[Rainforest]

About the same that the Sheppard East subway would be overcapacity the first year.

Which is near zero. 20-years later76 cars is more than enough to carry far more than predicted. Metrolinx says with 76 cars than can run every 190 seconds. That's 19 trains a hour (in each direction). If you guestimate a capacity of 400 per (two-car) train, that's 7,600 each hour. The predicted 2031 ridership was about 5,000 an hour - before Covid.

If somehow they have completely blown it, they can always replace service between Don Mills and Kennedy with buses, and push the trains to 3 cars, increasing capacity to 10,000 an hour.

I believe, even the surface sections Don Mills - Kennedy and Brentcliff - Leslie are designed to allow 3-car trains. The street blocks are very long on that section of Eglinton, it should be possible to fit long surface stops. They might not need to replace anything with buses.

Of course, that assumes that the line opens sometime in the 2020s.

We can't, but there's years to order additional cars to lengthen the trains from 62 metres to 93 metres. And frequencies can get much higher.

At full capacity, they should be able to get over 20,000 an hour between Don Mills and Pearson; and the Don Mills to Kennedy section is no where near the peak point. If they break 20,000 one day, time to build an additional east-west line somewhere.

Not sure about 20,000 an hour, the estimates for the capacity limit I've seen are 13,500 to 15,000. It is not just what the trains can carry, but also what the station platforms and escalators / stairs can handle.

Though, even 15,000 should be enough for a while.

 

[adys123]

The tram needs to be prepared to stop if the light changes. This isn't like Vienna, where there is a distant signal for the tram (which isn't possible in Toronto for safety reasons).

I know there are special provisions on Finch West LRT that will help support the movement of LRVs better that are not on ECLRT. I believe that it will still interface with the signalling system with ATP that will provide better than line-of-sight operation.

 

[Rainforest]

I think the thing that’ll really determine how well Eglinton will work is the interface between the “subway” portion and the on-street portion and if the at grade portion really screws up the line or not. Hopefully not.

Probably' won't be a huge problem. It's not like fully grade-separated subways always run smoothly, sometimes too many trains are stuck in one section of the line and as a rider, you need patience to take their stop-n-go, 10 kph average speed crawl.

Speaking of Eglinton, the whole line - even the tunneled sections - is designed to be in the middle between a subway and a surface route. Medium capacity, medium speed. That's probably not wise, as the final cost is a lot closer to a full subway than to a full surface route. But, the line will be functional as is.

Transit fans focus on the operational details, but 98% of transit riders only care about the total travel time, wait time, and whether the vehicle is crowded or not.

 

[Dan416]

Probably' won't be a huge problem. It's not like fully grade-separated subways always run smoothly, sometimes too many trains are stuck in one section of the line and as a rider, you need patience to take their stop-n-go, 10 kph average speed crawl.

Speaking of Eglinton, the whole line - even the tunneled sections - is designed to be in the middle between a subway and a surface route. Medium capacity, medium speed. That's probably not wise, as the final cost is a lot closer to a full subway than to a full surface route. But, the line will be functional as is.

Transit fans focus on the operational details, but 98% of transit riders only care about the total travel time, wait time, and whether the vehicle is crowded or not.

I guess we’ll see what the travel time actually ends up being.

 

[MovingBlock]

Transit fans focus on the operational details, but 98% of transit riders only care about the total travel time, wait time, and whether the vehicle is crowded or not.

The details we are discussing are ones that affect travel times.

What safety reasons are those?

As for the light changes, don't all traffic light cycles come with brief periods of time where no one has the light, to deal exactly with scenarios like this? A fully loaded bus or an 18 wheeler can't stop at a moment's notice, either.

Trams take longer to stop vs. a bus because of the low friction between the wheel and rail. This means that a tram has to start braking further away from the light than a bus would. If visibility of the signal is poor at the braking point, the tram always has to brake before the intersection.

In Vienna, this issue is mitigated by placing a distant signal (right side of the image) well before the intersection to indicate to the tram whether it should start braking. The timing of the distance signal is set so that if a tram passes it at the speed limit while it is showing 'proceed', it is guaranteed that the tram will be able to proceed past the main signal at the intersection. This allows trams to avoid unnecessary braking when approaching a signal that is about to change, reducing travel time.

