Eglinton-Crosstown Corridor Debate

[toraerach]

Brussels' premetro is about as conversion-ready as one could get. Here is a schematic of a typical station, showing how the stations, tunnels and ROW are all of the right dimensions to fit metro trains:

This is one of the many stations that have remained premetro after 40 years:

Notice the raised platforms that cover most of the station; the only things that need to be done is to fill in the depressed portions (which happened progressively while trams were still running, until the final fill-in), removing overhead wires, changing the rails and adding third rail (which required closing down the system).
This is as, if not more, conversion-ready as Eglinton would be.

But aren't there subway systems that run off of overhead power instead of a third rail? If the TTC really wanted to make the transition on Eglinton easier, couldn't they just use the same kind of trains as those systems? It would be an orphan technology I guess, but it might be worth looking in to if the demand is ever there.

Even without a conversion to subway technology, if demand on the line increases, would that not be a better case for eventual grade separation of the entire line?

 

[golodhendil]

But aren't there subway systems that run off of overhead power instead of a third rail? If the TTC really wanted to make the transition on Eglinton easier, couldn't they just use the same kind of trains as those systems? It would be an orphan technology I guess, but it might be worth looking in to if the demand is ever there.

It's doable, *if* TTC build the line to be HRT compatible. HRT metros that run with overhead power generally run on 1500V DC; LRT overhead is generally 600-750V DC. If they build the power system in such a way to allow higher voltage, then it would indeed be one less thing to modify. The tracks would still be a problem though, unless, again, they build the line with HRT-grade rails (but that of course begs the question: if you're building everything to HRT grade already, why not go right ahead with HRT?)

Even without a conversion to subway technology, if demand on the line increases, would that not be a better case for eventual grade separation of the entire line?

Many people have suggested that full grade separation should be done even at the outset, making use of readily-available ROW like the Richview corridor that would not be any more expensive than tearing up the street. A future grade-separation of a street-median LRT would require putting it underground or elevated anyway.

 

[nfitz]

I'm not sure, but I believe Kipling has a very high ridership. Either one is fine, it doesn't really matter and putting LRT on either route will take most of the ridership of the other one.

The other thing is that LRT is only useful over BRT in that it can accommodate more riders that BRT and that it attracts more people. On Jane, many people use the bus because they have to. That means it's much closer to it's maximum possible ridership than most of the other routes in the city. Ergo, less people will be attracted to it simply due to the fact that it's LRT. Also, that means that there's less future ridership that needs to be accommodated for, and most of that can be served by Articulated busses. Of course we can't forget about Jane, so Articulated Busses, maybe HOV lanes to Eglinton and Signal Priority would do just fine.

My facts are not 100% accurate, but when putting Jane up against Islington or Kipling, that's my breakdown of the difference.

Does anyone have any actual numbers on Kipling? I could swear it's number was around the same as Jane, but I can't be sure at all. Somehow my TTC surface transit ridership link died ):

Kipling is 18,500; so Kipling and Islington combined are 35,100 compared to 39,000 on Jane. But if you start combining nearby routes, there are other things on Jane. Hmm, put the better transit in the richer area, because the poor will use it no matter how bad it is ...

I'm not saying Jane will be the most spectacular route ... but there is no particularily obvious alternative.

The numbers are all in Appendix C of this document.

 

[W. K. Lis]

But aren't there subway systems that run off of overhead power instead of a third rail? If the TTC really wanted to make the transition on Eglinton easier, couldn't they just use the same kind of trains as those systems? It would be an orphan technology I guess, but it might be worth looking in to if the demand is ever there.

Even without a conversion to subway technology, if demand on the line increases, would that not be a better case for eventual grade separation of the entire line?

When the Halton County Radial Railway acquired a couple of Gloucester Railway Wagon & Carriage Works HRT subway cars from the TTC in 1991, they were converted to overhead wire operation.

 

[Filip]

But aren't there subway systems that run off of overhead power instead of a third rail? If the TTC really wanted to make the transition on Eglinton easier, couldn't they just use the same kind of trains as those systems? It would be an orphan technology I guess, but it might be worth looking in to if the demand is ever there.

Even without a conversion to subway technology, if demand on the line increases, would that not be a better case for eventual grade separation of the entire line?

Here's what I know about this technology being used. Athens' metro runs on third rail, clearly, like any other.. However, they have their new blue line which runs to the airport; now, here's where it gets tricky. The blue line shares the same right of way (rails, everything) with the commuter suburban railway Prostaikos (sp?) on the final leg to the airport. The blue line train runs on third rail in the tunnels, but when it emerges to run to the airport, the pantograph pops up and it runs like your normal train... Interesting concept, but definitely strange.

 

[CDL.TO]

Here's what I know about this technology being used. Athens' metro runs on third rail, clearly, like any other.. However, they have their new blue line which runs to the airport; now, here's where it gets tricky. The blue line shares the same right of way (rails, everything) with the commuter suburban railway Prostaikos (sp?) on the final leg to the airport. The blue line train runs on third rail in the tunnels, but when it emerges to run to the airport, the pantograph pops up and it runs like your normal train... Interesting concept, but definitely strange.

The blue line in Boston does the same thing at Airport station. It's relatively common on mainline trains; the Eurostar used to do this.

 

[golodhendil]

Here's what I know about this technology being used. Athens' metro runs on third rail, clearly, like any other..

As discussed before in other threads, it's not "clear" at all. Many subways and metros around the world run with pantographs and catenary.

