WislaHD
Superstar
The only way JT can resurrect his commuter rail dream is if he logs in on UT and checks some of our ideas for SmartTrack.
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
One of the benefits of LONG that Steve mentioned that was missing from YNRS were the substantial reduction in fleet requirements for YUS and the $1 Billion we'll save by not having to rebuild BY Station.
The thing about the reduced fleet requirements perplexes me. Wouldn't the cost benefits of a reduced fleet on YUS be negated by the costs of having to run a new fleet on DRL LONG?
The thing about the reduced fleet requirements perplexes me. Wouldn't the cost benefits of a reduced fleet on YUS be negated by the costs of having to run a new fleet on DRL LONG?
44 North
Senior Member
Yeah, that doesn't make sense to me either. When it comes to the DRL, I don't have full trust in what Mr Munro writes. Sometimes it seems he has a bit of a bias, or is kinda closed-minded on the topic.
And I didn't see them posted, but here's a couple screenshots of Metrolinx's DRL-Long and LRT routes. To make it easier for people to look up instead of opening up the pdf.
Attachments
sixrings
Senior Member
Im kind of confused how a subway running from Don Mills and Sheppard can possibly go 16km with 14 stops and get there within 22 minutes when I commute from Eglinton West to Union about 10km with 10 stops and it takes me 20 minutes.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
If anything, I'd expect RL LONG to result in significantly greater fleet costs.
If I've understood correctly, a problem with YRNS and the other studies so far is that they treat current YUS ridership figures as if those figures represent everyone that wants to use the line. The YUS is over capacity, so presumably there are a significant subset of commuters who would take the YUS if they were able to fit on the trains.
All the YRNS tells us is that of 31,200 pphpd using the YUS today, 11,600 of them would be diverted to DRL LONG (this brings YUS usage to down to 20,700). It gives us no indication at all of how many new riders we can expect to fill the 15,300 pphpd of available YUS capacity that will be made available because of LONG.
Obviously, this has very serious implications for fleet requirements. Say that 5,000 new riders are generated on YUS because of the capacity freed up by LONG - this would mean that the YUS fleet would have to be 25% larger than indicated in YRNS. Hopefully the next stage of the study will examine how many new YUS riders will be generated on YUS because of LONG.
Of course, greater fleet costs wouldn't be a knock against LONG. It just means we're converting more commuters to transit.
Tangent: I am really curious to see how LONG will affect Toronto's modal share. The share is now being limited by the lack of transit capacity on our surface and RT routes. LONG would open up more of this capacity than any other transit proposal we've seen.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
You've overestimated the travel time and distance. The run time between Eglinton West and Union is 16 minutes and the track distance traveled is about 8.5 km. That is an average speed of 32 km/h.
Assuming thee DRL numbers you gave us are correct, the average speed of DRL LONG is 44 km/h. That's 12 km/h or 35% faster than Eglinton West to Union. This can be attributed to the wider stop spacing on DRL LONG. Eglinton West to Union has spacing of 1 stop every 850 meters, while DRL LONG has spacing of 1 stop every 1,114 meters. That's 31% wider spacing.
I don't think that dwell times would have much of an impact here. DRL LONG and the Spadina Subway move similar passenger loads, so presumably dwell times would be similar unless DRL stations are designed in such a way to allow for significantly more efficient passenger flows.
drum118
Superstar
After listening to Metrolinx today as well TTC in the past, they all lack vision and fail to understand what is taking place on Young St today in the way of development and what is in the pipeline for the next 30 years.
Building any line to Danforth or Eglinton is going to do nothing for Young. Even if you built the so call SmartTrack with more stations, still not going to help. Thrown in the RER and still nothing. That shows up in today charts.
The relief line needs to go to Steele first and than hwy 7 to deal with what going to show up come 2050. Even if you built the relief line along with RER and SmartTrack, you are going to need a 2nd Young line.
Their a proposal for 460 units at St Clair & Young now and you have something around 1,500 units already approve and waiting for shovels to go into the ground for them in the same area; you have another 1,000 in sale or about within a haft a mile of the area; If you start compelling a list of development on the books as well being looked at this time for all stations, you have taken a line that 11% over capacitate today to 30%. If you then look at what can be built once other development start and you will see come 2050 you will be 70%+ over capacity. This does not allow for development between Young and the Relief Line as well the other service.
Based on comments at Metrolinx meeting today, my take is you will not see this line in service for 30-40 years unless open in stages. Even then, its 20 years out now.
