News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

Amare said:
One thing i've been thinking about recently is how overloaded to surface stops will get in the future once development settles in on the eastern portion of the line. Stops like Wynford are side platforms and they are due to see massive amount of development around it.

So while the underground stations will be able to accommodate higher loads due to wide centre platforms, some of the surface stops will see loads that may just exceed their capacity. And just imagine when there are service disruptions, it's going to be entertaining to see how bad the situation will get. Sure trains will have their lengths extended, but how will the surface stations accommodate high pedestrian counts.

Anyways that's just food for thought, and things we'll have to be concerned about in 15-20 years.
Click to expand...
Good point.

One good thing about Line 5 however is that it will at least have enough capacity to handle increases over the projected initial ridership for some time. The Ontario line should further relieve congestion on the eastern segment too.
 
Amare said:
One thing i've been thinking about recently is how overloaded to surface stops will get in the future once development settles in on the eastern portion of the line. Stops like Wynford are side platforms and they are due to see massive amount of development around it.

So while the underground stations will be able to accommodate higher loads due to wide centre platforms, some of the surface stops will see loads that may just exceed their capacity. And just imagine when there are service disruptions, it's going to be entertaining to see how bad the situation will get. Sure trains will have their lengths extended, but how will the surface stations accommodate high pedestrian counts.

Anyways that's just food for thought, and things we'll have to be concerned about in 15-20 years.
Click to expand...
You have to remember that we're going to have a lot more options when that area is built out, including the Ontario Line and upgraded Stouffville Line. That will reshape travel patterns around the city. I would imagine that a lot of east end Line 5 riders will transfer at Kennedy or Science Centre stations to get downtown. That should relieve a lot of crowding that would otherwise develop.
 
MisterF said:
You have to remember that we're going to have a lot more options when that area is built out, including the Ontario Line and upgraded Stouffville Line. That will reshape travel patterns around the city. I would imagine that a lot of east end Line 5 riders will transfer at Kennedy or Science Centre stations to get downtown. That should relieve a lot of crowding that would otherwise develop.
Click to expand...
Where passengers enter hardly depends on where they plan to exit, there may still be too many commuters originating near surface stops in the morning. But yes ideally there will be a balanced split of commuters who go east to Kennedy vs. west to Science Centre.
 
Amare said:
One thing i've been thinking about recently is how overloaded to surface stops will get in the future once development settles in on the eastern portion of the line. Stops like Wynford are side platforms and they are due to see massive amount of development around it.

So while the underground stations will be able to accommodate higher loads due to wide centre platforms, some of the surface stops will see loads that may just exceed their capacity. And just imagine when there are service disruptions, it's going to be entertaining to see how bad the situation will get. Sure trains will have their lengths extended, but how will the surface stations accommodate high pedestrian counts.

Anyways that's just food for thought, and things we'll have to be concerned about in 15-20 years.
Click to expand...
I suppose if that kind of crowding of platforms becomes a regular occurrence, they could add station attendants that would manage the flow of people into the station. Overcrowding would cause longer dwell times as it takes longer for people to get off and put of the way.
 
felix123 said:
What's been promised is a "rapid transit" line (source: https://www.metrolinx.com/en/projects-and-programs/eglinton-crosstown-lrt ).

I think the aggregate of test videos shows a fairly slow operating speed, and that is the only evidence we have so far. Anything else is just hopeful speculation.

That said, hopefully one day it will be objectively rapid, but that will require a change in traffic and operations management first.
Click to expand...
Again, getting hung up on language. Rapid is not an absolute term, it's a relative one.

Will it be faster that the bus route that it is replacing? Yes. Will it be faster than a car? Maybe. It probably depends on the time of day and traffic conditions.

Dan
 
smallspy said:
Again, getting hung up on language. Rapid is not an absolute term, it's a relative one.
Click to expand...
Your trying to shift the goal posts in anticipation of the mass disappointment that will surly ensue when people see how slow this LRT is.
When people hear the word "rapid" the implication is "fast".
rapid.png

I'm not anti LRT. I'm not against the LRT projects in Mississauga or Hamilton. There was no intention of constructing a subway along these lines. But there was a plan to construct a subway along Eglington. We even began construction on it. A lot of people were lied to, and told that we don't need to continue constructing the subway along Eglinton (after Harris shut it down) because the LRT would be just as fast. Very doubtful.
 
