Toronto Eglinton Line 5 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[steveintoronto]

How can the TTC not know about this when the design of the Crosstown itself / crossover tracks in this area are clearly dependent on the expected ridership and subsequent service schedule? Astonishing.

Perhaps that *is* the answer? They just don't know...about a lot of things.

Are you criticizing my observation (assumption) or the TTC?

He's making your point even more emphatically...

 

[TheTigerMaster]

How can the TTC not know about this when the design of the Crosstown itself / crossover tracks in this area are clearly dependent on the expected ridership and subsequent service schedule? Astonishing.

Like with TYSSE, I don’t expect the precise and detailed service plan (similar to the TTC Service Summary) to be drafted until months before opening.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

This is the expected answer right?
View attachment 151270

This then made me realize that it’s possible that the TTC may not know much about the Crosstown other than what’s available to the public. Where the information will be obtained when the stations get handed over. Is this a possibility?

I also wonder to what degree ML will be calling the shots with regards to service planning. I wonder this because, as of a few months ago, ML wanted to operate FWLRT with 5 to 8 min frequencies, which would be an astonishingly poor level of service for a surface route, and for what is ostensibly a rapid transit route.

 

[hw621]

Is TTC even operating that line?

 

[smallspy]

How can the TTC not know about this when the design of the Crosstown itself / crossover tracks in this area are clearly dependent on the expected ridership and subsequent service schedule? Astonishing.

I suspect that the truth is more that Brad Ross has no idea what the plans are. My friends in the service planning department have been working on-and-off on service delivery for when the line opens for quite some time - to the point at which they are already planning on the changes necessary to the bus routes across Eglinton.

That said, there is still 3 years or so left before the line is scheduled to open, and ridership patterns may yet change.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Rainforest]

We won't know for sure at this time, but thinking logically ..

- Demand east of Yonge will be higher than west of Yonge. East of Yonge, the frequent and busy 54 Lawrence East bus will entirely feed into ECLRT at Don Mills. Moreover, the ridership from the dense Flemmington Park neighborhood is split between Eglinton and the routes going to Pape today, but once the faster ECLRT opens, more of those riders will shift to ECLRT. In the west on the other hand, all 3 major bus routes (Bathurst, Dufferin, Keele) intersecting ECLRT have direct connection to Bloor subway, plus the Eglinton West station will take some of the transfers.

- Demand east of Yonge still fits comfortably into the line's capacity (unless the forecasts are way off mark). Two-car trains on 3-min headways (20 trains per hour) can handle 7,000 riders per hour per direction. So, it is just a matter of running enough trains.

- Once you run enough trains to handle the demand east of Yonge, same trains will run west of Yonge and handle the demand there. If so, then what's the point of running short-turn trains just to Laird?

The Laird crossover may be handy in emergencies, but I don't see it being used for regular short-turns, at least for the first few years after the line opens.

 

[crs1026]

I suspect that the truth is more that Brad Ross has no idea what the plans are.

Nor would anyone concerned with their personal and their employer's credibility release a firm finely detailed plan at this early date, knowing that much can change in the interim.

"But.... But.... But..... Last year, Brad Ross said that plan would be......." would be the typical UT response when the thing got tweaked. Never mind the media and "official" pundits......

- Paul

 

[innsertnamehere]

my understanding was always that they were planning 3 minute service fro Mount Pleasant to Laird, with every other train then turning back, resulting in 6 minute service on the surface.

This could then be ramped up over time as ridership increases.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Not that there's anything wrong with this tread, but should it be renamed to have more information? TTC: Line 5 Eglinton Crosstown LRT (Metrolinx)

 

[Streety McCarface]

Ok, I am sure its been mentioned before but this is really on my mind, how is 15,000 ppdph ever going to be enough for the Crosstown (and that's only realistically the capacity of the tunneled section)?

To give some context in Vancouver the Canada Line has a similar max buildout capacity (though it's not fully utilized yet) and already carries almost 7k ppdph in the peak, that's with the trains at absolute crush load too, with the additional trains that were recently ordered capacity will be nearly 10k and the latent demand will likely fill that very quickly (people certainly avoid the line due to all the crowding). I cannot imagine how Eglinton will not suffer the exact same issues (and worse) given the density on Eglinton is already higher and I'm sure given the size of the GTA the redevelopment along the street will be even more significant than on Cambie (the street the Canada line runs under). Sure we might have enough capacity for day 1 but I really doubt it's going to be enough in even 20 years after the line opens.

