News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5K     0 

Most of the ridership will be in the central underground section which could run 90m trains every 60 seconds (Automatic Train Control, platform doors, etc.) with LRT and still have every 5th train do the full route from Kennedy to Pearson.

That's a subway that would just cost more than a subway. Even assuming it is possible to run LRVs at 60s headways (it isn't), who is anybody kidding with this example? Fine, if people want to build something that operates almost exclusively in a tunnel, with 180m trains, platform screen doors, ATC, and call it "LRT" then go ahead. It is a subway by any other name. The only difference is that we would use low floor trains for basically no reason and increase costs for basically no reasons.
 
BTW - here's a link for those interested in calculating transit capacity:

http://144.171.11.107/Main/Public/Blurbs/153590.aspx
Oh my, that's an excellent link. Thanks a lot! :)

EDIT:
Whoaccio said:
That's a subway that would just cost more than a subway. Even assuming it is possible to run LRVs at 60s headways (it isn't), who is anybody kidding with this example? Fine, if people want to build something that operates almost exclusively in a tunnel, with 180m trains, platform screen doors, ATC, and call it "LRT" then go ahead. It is a subway by any other name. The only difference is that we would use low floor trains for basically no reason and increase costs for basically no reasons.
Don't forget basically killing any means of expanding the underground portion of the line and extending good and potentially needed service anywhere else! :D
 
Last edited:
From the TTC website:

Project Update

The TTC and City of Toronto are hosting an additional Open House for the second round of consultation to display the preferred route of the LRT from Martin Grove Road to Pearson International Airport. Plans for stop locations and potential construction methods for this section will also be displayed. View Public Notice (PDF).

Date: Wednesday, September 2nd
Time: 6:30pm to 9:00pm
Location: Etobicoke Olympium (Olympic Lounge 2nd floor), 590 Rathburn Road (just west of Renforth)​

Sounds like they have selected a preferred routing for the LRT from Martin Grove Road to Pearson International Airport, if I read the announcement right. For those in Etobicoke, especially near the airport, it would be of interest to you.
 
That's true I guess. Having had experience with part at-grade and part separated grade systems before (I'm originally from Ottawa, and the Transitway has both), the efficiency of flow between the at-grade and the separated grade I found was pretty substantial, even with transit priority signaling.

Like I said before, it's not really the technology that I have an issue with, it's the lack of grade separation on the extremities of the line. A line of this much importance should not have to interact with regular traffic.
Nothing can be done for the central stretch of Eglinton without going underground. Maybe current demand for Eglinton really only requires BRT (I have my doubts,) but if it was a fast service, then it's ridership would explode through feeder lines and the Airport connection.

Even if you want to build the central stretch subway, then build grade separated BRT at the edge to be converted to subway when demand is reached :)confused:) then that's almost fine by me. It just needs the speed. I have a feeling that the demand will be much higher than busses can provide, but until a real ridership study gets done, it just needs to be RAPID. And that's something that Transit City isn't going to provide.
 
Like I said before, it's not really the technology that I have an issue with, it's the lack of grade separation on the extremities of the line. A line of this much importance should not have to interact with regular traffic.


One of the selling points that City Council and the TTC seems to push is that having the LRTs go through the neighborhood at grade will make the area look "pretty" and cheper to build. Don't get me wrong, LRTs in Toronto are a great idea, but I don't like how the City keeps pushing this citywide LRT network as a savior to all our transit problems just because it's cheaper, looks pretty and every major city in North America is building one.
 
One of the selling points that City Council and the TTC seems to push is that having the LRTs go through the neighborhood at grade will make the area look "pretty" and cheper to build. Don't get me wrong, LRTs in Toronto are a great idea, but I don't like how the City keeps pushing this citywide LRT network as a savior to all our transit problems just because it's cheaper, looks pretty and every major city in North America is building one.

At-grade LRTs are great for secondary corridors (St. Clair, Spadina, Finch, etc), but the primary corridors (Yonge, Bloor, Sheppard, Eglinton) should be at least grade-separated to allow for RAPID transit.
 
At-grade LRTs are great for secondary corridors (St. Clair, Spadina, Finch, etc), but the primary corridors (Yonge, Bloor, Sheppard, Eglinton) should be at least grade-separated to allow for RAPID transit.
The entire central stretch of Eglinton will be grade separated.

It would be nice to have the Etobicoke and Scarborough portions of Eglinton grade separated but not having them grade separated at this point isn't the end of the world. I guess one can always hold out hope they will tunnel those portions in 2040 or whatever if it proves necessary. :)
 
The entire central stretch of Eglinton will be grade separated.

It would be nice to have the Etobicoke and Scarborough portions of Eglinton grade separated but not having them grade separated at this point isn't the end of the world. I guess one can always hold out hope they will tunnel those portions in 2040 or whatever if it proves necessary. :)

There are other ways of achieving grade separation without tunnelling though. You can elevate it, trench it, or have it underpass major cross streets. An example of this would be the underpass for the St. Clair streetcar at St. Clair West station.
 
Trenching it would be the obvious solution for Eglinton West. With the Richview corridor right there it'd be stupid to tunnel a subway instead of just trenching it. Then, future developers could just build over it like was done south of St. Clair.

