[TheTigerMaster]

No. The station platforms are too short. They are only about a third the length of a subway platform.



It's likely that if the Eglinton West Subway had of been built back in the 1990's it would connect to the airport by now; and by this time we would be building, or planning to build, an extension east towards Kennedy.

Your first point isn't true. The Eglinton Line platforms can accommodate trains of at least 93 metres, compared to 138 metres on Yonge Line. It's closer to two thirds the length. It's also equal to the length of the platforms on the Sheppard Line

 

[BMO]

Can the Eglinton LRT be upgraded to a subway in the future?

Anything is possible, just depends on how much money you have. I don't think it would happen.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

On that note, I find it very curious that the Crosstown, with its higher peak point ridership and narrower cars, will have trains that are the same length trains as the Sheppard Line.

The last trip I took on the line was eastbound weekday at about 7:00 PM and almost all the seats were taken. Does anyone here know what rush hour crowding is like on the Sheppard Line?

 

[rbt]

Does anyone here know what rush hour crowding is like on the Sheppard Line?

It's a little tight in the middle cars but the end cars nearly always have plenty of room.Nobody gets left on the platform for lack of space.

Of course this loading is quite purposeful; the line is budgeted rather than a technical limitation.

 

[nfitz]

No. The station platforms are too short. They are only about a third the length of a subway platform.

The platform length is 90 metres. A 4-car Toronto subway train is 92 metres long.

Yes, it could be upgraded to subway, though you'd have to build platforms in each station (among other details). Most importantly, the tunnel diameter is slightly larger than that on on the Vaughan extension.

 

[crs1026]

The platform length is 90 metres. A 4-car Toronto subway train is 92 metres long.
Yes, it could be upgraded to subway, though you'd have to build platforms in each station (among other details). Most importantly, the tunnel diameter is slightly larger than that on on the Vaughan extension.

But I'm led to believe that the linear dimensions are not extendable due to proximity of other structures, footings, etc? - a conscious decision? And some of the curves/gradients do not accommodate TR clearances?

Waaaay back at the EA stage, I wrote a submission suggesting that the whole thing be built as upgradeable. I'm still preparing my "told ya so". I'm betting this line exceeds ridership projections, especially after a half decade of development.

- Paul

 

[salsa]

Waaaay back at the EA stage, I wrote a submission suggesting that the whole thing be built as upgradeable. I'm still preparing my "told ya so". I'm betting this line exceeds ridership projections, especially after a half decade of development.

I think you should be more worried about the Yonge subway ridership in the future.

 

[crs1026]

I think you should be more worried about the Yonge subway ridership in the future.

Oh, that's a given. We have buried our heads in the sand so well on that one, it has its own TBM map.

- Paul

 

[rbt]

Oh, that's a given. We have buried our heads in the sand so well on that one, it has its own TBM map.

No, you missed his point. Ridership is moving people, and those people aren't going to destinations on Eglinton in the tens of thousands per hour. Something like 60% of Eglinton peak-point riders on Eglinton (around Yonge in both directions) will be transferring to the Southbound Yonge line.

If Eglinton hits capacity in both Eastbound and Westbound directions, there will be nearly 20,000pph transferring to Southbound Yonge during peak rush. Yonge does not have this capacity to spare; not even close.

Any attempt to intercept people heading downtown before they get to Yonge, like the DRL, will reduce peak point ridership on Eglinton too.

In short, you only need to worry about Eglinton needing high capacity if Yonge somehow is extended to 12-car trains at 90 second frequencies. If you get a chance to say "told-you-so" then we've royally fucked up out transit system design.

 

[dowlingm]

I know there was talk during the early years of Transit City about the TBM being wide enough to make subway conversion possible. Don't know if Metrolinx followed through on that though. To my mind, if Eglinton fills up beyond max capacity the answer should be to look at additional routes rather than having to shut down Eglinton to expand it. Lawrence Crosstown anyone?

 

[jcam]

I know there was talk during the early years of Transit City about the TBM being wide enough to make subway conversion possible. Don't know if Metrolinx followed through on that though. To my mind, if Eglinton fills up beyond max capacity the answer should be to look at additional routes rather than having to shut down Eglinton to expand it. Lawrence Crosstown anyone?