To add to the discussion, however: Cleveland's Red Line and Boston's Blue Line are both overhead-powered HRT metros that run on a "tram voltage" of 600 V DC. So, if the future Eglinton conversion does want to minimize change to the infrastructure (at the price of introducing another class of rolling stock, which isn't inherently a problem), it's not impossible to procure HRT trains that run with the LRT overhead wires.

 

[GenerationW]

the commuter suburban railway Prostaikos (sp?)

You came close -- it's Proastiakos.

 

[golodhendil]

I do not understand why the rails would have to be changed. TRZ quite clearly stated that LRT and HRT can run on the same rails. Or to be more specific, subway and streetcars rails are the same, except for the third track for subways.

Someone else already mentioned that some subways can have overhead wires, so that's not really a problem either.

That someone else would be me, as I brought up the point about metros with overhead wires earlier in the Montreal thread.

HRT and LRT rails are not necessarily the same, as LRT tracks generally use lighter pound rails than HRT. But in TTC's case they have been moving towards using the same type of rail for streetcars and subways, and newly laid rails (and presumably TC rails), except for on-street rails, are of the same type. In any case, I agree that rails and wires would not be the prohibitive factor. I am not sure why Brussels had to modify their tracks, but that probably has to do with enhancements needed to support the greater load and higher speed of HRT cars. However I am also willing to bet money that TTC/Metrolinx/whatever future agency would be unlikely to introduce a new class of rolling stock just to avoid taking down the wires and installing third rails, which would not be the most significant cost (in terms of time and money) during a conversion anyway (see below).

My understanding is that the only BIG thing they'd have to do to convert Eglinton to subway is to raise the platforms (which as you can see in your pictures, would not be difficult at all). And they can do a third rail as well. TRZ said it can be done at night without any disruption to service.

This "only" big thing is probably the biggest thing in a conversion, which also took the longest time for Brussels, being carried out progressively over the whole construction period (the other things to do with rails and wires, for line 2, only took them the final four days of full system closure, which when translated to TTC efficiency would probably mean a month; the final fill-in of the platforms occurred at the same time).

Another major thing is the removal of ramps at the end of the tunnel, because the HRT subway obviously cannot run down the street median without grade separation; if the aboveground portion were to become grade-separated for full HRT operation, add another 5 years to the conversion. And unless the terminal underground stations are to be built extra long, then the ramps couldn't even be kept to run the LRT down the tunnel for underground, same-platform interchange with the HRT.

Based on that, and knowing the Eglinton LRT is being designed with future conversion in mind, I feel confident that we won't be screwed over this time. That's not to say we'll NEED Eglinton to be a full subway. But we'll be ready if it is necessary. What to do with the above ground portions however, I don't know

It's not a matter of whether we'll be screwed over by the technology, as conversion-ready premetro technology has existed and been used for more than half a century already. It's a matter of whether the inertia can be overcome and whether the conversion can be carried out smoothly and efficiently, which I have serious doubts in TTC's case.

 

[kettal]

Ditto Edmonton. Their south LRT is being built much like Calgary's 202 line. There's no reason that Eglinton East couldn't be designed like that, except with low level platforms.

I've never been to Calgary, so I was wondering

Do the majority of the users of this station get there by park & ride? It seems not a nice area for pedestrians.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

For what it's worth, only 3 of Calgary's stations are in the middle of a street (and a very wide, highway-like, suburban street at that). This design helps obliterate any potential urbanity, which does not jive at all with Torontonian Avenues.

 

[299 bloor call control.]

I've never been to Calgary, so I was wondering

Do the majority of the users of this station get there by park & ride? It seems not a nice area for pedestrians.

Most ridership is from Park and Ride and transferring bus services, with the exception of a few stations where there are nearby generators, such as at Chinook (mall), University (U of C), Stampede, and Marlborough (also malls). In general, CTrain stations have pedestrian bridges from the stations onto the sidewalks, so crossing the street isn't usually a problem. Sunnyside is probably the most pedestrian friendly station outside of downtown.

 

[waterloowarrior]

Where exactly do you plan to build an elevated line over many stretches of Eglinton.......................... of course underground is more expensive

A good chunk of the Canada Line is also underground (9 KM)... the elevated line isn't too wide either.

Remember that for the on-street parts of Eglinton, the extra highway ROW and large setbacks aren't even being used, they are putting it in the median (actually parts of the ROW/setbacks will be used for all those left turn contraptions)

 

[Ansem]

One day last year, I needed to get to Union to catch my Go Train, running really late (as usual.) There was some holdup at St. George, and in a spark of insanity, I decided to ditch the subway and run to Union. Somehow, I made my train with a couple minutes to spare.

And Eglinton could easily have a fully separate ROW. Tunneled between Keele/Jane and Laird/Don Mills, ROW in the Richview Corridor, and an easy elevated ROW from Laird/Don Mills to Kennedy. When you count in the savings they could get by using the Richview lands, an Eglinton Crosstown Subway could cost less than the Canada Line per kilometer, couldn't it?

When I took a look at the numbers, I soon realized how improvised Transit city really was.

Eglinton Crosstown cost doubled and now we see what can be accomplished at 104 Million per KM.

And what do we get for 140 Million per KM???

A rapid transit that will stop at RED lights...

I really hope Metrolinx reconsiders Eglinton.
At 4.6 billion, they could do MUCH BETTER than this

 

[superman]

man those canada line stations are so clean and nice. we seriously need to start lookng into cleaner, nicer designs like that. look at that ceiling!