News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 690     4 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 595     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 910     0 

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

As suggested in the other topic zoning laws are geared towards limiting density and even if Eglinton got a full fledged subway it's unlikely that it would be converted into having pre-war densities with storefronts along it and additional residential side streets. Or be converted into one of those Paris grand avenues. Just look at Sheppard's conversion so far.

I don't think that route would be dense enough to warrant needing 90 second frequencies, and if it did then the more major lines would be even busier which is where additional heavy rail relief lines would come into play. This as a light rail should do just fine as long as there's sufficient stop spacing and most certainly not stopping at red lights between stops along the way.
 
The challenge with maximizing stop spacing to increase average speed is that it'll inevitably lead to demand for overlapping bus service to "fill the gaps." This increases operating costs significantly. (And the mostly seniors who will demand their bus service will inevitably get their way.)

500m is probably the ideal distance between stops in this regard.

Operating costs are a huge factor that needs to be considered when we think about expansion plans for the network, especially when we think about any Sheppard Subway extensions.
 
dunkalunk said:
Would it not be possible for a light rail vehicle to use catenary at-grade and third rail on grade-separated sections? If the catenary can be tucked away in tunnels or on the SRT corridor, then that would certainly save on some cost.
Click to expand...

It is possible, but with low floor LRVs you still need a place for electricity collection, and with much of the usuable area lost to the skirt, would be hard. Likely would need to be a third parrallel rail, which would need better electricial isolation.

I don't think you would want either that or a side rail with low floor platforms anyways.
 
Last edited:
GraphicMatt said:
The challenge with maximizing stop spacing to increase average speed is that it'll inevitably lead to demand for overlapping bus service to "fill the gaps." This increases operating costs significantly. (And the mostly seniors who will demand their bus service will inevitably get their way.)

500m is probably the ideal distance between stops in this regard.

Operating costs are a huge factor that needs to be considered when we think about expansion plans for the network, especially when we think about any Sheppard Subway extensions.
Click to expand...

once you start adding unnecessary stops you have opened pandoras box and the line becomes littered with stops slowing down the lrt. the line should be stopping at major intersections and pitting wheeltrans riders versus senior riders vs traditional riders is not productive. if 700m is the stop spacing that allows only major intersections so be it.

martin grove, kipling, isslington, scarlette, jane, weston, keele, caledonia, dufferin, eg west, bathurst, chaplain, avenue, yonge, mount pleasent, bayview, laird, leslie, don mills, vic park, warden, birchmount, eglinton - What IS THIS STOP SpACING?
 
GraphicMatt said:
The challenge with maximizing stop spacing to increase average speed is that it'll inevitably lead to demand for overlapping bus service to "fill the gaps." This increases operating costs significantly. (And the mostly seniors who will demand their bus service will inevitably get their way.)

500m is probably the ideal distance between stops in this regard.

Operating costs are a huge factor that needs to be considered when we think about expansion plans for the network, especially when we think about any Sheppard Subway extensions.
Click to expand...

I would say 1000m, which means you need to walk a maxium of 500 meters on Eglinton to get to any station. 500 meter! the distance between Dundas and Queen. I don't think that's too much to walk, even for a senior, even in winter.

500 meters spacing, have you every seen any subway in the world (outside the city core) running like this at all? I don't think so.
 
kkgg7 said:
I would say 1000m, which means you need to walk a maxium of 500 meters on Eglinton to get to any station. 500 meter! the distance between Dundas and Queen. I don't think that's too much to walk, even for a senior, even in winter.

500 meters spacing, have you every seen any subway in the world (outside the city core) running like this at all? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Umm, no, that's wrong. The maximum is NOT 500m. That'd only be the maximum if everyone lived on the arterial road with the line.

I think that 2 stops/1km in places with 1km block widths (i.e. in Scarborough) or 3 stops/2km in places with 2km block widths is about optimal.
 
Another thing is how much more capacity will this have than the current RT to accommodate that crowded route combined with the extra frequency it would have than the RT to make that part of the route more convenient..
 
