[TheTigerMaster]

I think the 2009 study had the ECLRT on street from Don Mills to Kennedy and with a forced transfer at Kennedy. That was such a horrible plan that a much shorter route (STC to Mt. Dennis) had 20% higher ridership than the longer Malvern to Pearson Transit City plan. It actually is consistant data that clearly highlights the stupidity of what we are doing.

The eastern portion is irrelevant. Both ELCRT plans in the study were identical, other than the Mt. Dennis to Pearson extension.

 

[sixrings]

I think the 2009 study had the ECLRT on street from Don Mills to Kennedy and with a forced transfer at Kennedy. That was such a horrible plan that a much shorter route (STC to Mt. Dennis) had 20% higher ridership than the longer Malvern to Pearson Transit City plan. It actually is consistant data that clearly highlights the stupidity of what we are doing.

Guess what, there will still be a forced transfer at Kennedy for Eglinton riders.

 

[howl]

I just went to the science centre and was reminded how dumb the Eglinton decisions were.

• 2 lanes will be removed under the DVP causing traffic chaos at the DVP ramps and probably spilling back to Don't Mills.
• 2 lanes will be removed under the CPR causing traffic backup at Leslie.
• the station and bus terminal at the NE is much more disruptive than at the SW on the Science Centre parking lot.
• The Chosen route makes construction disruption (both at Scenic west of Leslie and future at Don't Mills) much worse than required.

The lanes that will be removed are the diamond lanes that are currently used primarily by buses during rush hour. The LRT will move many more people than the diamond lane currently does so if you're looking at it in terms of moving people efficiently rather than moving cars efficiently then it is a big win.

I'm not sure why you think the NE corner is more disruptive than the SW corner. However, there will be a station entrance on the Science Centre land. The bus terminal is on the NE corner primarily because the City already owns that land and the terminal is a TTC facility so its free land for them. Notwithstanding Metrolinx is a Provincial agency, if they took additional land from the Science Centre for a bus terminal they would have to pay market prices for it.

Even with the bus terminal on the NE there will be additional land available for a mixed-use development fronting Eglinton.

Finally, construction disruptions, while a consideration, are way down on the list of things to designers need to design around. It's much more important to get a good design that will function efficiently for the next 100 years than to make a worse design just so it's less disruptive during construction.

 

[barit]

Soil testing has started on the site of the future Laird Station. The little plaza that contains a Mac's Milk, Pizza Nova, Second Cup, Mister Sub and Great Canadian Bagel is closing mid-October and will be demolished. I heard this yesterday from the server at Second Cup. He's going back to school. Good for him.

 

[BurlOak]

The eastern portion is irrelevant. Both ELCRT plans in the study were identical, other than the Mt. Dennis to Pearson extension.

Oops. I had a brain cramp. I think it was over 100% increase in ridership with the continuous plan.

What the two numbers tell us is that ridership will be about 5950, with a standard deviation of 780. If I remember my stats, that and a 33% chance that ridership will exceed 6730.

 

[crs1026]

Since the line is considered to be justified at 5,400, they have no reason to promote the higher numbers. That way, when the line opens and the 5,400 estimate is exceeded well before 2031 they can point to how successful the line is. Under promise and over deliver.

The "big picture" stays the same regardless of the modelling tweaks: so far as we know, the line will deliver within its capacity. We hope.

The Benefits Case report suggests that if ridership exceeds capacity, this can be mitigated by increasing headways. My two concerns would be"
- what is the absolute capacity limit, given LRT technology and the as-built station size
- what is the margin for added capacity within the available fleet. As we've seen, we can't just pick up the phone and order a few more cars - at least not from BBD, anyways.

- Paul

 

[W. K. Lis]

Once the Line 1 Spadina extension opens, it'll divert some eastbound ridership above Wilson using Sheppard West, Finch West, and Steeles West as funnels. Some riders on Jane and Keele, may switch directions to use the new Line 1 stations instead of going all the way south. In addition, the Finch West LRT would divert some ridership from the southbound ridership from west of the 400 to the Line 1 Spadina leg, before they even reach Eglinton.

 

[W. K. Lis]

From The Crosstown, at this link:

August 18, 2015

What: Both Tunnel Boring Machines have started tunnelling east of Allen Road to Yonge Street. The southbound Allen Road truck staging lane will be used to hold up to 4 trucks at a time as part of the operations. Additionally, the construction compound on the northbound Allen Road will be used as full time facility for staff and crews.

When: Starting in September, the construction compound will become fully active. Motorists should exercise caution when travelling on the Allen Road near Eglinton Avenue. Access and egress from both sites will continue for the duration of the long-term construction. Traffic delays should be expected.

Traffic Details:

Southbound Allen Road Ramp/ Truck Staging lane. Large construction vehicles are currently entering and merging from this staging lane as part of the long-term tunnelling operation. Please use extra care while driving through this construction zone as speed restrictions have been reduced to 40 km/hr.

