News   Jul 24, 2024
 15     0 
News   Jul 24, 2024
 453     0 
News   Jul 24, 2024
 382     0 

Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

500 meters walk maximum to a station. We need to properly maintain sidewalks and pedestrian accesses. Beyond that, if you can't walk 500 meters, maybe you should be using Wheel-Trans.
In what world, exactly, does 100% of your ridership live exactly on the road that the transit line runs on?

You know that their are neighbourhoods on either side of most roads where people will have to walk some distance - sometimes, as far as 500 metres - in order to just reach the road that the line runs on, nevermind an actual stop

Dan
 
In what world, exactly, does 100% of your ridership live exactly on the road that the transit line runs on?

You know that their are neighbourhoods on either side of most roads where people will have to walk some distance - sometimes, as far as 500 metres - in order to just reach the road that the line runs on, nevermind an actual stop

Dan
If we're going to go that way, the whole thing is made irrelevant, because most passengers are using buses to get to stations.
 
If we're going to go that way, the whole thing is made irrelevant, because most passengers are using buses to get to stations.
If you don't understand the question, then I would suggest that you don't understand the main problem you are trying to resolve.

Take a look at streets such as Finch, Sheppard or Lawrence. Then look both north and south of those streets. Those neighbourhoods also need to be able to access transit. If you putting stops every kilometre apart, there is the potential that people will have to walk 500 metres just to get to the major street, and then another 500 metres to access each stop. (And there are some places where people would have to walk almost a kilometre, but those are fewer, and generally in less dense areas.)

Toronto has done a good job of getting people within a reasonable walking distance from transit, but cutting stops is not going to help that.

Dan
 
If you don't understand the question, then I would suggest that you don't understand the main problem you are trying to resolve.

Take a look at streets such as Finch, Sheppard or Lawrence. Then look both north and south of those streets. Those neighbourhoods also need to be able to access transit. If you putting stops every kilometre apart, there is the potential that people will have to walk 500 metres just to get to the major street, and then another 500 metres to access each stop. (And there are some places where people would have to walk almost a kilometre, but those are fewer, and generally in less dense areas.)

Toronto has done a good job of getting people within a reasonable walking distance from transit, but cutting stops is not going to help that.

Dan

I think we need to be a bit more fine-grained/nuanced.

Distance between stops should vary by mode, by capacity needs and by median distance of trip traveled.

At all levels of service, in all modes we have some stops that are objectively (as much as anything can be), too close together; we also have some gaps that are excessive.

St Clair has perhaps the most infamous of the too close together stops, Bathurst and Vaughan at a whopping 159M apart

1659876913404.png


In that case, consolidating the two stops as Bathurst-Vaughan leaves you a distance that is still only 321M to Wychwood; and depending on exact stop positions, ~500M to Christie.

There are dozes of stops across the City on surface routes that are under ~300M apart, a number under 200M as well. Surely we can generally agree that is simply too close, particularly if removing a stop doesn't result in gap larger than ~400M

***

When it comes to what is meant to be rapid transit, LRT in its own ROW and/or underground, stop distances need to be larger, to have them too close together is capacity and speed limiting in a way that makes them much less effective and desirable as transit, and inflates operating costs.

Its perfectly reasonable to have underground lines with 1km gaps, anymore than that, and supplementary local service makes sense to give you better 'last mile connections.

The challenge with surface LRT is whether or not you want to run a supplementary service to fill gaps. In general the TTC lacks enthusiasm for this idea, which means closer stops are in order.
That said, I don't think you want them to come in much under 500M.

The example you out line of someone mid-way between major roads/transit in Scarborough is an interesting one; and one not easily addressed by any single project.

But lets try to look at a typical 'last mile gap'.

I've selected Eglinton-Lawrence, and VP - Warden as that block.
The N-S distance is 2km, leaving a maximum 1km walk, plus, the E-W distance between a major N-S road and one's home.
The Pharmacy-VP gap is ~400m for a max distance of 200M; while the Pharmacy-Warden gap is ~800m for a max distance of 400M.
In that context, if you keep stops on Eglinton and Lawrence 500M apart; if someone mid-way between Egliinton and Lawrence chose to walk to the E-W route, their max walk is ~1.4km

But why would they do this? There are N-S routes on each of VP, Pharmacy and Warden.
Assuming they would go the nearest transit stop, the maximum distance would be ~ 650M if they were mid-way between Warden and Pharmacy and mid-way between stops on those routes at 500M apart.
In that worst case scenario, I don't feel that walk is an extraordinary ask.

That said, I have no difficulty with the local bus on those N-S routes having stops slightly closer together.

But worth noting, if you shave the distance to 350M between stops; you're only reducing the maximum walk by 75M; but you're adding 5 stops for a passenger traveling from
Lawrence down to VP station (from 11 to 16) and adding roughly 3-4M travel time.

