Toronto Eglinton Line 5 Crosstown West Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[TheTigerMaster]

Agreed. The renderings are wonky and probably a bit flawed, but if you blow them up and look carefully at the planes, the floor of the second landing is level with the awning where the bus stop is, and compared against the heads of the renderfolk, would be about 10 feet off the ground. And the last landing that leads out to the platform is therefore about 20 feet off the ground, enough to clear traffic.

I’d agree with that.

Nevermind that this isn’t an engineering drawing, so it’s likely highly imprecise.

 

[44 North]

All you folks who want LRT stops predominantly trenched or elevated (as opposed to at major intersections like Islington). You can either drag a 30lb suitcase OR a big stroller OR you can have a dead leg and then climb four flights of stairs up and down to simulate.

There's probably an unspoken agreement by most here that any grade-separation would by default have infrastructure compliant with AODA, and I guess any high cost that entails. But since you brought up suitcases and strollers, which is an excellent point, one should naturally question whether the Flexity Freedom (or low-floor LRVs in general) was the right vehicle. Yes it will be 10cm wider than an Outlook, but it will also suffer from the narrow aisle between seats and general wonky design of low-floor vehicles (what with steps up to some seats). This video by a @Streety McCarface makes it clear it'd be hard to navigate any pram through there.

Should high-floor LRVs been considered for a key corridor such as Eglinton, or a route that's supposed to carry thousands of travelers to the airport? Same question arises with current Line 3. Should we have torn down the guideway, and essentially torn down every station, in order to accept a vehicle that's designed for roadway operation? Maybe it was a bit backward planning, or at least we shouldn't have ordered the vehicles before we properly figured out the line.

 

[dowlingm]

If only we had a device that elevated people vertically without them having to climb stairs.

Oh well. If only such a device existed.

And TTC could keep them working.

 

[BurlOak]

Should high-floor LRVs been considered for a key corridor such as Eglinton, or a route that's supposed to carry thousands of travelers to the airport? Same question arises with current Line 3. Should we have torn down the guideway, and essentially torn down every station, in order to accept a vehicle that's designed for roadway operation? Maybe it was a bit backward planning, or at least we shouldn't have ordered the vehicles before we properly figured out the line.

It takes almost 10 years to built the line, and half that to order the trains.
It was a devilishly sneaky strategy to buy the trains first so that it became more difficult to make a change.
Back in 2011 they were already eliminating the option of Mark III, the lowest cost and top choice in 2006 before Transit City came around, and connection to Eglinton, because the order was already placed.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Should high-floor LRVs been considered for a key corridor such as Eglinton, or a route that's supposed to carry thousands of travelers to the airport?

Is it supposed to be carrying thousands of people to the airport? At this point we've had three separate ridership projections done by three separate agencies, and they've all concluded that ridership generated by Pearson will be negligible. The western portion of the Crosstown West LRT will easily be the least used part of our rapid transit network.

The connection to Pearson is largely politically motivated; I've yet to see any kind of analysis indicating that particular part of the project is objectively warranted.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

It takes almost 10 years to built the line, and half that to order the trains.
It was a devilishly sneaky strategy to buy the trains first so that it became more difficult to make a change.
Back in 2011 they were already eliminating the option of Mark III, the lowest cost and top choice in 2006 before Transit City came around, and connection to Eglinton, because the order was already placed.

Please stop with the conspiracy theories. When the vehicle order was placed in March 2010, the Sheppard East LRT, Finch West LRT, Eglinton-Scaborough Crosstown LRT and Scarborough LRT had been approved for years. The Sheppard LRT was mere months from entering construction, and was scheduled for completion in 2013. How long do you suppose Metrolinx should have waited to order the vehicles, considering that they needed to be manufactured, delivered, tested and commissioned in just three short years?

 

[Streety McCarface]

Should high-floor LRVs been considered for a key corridor such as Eglinton, or a route that's supposed to carry thousands of travelers to the airport? Same question arises with current Line 3. Should we have torn down the guideway, and essentially torn down every station, in order to accept a vehicle that's designed for roadway operation? Maybe it was a bit backward planning, or at least we shouldn't have ordered the vehicles before we properly figured out the line.

With this in mind, High floor platforms, especially in the subway portion of the Crosstown would also be able to facilitate an eventual conversion to Subway Technology, which I predict will have to happen much sooner than Metrolinx really anticipates.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

With this in mind, High floor platforms, especially in the subway portion of the Crosstown would also be able to facilitate an eventual conversion to Subway Technology, which I predict will have to happen much sooner than Metrolinx really anticipates.

The Crosstown team specifically designed the LRT to facilitate any figure conversions to heavy rail.

That said, I don’t anticipate this will be necessary in our lifetimes. 2031 peak ridership on the Crosstown will be low, at roughly 7,500 PPHPD eastbound into Eglinton West, and and 5,500 westbound into Yonge. The LRT will have several existing and future transfer locations to dilute ridership, including GO RER and DRL at Mt Dennis, Line 1 at Allen Road, Line 1 at Yonge, DRL at Don Mills and Line 2 and RER at Kennedy.

If RER has fare integration, or it DRL ever comes to Mt Dennis, the haviest peak loads would probably be on Crosstown East, westbound into Kennedy Station, where ridership will be about 5,5000 PPHPD

 

[steveintoronto]

With this in mind, High floor platforms, especially in the subway portion of the Crosstown would also be able to facilitate an eventual conversion to Subway Technology, which I predict will have to happen much sooner than Metrolinx really anticipates.

