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

[nfitz]

I've made my comments, and I hope everyone else does. We need to make sure that all these stations are functional and attractive. They'll be around for generations.

Indeed. I'm reminded of going down the nearly 200 step staircase into Russel Square underground station that is over 100 years old and still in use (as far as I know, there's also been elevators at the only entrance/exit since it opened). That's no where near the deepest station either, which is over 300 steps, though I'm not sure if the stairwells there are in regular use, or just for emergencies.

 

[Thoughtless Miscreant]

And surely any positives from having Keele and Caledonia so close together would be cancelled out by the negatives of having Caledonia and Dufferin so far apart.

Don't forget that there's a pretty steep hill between Keele St and Caledonia Station, making that stretch of Eglinton more difficult to walk than the segment to the east. So yeah there's a bit of a mismatch in terms of physical distance, but in terms of time/difficulty I think it might actually even out.

 

[k10ery]

The writer, Richard Gilbert, is gnorant if the thinks that Canada Line is a step up, and has subway-like carrying capacity. With such an absurd statement, he has demonstrated his incompetency, and that throws everything else he has said in doubt. The Canada Line only has 40-metre long trains, with an ultimate length of 50-metres. The Eglinton LRT certainly has less capacity than a TTC subway, but it's designed for 90-metre long trains and automatic operation in the busiest section of the line.

And really, never a good explanation as to why it costs more than the Canada Line? If he can't figure out something so blindingly obvious, perhaps he should avoid commenting on the issue.

Can anyone explain Gilbert's forecast of 17 million passengers per year? The Big Move forecast was for 62 million, and the EPR for 52 million. That makes a huge difference to the cost per rider.

 

[officedweller]

The RFP ultimate capacity specification for the Canada Line was 15,000 ppdph.
The capacity was/will be achieved using short fat trains rather than long narrow trains.
The shorter platforms also allow a shallower tunnel and station depth since they reduce the grade between stations on hills.
The Canada Line trains are 3.0 m wide - the same as a subway car (compared to 2.6 m for MKII SkyTrain or typical LRT cars) and typical for airport systems (like JFK AirTrain, which has wide 3.0 m MKII cars) with lots of luggage toting passengers.

BTW - why is the Caledonia station so deep? Is that to avoid interference with the GO line (but even then, the separation look excessive)? It seems deeper than it needs to be. That secondary entrance should be downgraded to an emergency exit.

 

[nfitz]

Can anyone explain Gilbert's forecast of 17 million passengers per year?

I expect he's simply making up numbers to make his point. 17 million a year (in 2031) would correspond to a ridership of about 57,000 a day, using the standard rule of thumb of dividing annual ridership by 300.

The number is clearly absurdly wrong, the EA indicated that ridership along Eglinton Avenue was over 130,000 a day back in 2010!

I guess it's just more evidence of Richard Gilbert's gross incompetence. I wonder if the rest of his math is equally as flawed?

 

[nfitz]

The RFP ultimate capacity specification for the Canada Line was 15,000 ppdph.
The capacity was/will be achieved using short fat trains rather than long narrow trains.
The Canada Line trains are 3.0 m wide - the same as a subway car

Yes, that's about what I reckon the ultimate maximum is as well, close to 15,000. Not that fat though ... and it is narrow than a Toronto subway car, which is about 15 cm wider, at 3.15 m. Eglinton cars are 2.65 m - 35 cm narrower than Canada Line.

Much lower capacity on Canada Line compared to a subway. 1/3 the length gives you 1/3 the capacity.

 

[Paleo]

Assuming 300 per train and maximum 40 trains per hour (90 second headway) the Canada Line will do 12,000pph. That's lower than what Eglinton would be capable of if it were to be run at the same frequency in the grade separated portion at least.

Money-wise if people want cheap, they can go cut and cover otherwise shut up about cost.

 

[snowystar]

The capacity for the fully expanded 3-cars Canada Line train (>50m, may be even close to 60m) is set to 500 per train. The maximum planned headway is 2 minutes (30 trains per hour) in combined section, due to the single tracking at the end of either branches. However, this does not prevent them to short-turn trains within the busiest segment. With automation, the Expo Line is already capable of running at a headway of 77 seconds.