There's a balance to be struck, and it needs to be looked at on a case by case basis.

****

To add, I would argue a long-term solution for that block (and like ones) is an additional East-West street between Eglinton and Lawrence, which would support transit (albeit less frequent), provide a better last mile experience.
 
Last edited:
It is interesting to note that the stop spacing on the Phase 1 of Finch West LRT (Keele to Humber College) closely resembles that on the Bloor-Danforth subway (excluding the diagonal Vic Park - Kennedy segment).

Finch West LRT: 11 km / 17 stop intervals, 647 m average spacing.

Bloor - Danforth subway (Kipling to Vic Park): 20 km / 28 stop interval, 714 m average spacing.

Both routes do not have / will not have parallel bus service.
 
Maybe we should package new transit projects in suburban areas with significant cycling network improvements. There should be protected bike lanes connecting neighborhoods with secure bike storage at most/many suburban LRT stops. That way, a 20 minute walk becomes a 7 minute bike ride which is significantly more palatable.
 
There are 25 stops on the Eglinton LRT. 22 of them will have connections to bus routes. How do we cut stops without missing these connections?

I'm not going to argue here for any removing any specific stop, that's a more involved conversation.......

But aside from the potential case for removing those stops w/no bus connections........

Wynford can easily connect to Don Mills/Eglinton so it not necessarily essential that it serve a Wynford stop just for the bus connection.

Likewise Laird has service in the form of the Leaside/Donlands bus, that route could easily connect at Bayview if so desired, since it doesn't run north of Eglinton.

I'm not necessarily arguing for removing either of these, merely point out that there are options, for connections at some stations that don't require as many stations as are being built.
 
Speaking of Eglinton LRT, we have to take into account its design and funding history.

The original concept was to get a long crosstown rail line built all at once. At ~ 30 km, it was to be a lot longer than the original Yonge subway (Eglinton to Union), or the original BD subway. In order to make the cost of it somewhat acceptable, it was decided to set for the street median wherever possible, and only tunnel in the central section that has no space for the street median. The total cost was tagged at just 2.2 billion at that time.

The idea was reasonable, but the cost low-balled.

Then as the design progressed, the cost went up dramatically. The whole project only survived because it was a part of the larger Transit City package, and cannibalized other lines that used to be parts of the same package. And even then, Eglinton LRT lost its western section (relegated to a future phase) and got shortened to just Kennedy to Mt Dennis. In that state, it went through the RFP and entered the construction phase.

And finally, Doug Ford needed a subway-like project in the west, to match his OL / SSE / Yonge North projects in other parts of the city. Here comes the fully grade-separated Eglinton West LRT, from Mt Dennis to Renforth.

Thus we will have a 27-km long line (the original 30 km less the Airport segment that isn't committed yet), 18 km of those will be grade separated, and just 9 km in the street median. At that point, it would probably be smarter to have a continuous grade-separated line for the whole length.

That's not the end of the world, the hybrid line will still work. But it will have certain limitations, that are not justified by the limited saving in the total construction cost.

Edit: some benefit can still be found in having LRT on Eglinton, namely the ease of connecting to the north-south LRT lines if the city is interested in those. For example: Jane, Victoria Park, maybe even Leslie if the city wants to increase the density along that corridor. Remains to be seen how much of that comes to live.
Would it be worth it to have a Victoria Park LRT or rather use those funds to extend OL North up Don Mills? Also is the Victoria Park LRT even on the cities rather before 2050. Doesn't seem like it at this point. Just curious on yours or anyones thoughts.
 
Would it be worth it to have a Victoria Park LRT or rather use those funds to extend OL North up Don Mills? Also is the Victoria Park LRT even on the cities rather before 2050. Doesn't seem like it at this point. Just curious on yours or anyones thoughts.

VP LRT is on no one's books even as a wish-list item currently.

The O/L is on the wish list to go north at least as far as Sheppard, however, that is not next in line for funding. If it begins to move forward in the next ~20 years, it will be after Sheppard and a couple of other projects, barring major change.

Victoria Park is constrained anywhere much south of Eglinton (the City is already planning for either cycle tracks or a multi-use trail on VP for 2023-2024), that uses up any extra space); south of Dawes the road is actually one lane each way and doesn't even have a boulevard on one side. But burying an LRT would be very problematic as it would have to go beneath Taylor-Massey Creek and would meet a subway that is actually elevated here.

Alternatively, the road is too narrow for elevated without shadowing the entire road; it would also have to intersect the subway at an elevated grade which is do-able if it doesn't need to go south of VP station, but an interesting design challenge.

VP will likely see BRT north of the new O'Connor (from just south of Eglinton) but we'll have to see. Whatever Rapid TO comes up with will probably be the best case for a generation.
 
