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

[nfitz]

Apparently you don't understand the discussion. We're not discussing the Toronto market. The Toronto market was never mentioned. We are discussing the theoretical maximum number of people you could possibly get on a bus in order to compare the best-case-scenario operation costs across different technologies.

If you want theoretical maximums, then you need peak load, not crush load - as the entire system breaks down then, as each vehicle spends forever at each stop with people trying to get out of (and into) vehicles. Crush loads occur in situations like subway breakdowns when 100s of replacement buses are in use ... at which point you can walk faster than the buses.

 

[rbt]

Apparently you don't understand the discussion. We're not discussing the Toronto market. The Toronto market was never mentioned. We are discussing the theoretical maximum number of people you could possibly get on a bus in order to compare the best-case-scenario operation costs across different technologies.

Yeah, and it's off-topic for both this thread and Urban Toronto as a whole as it is not applicable to any transit carrier in the GTA.

Also, the capacity of an unmodified 12m city bus is 229.

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-people-crammed-on-a-bus-unmodified

 

[nfitz]

Also, the capacity of an unmodified 12m city bus is 229.

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-people-crammed-on-a-bus-unmodified

Ah, but that was without any on the roof. So the theoretical maximum ON the bus must be about 300. So about 600 for a 24-metre bus.

 

[howl]

Yeah, and it's off-topic for both this thread and Urban Toronto as a whole as it is not applicable to any transit carrier in the GTA.

Also, the capacity of an unmodified 12m city bus is 229.

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-people-crammed-on-a-bus-unmodified

It's not off-topic at all. The question posed was about the operational cost delta between different technologies. Is it cheaper to operate a fleet of buses, an LRT system or a heavy rail system? If the TTC wanted to it could replace all its planned LRTs with Volvo 7500 bi-articulated buses and run them at crush load. If they did that it might save them a substantial amount of capital costs, but it would cost them a lot more on the operational cost side. On Eglinton that very calculation was done during the EA and the finding was LRT is the most cost-effective mode for this corridor.

 

[rbt]

It's not off-topic at all. The question posed was about the operational cost delta between different technologies. Is it cheaper to operate a fleet of buses, an LRT system or a heavy rail system? If the TTC wanted to it could replace all its planned LRTs with Volvo 7500 bi-articulated buses and run them at crush load. If they did that it might save them a substantial amount of capital costs, but it would cost them a lot more on the operational cost side. On Eglinton that very calculation was done during the EA and the finding was LRT is the most cost-effective mode for this corridor.

Howl, you just said this: "We're not discussing the Toronto market. The Toronto market was never mentioned."

Please make up your mind.

The numbers you are discussing are completely irrelevant to pretty much any carrier in North America. No agency in North America, including Mexico City or New York, achieves vendor quoted crush capacity.

Either the discussion uses realistic numbers for Toronto passengers, or it isn't applicable to Toronto. We have a very low discomfort threshold and will wait for the next vehicle long before vendor quoted crush capacity is reached.

 

[nfitz]

It's not off-topic at all. The question posed was about the operational cost delta between different technologies. Is it cheaper to operate a fleet of buses, an LRT system or a heavy rail system? If the TTC wanted to it could replace all its planned LRTs with Volvo 7500 bi-articulated buses and run them at crush load. If they did that it might save them a substantial amount of capital costs, but it would cost them a lot more on the operational cost side. On Eglinton that very calculation was done during the EA and the finding was LRT is the most cost-effective mode for this corridor.

I see no more need to wonder about how many vehicle you'd need if you ran at crush mode compared to how many camels we'd need if we wanted to be more green.

Who'd ever plan to run a service using crush loading?!?

No agency in North America, including Mexico City or New York, achieves vendor quoted crush capacity.

Though the streetcars leaving Exhibition loop after an event are very impressively packed. But everyone gets on at the same place, and packs themselves in. None of this on/off business And even then I don't think they achieve crush capacity - but that's routinely the highest loadings I've consistently seen. Though perhaps BD or Yonge rushhour subway replacement shuttles are similar ... but I've never been been dumb enough to take one ... walking is always faster.

 

[howl]

I see no more need to wonder about how many vehicle you'd need if you ran at crush mode compared to how many camels we'd need if we wanted to be more green.

Who'd ever plan to run a service using crush loading?!?

Though the streetcars leaving Exhibition loop after an event are very impressively packed. But everyone gets on at the same place, and packs themselves in. None of this on/off business And even then I don't think they achieve crush capacity - but that's routinely the highest loadings I've consistently seen. Though perhaps BD or Yonge rushhour subway replacement shuttles are similar ... but I've never been been dumb enough to take one ... walking is always faster.

To make the comparison valid you need to run the best-case/worst-case scenarios. If the best-case for buses can't stack up to the comparable LRT numbers then you are sure you are making the right choice of technology. If you like you're free to run the calculation with whatever capacity numbers you feel comfortable with and you'll find the delta is actually even larger than my best-case scenario. Of course once you do that someone else will come along as say "But what if the City bought the Volvo 7500 biarticulated bus?"

 

[W. K. Lis]

Over capacity, in India:

Would not be even allowed in Toronto.

 

[nfitz]

To make the comparison valid you need to run the best-case/worst-case scenarios. If the best-case for buses can't stack up to the comparable LRT numbers then you are sure you are making the right choice of technology. If you like you're free to run the calculation with whatever capacity numbers you feel comfortable with and you'll find the delta is actually even larger than my best-case scenario. Of course once you do that someone else will come along as say "But what if the City bought the Volvo 7500 biarticulated bus?"

To make comparison valid simply use the TTC peak loading values. We've all seen what happens when you increase these, and service deteriorates. And use the Metrolinx value for Eglinton - which seems about 10 people too high, but is close enough.

 

[Palma]

There is a town hall meeting with Metrolinx by phone with area residents. I find the questions are not necessarily answered. I probably have more info from this forum than what I have heard.

One woman asked what are the population numbers was picked to justify expense (she mentioned she lived near Hilltop and Old Park) but she did mention Laird. She said she has lived in the area and buses are empty.

Metrolinx talked about modelling, ridership on the bus, future growth, etc and that whenever he was riding the bus it was packed. Its just nonsense

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

During non-peak hours, buses heading west on Eglinton are empty at Brentcliffe and Laird. Perhaps that is what she was referring too.

Most passengers (not from Flemingdon Park) are picked up between Laird and Redpath.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Hmm I wonder why it comes above ground at Laird..

 

[44 North]

Off-topic, but are the underground stations for the Crosstown designed to be easily lengthened in any way? Say, to handle 4-car operation and 20,000 peak?

 

[nfitz]

Off-topic, but are the underground stations for the Crosstown designed to be easily lengthened in any way? Say, to handle 4-car operation and 20,000 peak?

It's entirely on-topic.

No. Though the current length should be able to handle 20,000 if they convert to heavy-rail - which would fit in the tunnels.

 

[ehlow]

Off-topic, but are the underground stations for the Crosstown designed to be easily lengthened in any way? Say, to handle 4-car operation and 20,000 peak?

It says in the EA:

The platforms will be 96 metres long to accommodate a three-car train without requiring additional
construction or structural work outside the tunnel. Additionally, should demand warrant, these platforms
can be extended even further, limited only by the vertical alignment constraints and special trackwork

From:
Section 2.3.1.2
http://thecrosstown.ca/the-project/reports/EglintonCrosstownLRTEnvironmentalProjectReport