Given that Vancouver is already trying to figure out how to fix the mess that is the Canada Line I really wonder if we should be questioning why we'd be going for such a low max capacity on such a significant project, it seems really risky . . .

I wonder if we will see the Line Split at Laird with the grade separated portion, fully automated (or operated automatically with attendants to satisfy the unions) and get new LRV's that operate as single vehicles, what kind of capacities could we push the line to if we did that and added platform screen doors etc?

That number is vastly overstated -- 7,500-9K is more accurate because they vastly overstate the capacity of a Flexity.

All those "improvements" will do little to increase capacity limitations that the line may have, and will be super costly. They should have built the line as a subway and shelved Sheppard (which they ended up doing anyway). If there is one existing project that should've/should be built as a subway, it's the Eglinton Crosstown. We did not need a subway to Vaughan, nor need an LRT on Sheppard.

We know how slow the door situation on the Outlooks can be, so the crosstown needs to doaway with that to decrease dwell times, and they also need longer LRVs (like the Citadis) to even scratch the surface on available capacity.

 

[robmausser]

Ok, I am sure its been mentioned before but this is really on my mind, how is 15,000 ppdph ever going to be enough for the Crosstown (and that's only realistically the capacity of the tunneled section)?

To give some context in Vancouver the Canada Line has a similar max buildout capacity (though it's not fully utilized yet) and already carries almost 7k ppdph in the peak, that's with the trains at absolute crush load too, with the additional trains that were recently ordered capacity will be nearly 10k and the latent demand will likely fill that very quickly (people certainly avoid the line due to all the crowding). I cannot imagine how Eglinton will not suffer the exact same issues (and worse) given the density on Eglinton is already higher and I'm sure given the size of the GTA the redevelopment along the street will be even more significant than on Cambie (the street the Canada line runs under). Sure we might have enough capacity for day 1 but I really doubt it's going to be enough in even 20 years after the line opens.

Given that Vancouver is already trying to figure out how to fix the mess that is the Canada Line I really wonder if we should be questioning why we'd be going for such a low max capacity on such a significant project, it seems really risky . . .

I wonder if we will see the Line Split at Laird with the grade separated portion, fully automated (or operated automatically with attendants to satisfy the unions) and get new LRV's that operate as single vehicles, what kind of capacities could we push the line to if we did that and added platform screen doors etc?

Even before this, the underground Crosstown stations were designed to eventually fit 4 car length trains, with some modifications.

At the end of each platform are non-load bearing walls making up 2 areas for storage space. They can eventually be taken down and the platforms can be extended to accomodate 4 car Flexties.

Above ground stations can be lengthened obviously quite easily, just need to construct them.

Also the Crosstown is already going to be run with full ATC at launch

ATC

• Stands for Automatic Train Control. A remote controlled system in which train operations are controlled entirely by software from a centralized control room. Crosstown LRVs will operate with ATC.

http://thecrosstown.ca/CrosstownGlossary

 

[Kyle Campbell]

Even before this, the underground Crosstown stations were designed to eventually fit 4 car length trains, with some modifications.

At the end of each platform are non-load bearing walls making up 2 areas for storage space. They can eventually be taken down and the platforms can be extended to accomodate 4 car Flexties.

Above ground stations can be lengthened obviously quite easily, just need to construct them.

Also the Crosstown is already going to be run with full ATC at launch



http://thecrosstown.ca/CrosstownGlossary

Really, full ATC even on the surface sections? I thought the Metro line fiasco in Edmonton might have people considering otherwise, although in this case there's no crossing gates to synchronize, which I thought was the problem with Edmonton's line

 

[Amare]

The Crosstown will only be using ATC in the underground section, while the at-grade section will be manually operated.

 

[hw621]

The Crosstown will only be using ATC in the underground section, while the at-grade section will be manually operated.

And they will have to put drivers in the trains although they will have nothing to do for two thirds of the ride. Wise use of money.

 

[Amare]

And they will have to put drivers in the trains although they will have nothing to do for two thirds of the ride. Wise use of money.

I'd say it's a pretty wise move. For one, in case of emergency, the driver would be able to stop the vehicle especially these days where people seem to have a a loving fantasy of trespassing on track level.

It would also be pretty inefficient and a waste of time for drivers to be hoping on and off between the at-grade section, and the underground section. It's not like we have much of a choice here.