Crosstown LRT (Eglinton) | Proposed | 31 km | $2.2 Billion | All Six Boroughs

[ssiguy2]

Every 500m even in the tunnelled sections?.............that is ridiculously close together. They should be about twice that.
This is one of my primary objections to TC.....the stations are too close together. The stations should be more like 800m apart if it wants to get anywhere in any form of speed . That would still mean at max a 500m walk.......not far and it is a common fact that people are much more willing to walk further to get to mass/rapid transit than just a bus stop. With so many stops TC is going to end up being neither mass nor rapid, just expensive.

[kettal]

Originally Posted by ssiguy2

Every 500m even in the tunnelled sections?.............that is ridiculously close together. They should be about twice that.
This is one of my primary objections to TC.....the stations are too close together. The stations should be more like 800m apart if it wants to get anywhere in any form of speed . That would still mean at max a 500m walk.......not far and it is a common fact that people are much more willing to walk further to get to mass/rapid transit than just a bus stop. With so many stops TC is going to end up being neither mass nor rapid, just expensive.

It will be 850m station spacing in the tunneled section.

I guess you are happy now? or wait maybe you will find another reason to complain?

[heckles]

Yea, the tunneled portions are 850m apart.

[TRZ]

Originally Posted by ssiguy2

This is one of my primary objections to TC.....the stations are too close together. The stations should be more like 800m apart if it wants to get anywhere in any form of speed . That would still mean at max a 500m walk.......not far and it is a common fact that people are much more willing to walk further to get to mass/rapid transit than just a bus stop. With so many stops TC is going to end up being neither mass nor rapid, just expensive.

This 500m LINEAR distance is far too narrow-minded. What people with this tired argument always forget is that we have a street grid behind the streetfaces of both sides of the transit artery itself. There are people that don't live along the artery itself, but in the residential blocks that flank it. Shocking concept, I know. People have to walk along the street grid, not in the path of the crow. It's a little disingeniuous of the TTC to show 500m of span on either side of the corridor, continuously, and say that this is the service area, when a significant portion of people will actually be walking more than 500m, because they don't measure via the acutal walking path to the actual station access points. They show the corridor area as a perfect rectangle, but it should actually be a little more organic in shape.

Yes, some people might walk 800m. That's true, but it depends on the person. I can walk 800m and not complain. My mother, different story.

[heckles]

Look at it from this perspective, if you are on Eglinton Ave, the longest distance you will need to walk is 425m if you are in the underground portions, and for the above ground service the most you would walk is 250m. 250m is nothing...

I'm not sure where comparing from walking to Eglinton (if you're not already on Eglinton) is a big deal, because if you walk to a bus stop at present you still have to walk from whatever distance away from Eglinton you are. Just incorporate the difference in where TC stops will be and it can't possibly add that much.

[TRZ]

Originally Posted by heckles

Look at it from this perspective, if you are on Eglinton Ave, the longest distance you will need to walk is 425m if you are in the underground portions, and for the above ground service the most you would walk is 250m. 250m is nothing...

I'm not sure where comparing from walking to Eglinton (if you're not already on Eglinton) is a big deal, because if you walk to a bus stop at present you still have to walk from whatever distance away from Eglinton you are. Just incorporate the difference in where TC stops will be and it can't possibly add that much.

It adds a fair bit when 2/3rds of the stops are disappearing. The corridor is not supposed to serve only Eglinton Ave. exclusively and forget all other nearby parallel streets. Maybe people haven't noticed, but a lot of ridership comes from the nearby blocks north or south of Eglinton. The corridor is supposed to be within reach of 500m on either side. The presentations do not illustrate the actual distances involved because they are not adknowledging the reality of the existing street grid in the area. What we don't want is a bus service running on top of Eglinton. That makes the LRT a waste of money because you have to run two services on the corridor, and since this increases transfers, it makes transit less attractive.

[tristp]

so would the LRT on eglington be comparable to the scarborough rt line or the row streetcar line on st.clair?

[Epi]

Originally Posted by tristp

so would the LRT on eglington be comparable to the scarborough rt line or the row streetcar line on st.clair?

ROW on St. Clair.

[heckles]

Its more like a mixture of Scarborough RT and the St Clair ROW, from the renderings I've seen of Transit City, there will be a barricade between the lanes of traffic and the rails. And it would be more in line with actual light rail instead of streetcar technology.

[kettal]

Originally Posted by Epi

ROW on St. Clair.

if St Clair was half underground

[TRZ]

Originally Posted by heckles

Its more like a mixture of Scarborough RT and the St Clair ROW, from the renderings I've seen of Transit City, there will be a barricade between the lanes of traffic and the rails. And it would be more in line with actual light rail instead of streetcar technology.

Right. Streetcar technology isn't actual light rail.

Streetcars are light rail... same technology, different marketing, get over it.

Transit City's "barricade" isn't some kind of impenetrable seal. It's not really different, except in aesthetics, from Spadina. The only occasional "barrier" are the station shelters.

[heckles]

Light Rail is not the identical thing to streetcars, but its no where near subway. I don't classify them as one in the same. Especially since I've used light rail to get to work for a few years now.

[TRZ]

Originally Posted by heckles

Light Rail is not the identical thing to streetcars, but its no where near subway. I don't classify them as one in the same. Especially since I've used light rail to get to work for a few years now.