 

[BurlOak]

Assuming 300 per train and maximum 40 trains per hour (90 second headway) the Canada Line will do 12,000pph. That's lower than what Eglinton would be capable of if it were to be run at the same frequency in the grade separated portion at least.

Money-wise if people want cheap, they can go cut and cover otherwise shut up about cost.

Of course cut-and-cover should be discussed.

With cut-and-cover, the line will be much shallower and the stations will be much shallower too. With shallower construction, the time required is much less. So cut-and-cover is more disruptive, but for a shorter period of time. The other question is how much money can be saved. This also depends on the spacing of stations.

Maybe cut-and-cover works in some areas - I believe is may be used through Westion Road - bored in others, and elevated in yet others.

 

[nfitz]

We're not really comparing doing cut and cover on Cambie compared to Eglinton are we? Have you driven down Cambie? Much of it where they tunnelled is residential. And it certainly seems to be a lot wider than Eglinton. Also you have parallel major streets (Oak and Main) on either side, that cars could use instead.

 

[BurlOak]

Assuming 300 per train and maximum 40 trains per hour (90 second headway) the Canada Line will do 12,000pph. That's lower than what Eglinton would be capable of if it were to be run at the same frequency in the grade separated portion at least.

Money-wise if people want cheap, they can go cut and cover otherwise shut up about cost.

Steve Munro even recently suggested that he still has concerns that Metrolinx want to use SkyTrain technology on Eglinton - or possibly only for the SRT upgrade since they are not planned to be connected now - I could not quite interpret his comment.

http://stevemunro.ca/?p=6221&cpage=1#comments (May 8, 2012 at 1:16 pm)

I would say that the boat on this has long past. If Metrolinx really wanted this, it could have been done when the Ford Memo was in place and the shorter shutdown of the SRT would have been an additional selling point. Since Metrolinx was quiet as a mouse at that time, I suspect they are committed to LRT.

 

[unimaginative2]

Yes, that's about what I reckon the ultimate maximum is as well, close to 15,000. Not that fat though ... and it is narrow than a Toronto subway car, which is about 15 cm wider, at 3.15 m. Eglinton cars are 2.65 m - 35 cm narrower than Canada Line.

Much lower capacity on Canada Line compared to a subway. 1/3 the length gives you 1/3 the capacity.

Yes, but the capacity of a subway is completely irrelevant: the Canada Line is higher or comparable to the capacity of the Eglinton line, and it's fully grade-separated to boot. And it's less than half the price.

 

[Hipster Duck]

To what extent does the Eglinton line's high price tag come from the number of underground stations? Surely some of them (eg. Oakwood and Chaplin, possibly Laird) could be axed. It wouldn't provide a perfect substitute for the local bus services, but it would probably save hundreds of millions.

 

[datamouse]

I can only assume that if in all the years ICTS technology has been around they haven't developed a solution to the snow problems there's no way Metrolinx would touch the tech for Toronto. It's a shame really as the technology is good, just not for the province that developed it.

 

[snowystar]

I can only assume that if in all the years ICTS technology has been around they haven't developed a solution to the snow problems there's no way Metrolinx would touch the tech for Toronto. It's a shame really as the technology is good, just not for the province that developed it.

As far as I remember, there isn't much problem in Vancouver due to snow (and yes, it does snow in Vancouver - a couple years back Vancouver received well over 1 metre of snow within a span of about 10 days). The most common issues with the system during winter weather are actually:
1. Door freeze over
2. Freezing rain on SkyBridge causing track and switch to freeze over
3. Trees fall onto track due to the weight of snow
4. Weight of snow set off guide way intrusion system

Problem 1 and 2 would occur in any above-ground system, and they are reducing the chance of happening by de-icing at stations and install switch heater. Problem 3 occurs at the at-grade or trenched sections of the track, and many of the trees has since being cut down. Problem 4 is due to automation, not LIM itself, and they can run the train manually during bad weather as a workaround for this issue.