[Sunnyside]

I think the thing that’ll really determine how well Eglinton will work is the interface between the “subway” portion and the on-street portion and if the at grade portion really screws up the line or not. Hopefully not.

This is a key physical constraint for sure. I would think something that would make-or-break the line is also the number of people switching from using Line 2 to using Line 5, as that determines how big of an issue the design is. I imagine it won’t be a small number given how many buses will be looping into stations.

The previous bus routes aren’t the best indicator as those only served Eglinton itself- the number of people transferring onto those routes was for local travel, but a TTC subway is more than that. If you were heading downtown from Jane and Lawrence and went to Jane Station before, you are almost certainly going to use Line 5 at Mount Dennis now instead. Now apply that logic across every intersecting bus route, and factor that most subway ridership comes from feeder buses.

In essence, It will all depend how much system demand Line 5 takes over. I might be wrong, but I don’t think that’s something you can mitigate for if you’re inducing the behaviour with high quality transfers. GO transfers might be the only reasonable way to ensure trains aren’t always full at Eglinton/Eg West in the long term.

 

[junctionist]

If the surface-level portion of the line doesn't perform well, they should just start tunnelling again and extend the subway part east to Kennedy. Let the surface LRT handle 5-10 years of usage during the construction, and then turn it into a landscaped median. Alternatively, run a Vancouver-style elevated light rail line.

 

[CapitalSeven]

An alternative would be to pay someone 5 million to engineer proper signal priority instead of 5 billion to build a subway under a new surface line.

 

[T3G]

An alternative would be to pay someone 5 million to engineer proper signal priority instead of 5 billion to build a subway under a new surface line.

Toronto has never been known in the modern era to spend $5 when $50 will do.

 

[junctionist]

An alternative would be to pay someone 5 million to engineer proper signal priority instead of 5 billion to build a subway under a new surface line.

That wouldn’t eliminate the potential for accidents with pedestrians or the need to slow at intersections to reduce the likelihood of accidents with vehicles. But it would be a good interim measure.

 

[T3G]

There is no need to slow at intersections, other than the TTC's own convention (or, if you prefer, paranoia).

As for the potential for accidents with pedestrians, I don't believe any stations on the line are supposed to get platform screen doors, including the underground ones.

 

[Richard White]

There is no need to slow at intersections, other than the TTC's own convention (or, if you prefer, paranoia).

As for the potential for accidents with pedestrians, I don't believe any stations on the line are supposed to get platform screen doors, including the underground ones.

Do me a favor. Cross the street against the light in front of a streetcar going 60 KPH.

I am sure you will be fine when it takes you out.

 

[T3G]

Do me a favor. Cross the street against the light in front of a streetcar going 60 KPH.

I am sure you will be fine when it takes you out.

And after I do that, I will cross in front of a train doing 100 km/h, and then in front of a bus doing 60 km/h, and then perhaps a car doing 70 km/h while its driver attempts to send a text message, none of which will bother to slow down for me.

Could it be that when the tram has the light, I'm not supposed to be crossing?

 

[MovingBlock]

And after I do that, I will cross in front of a train doing 100 km/h, and then in front of a bus doing 60 km/h, and then perhaps a car doing 70 km/h while its driver attempts to send a text message, none of which will bother to slow down for me.

Could it be that when the tram has the light, I'm not supposed to be crossing?

The tram needs to be prepared to stop if the light changes. This isn't like Vienna, where there is a distant signal for the tram (which isn't possible in Toronto for safety reasons).

 

[T3G]

What safety reasons are those?

As for the light changes, don't all traffic light cycles come with brief periods of time where no one has the light, to deal exactly with scenarios like this? A fully loaded bus or an 18 wheeler can't stop at a moment's notice, either.

 

[Rainforest]

About the same that the Sheppard East subway would be overcapacity the first year.

Which is near zero. 20-years later76 cars is more than enough to carry far more than predicted. Metrolinx says with 76 cars than can run every 190 seconds. That's 19 trains a hour (in each direction). If you guestimate a capacity of 400 per (two-car) train, that's 7,600 each hour. The predicted 2031 ridership was about 5,000 an hour - before Covid.

If somehow they have completely blown it, they can always replace service between Don Mills and Kennedy with buses, and push the trains to 3 cars, increasing capacity to 10,000 an hour.

I believe, even the surface sections Don Mills - Kennedy and Brentcliff - Leslie are designed to allow 3-car trains. The street blocks are very long on that section of Eglinton, it should be possible to fit long surface stops. They might not need to replace anything with buses.

Of course, that assumes that the line opens sometime in the 2020s.

