[officedweller]

A station box on an incline? I'm not a complete expert but that seems strange to me. Are any existing TTC stations inclined?

Some Canada Line Stations in Vancouver are inclined about that much.

i.e. King Edward Station:

https://urban.melbourne/transport/2013/03/12/submission-to-the-rowville-rail-study

 

[Steve X]

And how are they supposed to build access to the bus platforms then? You've got the railway tracks on the west, LRT tracks on the south and east, and the LRT yard (for the time being) on the north. There simply is no other way to access the location where the bus terminal is going.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

I wasn't suggesting a terminal but bus bays on the side of the street that buses can pull in and out easily and continue. When Lawrence West was closed, buses loaded/unloaded much quickly than having to wait for a left turn. The only problem there is access to the subway. As for Mt Dennis Station, the railway bridge overpass would need to be lengthen. Buses can turn around and load on the other side of the street. I'm just suggesting that the 89 would have to dip into the bus terminal and out adding up to 5 minutes of delay.

The LRT tracks are elevated on the NW corner of Black Creek and Eglinton (where Keelesdale is now). Assume a bus is coming westward on Eglington. It would turn right onto Keelesdale. The bus entrance can follow the north side of the LRT ROW It can then skirt the east side of the redevelopment site south of Photography drive and then follow the Photography drive ROW into the bus bays. The only incremental pedestrian impact is an additional bus-only street on the North side of Eglinton. Coming out of the bus bays the 35 bus could do the same.

This would eliminate the need for any left turns onto Photography Drive from Eglinton (and the need for a traffic signal.

Is this necessary? The 34 Eglinton bus runs every 15 minutes. The busy 32 is gone.
With the Photography Drive extension, all buses northbound buses from Black Creek would make the turn on the new extension.

 

[ssiguy2]

Curious..............I know that Kingston/UTS is ready to get shovels in the ground as soon as Trudeau and Wynne make the announcement as everything is all done including environmental reviews. Is that also the case with Eglinton East {DM to Kennedy} and West {MD to Renforth}?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Curious..............I know that Kingston/UTS is ready to get shovels in the ground as soon as Trudeau and Wynne make the announcement as everything is all done including environmental reviews. Is that also the case with Eglinton East {DM to Kennedy} and West {MD to Renforth}?

Crosstown West and East are being reviewed and potentially redesigned. That might necessitate a new EA. Transit EA's typically take about 6 to 8 months, though I'd expect any Crosstown West and Crosstown East EA revisions to not take as long, since they're redesigning only parts of the line. We'll have a clearer picture once we know if the line is being modified.

The biggest unknown at this point is how long any modifications might take. Toronto City Planning might not even be able to do detailed design evaluations at this point, as they haven't received instruction or funding from Council for that. Beginning any EA modifications will certainly require a Council vote, and that will probably happen in June, along with the EA approval for RL and SSE.

Regardless, the Crosstown extension will be "shovel ready" soon enough. Almost certainly within the year.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

If City Planning and Metrolinx really want this thing built, they'll modify the crosstown schedule such that the Crosstown West construction starts at Renforh, and Crosstown East (Kennedy to UTSC) will start at UTSC, both starting at end-of-year 2017. That'll thwart any efforts to cancel after the 2018 provincial and 2018 municipal elections.

 

[Steve X]

If City Planning and Metrolinx really want this thing built, they'll modify the crosstown schedule such that the Crosstown West construction starts at Renforh, and Crosstown East (Kennedy to UTSC) will start at UTSC, both starting at end-of-year 2017. That'll thwart any efforts to cancel after the 2018 provincial and 2018 municipal elections.

It's not that easy to start before 2018. The EA amendment is not the problem if council cooperates. Metrolinx proposed two amendments before they started construction, one for the the elevated alignment over Black Creek and another to extend the tunnel to Don Mills. Only one got through. They also completed the design for Kennedy Station.

The bidding and tendering process takes much longer. The Crosstown LRT when through a year long phase to request for qualifications. (Finch West LRT is still in this stage). To get a competitive price, they'll have to do this again. Otherwise they can hand the extension to the current consortium since they will be maintaining the LRVs and carhouse for the next 30 years. There isn't a lot of time for Metrolinx to re-evaluate both Crosstown West and East, have open houses and complete the EA amendments by the end of the year. Then gather the funds and tender the project out by end of 2017. It takes months for the consortium to design the alignment and schedule the construction timeline. Getting the contract in by early 2018 is really tight. If they can get it though, a 2021/2022 opening is possible.

The EA only accounts for 10-30% of the design work. The consortium bidding for it still has to do the majority of the design before they get the project which takes time.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Crosstown West and East are being reviewed and potentially redesigned. That might necessitate a new EA. Transit EA's typically take about 6 to 8 months, though I'd expect any Crosstown West and Crosstown East EA revisions to not take as long, since they're redesigning only parts of the line.

