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

[BurlOak]

What does this mean? Could you rephrase?

I would guess this means that the TTC are uncertain of the ability of a median LRT to run on a reasonably accurate schedule needed to run through with the SRT - with the SRT having every second train turning back at Kennedy and every second train coming through to Eglinton. If this is a concern, the same problem will occur where it enters the tunnel at/near Laird.

 

[Markster]

I would guess this means that the TTC are uncertain of the ability of a median LRT to run on a reasonably accurate schedule needed to run through with the SRT - with the SRT having every second train turning back at Kennedy and every second train coming through to Eglinton. If this is a concern, the same problem will occur where it enters the tunnel at/near Laird.

Pardon the lack of clarification, but yes, that's what I am referring to.
They should be building the facility to allow through routing, (with sensible transfters,) even if they have no intention of doing it now.

 

[SlickFranky]

Pardon the lack of clarification, but yes, that's what I am referring to.
They should be building the facility to allow through routing, (with sensible transfters,) even if they have no intention of doing it now.

The Kennedy Station concepts I've seen were done pre-Ford, but since we're supposed to be back to that plan now I'll assume they still stand.

http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/scarborough_rapid_transit/pdf/2010-03-04_pic4_3_of_4.pdf
see slides 53 and 54

That design looks like it could easily be converted for through-service for either SRT+Eglinton or Scarborough-Malvern+Eglinton if needed. Considering there are 3 LRTs, a subway, and some buses, the transfers are VERY sensible. Much, MUCH nicer than the current transfers.

 

[BurlOak]

The Kennedy Station concepts I've seen were done pre-Ford, but since we're supposed to be back to that plan now I'll assume they still stand.

http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/scarborough_rapid_transit/pdf/2010-03-04_pic4_3_of_4.pdf
see slides 53 and 54

That design looks like it could easily be converted for through-service for either SRT+Eglinton or Scarborough-Malvern+Eglinton if needed. Considering there are 3 LRTs, a subway, and some buses, the transfers are VERY sensible. Much, MUCH nicer than the current transfers.

According to Steve Munro's blog from April 2012 (http://stevemunro.ca/?p=6204), the original plan for through service from the SRT to the Eglinton line has been dropped.

"The TTC operating preference is to revert back to the old plan by separating the two lines at Kennedy station. The SRT will remain automated, and the Eglinton Crosstown LRT will have an operator. There will be a non-revenue connection at Kennedy, but its purpose is more for shuttling trains between heavy and light maintenance facilities and the maintenance-of-way."

 

[M II A II R II K]

The union will still insist the SRT have an operator for the sake of giving them a job, and they'll be sitting at the front with their obligatory bowl of soup as always.

 

[rbt]

The union will still insist the SRT have an operator for the sake of giving them a job, and they'll be sitting at the front with their obligatory bowl of soup as always.

There are good reasons for having someone in the vehicle just to respond to emergencies (real and false) quickly and get the train moving again quickly. The cost of the staff is minor compared to the cost of an idle line.

I would prefer to see that person roaming the train answering questions, giving directions, etc. but I do see a place for staff on every single in-service train.

See the recent addition of medics to certain stations within the system. 99% of the time they're waiting but that 1% of actual benefit makes them worth while having.

If every emergency cord pull required waiting 20 minutes for someone to drive to the station to investigate it would seriously impact service.

 

[ssiguy2]

So if the SRT/Eglinton will no longer be one continous line {if I'm reading this right} then please don't tell me they still want to convert the SRT to LRT.

 

[Palma]

The union will still insist the SRT have an operator for the sake of giving them a job, and they'll be sitting at the front with their obligatory bowl of soup as always.

I doubt I would want to ride a vehicle that has no operator.

 

[car4041]

So if the SRT/Eglinton will no longer be one continous line {if I'm reading this right} then please don't tell me they still want to convert the SRT to LRT.

The Metrolinx document that Rainforest linked to earlier in the thread showed that converting the line to LRT and extending it ("Option 3") has a slightly lower cost than upgrading it to ICTS Mark II and extending it ("Option 1") (see page 23). The capacity is the same (page 2). The user benefits are the same (page 18). The operating costs are the same (page 20). The travel time and ridership are the same (page 21).

So the benefits of converting to LRT are (1) a lower construction cost, (2) fleet/carhouse commonality with the Eglinton and Sheppard lines, and (3) the possibility of through-routing at Kennedy, even if it's not happening on day 1.

The only drawback that I can see is that construction will take longer.

 

[Palma]

The eglinton subway that was under construction at the time was shorter than the sheppard subway. It would have barely helped.

An you don't think that after it went from Eglinton West out to Weston Rd that it would then not have expanded east from Eglinton West station to Yonge? And Eglinton would have been way more used than the line further north. How can a subway be built to run east west (north of the 401) when the density south of there (Eglinton) is so much greater

 

[snowystar]

The Metrolinx document that Rainforest linked to earlier in the thread showed that converting the line to LRT and extending it ("Option 3") has a slightly lower cost than upgrading it to ICTS Mark II and extending it ("Option 1") (see page 23). The capacity is the same (page 2). The user benefits are the same (page 18). The operating costs are the same (page 20). The travel time and ridership are the same (page 21).

So the benefits of converting to LRT are (1) a lower construction cost, (2) fleet/carhouse commonality with the Eglinton and Sheppard lines, and (3) the possibility of through-routing at Kennedy, even if it's not happening on day 1.

The only drawback that I can see is that construction will take longer.

From the report, seems like TTC really have a high standard... 4-cars MkII running at 108s headway only gives 10,000 pphpd for the SRT, whereas it give 17,500 pphpd in Vancouver. The SRT requires a whopping 19% spare, whereas the spare ratio in Vancouver is just 3-5% for the last 10 years. Base on Vancouver's standard, they would only need 52 cars instead of 108. I wonder what are they are going to do with those spare trains...

 

[CDL.TO]

I doubt I would want to ride a vehicle that has no operator.

Why not? They ride on them in London, New York, Paris, Copenhagen, Barcelona, Lausanne, Lille, Lyon, Miami, Singapore, Vancouver, Dubai, Seoul, Tokyo, Taipei, Algiers, Milan, and elsewhere! Is it not a sufficiently proven technology for you?

Paris line 1 has no operators and it carries DOUBLE the ridership per kilometre that the YUS does.

 

[Red October]

Why not? They ride on them in London

Where are these vehicles? Every vehicle I've ridden on has had a driver.

 

[rbt]

Where are these vehicles? Every vehicle I've ridden on has had a driver.

Victoria Line, kinda.

The train is self-driving, and has been since the late 60's (London was first for train automation) but they still have an operator sitting in the cab. The operator closes the doors and watches for obstructions on the track.

DLR is driverless (no person in the cab) but they do have a minimum of one staff on the train.

 

[CDL.TO]

Where are these vehicles? Every vehicle I've ridden on has had a driver.

Docklands. Operating since 1987. 34km network carrying over 200,000 people a day.