away from the SRT).
The butt end joining of platforms seems like the best solution, but I suspect that B-D tailtracks would get in the way and land would need to be acquired for the wider turn from the existing allignment of the SRT RoW .
In addition, even though both sides of the SRT would open up, you would still end up with 2 separate westbound Subway platforms - and passengers entering the station from bus or the street (as well as from SRT) would have to decide which platform to access for the next train (the Lower Bay problem).
I suppose the two Subway platforms could be connectd at one end (with the SRT tailtrack ending in the middle of the Subway platform) but that could present a long walk as well to change Subway platfroms depending on where the access stairs are located (they would have to be on the wider platform away from the SRT).
The butt end joining of platforms seems like the best solution, but I suspect that B-D tailtracks would get in the way and land would need to be acquired for the wider turn from the existing allignment of the SRT RoW .
Last edited:
The other option is that you arrange the platforms so that the current side platforms on B-D become in effect island platforms, with the walls on both sides of the station being ripped out and moved back, enough to put an SLRT track on either side. It would look sort of like this:
|S # B | B # S |
|R # - | - # R |
|T # D | D # T |
This would eliminate the "Lower Bay scenario" as the trains on B-D could be timed so that the next train pulling into B-D Kennedy is not the next train to be leaving SRT Kennedy. In otherwords, each train that comes in has a matching subway or LRT train that's there waiting for it, and can leave as soon as people have moved across the platform. You can place signs in the mezanine saying which of the two platforms has the next train departing.
Also, this allows the tail tracks to be extended on either side without interfering with the other line's main tracks or tail tracks.
This whole point however is moot because the subway should just be extended to STC
.
|S # B | B # S |
|R # - | - # R |
|T # D | D # T |
This would eliminate the "Lower Bay scenario" as the trains on B-D could be timed so that the next train pulling into B-D Kennedy is not the next train to be leaving SRT Kennedy. In otherwords, each train that comes in has a matching subway or LRT train that's there waiting for it, and can leave as soon as people have moved across the platform. You can place signs in the mezanine saying which of the two platforms has the next train departing.
Also, this allows the tail tracks to be extended on either side without interfering with the other line's main tracks or tail tracks.
This whole point however is moot because the subway should just be extended to STC
.