[txlseries4]

That's a good question. I used to see a lot of courier bikes on the subway last year, but I notice there are recent signs at subway entrances saying no E-bikes are allowed in the subway, and I presume that means, at all times. Is this something new? And what about regular non-powered bikes, are the okay, or are all bikes banned, and the TTC is just presuming all bikes these days are E-bikes?

Just between November 15 and April 15, over concerns that some e-bike batteries aren't meant to withstand cold and water and salt -- and these conditions could lead to a fire, which is absolutely hilarious because the same e-bike that's banned April 15 is allowed April 16.

There was some discussion in the TTC thread in the fall when the policy went before the board and there's info on their site about what is and isn't allowed: https://www.ttc.ca/riding-the-ttc/Bike-and-ride/Taking-your-bike-on-TTC-Vehicles

 

[A 6264]

Just between November 15 and April 15, over concerns that some e-bike batteries aren't meant to withstand cold and water and salt -- and these conditions could lead to a fire, which is absolutely hilarious because the same e-bike that's banned April 15 is allowed April 16.

There was some discussion in the TTC thread in the fall when the policy went before the board and there's info on their site about what is and isn't allowed: https://www.ttc.ca/riding-the-ttc/Bike-and-ride/Taking-your-bike-on-TTC-Vehicles

Thanks for the info; I'm an occasional pedal pusher.

 

[nfitz]

Yes, edgy, my only other experience interacting with me you made a really vile insult towards me, so maybe I'm misreading what I'm saying, but I can only go off of the vibes I've got from you in the past.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "edgy" but it's clearly different than any meaning I understand.

What vile insult? I don't recall even seeing you hear for a long time. Can you link?

I think it's extremely unliked ECLRT will ever be running with 2 minute headways. The vehicles and track layout will make that very challenging - the current LRVs have like half the door density of a TR, and the doors take longer to cycle. There are also various other technical problems. Three car trains are possible, and but we will need more trains to operate them at reasonably high frequency.

I'd assume that there'd be more cars. Other issues are manageable. The issue is decades away, so the next generation of vehicle could be redesigned to resolve some of the difficulties.

The claim is not highly speculative, there was a suggested frequency initially, and that was increased (to 3 minutes at peak I believe

The claim I was referring to is that "What I will say is I know ridership estimates have been revised upwards". Not the frequency discussions.

... which I think might be hard to operate with the potential dwell times of the trains - certainly this level of frequency with coupled low floor LRVs will be unique in North America) for reasons of expected demand, lots of people working on the proj. have suggested to me they expect to need more LRVs in short order (beyond what will obviously be needed for the extension).

Expected demand - calculated how? Which model? Or just speculation. We can see the current ridership based on the bus capacity - and it's now where near even the 5,000 level. Honestly, when riding the Flexity Freedom cars, the dwell doesn't seem excessive - and at a busy station, not as long as Line 1 at Bloor station.

Given the assembly line in TB is running now, hopefully they put in another order soon for the extension, with an option if ridership requires longer trains.

Ultimately, the capacity chosen for the project was based on planning projections ...

They were not based on planning projections. They were based on engineering projections, using transport demand models.

I know I frequently compare to the Canada line, but thats simply because it has the same nameplate capacity, and if its well over 8000 ppdph of demand knowing that corridor and knowing this corridor I am hard pressed to think Eglinton won't also move more people than that.

Canada Line? I haven't seen you mention it. I don't know how a line with a 40-metre train on a 40-metre platform (maybe expandable to 50 metres, but some claim that's a massive undertaking) compares to a 90-metre train on a 90-metre platform. The Canada line's big issue was they didn't have enough rolling stock, and BCTransit didn't have the contractual ability to make them run more frequently. The crowding there off-peak is obscene - but it's also a choice to maximize profit by the operator. But yes, the Cambie corridor might be a problem one day. I don't think I'd be saying that if the trains were the same capacity as line 5 (and I mean peak capacity - not some overstated impossible crush capacity that requires 20 minutes to load, having everyone stacked on each other, and toddlers on every lap). Can you stuff 20 people in a VW Beetle. Sure you can. Can they all get out of the car in front of the subway station, before the traffic light turns green - no.