Last edited:
Would it be worth it to have a Victoria Park LRT or rather use those funds to extend OL North up Don Mills? Also is the Victoria Park LRT even on the cities rather before 2050. Doesn't seem like it at this point. Just curious on yours or anyones thoughts.

I think OL North should be a higher priority. Victoria Park LRT is a long shot.

The reason I am talking about Victoria Park LRT at all, is that the City appears to tailor the light rail projects more towards supporting local density growth, and less towards getting fast travel.

Nothing wrong with that. But if so, it is preferable to add density in the midtown areas, rather than at the edges of 416. When new highrises / midrises are added at the edges, even in the transit friendly zone / next to LRT stops, the residents will face long travel times, and the cost of servicing them will be higher for the TTC (more vehicle-minutes per rider).

Not necessarily against some LRT lines at the edges; maybe Eglinton East is a good idea. But, a bit more interested in LRT added closer to the core. Routes like Jane, Keele, Vic Park, Leslie, even if they have some narrow sections where tunneling is needed. Possibly, Dufferin North and Bathurst North as well.

Some of those - Leslie and Dufferin North - have very low ridership today, but could get a lot more with aggressive resoning.
 
In the context of ECLRT, the area between Kennedy and Pharmacy is a sea of post-industrial zones and box stores. Residential neighborhoods already have a long walk to get to the LRT, so most walk-on ridership should be coming from redevelopment. The closest stop spacing is along the Golden Mile after all ...


@Rainforest is right in that, when it comes to the urban LRTs, we should be building them in more central areas.

That being said, I still think we need one more round of big funding for crosstown routes (probably in 10-20 years) before we start looking at a network of urban-oriented LRTs, being OL North and a Sheppard extension(s).

I don't think Victoria Park would be in such a round of LRT funding. There's simply no real momentum behind that, and I don't see any real justification for it, beyond fostering development. RapidTO is the best we're going to get for most of our arterial bus routes within our lifetimes.
 
I think we need to be a bit more fine-grained/nuanced.

Distance between stops should vary by mode, by capacity needs and by median distance of trip traveled.

At all levels of service, in all modes we have some stops that are objectively (as much as anything can be), too close together; we also have some gaps that are excessive.

St Clair has perhaps the most infamous of the too close together stops, Bathurst and Vaughan at a whopping 159M apart

View attachment 418540

In that case, consolidating the two stops as Bathurst-Vaughan leaves you a distance that is still only 321M to Wychwood; and depending on exact stop positions, ~500M to Christie.
I completely and totally agree with all of your points, but I must also add a caveat - sometimes, even the seemingly simple answer is not so simple.

I used to live at Vaughan and St Clair W many years ago, and commuted daily for several years via the 512 to Yonge. While it's been about 8 years since I lived in the area, I would find it hard to believe that the traffic/ridership patterns have changed drastically.

At first blush, the simple solution would be to cut the Vaughn stop - it is too close to the Bathurst stop.

However, the ridership at the Vaughn stop was an order (or two) of magnitude higher than that of the Bathurst stop, despite the latter being the transfer point of two major lines.

So, what is the optimum solution here? Cut the Vaughn stop? Cut Bathurst? Is there some third option that would resolve all of the issues, but that we just haven't figured out yet?

There are probably dozens of other stops (or pairs of stops) where a more involved study needs to be done to determine the best solution for everyone.

Dan
 
So, what is the optimum solution here? Cut the Vaughn stop? Cut Bathurst? Is there some third option that would resolve all of the issues, but that we just haven't figured out yet?

I think I would argue for a single stop called Bathurst-Vaughan.

I would argue for a full platform for the entire block between those 2 streets, which, as can be seen in the photo below is ~107M

1659918391194.png


For reference, in the photo below, the standard platform length on St. Clair is ~35M before the landscaping kicks in and the platform narrows out; long enough for one Flexity.

Here, I would propose a platform that can hold 2 Flexities (3 in theory); but I would not set it up for that, with it made clear where the lead position is for loading/offloading. (set 15M in from the facing direction)

This choice is feasible; however, IF one keeps St. Clair at 2 travel lanes in each direction, for cars, it would require removing the lefthand turn lane from EB St. Clair to NB Bathurst.

I dislike this solution.

My preference would be to remove the extra travel lane in this block, as I don't view it as necessary, the left-hand turn lane can then be retained; the surplus space can be used for any/all of wider sidewalks,
cycle tracks, cycle tracks with landscaped buffer, wider streetcar platforms with landscaped buffer.

I reviewed every streetview image for this block going back to 2007 to support my anecdotal opinion that the curb lane is surplus and I can confirm not one of them shows heavy traffic in this block.

There are parts of St. Clair where removing a travel lane might be more controversial, especially if that also meant removing parking; but in this block, I don't believe that applies.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top