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

[car4041]

It appears that when about 80% of the Crosstown line became grade separated, nobody looked at the benefits of grade separating the entire line.

80%? I think you're forgetting that this is just the first phase of the Eglinton line; Weston/Jane is a temporary western terminus, with the ultimate goal being Pearson. The benefits of grade-separating the entire line need to be calculated over the entire planned length of the line. Choosing an obligatorily grade-separated technology like SkyTrain might make the 11km extension from Jane to Pearson (through a rather low-density area) too expensive to ever justify.

 

[Rainforest]

Cost-effective choices for Eglinton are either subway or LRT, but not Skytrain.

A subway would be fully grade-separate and most expensive when completed, but have lots of spare capacity for the long term.

The partly tunneled LRT (present plan) saves construction costs in Golden Mile and allows for a much cheaper extension from Jane to the airport. But it might get into capacity issues in the long term, and require parallel lines to serve the demand.

Skytrain would just combine the negatives of the above two options: cost almost as much as subway, yet have a much lower capacity.

 

[gweed123]

I knew you would chime in and I am glad you did. I wish I had been paying more attention 5 or 10 years ago, since it would be nice to know the logic (or lack thereof) that brought us to where we are today.

1. I read that in 2006, converting SRT to Mark 2 was the TTC top priority - then in 2007 everything switched to LRT. I guess they wanted a one-size-fits-all solution to transit - LRT everywhere.
2. There was significant extra closure time predicted for converting the SRT to LRT in 2006. After Transit City and LRT everywhere, the difference in closure time was suspiciously reduced to a minimal amount.
3. Transit City wanted to be at-grade as much as possible to save money. It appears that when about 80% of the Crosstown line became grade separated, nobody looked at the benefits of grade separating the entire line. Smaller tunnels with full subway (as Sheppard) or Skytrain would have reduced the excavation (TBM) costs and also marginally reduced many station depths - even without considering cut-and-cover.
4. Eglinton/Don Mills station appears to have been planned as at-grade. When it was decided to build it underground, a side-of-road alignment appears to not have been considered even though it could reduce the cost of the station and reduce traffic disruption.
5. Many transit City proponents state that LRT is needed at-grade, which spurs development better than underground. This week, the star had an article about how the central portion of Eglinton is already transforming (http://www.thestar.com/news/transpo...he-eglinton-lrt-will-transform-neighbourhoods).

It seems that the main requirements were to use LRT and to have a least some portions in the median. If the goal was simply to get the best transit bang-for-the-buck, we quite probably could have seen the Skytrain here.

As for cut-and-cover, I would like to know how much less expensive it really is. I would guess that a TBM tunnel is about $100M/km, and each station is about $100M/km, and the track, signals, cars, etc. are $100M/km. Could cut-and-cover save $50 to $100M/km? How about construction time. I would guess that deep cut-and-cover stations needed with TBM would take about 4 years and be located 800m appart. With cut-and-cover, I expect the exacavation is essentially continuous, but lasts maybe half the time. I am not sure that cut-and-cover could have worked in the Central portion, but there are some advantages that appear to never be considered.

I think that the biggest benefit of using ICTS Mark II would have been that Eglinton East would have been likely built as an elevated structure, in order to save on tunnelling costs. In fact, I could imagine that everything east of Laird would have been elevated.

But yes, the sudden decision to change from ICTS Mark II to LRT for the SRT was a pretty suspicious decision, with no public consultation or anything about the change. Normally when a TMP is completely thrown out, there's some sort of public consultation that takes place before they say "look, here's the new one!".

Ottawa is looking to do an update to their TMP soon, because the current one was done in 2008, and is now considered too ambitious in the post-recession economy. There will be a bunch of public consultation on it.

 

[car4041]

But yes, the sudden decision to change from ICTS Mark II to LRT for the SRT was a pretty suspicious decision, with no public consultation or anything about the change. Normally when a TMP is completely thrown out, there's some sort of public consultation that takes place before they say "look, here's the new one!".

I seem to recall from reading Steve Munro that the analysis always worked out better for LRT versus ICTS Mk II as long as the line was going to be extended, and the TTC had to work pretty hard to make ICTS Mk II look like the preferred option. If that's true, then what was suspicious was the choice of Mk II in the first place, not the switch to LRT.

As for public consultation, switching between two similar train technologies on the same route doesn't really amount to "completely throwing out" the plan. In fact, I'm not even sure what the public would have been consulted about. The route, speed, and capacity would all be unaffected.

 

[snowystar]

Skytrain would just combine the negatives of the above two options: cost almost as much as subway, yet have a much lower capacity.