This would be an 'addendum'; a revision to an existing EA. This would take minimal time once a design is decided upon.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Quick question about the capacity of the Eglinton Line:

Eglinton Line's claims capacity is 15,000 pphpd. This is with (40 trains/hour)(3 cars/train)*(130 passengers*car)

40 trains/hour * 130 passengers/car * 3 cars = 15,600 passengers per hour at peak point

The problem with this is that it seems to assume that we're 3 using Flexity Freedom cars coupled together. This setup has quite a bit of "dead space" between the cars, because between each car would be the couplers and two compartments for drivers. Wouldn't a single, long articulated train (similar to the TR's) allow Eglinton to have significantly higher capacity than 15,600 pphpd?

 

[rbt]

The problem with this is that it seems to assume that we're 3 using Flexity Freedom cars coupled together. This setup has quite a bit of "dead space" between the cars, because between each car would be the couplers and two compartments for drivers. Wouldn't a single, long articulated train (similar to the TR's) allow Eglinton to have significantly higher capacity than 15,600 pphpd?

Yes. A few modifications may be made to boost capacity of Eglinton.

Out of the gate I would expect Eglinton frequencies to be restricted to prevent overloading Yonge. We cannot put an additional 30kpph onto Southbound Yonge (15k from East Eglinton and 15k from West Eglinton).

Ultimately, for Eglinton capacity to be an issue there needs to be a few hundred thousand people going to destinations on Eglinton during morning rush. That's not going to happen during the first decade, and probably not the second or 3rd decade either.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

They're projecting 5,600 approaching Yonge. Capacity won't be an issue for several decades.

 

[crs1026]

Out of the gate I would expect Eglinton frequencies to be restricted to prevent overloading Yonge. We cannot put an additional 30kpph onto Southbound Yonge (15k from East Eglinton and 15k from West Eglinton).

I would hate to see that happen. All we need is a mixed message where we don't welcome every transit rider out there. Eglinton capacity needs to be kept comfortably above demand.

The fact that it's even floated as a potential scenario is another argument to get the DRL moving.

- Paul

 

[Steve X]

There is no way they can get 40 trains/hour through Eglinton Station. 34 is a more realistic number for ATO. The Crush load for the Flexity Freedom is 251. 130 is TTC's number for comfort. Metrolinx used a higher number in it's calculation. It would be nicer if they got the longer LRVs that Edmonton and Ottawa are getting. If we get the 45m LRVs instead of the current 30m LRVs, then we remove some space. On the maintenance side, the facility is designed for 30m LRVs so it's no possible to change to a TR design since trains that long don't fit in the yard.

I would hate to see that happen. All we need is a mixed message where we don't welcome every transit rider out there. Eglinton capacity needs to be kept comfortably above demand.

The fact that it's even floated as a potential scenario is another argument to get the DRL moving.

- Paul

If we keep building transit, this won't happen. Bloor-Yonge is a good demonstration of not building new rapid transit in 3 decades.

 

[nfitz]

There is no way they can get 40 trains/hour through Eglinton Station. 34 is a more realistic number for ATO. The Crush load for the Flexity Freedom is 251. 130 is TTC's number for comfort.

There is no way one can get 250 on a Flexity. That's like 125 in the half-length CLRVs. Stand there when a CLRV is crush loaded, with people standing on all the steps, and it's going to be no more than about 80.

Any more than that, and you have people sitting on laps, and everyone else wearing a baby carrier.

Yes, Bombardier has published that number; but it's clearly absurd.

130 isn't comfort. 130 is squishy, and starting to slow down access/egress.

 

[Steve X]

There is no way one can get 250 on a Flexity. That's like 125 in the half-length CLRVs. Stand there when a CLRV is crush loaded, with people standing on all the steps, and it's going to be no more than about 80.

Any more than that, and you have people sitting on laps, and everyone else wearing a baby carrier.

Yes, Bombardier has published that number; but it's clearly absurd.

130 isn't comfort. 130 is squishy, and starting to slow down access/egress.

Shhh Metrolinx doesn't know that 130 is squishy when Bombardier published 251. At 15000pph with 34 trains (about 105 second headway), it would be 147 riders per car.

Bombardier's number is for in shape passengers in summer wear with no carry-on/strollers only.

 

[Markster]

If we keep building transit, this won't happen. Bloor-Yonge is a good demonstration of not building new rapid transit in 3 decades.

Yeah, the DRL is not just the Yonge relief line. It's also the Bloor Relief Line and the Eglinton Relief Line too!

If Eglinton is ever approaching capacity, then look at where the riders are coming from and going to, and give them an alternate way of getting there! Downtown bound people should eventually be transferring at the closest GO station to frequent GO service. Build rapid transit on Lawrence to intercept connecting buses sooner. Etc, etc, etc...