There are a lot more feeder buses on Eglinton, and more density along the entire corridor as well - doubly so with what's being planned on the Golden Mile etc.

If anything remember that demand for the UP Express at it's initial nosebleed fare was also projected to be X, and that projection was very wrong (in the other direction).

To be fair, there was no example regionally of any kind of express transit line operating at a premium fare to use in the model calibration. And given that the demand was there (and now too high) when fares were reduced, it's clearly VERY sensitive to pricing - which I can understand the model may not have included. This isn't the case here. Although if the travel times are now longer than initially modelled, ridership may be lower.

The bigger factor is probably the work and residential densities. Ultimately that is why the Sheppard ridership is so much lower than it was modelled in the 1990s. Because there was no where near the number of jobs created at Sheppard/Yonge and Scarborough Centre as they assumed would occur.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Being only an occasional user of the Eglinton East bus route, it's been my observation that there is often a half hour wait during mid-day, during which time some 5 "sorry out of service" buses pass by (I call them Sorry Buses) before we finally see an in-service bus, which is often so crowded that I wait a little longer for the next one. Part of the reason, I presume, is that if there is any construction going on, it causes a bottleneck, and the whole line gets messed up. But I am a little paranoid sometimes, wondering if the TTC might be deliberately under-servicing the line, so that when line 5 finally opens, they hope we will all say how much better it is than the lousy bus service we used to have. In which case, I am not inclined to compare current bus ridership to the future light rail, because the difference might be deliberate and strategic. Like I said, I'm paranoid...

The out-of-service buses are likely deadheading to or from their garage. Streetcars tend to allow boarding when they head to and from their carbarns. The Eglinton Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF) is located next door to the Mt. Dennis Station. That means the light rail trains will go out of service at Mt. Dennis Station before being sent to the MSF. So you shouldn't see "out of service" trains, UNLESS there is a mechanical problem, vandalism, or a hazardous spill of some sort (vomit?).

 

[Reecemartin]

The issue is decades away, so the next generation of vehicle could be redesigned to resolve some of the difficulties.

You keep asserting that it's "decades" away. If the line overshot expectations by even half as much as the CL that would not be true.

They were not based on planning projections. They were based on engineering projections, using transport demand models.

Who do you think do the studies that go into transport demand models - for example assumptions about all manner of things that feed the model? Do you think it's relevant whether an individual working on a team is an engineer or a planner? I certainly would use the term "planning projections" to describe a demand model.

Canada Line? I haven't seen you mention it. I don't know how a line with a 40-metre train on a 40-metre platform (maybe expandable to 50 metres, but some claim that's a massive undertaking) compares to a 90-metre train on a 90-metre platform.

How? Because capacity is not determined solely by train length? I've been saying as much for years.

1) Trains have multiple dimensions, not just length. The CLs stations are trivially extendable to 50m, as Ottawa's central stations are trivially extendable to 120m. There aren't claims this is a massive undertaking, I think the line that is in some reporting is that it would require construction at all stations, which is obvious when you have unfinished platforms.
2) The design of the trains and infrastructure influences the potential frequency. Trains on the CL can take less time to dwell both because they have an open interior layout (or are slowly being converted to one) and 6 double doors on a 40m train - the LFLRVs have a narrow aisle between the bogies and smaller circulation space that will extend dwells - there is also a low density of narrower, slower to actuate doors.

Low floor light rail vehicles are not optimized for grade separated mass transit use. They have worse power to weight ratios, fewer doors, worse layouts for circulation. These are compromises which make them well suited for operation in a non-grade separated environment, but are hindrances if you want to operate them like a metro.

The Canada line's big issue was they didn't have enough rolling stock, and BCTransit didn't have the contractual ability to make them run more frequently.

This isn't true, the Canada line had enough rolling stock for the projected demand level, which was lower than expected. It is not the case that *Translink* does not have contractual levels to increase frequency - they have done so!

The crowding there off-peak is obscene - but it's also a choice to maximize profit by the operator.

This also just isn't true. Thats not how the P3 is structured - and I have heard of few structured this way besides Seoul L9.

But yes, the Cambie corridor might be a problem one day. I don't think I'd be saying that if the trains were the same capacity as line 5 (and I mean peak capacity - not some overstated impossible crush capacity that requires 20 minutes to load, having everyone stacked on each other, and toddlers on every lap).

