News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.8K     0 
andrewpmk said:
Even though Canada Line has ridiculously short platforms it probably could accomodate much more frequent headways (automated systems can go as low as 90 seconds) if the single track turnarounds at YVR and Richmond were rebuilt as double track. Surface light rail cannot efficiently run more frequently than every 5 minutes with full signal priority. Also the Transit City proposal was poorly designed by LRT standards because it had too many minor stops, small islands rather than real stations as stops, no pedestrian overpasses/underpasses at stops and no crossing arms. If you are running a high capacity LRT line it needs to be designed similar to the Calgary C-Train system or I refuse to support it.
Click to expand...

Agreed
 
andrewpmk said:
Real LRT in Calgary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZqVBqYsmLs

If LRT on Eglinton or elsewhere does not resemble this, then I am opposed to it. Elevated is better of course.
Click to expand...

The Eglinton LRT would more resemble the Paris LRT. But I believe that the Eglinton LRT would be a little faster:
[video=youtube;iwGS0cS0ujo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwGS0cS0ujo[/video]
 
Voltz said:
Those ridership numbers are that high because existing riders on on the Bloor Danforth would switch to the Eglinton line if it were tunnelled. Blowing billions to give those exiting riders another route is irresponsible and unnecessary.
Click to expand...

and your an expert because...???

The numbers are there and Eglinton deserves a subway (tunnelled or elevated)

Funny how you use numbers to crucify Sheppard but find some excuse to dismiss numbers that justifies subway technology as early as 2031 and by 2050, it more than justify the technology
 
TheTigerMaster said:
The Eglinton LRT would more resemble the Paris LRT. But I believe that the Eglinton LRT would be a little faster:
[video=youtube;iwGS0cS0ujo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwGS0cS0ujo[/video]
Click to expand...

That kind of line belongs on Finch not on Eglinton with the ridership they are anticipating
 
Solid Snake said:
and your an expert because...???

The numbers are there and Eglinton deserves a subway (tunnelled or elevated)

Funny how you use numbers to crucify Sheppard but find some excuse to dismiss numbers that justifies subway technology as early as 2031 and by 2050, it more than justify the technology
Click to expand...

Voltz is right about people just switching to the Eglinton Line. I actually read a Metrolinx or TTC report (I can't remember which one) that said the exact same thing as him a few days ago.

And I don't know what about Voltz makes him an expert, but he seems to have a far better understanding of the topic then you do.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Voltz is right about people just switching to the Eglinton Line. I actually read a Metrolinx or TTC report (I can't remember which one) that said the exact same thing as him a few days ago.

And I don't know what about Voltz makes him an expert, but he seems to have a far better understanding of the topic then you do.
Click to expand...

Was it that report?
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/project...lintonScarboroughCrosstownUpdate_Feb72012.pdf

Underground has more benefits than at grade and would attract double the ridership justifying subway. That report is February 2012 and they do mention that it would complement the Bloor-Danforth line.

So by offering an alternative to riders by offering them a shorter travel time to have access to rapid transit by decreasing their travel time on the bus is bad???

Nope, I think my understanding on the topic is more than fine
 
The thing with Eglinton is that it's a very weird situation. By that I mean that if it is interlined with the SLRT, then Eglinton East will need to be grade separated, because surface along that stretch would be at the upper limits of what surface can handle. But if they aren't interlined, people will continue to use B-D, and complete grade-separation won't be necessary.

The question of interlining needs to be answered first.
 
andrewpmk said:
Real LRT in Calgary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZqVBqYsmLs

If LRT on Eglinton or elsewhere does not resemble this, then I am opposed to it. Elevated is better of course.
Click to expand...

I didn't watch the entire video, but it appears that the Eglinton ROW is narrower.

From Black Creek to McCowan is 25 km. There is 1.5km from Brentcliffe to near Don Mills that is very easy to locate on the South side of the road. Don Mills and Kennedy would be underground regardless of whether the Ford plan or Transit City is considered.

This leaves a 5.5km stretch from near Don Mills to Kennedy that is in dispute. Transit City wants this in the median, Ford wants it burried (at a cost premium of $2B), but elevated is not talked about. Using the $100M cost that other jurisdictions seems to achieve, it would cost $500M more. This is the number that should be debated. Is it worth spending $500M on a 25km line to make it fully grade separated.
 
Last edited:
Solid Snake said:
Was it that report?
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/project...lintonScarboroughCrosstownUpdate_Feb72012.pdf

Underground has more benefits than at grade and would attract double the ridership justifying subway. That report is February 2012 and they do mention that it would complement the Bloor-Danforth line.

So by offering an alternative to riders by offering them a shorter travel time to have access to rapid transit by decreasing their travel time on the bus is bad???

Nope, I think my understanding on the topic is more than fine
Click to expand...

Metrolinx' own reports have stated quite clearly that the vast majority of the ridership increase on Eglinton is existing riders from the existing subway line that already goes to Kennedy Station. Those riders would not save any time nor are they getting an alternative to a bus under Ford's plan. Not extending the SRT means that a large number of riders would spend more time on a bus than they will under the Transit City Plan and have a longer trip overall.
 
Perhaps I am reading that report incorrectly but those ridership stats seem really low. How is it possible that can project to 2050 and be accurate? Today i just heard that Ford had hidden a report that came out that showed that the job growth at North York Centre had only gone up 1000 in 30 years (not sure about the years) when they had projected 50,000 jobs and that was the whole reason for the push for Sheppard subway- and to eventually unite with Scarborough by subway. Of course Ford would want to hide that. Proves that subway should never have been built.

So really can we be sure these projections for Eglinton will be correct. I do not hold out much hope. Ridership could be way higher or again way lower
 
Here's what a modern elevated structure would look like:

Miami Metrorail:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Miami,+FL,+United+States&hl=en&ll=25.795003,-80.215065&spn=0.00881,0.01207&sll=43.668474,-79.808142&sspn=0.226488,0.386238&oq=mia&hnear=Miami,+Miami-Dade,+Florida,+United+States&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=25.794998,-80.215104&panoid=ZICG6w-Wrkh2ZLe6iD5gsw&cbp=12,356.59,,0,4.24

Note that the street the structure is built upon is narrower than Eglinton East's ROW. At stations, though, the structure would be large and possibly unsightly.

Number 3 Road, Richmond, BC, Canada Line

The Canada Line mini-metro system should have a similarly wide structure to a light rail line, the structure is to the side of the road, hence stations can be more attractive at ground level.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Richmond,+BC&hl=en&ll=49.176008,-123.136573&spn=0.003198,0.006035&sll=25.794994,-80.215108&sspn=0.008848,0.01207&oq=Rich&hnear=Richmond,+Greater+Vancouver+Regional+District,+British+Columbia&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=49.176241,-123.13659&panoid=P7CJ4UbvDINvKDJAI8BYjA&cbp=12,8.03,,0,7.84

Elevated structures would be cheaper than deep-bored subway, but note that #3 Road's ROW is largely occupied by the transit route. It'd be fine for Eglinton, except it would remove 2 car lanes unless the road allowance was widened through expropriation. This was the segment with a BRT median before construction started.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top