[TheTigerMaster]

That's pretty unique, and a real plus to the LRT model and low level platforms. I wonder about exhaust fumes, but that raises the issue of electric buses, or at least fuel cell ones. If you can get a bus to run 'clean', sharing that tunnel with LRVs multiplies the investment many times over. My immediate impression (although far from accurate) was the Miss. Busway, except in tunnel for much of the distance, and sharing the RoW with LRVs.

Toronto's potential Rail Deck Park will have to deal with exhaust from large diesel trains, that likely produce thousands times more emissions than a bus. That'll be dealt with with extensive active ventilation systems.

 

[steveintoronto]

Toronto's potential Rail Deck Park will have to deal with exhaust from large diesel trains, that likely produce thousands times more emissions than a bus. That'll be dealt with with extensive active ventilation systems.

Actually the answer to both is electric.

Seattle's was hybrid bus:

[...]
Metro began testing a fleet of new hybrid diesel-electric buses in 2002, intending to use them in the bus tunnel before and after the conversion to joint bus-rail operations.[169] The first few of a planned fleet of 235 hybrid diesel-electric articulated buses began operating on tunnel bus routes in June 2004.[170] The Breda dual-mode trolleybuses were removed from the tunnel in January 2005 and would later be refurbished into electric-only trolleybuses for use on the city's trolleybus network.[48] The last day of trolleybus operation in the tunnel was January 24, 2005, with only a single dual-mode bus in service on the final day.[171][172]
[...]

Link above. Excellent lengthy article.

 

[crs1026]

The wide distances between stations allows the transit signal priority system to accurately predict when a train is coming. It can see that a train is a kilometre away, and know that it will be here in roughly 60 seconds, because it doesn't have intermediate stations adding variability to the schedule. It can the accordingly adjust the signal phases to accommodate the train.

The other issue with gates is that on Eglinton, there will be north-south queues at intersections at peak. There is potential for drivers to stop on the tracks and then have the gates come down on top of them. That's a lot more complicated to solve. I don't know if Edmonton or Calgary have that experience or deal with that somehow. The obvious solution is for drivers to not advance onto the tracks until there is room to drive off them, but we are talking Toronto drivers and the stop-look-and-proceed-when-safe could impact the flow of the queues. Seems very undesirable to me.

The case study I would point to is LA's Gold line. It's grade separated until a short stretch in South Pasadena, where there are gates, some of them restricted by the traffic light cycle on intersecting streets. The Gold Line is a wonderful example of a "zoom" LRT - until you hit that stretch, and until you realise that that LRT is stopped and waiting for its turn in the traffic light cycle. The contrast is striking.

The bulk of criticism directed towards LRT comes from drivers concerned about losing traffic lanes (war on cars), which target intersection grade separations doesn't do much to address. Something tells me that the Rob Fords of the world will continue to whine about LRT, with or without the targeted separations.

Well, the kind of separations we are talking about for Eglinton have the potential to preserve all the auto lanes that exist today. Drivers will complain during construction, yes. But the selling point of all that extra expense is preserving auto flow. Unlike say King, Eglinton is not the place to be talking "fair share of the roadway". It's such an important road and funnel/portal/chokepoint from the 401-427 network to the west end of the city. We need it to be as auto-friendly as possible, as well as LRT-friendly. This has to be win-win, not win-lose.

- Paul

 

[MisterF]

I'm not intimately familiar with the C-Train, but I can speak on Seattle. In that system, the stations are extremely far apart; around 2.5 kilometres between stations. These distances are highly unusual for light rail and conventional metro systems.

The wide distances between stations allows the transit signal priority system to accurately predict when a train is coming. It can see that a train is a kilometre away, and know that it will be here in roughly 60 seconds, because it doesn't have intermediate stations adding variability to the schedule. It can the accordingly adjust the signal phases to accommodate the train.

With the Eglinton West LRT having stops every 1000 metres, that kind of set up will not be effective here. It might work if we drop half the stops, leaving stops only at Jane, Royal York, Kipling and Renforth. The LRT itself would be a lot faster, but you'd be forcing people to walk another 10 mins or so to their destinations, or forcing them to transfer to a bus. This isn't a very attractive option, in my opinion.