It's good to know that you are asserting that the capacity of the lines are not the same - but the engineers at SNC who did the work for both would not agree. Somehow Vancouver's contract isn't worth the paper it's written on but Toronto's is?

When these capacity numbers are done up they aren't just pulled out of a hat, it involves looking at what frequencies can reasonably be achieved by the infrastructure and train combination, and lots of simulation work. When you suggest theres an "overstated impossible crush capacity", engineers with a rather mechanical role of assessing capacity had to sign off on that, and you're suggesting you know better.

But this is mostly all irrelevant to Eglinton's maximum capacity being appropriate. The point of bringing up the Canada Line is to suggest that people understate the value of new rapid transit, that is mostly all.

 

[A 6264]

The out-of-service buses are likely deadheading to or from their garage. Streetcars tend to allow boarding when they head to and from their carbarns. The Eglinton Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF) is located next door to the Mt. Dennis Station. That means the light rail trains will go out of service at Mt. Dennis Station before being sent to the MSF. So you shouldn't see "out of service" trains, UNLESS there is a mechanical problem, vandalism, or a hazardous spill of some sort (vomit?).

Yes MB, I agree out of service buses are likely on their way back to the barns. I didn't say anything about out of service trains. My point was... er, clearly stated, and I don't see anything to elaborate on.

Off topic: The final word in your reply, reminds me of an incident I saw on a bus years ago. Late at night, a drunk man did it on the bus, the driver freaked out and went into a rage, screamed at the man, ordered everyone off the bus and put it out of service, and yelled at all of us, "If this is an inconvenience, blame him (points to the drunk man), it's all his fault!", then drove off. It's like the driver was instructing us to beat the guy up. And since it was late at night, and I don't think he was the only inebriated rider, I was worried that a fight may indeed break out, and the guy might get beat up. What happened is, the drunk guy ran away somewhere before anyone could give him trouble. But even so, what was done, wasn't right.

 

[Reecemartin]

TLDR: You may disagree on some of these points - that there is going to be more density, and that the line is closer to a lot of people is just the reality of how the city has grown. Again, the only way we will know for sure is seeing what happens over the first decade of operation. Again, I would love to be wrong (though I do hope Line 5 is very well used), so that this doesn't become a regret like the Canada Line (which you can go look up the documents for that break down how the capacity reaches the same ultimate figures as Eglinton - I assure you the professionals involved didn't suggest "stacking people on top of one another"). What concerns me is the hubris "it'll have capacity for decades!" whereas I'm not suggesting it'll be loaded to the gills in five years. The cost of getting that wrong in Vancouver, a much smaller city, was not as big.

The issue as I see it simply comes down to . . . should we have built the Crosstown with a maximum nameplate capacity < 50% other rapid transit lines in Toronto and will this be a problem, I posit the lines ridership potential is at least close to L2 because . . .

1) The line extending further east and west than Line 2 does today
2) The immense density being planned along the line (admittedly harder to foresee at the outset of the project)
3) The tight connections with not only the existing subway, but also GO lines (better connections than L2) which in the long term can be expected to carry similar numbers to the subway (and more on the Kitchener line with it's quad track)
4) The fact that more people in Toronto will have L5 as their closest EW crosstown line than L2
5) The fact that there will be a substantial number of trips where using a segment of L5 suddenly makes the journey much faster, encouraging diversion onto it, and also new trips, for example for most journeys between Yonge and Spadina lines north of Bloor
6) The expectation that the facilities on the line will be nicer, and more accessible than Bloor (yes even with retrofitted accessibility I'm sure this will be real - even if only to a minor extent)

I think the induced demand is something I would weigh much more substantially compared to the assumptions made for the project. Not only will getting across the line be much faster, but it will also be a lot faster to change to Line 5 from a NS suburban bus than to Line 2 (though yes that may be tempered by low speeds on the surface section - which would be bad!). This will encourage some people to switch to using L5, but it will also mean that a lot of people who might not take the bus to Line 2 because it's too far / takes too long, now have a better option - so I'd expect a fairly decent uplift on connecting service ridership. And if the idea that people won't ride long distances across the city to get to rapid transit is seen as unlikely - I regularly take the Warden bus from Steeles to L2, and it's a slog, but also very busy! I would absolutely switch to transferring to L5 in the future, even if the surface section is slower than I'd like.