The Expo line in Vancouver now deemed to have an ultimate capacity of 25,000-31,000 pphpd using 5-cars train with 75-93s headway. I wouldn't say it is much lower.

 

[ssiguy2]

The Expo line is expanding all stations to 100 meters by 2020 and the MK111 cars have a capacity of 290. In other words 3 MK111 cars , which is 98 meters running at 75 second intervals each direction, has a capacity of about 35,000 pphpd. Somehow I think that will take care of Eglinton for a little while.

Also, according to the TTC, it is going to take a truly unbelievable 5 years and $1 billion to change the SRT to LRT and a little 3 km extension. Vancouver's new 11 km Evergreen SkyTrain line which, unlike the new little extension of the SRT to Sheppard, will be totally grade separated, have large accessible stations complete with bus bays, automated, have twice the capacity, include a 1 km tunnel, and be built in 28 months is only costing $1.4 billion.

Now I do understand that land in Toronto is far more expensive than dirt cheap Vancouver, Toronto has to build to high earthquake standards which is not an issue in Vancouver, and Vancouver has a very flat geography but even still the difference in time and money just doesn't seem to add up.

 

[nfitz]

The Expo line in Vancouver now deemed to have an ultimate capacity of 25,000-31,000 pphpd using 5-cars train with 75-93s headway. I wouldn't say it is much lower.

Sounds like it's a function of the number of cars and frequency. What's the ultimate length of those trains - not the stations, the trains? Any reason you couldn't build a 10-car train?

We have 6-car trains (450-ft), but in New York, using pretty much the same technology, they run the equivalent of 8-car (600-ft) trains on some lines.

Really, if we're going to debate the ultimate capacity of any technology, all were really debating is platform lengths.

 

[snowystar]

Sounds like it's a function of the number of cars and frequency. What's the ultimate length of those trains - not the stations, the trains? Any reason you couldn't build a 10-car train?

We have 6-car trains (450-ft), but in New York, using pretty much the same technology, they run the equivalent of 8-car (600-ft) trains on some lines.

Really, if we're going to debate the ultimate capacity of any technology, all were really debating is platform lengths.

5-cars train would be around 85m, which fit within the current 80m platform with overhang at each end and the door 1m away from the edge of the platform. The current plan is to upgrade line to 25,700pphpd by 2026, at a cost of 780 millions (2010$) mainly for fleet expansion, yard expansion, propulsion upgrade, and circulation improvement.

The Expo line is expanding all stations to 100 meters by 2020 and the MK111 cars have a capacity of 290. In other words 3 MK111 cars , which is 98 meters running at 75 second intervals each direction, has a capacity of about 35,000 pphpd. Somehow I think that will take care of Eglinton for a little while.

I don't think they're thinking of platform expansion now (except for two or three very busy stations with side entrance). The latest report deemed that the Expo line have enough capacity till at least 2041 with the current platform length and peak operating headway.

 

[rbt]

Sounds like it's a function of the number of cars and frequency. What's the ultimate length of those trains - not the stations, the trains?

Signalling, Automated operations controls, and station design can be the exact same for all modes. Even rubber-tire vehicles who's track is a painted line and optical sensor can use the same ATO signalling that the Expo line in Vancouver uses or the more advanced systems Japan has in place.

TTC's ATO has a theoretical peak of close to 60 second frequencies. FYI to expo fans but the peak frequency gets longer as trains get longer. 100m trains take twice the time to get through a switch as a 50m train.

TTC is targetting 90 second real-operations frequencies to allow trains to catch up when there are gaps.


Actual capacity is entirely based on car length + width with choke points (such as Yonge/Bloor interchange) accounted for. Much of the rest is the exact same.


Acceleration doesn't really apply. Electric motors can be installed onto all trains which would knock down passengers. Comfort of the passengers is the upper-limit for accelerator on all systems.

If you include non-metro trains then VIA Rails Canada Line is probably highest peak point-direction capacity in the world for a very short duration of time. For those 5 minutes when a Canada Line train departs Union Station in Toronto is the highest capacity passenger departure (measured by floorspace) as nothing else in the world runs with 25+ passenger cars. Chunnel trains (England/France) are a very close second.


I'm not a believer in LIM propulsion because you get zero benefits but have complete vendor lockin. For Vancouver to buy an Expo train from anyone but Bombardier would be a billion dollar exercise to modify their line.

 

[Hipster Duck]

You seem to be saying that the B-D line is not rapid transit...And in any case, I don't see how removing two stops from the Eglinton line would amount to "keeping rapid transit rapid". The increase in speed would be negligible, but the 1.3km gap between Bathurst and Avenue might be enough to force a parallel bus service that wouldn't otherwise be needed.