Paris?

kkgg7 said:
500 meters spacing, have you every seen any subway in the world (outside the city core) running like this at all? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Not sure about what is considered the 'core' in Paris and what's considered 'outside' it as it all seems pretty wonderfully urban to me, but one of their 'transit' claims is that...

...no resident in Paris is less than 500 meters (1500 feet) away from a metro stop.
 
Danielinthecity said:
Not sure about what is considered the 'core' in Paris and what's considered 'outside' it as it all seems pretty wonderfully urban to me, but one of their 'transit' claims is that...

...no resident in Paris is less than 500 meters (1500 feet) away from a metro stop.
Click to expand...

That claim (I think you mean 'more than') is true largely by dint of the fact that the City of Paris is very, very small and many stops are even closer together than 500m. Given the distances involved that doesn't slow things down too much. In the broader Paris region, which is served by the hybrid metro/commuter RER, stops are much further apart.
 
jeffreym said:
Umm, no, that's wrong. The maximum is NOT 500m. That'd only be the maximum if everyone lived on the arterial road with the line.

I think that 2 stops/1km in places with 1km block widths (i.e. in Scarborough) or 3 stops/2km in places with 2km block widths is about optimal.
Click to expand...

It would be optimal in a dense, urban setting like Toronto south of Bloor street, or Paris where, as Daniel mentions, the city is famously known for placing a metro stop within 500m of everyone's house. Of course, the city of Paris has an average density that's higher than St. Jamestown and a street layout that's wonderfully suited for pedestrianization, with little warrens and mewses that jut off in every direction.

The residential side streets of Scarborough, however, are very suburban in nature, with single family detached homes on sidewalk-less cul de sacs and crescents. Moreover, these areas are filled with NIMBYs who are resistant to densification, and the price of property acquisition is too high and the demand for living in these areas too low for any reasonable developer to buy up these subdivisions at market value, demolish them and upzone them for higher density. Other than highrises at arterial intersections, the built form of suburbia isn't going anywhere.

And because of this, there is no reason to have intermediate stops on a rapid transit system through suburbia. There is no need to build a stop at Massie St. and Sheppard Avenue because the stop will generate as much ridership as a bus stop, and all of the ridership will come from the handful of people who live in the adjoining cul de sac who take public transit. What suburbanites need from their transit system - and above all, their rapid transit system - is speed. They need to travel through the miles of subdivisions and industrial parks at a speed that is competitive with the car. That's not to say that LRT can't do this. It can, and for those who doubt that on street LRT can't travel fast, I invite you to go to Seattle where you can travel from the southern edge of downtown to the Airport (a distance of over 20km) in about 22 minutes. But, what we can't have is a light rail line, or any form of rapid transit, that serves as a milk run.

Again, you can do this downtown or in Paris because the ridership generated at those stations every 500m is significant, and because the distance needed to travel to destinations is quite small. Additionally, consider that the frequent stop spacing of the Metro system led the regional government to create a secondary rapid transit network - the RER - for longer distance, regional rapid transit needs.
 
Seems to me that the 'real' problem is the 'form' of suburbia itself...low density development with car oriented design will 'always' cause us these problems...it's like were trying to fit a square peg into a round hole...we are the authors of our own misery by 'accepting' this form and then banging our 'transit planning' heads trying to accomodate it... :(
 
^^ Yes, the more you make it a local line, the less inclined local voters will accepted this - hence Ford's supporters opposing the line.

The idea that people will take the Eglinton or Shepperd LRT for 2 stops like those downtown, is a bit of a dream. The same argument of lacking densities for subways along shepperd should be applied for stop distances.

Scarborough will never support a 'local' line and the faster 'transit city' supporters understand, the faster a RAPID TRANSIT system can be built in the form of an LRT.

Anyone that's taken buses in NYC can tell you how far apart they are, if they can justify it in Manhattan, I'm sure torontonians can also.

p.s. I might see a justification for Wynford, but Not Bermondsey.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top