The reason this can't be done in Toronto (or is difficult to implement) is because the lights at (most) intersections are operated in a demand-responsive manner, where light phases can be lengthened (or shortened) in response to variation in demand. For safety reasons, once the distant signal for the tram starts to show 'proceed', the main signal must change to 'proceed' shortly after (otherwise the tram will be unable to brake in time). This means the intersection controller needs to commit to authorizing the tram to proceed well before the signal actually changes. Additionally, the main signal for the tram cannot be changed to 'stop' unless the distant signal has displayed 'stop' for the amount of time required for a tram to travel from the distant signal to the intersection. This in turn limits the flexibility of the controller to respond to variation in cross traffic flows. (i.e. cross-traffic is very high, it may not be possible to give a green extension or finish the tram's phase early.)

In Austria, traffic lights operate on a fixed-time control (i.e. the intersection controller will never extend, shorten or skip a light phase in response to changes in demand), so these issues aren't present. In other countries where intersection control is demand-responsive (e.g. Netherlands), this is never done.

Additionally, the 'clearing time' (where no vehicle is authorized to pass through the intersection) represents a loss of road capacity, which you generally want to minimize.

 

[nfitz]

I believe, even the surface sections Don Mills - Kennedy and Brentcliff - Leslie are designed to allow 3-car trains. The street blocks are very long on that section of Eglinton, it should be possible to fit long surface stops. They might not need to replace anything with buses.

They are long enough for 3 cars.

I was speculating about an option if there's need more frequent trains than the surface section can handle. The should be able to do every 90 seconds in the tunnel.

But I don't think that will happen.

After all, the peak point was only predicted to be about 5,500 per direction AFTER the extension opens to Pearson.

 

[T3G]

Trams take longer to stop vs. a bus because of the low friction between the wheel and rail. This means that a tram has to start braking further away from the light than a bus would. If visibility of the signal is poor at the braking point, the tram always has to brake before the intersection.

This may very well be true, but letting that factor into our traffic management policies is dangerous, and breeds the exact culture of stupidity that "necessitates" LRTs to slow down for intersections.

When it comes to insanely heavy vehicles that can't stop on a dime, why does a bus vs. a tram matter? If you dart out in front of them outside of their respective stopping distances, they will grievously injure you - and if the bus doesn't hit you, it could be because it swerved out into the next lane and may even have hit something that was in its way there. Is it okay if someone gets injured or killed if it's done by a bus with a shorter stopping distance, compared with a tram with a longer stopping distance? The risk is always there. Not to mention all the other dangerous ways a bus ride could go south - we let them travel at high speeds, with standing loads, on the 400 series highways! If we applied this level of risk reduction to our bus network, buses would certainly never travel than 50 km/h, and probably not be allowed standees either.

Playing chicken with all heavy vehicles is insanely dangerous - hell, if a bike, clipping along at 20-25 km/h ploughed directly into someone, it could do some serious damage as well - so if we really want to make sure people are safe from heavy vehicles, then yes, I would expect all of them to be required to slow down entering an intersection. What about trains? How come we're not all up in arms about the fact that level crossings often have zero additional barriers to entry for anyone who decided to just walk around the barrier?

Unless someone wanted to introduce lowered speed limits for any grade integrated heavy vehicle, singling out LRVs specifically seems like concern trolling intended to discredit the whole concept of a tram.

 

[jmi22]

Have you figured out the slop requirement as well where the slop starts at both ends between Dupont and St Clair to deal with the 8%(?) grade as well getting over CP tracks??

Will work nicely between Rogers Rd and Eglinton Ave.

Where do you plan to put the bent supports south of Eglinton without removing on street parking and the lack of current sidewalk space??

I appreciate your dedication to detail, but I was mostly making a joke lol

 

[adys123]

This may very well be true, but letting that factor into our traffic management policies is dangerous, and breeds the exact culture of stupidity that "necessitates" LRTs to slow down for intersections.

When it comes to insanely heavy vehicles that can't stop on a dime, why does a bus vs. a tram matter? If you dart out in front of them outside of their respective stopping distances, they will grievously injure you - and if the bus doesn't hit you, it could be because it swerved out into the next lane and may even have hit something that was in its way there. Is it okay if someone gets injured or killed if it's done by a bus with a shorter stopping distance, compared with a tram with a longer stopping distance? The risk is always there. Not to mention all the other dangerous ways a bus ride could go south - we let them travel at high speeds, with standing loads, on the 400 series highways! If we applied this level of risk reduction to our bus network, buses would certainly never travel than 50 km/h, and probably not be allowed standees either.

Playing chicken with all heavy vehicles is insanely dangerous - hell, if a bike, clipping along at 20-25 km/h ploughed directly into someone, it could do some serious damage as well - so if we really want to make sure people are safe from heavy vehicles, then yes, I would expect all of them to be required to slow down entering an intersection. What about trains? How come we're not all up in arms about the fact that level crossings often have zero additional barriers to entry for anyone who decided to just walk around the barrier?