It's not in vogue, to put it mildly:

The two pioneering Canadian LRT cities, Calgary and Edmonton, located in the western province of Alberta, are both planning a major shift in their design and operating philosophies.

Edmonton, Alberta’s capital, opened its first line in 1978; Calgary followed three years later.

Both systems, from the outset, adopted high-platform boarding. Edmonton’s stations have been somewhat simple and utilitarian, for the most part, apart from those in the subway section, while Calgary’s have tended to be elaborate and expensive.

Edmonton has about three miles of subway, extending from the northwest fringe of downtown to the University of Alberta, south of the center city. This approach was quite costly, and hindered significant extension of the line for a number of years. To this day, Edmonton Transit operates one long line from the northeast to the southern sector, with a short, recently opened branch to the northwest.

Calgary, from the outset, took a different approach to contain costs, utilizing a transit mall instead of a subway in the downtown, and generally limiting tunnels to short sections. Since 1981, Calgary’s system has grown extensively, culminating in two lines that serve the northwest, northeast, western, and southern sections of the city. The system has grown from its original 8 miles to just over 37 miles.

Siemens LRVs have been the car of choice in both cities, with newer models ordered as the original models pass their 30th anniversaries.

Both cities have recently decided, since low-floor operations can be implemented at significantly lower cost, to pursue this approach on two completely new lines. These will be completely separate operations from the existing high-floor lines, although transfer will be possible. That said, both Calgary Transit and Edmonton Transit have extensions to the existing high-platform routes on the drawing boards, for future construction.

Another advantage of low-floor LRT is that it can be situated on local streets, on reserved track, with less obtrusive stations more acceptable to local residents.
[...]

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php...algary-edmonton-adopt-low-floor-approach.html

 

[Avenue]

Sorry for the really basic question: This line will force a transfer to Crosstown at Mt Dennis, right? As in, it's not going to be one long single line.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Sorry for the really basic question: This line will force a transfer to Crosstown at Mt Dennis, right? As in, it's not going to be one long single line.

It’s an extension of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. It will be one line.

 

[robmausser]

The Crosstown team specifically designed the LRT to facilitate any figure conversions to heavy rail.

That said, I don’t anticipate this will be necessary in our lifetimes. 2031 peak ridership on the Crosstown will be low, at roughly 7,500 PPHPD eastbound into Eglinton West, and and 5,500 westbound into Yonge. The LRT will have several existing and future transfer locations to dilute ridership, including GO RER and DRL at Mt Dennis, Line 1 at Allen Road, Line 1 at Yonge, DRL at Don Mills and Line 2 and RER at Kennedy.

If RER has fare integration, or it DRL ever comes to Mt Dennis, the haviest peak loads would probably be on Crosstown East, westbound into Kennedy Station, where ridership will be about 5,5000 PPHPD

I think even before conversion to heavy rail, they could buy long articulated LRTs that would allow for more standing room, like they did with the Toronto Rocket trains.

Heres a mockup of a 7 section Flexity

I'm sure with dual panto you could make one even longer, the entire length of the platform.

Would be cheaper than subway conversion.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

This isn’t a new revelation. Toronto’s City Planning has made it quite clear that they’re looking at both urban planning and transportation planning benefits across all projects they’re delivering. They’d argue that you don’t build a great city with transportation benefits overriding all other concerns. Land use planning drives transportation planning, not the other way around.

City Planning may think that, but it is way more of a chicken or the egg sort of question.

Does land use drive transportation network or does the transportation network drive land uses?

The answer is both. That is why the 'built it and they will come' mantra is frequently validated.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

City Planning may think that, but it is way more of a chicken or the egg sort of question.

Does land use drive transportation network or does the transportation network drive land uses?

The answer is both. That is why the 'built it and they will come' mantra is frequently validated.

Has it really been validated though? The entirety of Line 2 has yet to see significant intensification some 50 years after its introduction. Same story for the SRT, Spadina Line and the Yonge Line north of Bloor (excluding Yonge-Eglinton and NYC).

On the other hand, the shoulder areas of the Downtown core (e.g. Liberty Village) continue to be the fastest growing areas in our city, despite a complete lack of rapid transit in those areas, and despite decades of government policy and billions of dollars spent to encourage that growth to be directed towards suburban centres.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

It is a wonder why trenched wasn't proposed. However ignoring costs of options and focusing on the planning aspect, I think trenched would be the absolute worst. Yes a 4-storey high station seems suspect, but at least it allows pedestrians midblock to cross the street freely and can be landscaped well. That's arguably better than at-grade in-median. Now compare that with a long deep trench. Would require a bridge to cross it, bisects neighbourhoods, and renders the adjacent roadway expressway-like.

A trenched alignment would also kill any potential to build medium density walkable neighbourhoods along the corridor. This style of intensification has for decades been a planning goal of the City's. And even without the LRT, we're seeing some small developments on the corridor (such as those townhouses). The LRT would only encourage more of this development to occur. I think adding two or three minutes onto trip times is a reasonable tradeoff in order to build a great neighbourhood along the LRT route. I'm not very interested in plans that keep Eglinton Avenue in a highway-like configuration.

This is why I emphasize that transportation concerns aren't the only major consideration with these projects. A great city isn't necessarily one where people are getting around as quickly as is conceivably possible.