Transit City Plan

[nfitz]

I'm looking at the stop which is closest to the access to Ferrand, which is Eglinton at Jesus Christ Church for Latter Day Saints. I would assume that this is where the stop would be located, not next to the DVP.

No, it doesn't go anywhere near there. No wonder you are opposed to the stop if you think it goes there! It goes east of the other leg of Ferrand. It DOES go at the DVP ramp! See slide 23 of the presentation at http://thecrosstown.ca/news-media/w...-at-grade-section-don-mills-to-ionview-online.

 

[innsertnamehere]

It's the DVP this far south, the 404 ends at the 401.

 

[Electrify]

So to complete my quota of surveys, I went down to Eglinton and Ionview. This stop is midway between Birchmount and the turnstiles to Kennedy station, a 7 minute walk in each direction. I was also interviewing people heading east towards the subway, so they would see the least benefit from the Eglinton LRT.

However to even my surprise, EVERYONE WHO ANSWERED SAID THAT THEY WOULD TAKE TRANSIT MORE OR APPRECIATE A FASTER TRANSIT LINE ALONG EGLINTON! I collected 10 surveys the first day, and concerned that some may have misunderstood the question, wrote on the surveys specifically Birchmount Rd and Kennedy station. This did not change the result trends at all.

I even asked people if they would be okay walking to Kennedy, and they said it is not too bad a walk and that they would see such a line as more reliable and efficient. This is a very important revelation, and further suggests that the TTC is making a mistake in providing a semi-rapid tram in favour of a true light rail rapid transit system.

 

[Electrify]

The surveys are complete, but since this is for a pseudo-stats course, I still have much work to do.

But from the overall total of 45, 36 answered the key question about having to walk further to faster service. The mean average was 2.03, meaning that the average person selected option 2: would take transit about as often as they do now, but would appreciate the extra transit speed despite having to walk further. Also, only 2 people who answered this question really felt negative about it (1 person would take transit about as often as they do now, but would prefer the local stop over having a faster ride, 1 person said they would take transit less if it was removed).

The average walking time recorded was 1.69, so about half way between much less than 5 minutes and about 5 minutes, leaning closer to the latter. It appeared that most transit riders in Scarborough came from the apartments near the stops which explains the short walking distance. And while I didn't ask this directly, 67.5% mentioned finances impacted their decision to take transit, including 40% of the total which explicitly said they had no or limited access to a car.

That said, the average commute time selected 3.45, which translates to 37 minutes and overall people selected they were somewhat satisfied by the transit portion of their journey, which is a generally a good sign.

As I said, I still have A LOT of work to do, but it is looking as if having wider stops would not hurt the ridership as much as some predict. It appears that running a less frequent local service alongside a frequent LRT may be best for those who cannot handle the walk, but even that may not be necessary over time.

 

[M II A II R II K]

This kind of layout could be promising, particularly if it goes under all intersections.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/loic80l/8103450911

 

[gweed123]

This kind of layout could be promising, particularly if it goes under all intersections.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/loic80l/8103450911

This is one of the two options that I had envisioned for Eglinton East. Either elevated, or partially depressed between stops, and a small station underneath major intersections. Makes a lot of sense.

 

[Dan416]

IF that was what had been planned from the start, no one would have complained about LRT.

 

[ssiguy2]

I said that years ago when I stated that TC was a good idea that was being incredibly poorly executed.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

This is one of the two options that I had envisioned for Eglinton East. Either elevated, or partially depressed between stops, and a small station underneath major intersections. Makes a lot of sense.

Great idea. Looks a lot like Allen Road. How exactly are intersections handled?

 

[M II A II R II K]

Even if it were at street level the main points are to not have too many stops, and never stop at red lights between stops. It doesn't matter so much if it gets a red light at a stop it would stop at anyway.

 

[gweed123]

Great idea. Looks a lot like Allen Road. How exactly are intersections handled?

But with Allen Road the roadway is depressed as well, meaning no at-grade connections to it. With Eglinton East the roadway would remain at-grade, but the LRT would be partially depressed in-median.

Intersections would be like normal for vehicular movements, but queue jump lanes for buses would be installed on all cross-streets that have a station (ex: Warden). The station would be located directly beneath the intersection, 1 level below grade. It would be side platform, and there would be 2 entrances to the station: one on the NW corner for the WB platform (handling SB bus passengers), and one on the SE corner handing the EB platform and NB bus passengers. The majority of the bus to LRT transfers will be SB to WB in the AM, and EB to NB in the PM, so this setup minimizes walking for most people.

The station entrances would be located in the island between the right turn lane and the straight thru lanes on the NW and SE sides of the intersection. There would be an elevator and stairs at either entrance, as well as a small bus waiting area. The queue jump lanes would allow buses to load and unload passengers without affecting traffic flow. If needed, 2nd stair only entrances can be located in the islands of the SW and NE parts of the intersection.

The platforms themselves would be half open air, half underground, with the underground portion being whatever is covered by the intersection. This would make ventilation and emergency exit requirements much easier, because half the station is open.

May sound a bit weird by description, but I've been meaning to do up a set of drawings of it for a while now, because I think this design could be applicable to almost any TC line where the line crosses a major intersection.

 

[M II A II R II K]

And intersections that don't have stations would be bypassed underground as well of course.

 

[PL1]

Of course it does disconnect the two sides of the street for pedestrians except at main intersections. Not that large parts of Eglinton have a huge volume of pedestrian traffic, but still would be a concern for me.

 

[BurlOak]

This kind of layout could be promising, particularly if it goes under all intersections.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/loic80l/8103450911

Are there watermain and gas lines down the centre of Eglinton or are they closer to the curb lanes/sidewalks. When going under intersections, the utilities of the cross street need to be considered. I do like this idea but worry that the zone between 1 and 3 metres below ground are congested with utilities. If this trench is a bit deeper adn then covered over it might work as well - although the tunnel ventillation and emergency egress becomes a concern as identified by Gweed.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Any inclines have to be no more than 5% for the light rail vehicles (heavy rail vehicles as well). This is unlike the streetcars, which are supposed to handle 8% inclines. At 5%, this means approaches and departure inclines would have to be longer.