Unless someone wanted to introduce lowered speed limits for any grade integrated heavy vehicle, singling out LRVs specifically seems like concern trolling intended to discredit the whole concept of a tram.

I understand your frustration here. To an earlier point I made in this thread, most international tram systems do slow down *slightly* when crossing intersections for safety reasons due to the physics of friction mentioned by @MovingBlock. North America is a risk-adverse and litigious society, and this makes our societal risk tolerance lower and is the rationale for TTC to require trams to slow to 20 km/h through intersections. I certainly share those frustrations, but it unfortunately requires more systemic change. The value of bringing in international companies or consultants can actually be seen in operating practice and could be valuable in creating culture change.

 

[MovingBlock]

I understand your frustration here. To an earlier point I made in this thread, most international tram systems do slow down *slightly* when crossing intersections for safety reasons due to the physics of friction mentioned by @MovingBlock. North America is a risk-adverse and litigious society, and this makes our societal risk tolerance lower and is the rationale for TTC to require trams to slow to 20 km/h through intersections. I certainly share those frustrations, but it unfortunately requires more systemic change. The value of bringing in international companies or consultants can actually be seen in operating practice and could be valuable in creating culture change.

Trams will never be as fast as a bus in a dedicated lane because of the difference in braking ability. You can't really exceed 40km/h in a tram (or any rail vehicle for that manner) being driven on-sight. Service could still be improved, though, by speeding up the slowest areas (e.g. at switches).

 

[Racer_77]

Are those fare gates in the final locations? If so it looks like there is only one connection between Line 1 and 5 that doesnt require passengers to leave a fare zone and then re-enter...

Probably, it aligns with plans approved at a 2018 TTC board meeting. And right on the fare-paid transfer, there's only the connections at the centre of the ECLRT concourse (stairs to the north, escalator to the south, elevator in between).

 

[Rainforest]

I guess we’ll see what the travel time actually ends up being.

True; but we will have to compare the actual LRT travel time from Kennedy to Brentcliffe to the estimated travel time that could have been achieved on the subway. The latter greatly depends on the assumed stop spacing.

Say, the Yonge subway covers 8 km from Finch to Eglinton in ~ 14 min (34 kph). But the next ~ 8 km from Eglinton to Union take 20 min (24 kph).

 

[Dan416]

True; but we will have to compare the actual LRT travel time from Kennedy to Brentcliffe to the estimated travel time that could have been achieved on the subway. The latter greatly depends on the assumed stop spacing.

Say, the Yonge subway covers 8 km from Finch to Eglinton in ~ 14 min (34 kph). But the next ~ 8 km from Eglinton to Union take 20 min (24 kph).

I remember when the Eglinton line was first discussed, people were saying that since the stop spacing is similar to Bloor, that the travel time should be similar. That will be the benchmark in my view.

 

[T3G]

Trams will never be as fast as a bus in a dedicated lane because of the difference in braking ability. You can't really exceed 40km/h in a tram (or any rail vehicle for that manner) being driven on-sight. Service could still be improved, though, by speeding up the slowest areas (e.g. at switches).

This is utterly untrue. Right off the top of my head I can think of Prague and Bratislava for systems that use line-of-sight operation that run at 50 km/h on suburban rights-of-way that resemble the Eglinton one, and from what I've been able to find, there doesn't appear to be any reason for not running as fast as 60 or even 65 (the top design speed of the Tatra T3, which are still numerous in Prague) is that the track itself is not built for such speeds. Neither system slows down for intersections, and Prague even has installed high speed switches on some of these lines which allow the tram to negotiate them at line speed. Despite all of this, there is not an epidemic of collisions, and pedestrians are not being mowed down by the thousands by this "reckless" behaviour.

 

[MovingBlock]

This is utterly untrue. Right off the top of my head I can think of Prague and Bratislava for systems that use line-of-sight operation that run at 50 km/h on suburban rights-of-way that resemble the Eglinton one, and from what I've been able to find, there doesn't appear to be any reason for not running as fast as 60 or even 65 (the top design speed of the Tatra T3, which are still numerous in Prague) is that the track itself is not built for such speeds. Neither system slows down for intersections, and Prague even has installed high speed switches on some of these lines which allow the tram to negotiate them at line speed. Despite all of this, there is not an epidemic of collisions, and pedestrians are not being mowed down by the thousands by this "reckless" behaviour.

You can find plenty of footage on YouTube of close calls in Prague. There are aspects of their infrastructure design (e.g. no channelization of crossing pedestrian traffic ant stops) are not very good.