What evidence do you have that it won't work with 1000 m station spacing? In Calgary the stations tend to be 1-1.5 km apart, with some stations being in the 800 m range. Same thing with the Blue line in Minneapolis. So the evidence seems to suggest that a design with crossing arms and 1000 m station spacing does work.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

What evidence do you have that it won't work with 1000 m station spacing? In Calgary the stations tend to be 1-1.5 km apart, with some stations being in the 800 m range. Same thing with the Blue line in Minneapolis. So the evidence seems to suggest that a design with crossing arms and 1000 m station spacing does work.

Can you provide a specific example in Calgary of stations with 1000 metres or less stop spacing with at-grade street crossings? I just took a look at the Calgary system on Google Maps, and for the most part the stations were 1.3 km apart, or significantly further. Stations that were less than 1000 metres apart all had no at-grade street crossings between them (so no need for signal priority).

Not saying you're wrong. I just can't find any examples of what you're claiming.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Well, the kind of separations we are talking about for Eglinton have the potential to preserve all the auto lanes that exist today. Drivers will complain during construction, yes. But the selling point of all that extra expense is preserving auto flow. Unlike say King, Eglinton is not the place to be talking "fair share of the roadway". It's such an important road and funnel/portal/chokepoint from the 401-427 network to the west end of the city. We need it to be as auto-friendly as possible, as well as LRT-friendly. This has to be win-win, not win-lose.

I just simply tell drivers that a single LRT means dozens of buses are off the road.

Buses are the major source of congestion on many corridors, especially on Eglinton. The manner to which they bunch up in rows of 4-7 vehicles (on Eglinton it is sometimes more), take up an entire lane, and then take up the adjacent travel lane as they attempt to overtake one another at bus stops, all contributes to the congestion on the corridor.

Obviously, if not for those buses there would be a gajillion more cars on the road. But that notwithstanding, the single greatest thing the LRT will do for traffic on Eglinton is removing the buses from the road.

 

[Edward Skira]

An interesting article on how power supply in the tunnels is being addressed.

http://www.thecrosstown.ca/node/2017

 

[W. K. Lis]

I just simply tell drivers that a single LRT means dozens of buses are off the road.

Buses are the major source of congestion on many corridors, especially on Eglinton. The manner to which they bunch up in rows of 4-7 vehicles (on Eglinton it is sometimes more), take up an entire lane, and then take up the adjacent travel lane as they attempt to overtake one another at bus stops, all contributes to the congestion on the corridor.

Obviously, if not for those buses there would be a gajillion more cars on the road. But that notwithstanding, the single greatest thing the LRT will do for traffic on Eglinton is removing the buses from the road.

The Don Valley Parkway must be clear sailing since there are no bus stops on the Don Valley Parkway. (Not!)

 

[Amare]

An interesting article on how power supply in the tunnels is being addressed.

http://www.thecrosstown.ca/node/2017

View attachment 129974 View attachment 129975

That should make for a lot of fun for when the conduits have to be replaced, and when the concrete tunnel linings have to be replaced in 50 years!

 

[MisterF]

Can you provide a specific example in Calgary of stations with 1000 metres or less stop spacing with at-grade street crossings? I just took a look at the Calgary system on Google Maps, and for the most part the stations were 1.3 km apart, or significantly further. Stations that were less than 1000 metres apart all had no at-grade street crossings between them (so no need for signal priority).

Not saying you're wrong. I just can't find any examples of what you're claiming.

In Calgary, NB SAIT/ACAD and Lions Park Stations are 900 m apart.
In Edmonton, McKernan Balgravia and Health Sciences Jubilee Stations are 800 m apart.
In Minneapolis, Bloomington Central is 500 m from American Blvd/34th Ave Station and 400 m from 28th Ave Station.

Minneapolis is an interesting case because its Blue Line was designed to pre-empt traffic signals while the Green Line wasn't. The Green Line stops at red lights because it runs down the main urban commercial street connecting downtown Minneapolis to downtown St. Paul. It has short blocks, lots of pedestrians, and tight spaces. There have also been lots of complaints about how slow and unreliable it is compared to the Blue Line.

Eglinton West, of course, is the polar opposite of that the kind of urban environment the Green Line runs through.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I'm not intimately familiar with the C-Train, but I can speak on Seattle. In that system, the stations are extremely far apart; around 2.5 kilometres between stations. These distances are highly unusual for light rail and conventional metro systems.

