[Rainforest]

With the line being grade separated between Mount Dennis and Don Mills, what do you think about elevating the rest of the line to keep it that way?

Besides the higher cost, I am concerned that it will cause a speed-capacity mismatch. The line will become so fast that it will switch some riders from the BD subway, and a lot from bus routes; but its capacity limit will remain in the 15,000 - 18,000 pphpd range even for automated operation, due to the station length and car width. It might get overloaded in the central section.

If the goal is to have a very fast, fully grade-separate transit on Eglinton, then it should have been subway; but the ship has sailed with LRT on board. With the LRT technology chosen, it is essential to maintain the ability to run short-turns in the central section, to keep the whole line with reasonable loads.

 

[M II A II R II K]

It has the space for 3 TC vehicles which is about 5 subway cars so it shouldn't be too much of a problem. With LRT they can maybe run just one or two vehicles off peak periods.

 

[Rainforest]

It has the space for 3 TC vehicles which is about 5 subway cars so it shouldn't be too much of a problem. With LRT they can maybe run just one or two vehicles off peak periods.

LRT cars are longer but narrower than subway cars. Capacity of one LRT car will be around 200 (same as, or a bit more than, one subway car). The 3-car train can take no more than 600.

On 2-min headways, it will be 30 trains per hour, capacity = 18,000 pphpd.

Furthermore, I am not sure that exits and other station elements are designed for that kind of capacity.

 

[W. K. Lis]

LRT cars are longer but narrower than subway cars. Capacity of one LRT car will be around 200 (same as, or a bit more than, one subway car). The 3-car train can take no more than 600.

On 2-min headways, it will be 30 trains per hour, capacity = 18,000 pphpd.

Furthermore, I am not sure that exits and other station elements are designed for that kind of capacity.

However, the Flexity Freedom LRV's will be wider than a Montréal Metro car. A Montréal Metro car is the same width as a CLRV or Flexity Outlook.

 

[drum118]

They should use the Siemens Combino Supra NF12B, 6 section found in Budapest that is just over 59m long. By going to this length regardless who makes it, it eliminates 2 cab control and one car. This car was built in 2007 and the 2nd longest in the world.

Our famous supplier has a 7 section in Berlin, but haven't been able to find what the length was for it, but longer than our model. F8E Bombardier Flexity Berlin 40m?

Could never get inside shots as it too pack.

 

[BurlOak]

Regarding elevating the ECLRT through Scarborough:

It seems that the GO Stouffville line is at a higher elevation than Kennedy Road / Eglinton intersection. This actually makes it easier to have an elevated line on Eglinton, since it does not have to drop too quickly after passing over Kennedy Road as the ground is also coming up. The station, or at least the train leading up to the station, would be just below grade. With an single ECLRT and SRT line, you can also avoid a separate plaform for ECLRT and SRT and you can also save on not requiring an underground loop for the SRT. Since the Scarborough Malvern LRT is not on anyones priority list, it makes sense to connect the ECLRT with the SRT as it is quite likely that the SMLRT will never be built.

With the currently planned location for the new station, it looks like you can keep the SRT runnding while the station is built - it would only have to be closed when the new station is tied in to the SRT line for the first +/-200m. However, some bus bays may need to be closed.

 

[Hipster Duck]

The Eglinton line doesn't need to be elevated along its whole non-tunneled length, but it should be grade separated at some of the busier intersections where the LRV is doomed to stop at a red light and wait for left-turn signals no matter what.

In particular, I'm thinking the line should either be elevated or cut-and-covered between just west of Victoria Park and just east of Pharmacy to avoid the bottleneck that is Victoria Park and Eglinton Square. Similarly, following BurlOak's suggestion, the line should be elevated just west of Kennedy to avoid that intersection. Warden and Birchmount are lower priorities in terms of grade separation.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Trenched is another option.

 

[BurlOak]

The Eglinton line doesn't need to be elevated along its whole non-tunneled length, but it should be grade separated at some of the busier intersections where the LRV is doomed to stop at a red light and wait for left-turn signals no matter what.

In particular, I'm thinking the line should either be elevated or cut-and-covered between just west of Victoria Park and just east of Pharmacy to avoid the bottleneck that is Victoria Park and Eglinton Square. Similarly, following BurlOak's suggestion, the line should be elevated just west of Kennedy to avoid that intersection. Warden and Birchmount are lower priorities in terms of grade separation.

The DVP interchange ramp terminals and probably Wynford, due to it proximity to DVP, are also potential bottlenecks.

 

[Voltz]

The Eglinton line doesn't need to be elevated along its whole non-tunneled length, but it should be grade separated at some of the busier intersections where the LRV is doomed to stop at a red light and wait for left-turn signals no matter what.

In particular, I'm thinking the line should either be elevated or cut-and-covered between just west of Victoria Park and just east of Pharmacy to avoid the bottleneck that is Victoria Park and Eglinton Square. Similarly, following BurlOak's suggestion, the line should be elevated just west of Kennedy to avoid that intersection. Warden and Birchmount are lower priorities in terms of grade separation.

The line is already planned to be underground at Kennedy and I would agree with going under ground as well in the area of Victoria Park.

 

[pman]

The Eglinton line doesn't need to be elevated along its whole non-tunneled length, but it should be grade separated at some of the busier intersections where the LRV is doomed to stop at a red light and wait for left-turn signals no matter what.

In particular, I'm thinking the line should either be elevated or cut-and-covered between just west of Victoria Park and just east of Pharmacy to avoid the bottleneck that is Victoria Park and Eglinton Square. Similarly, following BurlOak's suggestion, the line should be elevated just west of Kennedy to avoid that intersection. Warden and Birchmount are lower priorities in terms of grade separation.

Why not keep the line at grade and give LRV's priority at signal-controlled intersections?

 

[Rainforest]

A well-designed signal priority system might actually be more effective on this stretch than grade-separation features. Signal priority can potentially handle all intersections between Don Mills and Kennedy, rather than just selected 1 or 2.

That signal priority does not need to be absolute, it just needs to ensure consistent performance. It is OK if the vehicles still take 2 or 3 min longer to travel between Don Mills and Kennedy than they could if totally unhindered. The goal is to avoid uneven travel times.

 

[gweed123]

Why not keep the line at grade and give LRV's priority at signal-controlled intersections?

Because then it effectively removes the possibility of running the Eglinton and Scarborough lines as a single thru line, because the required frequencies would be too high to be effectively handled by in-median LRT. It would be very hard to maintain such tight headways without having any of the vehicles stop at a red light. Even with signal priority, it would play havoc with the traffic flow of the cross streets.

 

[sixrings]

http://www.globaltoronto.com/decisi...+worries+area+residents/6442781012/story.html

 

[Rainforest]

^ I can see a reason for concerns about the loss of Ferrand Drive stop.

Regarding the loss of Leslie stop, I don't see any affected residents. That stop cannot serve new highrises that are under construction or will be built in the Leaside area. Leslie is too far from them.