I'm not so sure of Eglinton east. I'd say that past Don Mills, it could be elevated pretty easily. If you build it right, an elevated ROW could actually be quite nice, almost as nice as a LRT ROW. Of course, on top of that you get substantially better service and capacity than a LRT.

EDIT: If it was LRT, then it could at least have underpasses under major streets. I believe that's what the C-Train does, is it not?
 
Trenching it would be the obvious solution for Eglinton West. With the Richview corridor right there it'd be stupid to tunnel a subway instead of just trenching it. Then, future developers could just build over it like was done south of St. Clair.

I'm not so sure of Eglinton east. I'd say that past Don Mills, it could be elevated pretty easily. If you build it right, an elevated ROW could actually be quite nice, almost as nice as a LRT ROW. Of course, on top of that you get substantially better service and capacity than a LRT.

EDIT: If it was LRT, then it could at least have underpasses under major streets. I believe that's what the C-Train does, is it not?

I agree. And I don't know about the C-Train, but I know that's how the majority of the Transitway in Ottawa works.
 
Trenching it would be the obvious solution for Eglinton West. With the Richview corridor right there it'd be stupid to tunnel a subway instead of just trenching it. Then, future developers could just build over it like was done south of St. Clair.

I'm not so sure of Eglinton east. I'd say that past Don Mills, it could be elevated pretty easily. If you build it right, an elevated ROW could actually be quite nice, almost as nice as a LRT ROW. Of course, on top of that you get substantially better service and capacity than a LRT.

EDIT: If it was LRT, then it could at least have underpasses under major streets. I believe that's what the C-Train does, is it not?
I'm not sure, but I have a hard time envisioning a nice-looking elevated LRT on Eg east. I think I'd prefer underpasses at big intersections esthetically. The nice thing is that this still remains a small possibility for the future, even if it's unlikely to happen.

Then again, elevating it could possibly free up more road space, which would be a plus.
 
Some short elevated portions could be built - depending on hills and valleys - but there's plenty of room for a trenched line not just in Richview but for most of Eglinton East as well, east of Brentcliffe. Eglinton East is almost continuously lined with parking lots and wide strips of grass and building are invariably set quite far back...some minor property acquisitions would likely be needed but millions and millions of dollars per km would be saved in construction. Stations could be a short ramp away from street level (and stations would be far cheaper than what they are now).

Instead of a grade-separated, stops-at-red-lights hybrid disaster, we could have a real rapid transit line for surprisingly little additional money.
 
The problem with a trench is that it will act as a physical barrier dividing the areas on either side and preventing vehicles and pedestrians from crossing Eglinton from side streets - think Allen Expressway on a narrower scale. With an at-grade median guideway you would at least allow "right-in, right-out" vehicle movements and allow pedestrians to access Eglinton.

As an alternative to tunnelling, an elevated guideway provides the most freedom of movement for both vehicles and pedestrians in the immediate area.
 
^
It depends on the final design, but trenches really aren't that bad from a pedestrian perspective. The trench between Yonge and Duplex From Eglinton to St. Clair doesn't significantly alter pedestrian experiences at all. Even the Allan really isn't as bad as people think, the amount of crossings being roughly consistent with the area. For something like the Richview Corridor it is ridiculous not to trench it. Eglinton East is a bit harder, but the corridor is definitely wide enough to accommodate a mix of viaduct, trench and, if necessary, shallow tunnel.
 
The problem with a trench is that it will act as a physical barrier dividing the areas on either side and preventing vehicles and pedestrians from crossing Eglinton from side streets - think Allen Expressway on a narrower scale. With an at-grade median guideway you would at least allow "right-in, right-out" vehicle movements and allow pedestrians to access Eglinton.

As an alternative to tunnelling, an elevated guideway provides the most freedom of movement for both vehicles and pedestrians in the immediate area.

An elevated line will never happen unless it's for very short segments and forced due to topography.

Think Allan? The scale means it'd be nothing like the Allan - not as wide, not as deep, not as loud, more crossings, etc. A trench wouldn't affect pedestrians in the slightest. It'd be decked over by streets (no streets would even be closed...Eglinton intersects relatively few, anyway - look at a map). Also remember: Transit City's lines are being sold as urban revitalizing tonics, with claims and promises as alluring as your typical 19th century patent medicine scam. Galleries, cafes, Parisian boulevards, smiling children...this has as much chance of coming true as patent medicines had a chance of curing cancer (or even 'that tired feeling'), but if even a tiny bit of redevelopment occurs, the trench could be decked over in places, with stores or houses or parkettes or anything, increasing the number of crossing points, decreasing noise, etc. Parkettes or other green roof deck segments would make great Section 37 fodder. You probably counldn't trench the whole thing, but not trenching through Richview and parts of Eglinton East is simply idiotic (par for the course in this city, though). Also, every line needs a few open-air segments for scenery, to reduce monotony, and to keep track off where you are.

Running transit down the middle of the street has negatives even aside from the lack of grade-separation and the slower speeds and certainty of train/car accidents. One can say it's "accessible" in the middle of the road but it's farther from the sidewalk than even a regular bus is. You need to cross traffic to get to the platforms, meaning people will be darting back and forth across Eglinton, particularly if multi-car trains are used. This isn't a big problem on a street like Spadina, but darting across Eglinton East is, well, keep the ambulances on standby!
 

Back
Top