From what I recall, we were told that the Crosstown would be similar speed to the Bloor-Danforth line. So if it's similar, then I'd be ok with that (if it's like 1 km/h slower, it's not the end of the world, but 5 km/h slower is pretty significant).
 
Dan416 said:
From what I recall, we were told that the Crosstown would be similar speed to the Bloor-Danforth line. So if it's similar, then I'd be ok with that (if it's like 1 km/h slower, it's not the end of the world, but 5 km/h slower is pretty significant).
Click to expand...

I think I remember Metrolinx stating an average speed of 28km/h for Line 5, which wouldn't be too bad.

But still somewhat slower than Line 2, and a lot slower than Montreal metro/REM or Vancouver Skytrain, for comparison's sake.
 
felix123 said:
I think I remember Metrolinx stating an average speed of 28km/h for Line 5, which wouldn't be too bad.

But still somewhat slower than Line 2, and a lot slower than Montreal metro/REM or Vancouver Skytrain, for comparison's sake.
Click to expand...
A bit slower than Line 2, when you have the massive gaps from Victoria Park to Kennedy.

But calculate the Line 2 speed for the original section, from Woodbine to Keele. I'd bet it's closer to 28 km/hr. We've done this math more than once in the past decade or two, in this thread.
 
This board is hung up on speed when that is not the goal in the first place. You will find many systems in Europe as well NA that are not fast as Crosstown or Finch, but are getting riders to/from where they want to go in the first place. Getting people to use transit is the goal and making it easier form them to get them where they want to go to is the goal. Transit will never beat the car, but will help them to have a less stressful travel time, the able to read, listen to music, play games on their phone, chill out and do the media thing.

Doing a trip that is faster than today is what riders want. Again, not everyone is going end to end, but places alone the line. When I do Line 2 from end to end, it is an 45 minute trip and even if it was 50 minutes, that no big deal as it will be far faster than using the bus along doing a number of transfers.

It is a different story doing intercity travel where speed is wanted, but you will find a lot of route in Europe are being built for 200km along with what exist. There are a number that are 300 plus and small in number. In some place, 160 will be the best you will see.

Lets wait and see what will take place for Crosstown in real action than speculate what will take place when it finally see service.
 
Bojaxs said:
Here we go....

We were promised rapid transit.

Billions of dollars and over a decade of construction, for this?

We could have built a subway with the amount of time & money we spent constructing this LRT.
Click to expand...
Again, until the line opens and you get a chance to actually see how it runs, you have zero moral right to make assertions like this.

You have NO idea what the line will actually operate like when it opens, but you know for sure that your reviled mode of choice was the wrong one for it and your preferred one was the right one for it.

When the new Flexity trams were undergoing testing back in 2013, there were all kinds of moves that were tested that didn't happen, such as MU operation, operation of the cars sandwiched in between CLRVs, and very high speed operation. None of these came to pass, but if one took only these videos as gospel they would find themselves incredibly disappointed.


Thanks to the fact that Metrolinx would fit nicely as a shadowy annex of the Illuminati, you have no idea what stage of testing they're at, whether this is supposed to simulate regular operations or whether this is something else entirely.

You just can't know.

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who would appreciate it, therefore, if you waited until the line opened and you were proved wrong or right before getting on your soapbox. Making these value judgments based on low to no information is getting incredibly tiresome to read.

All the concrete info we know is based on the above quote that says the average speed of the Crosstown will be 28, the average speed of Line 1 is 29. Seems hardly apocalyptic to me.
 
Eglinton will have subway speeds in the part that's a subway, and surface LRT speeds in those parts. I don't think it's rocket science. Passengers won't need to transfer between the two sections. Many on this board think a transfer is the worst thing that could happen, except possibly a line that makes this unnecessary. My recollection is that in planning phases years ago they discussed speeds around 26-27 kph if stops were further apart, and 22-23 for closer stops. There was a concern that wider spacing would congest the stops, and wind up slowing the vehicles to the point that the advantage was lost. The platforms are wider than the interiors of the vehicles, so that the entire ridership of a tram could safely get off if required. I don't see how the platforms are likely to be overloaded, but there could be some congestion leaving the platforms to cross the street in peak periods. Although peak periods are sort of disappearing now.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top