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

[nfitz]

The writer, Richard Gilbert, is ignorant 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.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Longer platforms actually add a relatively small amount to the cost of an overall line. There's other factors behind Eglinton's boondoggly pricetag.

 

[Voltz]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...an-takes-taxpayers-for-a-ride/article2435515/



I honestly like LRT on the right avenue. At that price, Eglinton should have been a subway. I don't care that people think that anti-LRT opinions are ignorants or LRT haters but at that price, taxpayers got screwed. PERIOD

Transit was supposed to be what? 120 Km for 10 Billions?
At that price, the whole thing made sense but as soon as the price tag increased rapidly, it was time to rethink the whole thing and go with subway on Eglinton or at least Skytrain like the Canada line from STC to Jane. They even split that line now.

This is turning to be worse than when Ford took over. Council should have let Eglinton be underground and force a financial plan to pay for Sheppard on Ford wheter he liked it or not, not reverting back to Transit City and end up with a joke of a plan

The main difference between the current plan and a Canada Line style line on Eglinton is the surface section would be elevated, that is not cheaper.

The Canada line does not have the capacity of a subway line, it is only about half as I recall and to reach that level they will have to physically expand the elevated stations and buy more trains. The TTC would never be that short sighted as to not build stations structurally long enough to handle the planned train length.

And why advocate for a plan that costs more while complaining about the cost of a plan that is cheaper?

 

[nfitz]

Longer platforms actually add a relatively small amount to the cost of an overall line.

I wasn't quoting the platform length as anything to do with the cost. I was quoting the platform length, as it demonstrates so clearly that it is a step-down from the Eglinton LRT, in terms of carrying capacity - the complete opposite from Richard Gilbert's bizarre claims.

The Canada line does not have the capacity of a subway line, it is only about half as I recall..

Less than half. The ultimate train length for a Canada Line platform, if they expand them, is 50 metres. Our subway stations have 152 metre platforms. In addition the trains are a bit narrow than a subway train. The Canada Line can carry less then 1/3 the capacity of the Eglinton LRT. The Eglinton LRT can carry about half of the subway capacity. So if subway (if you add the proposed 7th car) can carry 30,000 per hour, LRT is closer to 15,000, and Canada Line is less than 10,000. If you up the subway frequencies through automation, etc., you might be able to get up to 45,000 if you really squeeze, and at those frequencies, LRT would be about 22,000 and Canada Line 14,000 (closer to 11,000 if they don't extend the trains).

 

[junctionist]

Hopefully everyone who doesn't like the Caledonia design, is making comments, as now is the official time to do so. Comments go here - http://thecrosstown.ca/node/343

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.

 

[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.