"NOT ALL RIDERS" are going downtown. Like in the past, everything is being funnel to the core to cause longer travel time and trip to where a rider really wants to go in the first place.
As for ATC and going to a 7th car, not going to come close to TTC numbers.
Building any line to Danforth or Eglinton is going to do nothing for Young. Even if you built the so call SmartTrack with more stations, still not going to help. Thrown in the RER and still nothing. That shows up in today charts.
The relief line needs to go to Steele first and than hwy 7 to deal with what going to show up come 2050. Even if you built the relief line along with RER and SmartTrack, you are going to need a 2nd Young line.
Their a proposal for 460 units at St Clair & Young now and you have something around 1,500 units already approve and waiting for shovels to go into the ground for them in the same area; you have another 1,000 in sale or about within a haft a mile of the area; If you start compelling a list of development on the books as well being looked at this time for all stations, you have taken a line that 11% over capacitate today to 30%. If you then look at what can be built once other development start and you will see come 2050 you will be 70%+ over capacity. This does not allow for development between Young and the Relief Line as well the other service.
Based on comments at Metrolinx meeting today, my take is you will not see this line in service for 30-40 years unless open in stages. Even then, its 20 years out now.
"NOT ALL RIDERS" are going downtown. Like in the past, everything is being funnel to the core to cause longer travel time and trip to where a rider really wants to go in the first place.
As for ATC and going to a 7th car, not going to come close to TTC numbers.
Translude15
Frank the Tank
The only way JT can resurrect his commuter rail dream is if he logs in on UT and checks some of our ideas for SmartTrack.
Lol seriously. You or gweed should mail your fantasy maps to the mayor's office.
superman
Active Member
Interesting what this concept for the LRT could be... 8 stations, I'm thinking:
- Don Mills (Fairview Mall)
- York Mills
- Lawrence (Shops @ Don Mills)
- Eglinton (Science Centre)
- Thornecliffe Park
- Danforth
- Queen East
- King-Yonge
This is really the stop spacing we should've seen on Eglinton East and Sheppard to make them true rapid transit vs local service.
- Don Mills (Fairview Mall)
- York Mills
- Lawrence (Shops @ Don Mills)
- Eglinton (Science Centre)
- Thornecliffe Park
- Danforth
- Queen East
- King-Yonge
This is really the stop spacing we should've seen on Eglinton East and Sheppard to make them true rapid transit vs local service.
CapitalSeven
Senior Member
Not really. The LRT you would build up valleys and rail corridors for a radial route is not the LRT you would build on a dense suburban residential and mixed use corridor. Stops every 2 kilometres would have meant hitting every second or even third arterial road, skipping a lot of bus routes and walk on customers.
sixrings
Senior Member
This is the type of spacing I am advocating for on Eglinton West.
DarnDirtyApe
Active Member
Not sure how this was modeled in the study, but I believe that the LONG option would bring big changes for the modal share in that part of the city. Currently the Don Mills corridor has poor transit access (it's a relatively long, slow bus trip to the subway) and a relatively fast driving trip downtown thanks to the DVP. There would even be a decent amount of counter-peak demand thanks to office developments around Eglinton and York Mills. Over time people would start to adjust their living arrangements to take advantage of the new capacity, providing a further boost to ridership. There are thousands of apartments spread along the DRL route, but of course most of those people don't currently take transit downtown because it's not a very good option.
44 North
Senior Member
Same here. All the major routes are constrained by high road traffic volumes, and peak traffic is a heck of a lot longer than a mere "rush hour". Bayview, Don Mills, Lawrence, York Mills, Pape, Broadview... it's mayhem out there. This is a major deterrent to anyone who wants to take transit - because even at its worst, driving is more often than not a faster and more reliable alternative. Once we have a grade-separated N/S route through this area of TO, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a major uptick in those leaving the car at home. Or at least a larger increase in TO's transit mode share than that calculated in any study.
This is roughly what I'm imagining as well. But what I have trouble wrapping my head around is how a line would get from "Queen East" area to "King-Yonge" without any stops/stations in between. If it's run on the roads, it'd only make sense to create a few stops considering the line would hit a traffic light every 20sec and people would be demanding to be let off/on. Unless it's somehow either underground, or using USRC.
As it stands, I have a tough time believing what Metrolinx claims. The Prov is severely out of touch when it comes to TO (e.g their proposing a Big Move and Yonge extension without any kind of RL in place).
MisterF
Senior Member
What do you mean? The relief line has always been part of the Big Move.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Long has fantastic implications for modal share along both the Yonge and Don Mills corridors and surrounding areas. The potential of this proposal is incredible.