The wide distances between stations allows the transit signal priority system to accurately predict when a train is coming. It can see that a train is a kilometre away, and know that it will be here in roughly 60 seconds, because it doesn't have intermediate stations adding variability to the schedule. It can the accordingly adjust the signal phases to accommodate the train.

With the Eglinton West LRT having stops every 1000 metres, that kind of set up will not be effective here. It might work if we drop half the stops, leaving stops only at Jane, Royal York, Kipling and Renforth. The LRT itself would be a lot faster, but you'd be forcing people to walk another 10 mins or so to their destinations, or forcing them to transfer to a bus. This isn't a very attractive option, in my opinion.

What evidence do you have that it won't work with 1000 m station spacing? In Calgary the stations tend to be 1-1.5 km apart, with some stations being in the 800 m range. Same thing with the Blue line in Minneapolis. So the evidence seems to suggest that a design with crossing arms and 1000 m station spacing does work.

Can you provide a specific example in Calgary of stations with 1000 metres or less stop spacing with at-grade street crossings? I just took a look at the Calgary system on Google Maps, and for the most part the stations were 1.3 km apart, or significantly further. Stations that were less than 1000 metres apart all had no at-grade street crossings between them (so no need for signal priority).

Not saying you're wrong. I just can't find any examples of what you're claiming.

In Calgary, NB SAIT/ACAD and Lions Park Stations are 900 m apart.
In Edmonton, McKernan Balgravia and Health Sciences Jubilee Stations are 800 m apart.

Okay, thanks!

In my original comment I said that Seattle-style setup with crossing arms wouldn't reliably work, because pedestrians would need a certain amount of time (around 20 to 30 seconds) to safely cross Eglinton Avenue. With trains approaching any given intersection on average every 90 seconds, this would mean that the trains would still have to frequently stop to allow pedestrians to finish their crossings. This is true, but only for train right-of-ways in a centre-of-road alignment.

Looking at both the Calgary and Edmonton examples you mentioned, noticed that the LRT is running adjacent to the roadway, rather than in the centre. This means that a 30 or 40 metre pedestrian crossing is reduced to maybe a 10 metre crossing (I'm guesstimating here). Accordingly, the minimum time pedestrians needs to cross the street is reduced, and thus the Transit Signal Priority system doesn't require anywhere near as much advanced notice of an approaching train, compared to the Seattle setup. This allows stations to be positioned much closer together.

So this would likely work on Eglinton if the tram right-of-way was using a side of road alignment. Whether or not the side-of-road alignment is a possibility on the Eglinton West LRT depends on if their are properties adjacent to Eglinton Avenue that require access to the street. There are certainly homes and businesses on parts of Eglinton Avenue that require street access, so to accommodate them, the LRT would have to switch between centre-of-road alignments and side-of-road alignments. This weaving would require either a signalized intersection (similar to Queens Quay when the streetcars switch to side-of-road alignment), OR there would have to be a grade separation, to allow the LRT to switch alignment unimpeded by car traffic. I suspect these restrictions would render the idea infeasible for nearly all of the Eglinton West corridor.

Calgary:

Edmonton:

 

[sixrings]

i lived for three years in the NW of Calgary and took the C train to downtown daily. As much as some people on here are making Eglinton West out to be basically farm land it is much more urban than a lot of where the C train travels. It should also be noted that for Calgary this is their rapid transit. They have the c train and a bus. We on the other hand have GO, then Subway, soon to be LRT, then buses. I guess I am not one whom thinks the LRT needs to do the same things our Subways or Go Trains do. But I do believe it does need to be more in line with our express buses. The LRT itself isnt the problem, but the wide range of what our expectations are of the LRT is.

 

[Dan416]

LRT is marketed as rapid transit when it's proposed, but then it always gets subjected to The Cheapening and ends up being a glorified streetcar.

Not evey intersection needs to be grade separated, but not to do any of them is a big miss at making this an actual LRT.

 

[MisterF]

Okay, thanks!

In my original comment I said that Seattle-style setup with crossing arms wouldn't reliably work, because pedestrians would need a certain amount of time (around 20 to 30 seconds) to safely cross Eglinton Avenue. With trains approaching any given intersection on average every 90 seconds, this would mean that the trains would still have to frequently stop to allow pedestrians to finish their crossings. This is true, but only for train right-of-ways in a centre-of-road alignment.