 

[nfitz]

You keep asserting that it's "decades" away. If the line overshot expectations by even half as much as the CL that would not be true.

Projected ridership peak hour ridership on the Eglinton line was about 5,000 passengers per direction per hour (PPDPH).

Canada Line ridership (I can only see a total, to a PPDPH) before construction started was projected to be 150,000 twenty years later (i.e. 2025). In 2023 it was 120,000 according to this. Yes, in early years, ridership increased higher than projected, but it never hit 150,000, and ridership growth has shrunk - despite the capacity increase with more frequent service.

The biggest problem with the capacity on the Canada line wasn't that they under-projected the ridership. It's that they are allowed to operate it with low capacity, while extra trains are sitting in the yard. Yeah, I think they should have used 80-metre platforms - but that isn't an issue this decade. And may never be an issue if they build another north-south line - which ultimately is a better solution. Unlike Toronto, there are many over roads/corridors that north-south line can be built less than 2-km away.

Who do you think do the studies that go into transport demand models - for example assumptions about all manner of things that feed the model?

On the ones I've worked on it's been economists and engineers. I never once saw a planner - but I wasn't out in the field for surveys.

Because capacity is not determined solely by train length? I've been saying as much for years.

As have I. It's a function of train AREA and frequency. There's nothing complex that precludes 2-minute frequencies (if not less!) at the peak points between Keelesdale and Don Valley. Why are you repeating things I've said earlier in this thread?

Doors too would be a factor - but hardly a big one. For 600 passengers, these trains have 12 doors. That's 50 passengers per door. The TR trains on Sheppard are a similar length, have 16 doors for 740 passengers. That's 46 passengers per door. It's a small factor, but I think you are very much overstating the issue. Yeah some (all?) doors are a bit narrower.

The CLs stations are trivially extendable to 50m ...

That's what I used to think, but the discussion here previously indicated otherwise - and then I looked, and I don't see the easily removable walls that I see in Sheppard line stations. And really ... 10 metres?

You make a lot of assertions about what engineers know, without any backup. And really - quoting Atkins-Fraudulis staff? Everyone in the industry knows that SNC-Lavalin staff were extremely arrogant, lied, and were corrupt. Why the Liberal government saved them from the criminal prosecution they deserved, I don't know.

When you ride the Eglinton bus, you see big turn-over - like many of our streetcar lines, and like Line 2. More so than I observe on the Canada Line and Line 1. More similar to what I see to the current bus service along the proposed Broadway subway alignment in Vancouver.

I regularly take the Warden bus from Steeles to L2, and it's a slog, but also very busy! I would absolutely switch to transferring to L5 in the future, even if the surface section is slower than I'd like.

It's a 7-minute, 8-stop ride on the Warden bus from Eglinton to Warden station. And the stops aren't very busy because it's so industrial. Traffic on Warden south of Eglinton isn't a problematic.

I can't imagine it would be ever be faster, when already on a bus, to get off, walk to the Golden Mile platform. Take the LRT 4 stops to Kennedy. Walk down to the subway, and then ride a stop to Warden station.

At only 2-km, with the gaps you see on Line 2 at times, you could almost walk from Eglinton to Warden station as fast!

 

[Reecemartin]

On the ones I've worked on it's been economists and engineers. I never once saw a planner - but I wasn't out in the field for surveys.

Planners do plenty of the work on this.

As have I. It's a function of train AREA and frequency. There's nothing complex that precludes 2-minute frequencies (if not less!) at the peak points between Keelesdale and Don Valley. Why are you repeating things I've said earlier in this thread?

If you knew that to be the case then why not state it? What benefit is there to imprecision.

There is absolutely things which preclude those frequencies, as per below.

Doors too would be a factor - but hardly a big one. For 600 passengers, these trains have 12 doors. That's 50 passengers per door. The TR trains on Sheppard are a similar length, have 16 doors for 740 passengers. That's 46 passengers per door. It's a small factor, but I think you are very much overstating the issue. Yeah some (all?) doors are a bit narrower.

Ok, again, imprecise and with hubris!