Northbound Allen Road Ramp/ Construction compound: Vehicles will enter and exit from this construction compound for long term use during the tunnelling project. As we introduce this new construction gate and/or exit, please use extra care while driving through and/or merging onto the Northbound Allen road, as the speed restrictions have been reduced to 40 km/h near this construction zone.

Work Hours:

Underground tunnelling and associated work may continue 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Timelines may be adjusted due to weather and unforeseen circumstances.

- See more at: http://www.thecrosstown.ca/news-med...nd-construction-compound#sthash.SMTbkO2B.dpuf

 

[Tuscani01]

I just went to the science centre and was reminded how dumb the Eglinton decisions were.

• 2 lanes will be removed under the DVP causing traffic chaos at the DVP ramps and probably spilling back to Don't Mills.
• 2 lanes will be removed under the CPR causing traffic backup at Leslie.
• the station and bus terminal at the NE is much more disruptive than at the SW on the Science Centre parking lot.
• The Chosen route makes construction disruption (both at Scenic west of Leslie and future at Don't Mills) much worse than required.

2 lanes are already removed all along Eglinton during the busiest periods, and yet there is no traffic headache. They are HOV lanes. I use the route twice a day and have no idea why you think it will cause chaos. The only busy area is the intersection of Don Mills and Eglinton, and that's because cars have to stop at red lights.

 

[Rainforest]

Oops. I had a brain cramp. I think it was over 100% increase in ridership with the continuous plan.

What the two numbers tell us is that ridership will be about 5950, with a standard deviation of 780. If I remember my stats, that and a 33% chance that ridership will exceed 6730.

That's about correct, assuming that the distribution is close to normal (Gaussian).

That also means only a 5% chance that the ridership will exceed 7510 (mean + 2 x standard deviation), which is well within the capacity of this technology.

 

[Rainforest]

The "big picture" stays the same regardless of the modelling tweaks: so far as we know, the line will deliver within its capacity. We hope.

The Benefits Case report suggests that if ridership exceeds capacity, this can be mitigated by increasing headways. My two concerns would be"
- what is the absolute capacity limit, given LRT technology and the as-built station size
- what is the margin for added capacity within the available fleet. As we've seen, we can't just pick up the phone and order a few more cars - at least not from BBD, anyways.

- Paul

IMO, if the existing fleet is the primary limitation, it will not be that difficult to order more cars. Demands builds up slowly, within years rather than months.

The station geometry and headways will set the real limit. Stations are designed for 3-car trains at most, which means ~ 500 riders per train.

If all trains run end to end, then I expect 3 min to be the minimal workable headways. That means 20 trains per hour and about 10,000 pphpd capacity, which should be enough for the time being.

If they decide to operate both a long branch and a short-turn branch, then they might be able to reach headways of 2 min (I am speculating here, based on how other subway and streetcar lines operate; I do not have engineering data). In that case, a capacity of 15,000 pphpd may be achievable.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

IMO, if the existing fleet is the primary limitation, it will not be that difficult to order more cars. Demands builds up slowly, within years rather than months.

The station geometry and headways will set the real limit. Stations are designed for 3-car trains at most, which means ~ 500 riders per train.

If all trains run end to end, then I expect 3 min to be the minimal workable headways. That means 20 trains per hour and about 10,000 pphpd capacity, which should be enough for the time being.

If they decide to operate both a long branch and a short-turn branch, then they might be able to reach headways of 2 min (I am speculating here, based on how other subway and streetcar lines operate; I do not have engineering data). In that case, a capacity of 15,000 pphpd may be achievable.

At a platform length of approx. 100m, there should be no reason why EC can't exceed the limit of the Skytrain system (25K pphpd) on the basis of station infrastructure alone, when their stations only have an 80m platform. Now you will probably need grade separation at the eastern end and new trains, but that's another story.

AoD

 

[TheTigerMaster]

If they decide to operate both a long branch and a short-turn branch, then they might be able to reach headways of 2 min (I am speculating here, based on how other subway and streetcar lines operate; I do not have engineering data). In that case, a capacity of 15,000 pphpd may be achievable.

The capacity of the short turned section will ultimately depend on the track geometry. This is because it takes a non insignificant amount of time for trains to maneuver through crossovers. Hopefully Metrolinx designed Don Mills crossover in such a way that it will limit the time needed for these maneuvers.

 

[nfitz]

That's about correct, assuming that the distribution is close to normal (Gaussian).

That also means only a 5% chance that the ridership will exceed 7510 (mean + 2 x standard deviation), which is well within the capacity of this technology.

Surely the Phase 2 Extension of the Eglinton line to the airport would use a Pearson distribution, rather than Gaussian!

 

[Rainforest]

Surely the Phase 2 Extension of the Eglinton line to the airport would use a Pearson distribution, rather than Gaussian!

That's fine, as long as it is not a Poisson distribution (rare random events)