We can't, but there's years to order additional cars to lengthen the trains from 62 metres to 93 metres. And frequencies can get much higher.

At full capacity, they should be able to get over 20,000 an hour between Don Mills and Pearson; and the Don Mills to Kennedy section is no where near the peak point. If they break 20,000 one day, time to build an additional east-west line somewhere.

Not sure about 20,000 an hour, the estimates for the capacity limit I've seen are 13,500 to 15,000. It is not just what the trains can carry, but also what the station platforms and escalators / stairs can handle.

Though, even 15,000 should be enough for a while.

 

[adys123]

The tram needs to be prepared to stop if the light changes. This isn't like Vienna, where there is a distant signal for the tram (which isn't possible in Toronto for safety reasons).

I know there are special provisions on Finch West LRT that will help support the movement of LRVs better that are not on ECLRT. I believe that it will still interface with the signalling system with ATP that will provide better than line-of-sight operation.

 

[Rainforest]

I think the thing that’ll really determine how well Eglinton will work is the interface between the “subway” portion and the on-street portion and if the at grade portion really screws up the line or not. Hopefully not.

Probably' won't be a huge problem. It's not like fully grade-separated subways always run smoothly, sometimes too many trains are stuck in one section of the line and as a rider, you need patience to take their stop-n-go, 10 kph average speed crawl.

Speaking of Eglinton, the whole line - even the tunneled sections - is designed to be in the middle between a subway and a surface route. Medium capacity, medium speed. That's probably not wise, as the final cost is a lot closer to a full subway than to a full surface route. But, the line will be functional as is.

Transit fans focus on the operational details, but 98% of transit riders only care about the total travel time, wait time, and whether the vehicle is crowded or not.

 

[Dan416]

Probably' won't be a huge problem. It's not like fully grade-separated subways always run smoothly, sometimes too many trains are stuck in one section of the line and as a rider, you need patience to take their stop-n-go, 10 kph average speed crawl.

Speaking of Eglinton, the whole line - even the tunneled sections - is designed to be in the middle between a subway and a surface route. Medium capacity, medium speed. That's probably not wise, as the final cost is a lot closer to a full subway than to a full surface route. But, the line will be functional as is.

Transit fans focus on the operational details, but 98% of transit riders only care about the total travel time, wait time, and whether the vehicle is crowded or not.

I guess we’ll see what the travel time actually ends up being.

 

[MovingBlock]

Transit fans focus on the operational details, but 98% of transit riders only care about the total travel time, wait time, and whether the vehicle is crowded or not.

The details we are discussing are ones that affect travel times.

What safety reasons are those?

As for the light changes, don't all traffic light cycles come with brief periods of time where no one has the light, to deal exactly with scenarios like this? A fully loaded bus or an 18 wheeler can't stop at a moment's notice, either.

Trams take longer to stop vs. a bus because of the low friction between the wheel and rail. This means that a tram has to start braking further away from the light than a bus would. If visibility of the signal is poor at the braking point, the tram always has to brake before the intersection.

In Vienna, this issue is mitigated by placing a distant signal (right side of the image) well before the intersection to indicate to the tram whether it should start braking. The timing of the distance signal is set so that if a tram passes it at the speed limit while it is showing 'proceed', it is guaranteed that the tram will be able to proceed past the main signal at the intersection. This allows trams to avoid unnecessary braking when approaching a signal that is about to change, reducing travel time.

The reason this can't be done in Toronto (or is difficult to implement) is because the lights at (most) intersections are operated in a demand-responsive manner, where light phases can be lengthened (or shortened) in response to variation in demand. For safety reasons, once the distant signal for the tram starts to show 'proceed', the main signal must change to 'proceed' shortly after (otherwise the tram will be unable to brake in time). This means the intersection controller needs to commit to authorizing the tram to proceed well before the signal actually changes. Additionally, the main signal for the tram cannot be changed to 'stop' unless the distant signal has displayed 'stop' for the amount of time required for a tram to travel from the distant signal to the intersection. This in turn limits the flexibility of the controller to respond to variation in cross traffic flows. (i.e. cross-traffic is very high, it may not be possible to give a green extension or finish the tram's phase early.)

In Austria, traffic lights operate on a fixed-time control (i.e. the intersection controller will never extend, shorten or skip a light phase in response to changes in demand), so these issues aren't present. In other countries where intersection control is demand-responsive (e.g. Netherlands), this is never done.

Additionally, the 'clearing time' (where no vehicle is authorized to pass through the intersection) represents a loss of road capacity, which you generally want to minimize.