Looking at both the Calgary and Edmonton examples you mentioned, noticed that the LRT is running adjacent to the roadway, rather than in the centre. This means that a 30 or 40 metre pedestrian crossing is reduced to maybe a 10 metre crossing (I'm guesstimating here). Accordingly, the minimum time pedestrians needs to cross the street is reduced, and thus the Transit Signal Priority system doesn't require anywhere near as much advanced notice of an approaching train, compared to the Seattle setup. This allows stations to be positioned much closer together.

So this would likely work on Eglinton if the tram right-of-way was using a side of road alignment. Whether or not the side-of-road alignment is a possibility on the Eglinton West LRT depends on if their are properties adjacent to Eglinton Avenue that require access to the street. There are certainly homes and businesses on parts of Eglinton Avenue that require street access, so to accommodate them, the LRT would have to switch between centre-of-road alignments and side-of-road alignments. This weaving would require either a signalized intersection (similar to Queens Quay when the streetcars switch to side-of-road alignment), OR there would have to be a grade separation, to allow the LRT to switch alignment unimpeded by car traffic. I suspect these restrictions would render the idea infeasible for nearly all of the Eglinton West corridor.

Calgary:View attachment 130008

Edmonton:View attachment 130009

The Minneapolis example I gave has the line in the middle of a large arterial road, as do much of the systems in Calgary and Edmonton. Pedestrians only need to cross as far as a refuge; this is no different whether the rail is in the middle or on the side. Even the weaving between side and middle alignments that you describe as making the idea infeasible is routinely done in other cities (this is where those selective grade separations I was talking about earlier are often used). The issues you're bringing up aren't the showstoppers you present them as.

i lived for three years in the NW of Calgary and took the C train to downtown daily. As much as some people on here are making Eglinton West out to be basically farm land it is much more urban than a lot of where the C train travels. It should also be noted that for Calgary this is their rapid transit. They have the c train and a bus. We on the other hand have GO, then Subway, soon to be LRT, then buses. I guess I am not one whom thinks the LRT needs to do the same things our Subways or Go Trains do. But I do believe it does need to be more in line with our express buses. The LRT itself isnt the problem, but the wide range of what our expectations are of the LRT is.

Calgary is pretty suburban but Eglinton west of Black Creek is among the most suburban parts of Toronto. It's suburban even by Calgary standards. And there's no GO train or subway on that route so the existence of those modes isn't really relevant to this corridor. I'm not saying that LRT needs to do the same thing as subways and GO trains, I'm saying that LRT in Toronto should do the same thing that LRT does in other cities. LRT can be so much more, so why settle for less?

I thought about your point that Toronto has so much more when it comes to rapid transit. But when you really look at it, the comparison isn't flattering to Toronto at all. Just for the sake of the discussion let's define rapid transit as frequent rail transit that has its own right of way and only stops at stations. So the subway would qualify, as would the Crosstown tunnel, but not the surface Transit City lines the way they're currently designed. And it's kind of a stretch to call GO trains rapid transit, especially on lines other than Lakeshore. So by that admittedly made up definition, Toronto has 87 km of rapid transit including what's under construction. Calgary has about 57 km. So with around 20% of our metropolitan population they have 66% of the rapid transit. Even if you throw in the Mississauga transitway to pad the numbers, that's an abysmal showing for Toronto.

Sure those numbers don't mean much by themselves, but the reality is that Calgary has better rapid transit coverage than Toronto does in terms of how close people live to a line. Ditto Vancouver and Montreal. Comparisons like these really give you an idea an idea of why it's so difficult to get around this city and why pretty much every rapid transit investment is so sorely needed in Toronto. RER, of course, will be a gamechanger for the region (I'd personally call it rapid transit) but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't build LRT to its full potential on routes like Eglinton West.

 

[Rainforest]

The bulk of criticism directed towards LRT comes from drivers concerned about losing traffic lanes (war on cars), which target intersection grade separations doesn't do much to address. Something tells me that the Rob Fords of the world will continue to whine about LRT, with or without the targeted separations.

IMO, the challenge for light rail isn't just criticism / opposition, but even more so indifference / lack of excitement.

Determined opponents won't change their minds just because a couple of grade separations are added. But, they are in minority in the first place.

The silent majority is receptive of light rail, but they are not actively asking for it and not rewarding politicians that promote light rail. Just waiting for the City Council or the province to decide and build something.

Better perception can help with funding the future lines, even though it costs somewhat more at present.