I should have been more clear: I am primarily opposed to building Chaplin and Oakwood stations because of their cost. The BD may have been able to get away with this because land costs, station design standards and the optics of expropriation were much much easier and cheaper in 1964, but nowadays all this stuff really adds to a project's cost. If an underground station costs upwards of 100 million dollars, we really have to ask whether it's worth the added local accessibility or whether we can just keep local bus service along Eglinton for all that it will cost us to add these stations.

re: technology

I don't have a problem with using LRT technology, but I wonder why they didn't even consider high floor LRVs with station platforms like Calgary or Edmonton. Low floor LRVs really have space and internal movement constraints because the wheel wells taken up by the central truck reduces the passageway in the central link to a little gangway barely two feet wide. In my experience with the low floor LRTs in Salt Lake City, Phoenix and Seattle, people tend to cram into the door area and don't circulate around the vehicle when it gets more crowded, while in Edmonton and Calgary passengers use the space more like a Toronto subway car.

You can even building high platform stations in tight, island ROWs similar to what we're building for Transit City. Here's an example from San Francisco: here/
and here. Note the wheelchair accessible ramp on the other end.

 

[Rainforest]

The Expo line in Vancouver now deemed to have an ultimate capacity of 25,000-31,000 pphpd using 5-cars train with 75-93s headway. I wouldn't say it is much lower.

Yes, this is pretty close to Toronto subway's capacity. However, ICTS projects that I heard of in the Toronto context all had much lower capacity.

I suppose you can build a line that uses SkyTrain technology but aims at subway capacity. I just don't see how the SkyTrain technology will magically result in a better capacity / cost ratio than a conventional subway (which can use ATO, too).

 

[Rainforest]

Also, according to the TTC, it is going to take a truly unbelievable 5 years and $1 billion to change the SRT to LRT and a little 3 km extension. Vancouver's new 11 km Evergreen SkyTrain line which, unlike the new little extension of the SRT to Sheppard, will be totally grade separated, have large accessible stations complete with bus bays, automated, have twice the capacity, include a 1 km tunnel, and be built in 28 months is only costing $1.4 billion.

The TTC's project is actually similar in scope, cost, and duration:
- Fully grade-separated as well, and includes 1.2 km of tunnel (Centennial College to Sheppard)
- Total length about 10 km (existing SRT guideway plus extension to Sheppard)
- Bus terminal at Sheppard
- Total cost is close to 1.4 billion
- Will take 2 - 2.5 years to complete (I don't know where you got 5 years; they won't even start any work before 2015)

Actually, Metrolinx had a comparative study of the ICTS and LRT option for this corridor; ICTS actually came a tiny bit more expensive. The difference in cost is not, by itself, significant enough to switch from ICTS to LRT. But the fleet commonality benefits tipped the scale towards LRT.

 

[Paleo]

The Expo line in Vancouver now deemed to have an ultimate capacity of 25,000-31,000 pphpd using 5-cars train with 75-93s headway. I wouldn't say it is much lower.

75 seconds? Funny stuff. Toronto 6-car subway trains at that headway would theoretically have a peak line capacity of almost 53,000 pphpd.

 

[snowystar]

75 seconds? Funny stuff. Toronto 6-car subway trains at that headway would theoretically have a peak line capacity of almost 53,000 pphpd.

75 seconds is not a theoretical value for Vancouver's system - it has been done before. The minimum headway achieved on Expo Line was 77 seconds for special event service and after a service destruction. The line also ran at 80 seconds headway in peak period throughout the duration of the Olympics.

Did Toronto Subway did the same? Remember, longer train takes longer to clear a switch thus increase the minimum headway for the line. Fixed block train control system (as oppose to the moving block used in Vancouver) also sets a limit on the train headway.

 

[car4041]

75 seconds is not a theoretical value for Vancouver's system - it has been done before. The minimum headway achieved on Expo Line was 77 seconds for special event service and after a service destruction. The line also ran at 80 seconds headway in peak period throughout the duration of the Olympics.

Did Toronto Subway did the same? Remember, longer train takes longer to clear a switch thus increase the minimum headway for the line. Fixed block train control system (as oppose to the moving block used in Vancouver) also sets a limit on the train headway.

I'm not sure where we're going with this. Once the Yonge line is resignalled and extended north as planned, presumably we could (hypothetically) shorten our trains to match the length of the Expo Line trains and achieve the same possible minimum headways; conversely, if the Expo Line trains were lengthened to match our subway trains, their minimum headway would increase accordingly. Not sure how any of this says anything about the merits of either technology.