Eglinton tunnels are about ~15" larger diameter than TYSSE (256" TBM vs. 241" TBM) mostly because of requirements of the overhead catenary.

 

[robmausser]

Anything is possible, just depends on how much money you have. I don't think it would happen.

Exactly. I love the comments on this board from non-engineers on whats feasible.

We went to the moon with a computer as powerful as a wristwatch.

Anything is possible its just whether its worth the cost.

No one said that converting to subway would require the exact same subway cars as the rest of the system, for example.

People here have a very binary understanding of what a subway is.

 

[crs1026]

No, you missed his point. Ridership is moving people, and those people aren't going to destinations on Eglinton in the tens of thousands per hour. Something like 60% of Eglinton peak-point riders on Eglinton (around Yonge in both directions) will be transferring to the Southbound Yonge line.

I get it now. Is that assuming that the end point for the 60% is somewhere south of Bloor? I would have thought that Crosstown would enable new commuting patterns to uptown destinations more than downtown - making uptown employment more attractive, and growing with uptown development. But I get that any extra growth of ridership who make a transfer to Yonge is going to stress that junction and the Yonge line too.

Anything is possible its just whether its worth the cost.
No one said that converting to subway would require the exact same subway cars as the rest of the system, for example.
People here have a very binary understanding of what a subway is.

Fair enough - The question might be better put as what would one do if the ridership exceeded what one could do with a three-"unit"-Flexity LRT specification. One would be to look for a higher capacity vehicle that would fit the current 90M length, low-floor, overhead electrical envelope. Another would be to install a more sophisticated traffic control system that allowed closer headways. This kind of option is "affordable". The option that is doable, but may never be "affordable", is lengthening the platforms. There is too much stuff in the way - all of it movable, but at considerable cost.

I do hope the present envelope proves sufficient, because the ability to extend as surface/elevated/etc LRT at the ends for a longer seamless route is very helpful. But one is conscious of the density that will develop along Eglinton.

- Paul

 

[rbt]

I get it now. Is that assuming that the end point for the 60% is somewhere south of Bloor?

Great question. I'm not familiar enough with the models TTC/Metrolinx/UofT use to tell you.

I would assume, based mostly on Sheppard observations, that Eglinton ridership growth over the next couple decades will have a destination pattern similar to today's Eglinton bus riders. New development will most likely be residential with an occasional shopping segment here and there.

I would have thought that Crosstown would enable new commuting patterns to uptown destinations more than downtown - making uptown employment more attractive, and growing with uptown development.

I don't doubt it will make that section of town more attractive than it is today but I personally would be extremely surprised if it outstripped the attractiveness of Union Station for office space. I think the best case for Yonge & Eglinton would be a result similar to Bloor & Yonge but with a lower price-point.

Fair enough - The question might be better put as what would one do if the ridership exceeded what one could do with a three-"unit"-Flexity LRT specification. One would be to look for a higher capacity vehicle that would fit the current 90M length, low-floor, overhead electrical envelope. Another would be to install a more sophisticated traffic control system that allowed closer headways. This kind of option is "affordable". The option that is doable, but may never be "affordable", is lengthening the platforms. There is too much stuff in the way - all of it movable, but at considerable cost.

Eglinton is getting a decent signalling/control system (same as Yonge IIRC) for the tunnel chunk. Of course, in 30 years I'm sure better systems will be on the market.

Vehicles can possibly be widened for some expense (rebuild platform edges) in the tunnel. I'm not sure what street-level modifications might be needed. Of course trains with open gangways and 2 cabs (no mid-train cabs) could be used.

My feeling is that it'll be 50+ years before Eglinton becomes a destination street.

That said, if it comes down to wider rolling stock, I'd much prefer to see additional investment in East/West lines (Finch extension, perhaps Lawrence or York Mills LRT, maybe even a GO mid-town corridor, ...)

 

[W. K. Lis]

Being articulated, the light rail vehicles can be lengthened by adding on modules to the body. Either at manufacturing end, or later in-house.

The current longest streetcar/tram/light-rail vehicle is about 72m in length, varying in the number of modules. Toronto's Freedom vehicles are currently to be 5 modules, or about 30.8m in length. The modules maybe variable in length, and in door widths.