Do they both run on rails? Yes
Do they both use bogies? Yes
Do they both use electricity? Yes
Do they both use overhead catanery? Yes
Are they both capable of using street surfaces? Yes
Are they both capable of running in mixed traffic and/or in dedicated ROW? Yes
Are the both capable of running in an exclusive ROW (like a tunnel)? Yes

The technology is the same.
You've just been suckered by marketing.

[heckles]

No, I haven't.

But if you want a truly fast train, the only fast train in the US is the Acela service between Washington-Philly-New York-Boston.

Here's fast, electrified heavy rail. This is the Acela passing by a station north of Washington DC @ 125mph/200kmph.



And another station near New York.



And the Europeans outdoing the Americans, as usual, at 300kmph/186mph



...that's fast heavy rail.

And please don't tell me I've been "suckered in" by marketing. I've lived in Portland and Pittsburgh for the past two years and I've been using LRT quite heavily. Before that I was in Chicago and used the El, and I can tell you that its not a streetcar. Although, I do wished Eglinton would have been subway, LRT isn't half bad.

[kettal]

Streetcars are always light rail, but light rail is not always streetcars.

[urban 2.0]

Question - apologies if this has already been asked/answered - didn't see any former posts

But will the Eglinton LRT tunnel be built/bored at Subway size? Meaning a subway could easily be added to the lin

[heckles]

The official construction plans have not come out, but I can tell you that its a 99.9% chance of being NO that heavy rail TTC style subway fitting in the Eglinton tunnel. LRT tunnels are considered "subway" but its not heavy rail.

Part of the reason why its much cheaper to build Light Rail is because the stations only handle several cars per train, and the diagrams I've seen have only been 2 cars per train (if you watch the Transit City marketing video), and some LRT systems support up to 3 cars per train.

Each car has two compartments, so its like having 6 buses run every 5-10 minutes, so its a REMARKABLE improvement over buses, and its better than streetcars.

But its unlikely they will bother building the kinds of subway stations required for TTC styled cars where many, many cars are linked together.

If Transit City runs 2 cars per train on this LRT network, its will be able to handle an easy traffic flow of 300,000 per day. They need to at least be able to accomodate 3 cars per train so it can easily ride up to 500k per day.

But in terms of the TTC, running 4-8 cars per train? Not a chance.

[heckles]

BTW, in regards to the videos above, its worth noting the Acela train system was built and designed by Bombardier in Canada. I don't know why VIA Rail doesn't use the system when its Canadian technology behind it.

The trains go up to 150mph, their max isn't 125mph. I think 150mph is 240kmph?

Here is Acela as it plunges through snow at Mansfield, MA.

[TRZ]

Originally Posted by heckles

No, I haven't.

But if you want a truly fast train, the only fast train in the US is the Acela service between Washington-Philly-New York-Boston.

Here's fast, electrified heavy rail. This is the Acela passing by a station north of Washington DC @ 125mph/200kmph.

And another station near New York.

And the Europeans outdoing the Americans, as usual, at 300kmph/186mph

...that's fast heavy rail.

And please don't tell me I've been "suckered in" by marketing. I've lived in Portland and Pittsburgh for the past two years and I've been using LRT quite heavily. Before that I was in Chicago and used the El, and I can tell you that its not a streetcar. Although, I do wished Eglinton would have been subway, LRT isn't half bad.

Heavy Rail is an exclusive ROW, of course it's fast. What does heavy rail have to do with streetcars/light rail, though?

Speed has little to do with the technology itself though. Toronto's current streetcars are capable of going 100+km/h, as they were supposed to be used for the SRT in addition to the current routes. The streetcars have the technical capability to go fast, but they're servicing routes for which most predate WWII.
Chicago's El isn't LRT, either. The El is HRT like our subway.
If you don't know much about the technology, which you clearly don't if you think the El is LRT, then don't try to act like you haven't been suckered. You obviously have.

[TRZ]

Originally Posted by heckles

The official construction plans have not come out, but I can tell you that its a 99.9% chance of being NO that heavy rail TTC style subway fitting in the Eglinton tunnel. LRT tunnels are considered "subway" but its not heavy rail.

Part of the reason why its much cheaper to build Light Rail is because the stations only handle several cars per train, and the diagrams I've seen have only been 2 cars per train (if you watch the Transit City marketing video), and some LRT systems support up to 3 cars per train.

Each car has two compartments, so its like having 6 buses run every 5-10 minutes, so its a REMARKABLE improvement over buses, and its better than streetcars.

But its unlikely they will bother building the kinds of subway stations required for TTC styled cars where many, many cars are linked together.

If Transit City runs 2 cars per train on this LRT network, its will be able to handle an easy traffic flow of 300,000 per day. They need to at least be able to accomodate 3 cars per train so it can easily ride up to 500k per day.

But in terms of the TTC, running 4-8 cars per train? Not a chance.

It'd be a good idea to stop treating your own assumptions as if they're confirmed facts. Have you talked to anybody involved in the project? Doesn't sound like it.

I can confirm from people actually involved in the project that subway compatability is in fact planned. It's a challenging design problem, but the TTC definately wants it, as it fears it could be embarrassed in the future if it doesn't protect for it. Eglinton will definately be running 3-car trains, although not necessarily from opening day.

Whether or not 3-car trains are needed doesn't depend so much on how many people are carried per day, it depends on how many people are carried per hour at the peak point of the line.

Where in the world did you get 8 cars from? The TTC hasn't run 8 car trains for anything since the earliest days of the subway.

A 3-car LRV train is about the same length as a 4-car TTC subway train. The length of the two trains is the same, but the subway train is wider.