The doors on the TRs enable boarding of 3 passengers concurrently compared to 2 for the LFLRV doors. Furthermore you have your numbers wrong. The LFLRVs have single doors at the front and rear (I've criticized this before), which means each 30 meter unit as 3 full sets of double doors, not 4.

Over the length of a trainset a TR-4 is going to have 4 cars x 4 doors x 3 pax flow doors enabling 48 concurrent passenger boardings / alightings. An LFLRV-3 is going to have 3 cars x 3 double doors x 2 pax flow doors enabling 12 concurrent boardings and alightings.

The TRs are shorter cars, each with more wider doors than an LFLRV, thats not a minor impact on dwell times and you can go look at simulation data if you don't trust the geometry.

Again, these are not metro cars, they are not designed for metro service, I'm not sure whats unclear about that. Metro cars are designed for very high throughput, the LFLRVs are trams, and not particularly high throughput trams. Compare the door densities - and these are both trams!

I can't imagine it would be ever be faster, when already on a bus, to get off, walk to the Golden Mile platform. Take the LRT 4 stops to Kennedy. Walk down to the subway, and then ride a stop to Warden station.

And this is just a silly straw man. It's obvious nobody is going to backtrack like you're suggesting. I am talking about going from the burbs to a central location. I think lots of people would rather get off a bus as soon as possible.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

We do know that MX will be ordering more LRVs for the Eglinton West Extension. I’d hope that at the same time, they order additional LRVs to make all trains on the line 3-LRV trains. Take advantage of a larger order etc. For what it’s worth, many of the L5W videos show 3-car trains.

 

[kaptrice]

The doors on the LRVs are also rather narrower than those on the subway, even the double doors. One need only go ride on them - in Waterloo or Edmonton or elsewhere - to note that it's a bit trickier to get to and through the doors on them. Needless to say the problem gets worse if you have 160+ people to a vehicle, which the stated capacity is based on.
I can picture completion of the GO connections and service increases alleviating rather than worsening congestion on Eglinton, as people start to take shorter trips to the nearest downtown-bound line rather than schlepping crosstown to get to line 1.

 

[afransen]

The doors on the LRVs are also rather narrower than those on the subway, even the double doors. One need only go ride on them - in Waterloo or Edmonton or elsewhere - to note that it's a bit trickier to get to and through the doors on them. Needless to say the problem gets worse if you have 160+ people to a vehicle, which the stated capacity is based on.
I can picture completion of the GO connections and service increases alleviating rather than worsening congestion on Eglinton, as people start to take shorter trips to the nearest downtown-bound line rather than schlepping crosstown to get to line 1.

"Luckily" we won't be seeing GO Expansion coming to fruition on the lines intersection Line 5 until 2040 or later.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

The doors on the LRVs are also rather narrower than those on the subway, even the double doors. One need only go ride on them - in Waterloo or Edmonton or elsewhere - to note that it's a bit trickier to get to and through the doors on them. Needless to say the problem gets worse if you have 160+ people to a vehicle, which the stated capacity is based on.
I can picture completion of the GO connections and service increases alleviating rather than worsening congestion on Eglinton, as people start to take shorter trips to the nearest downtown-bound line rather than schlepping crosstown to get to line 1.

You mean the current TTC subway cars. Compared with the original Gloucester subway cars, they are about the same.

 

[A 6264]

You mean the current TTC subway cars. Compared with the original Gloucester subway cars, they are about the same.
View attachment 658936

For goodness sakes... I've been enjoying the back-and-forth discussions, they are mostly cordial, and packed with useful information. But when one person says "The doors on the LRVs are also rather narrower than those on the subway", and another "corrects" them by saying, "You mean the current TTC subway cars" (well obviously that's what they were talking about) and puts up a diagram of the original trains used from 1954 to 1990 ... well! Yes, I do realize later models had narrow doors as well, but they too were decommissioned long ago, and even though they were officially around until a decade ago, they only time I ever saw them since the year 2000 was when they were sitting on the sidings at the Davisville yard. As I remember it, new trains with doors twice as wide arrived in the 1980s, because the old door width was obviously inadequate. So what you're saying is, the latest train door width is no problem, because it's the same width as the 1950s standard which was considered no darn good by the 1980s. I think you're disproving the point you were trying to make.

 

[ThenWhat]

An interesting discussion about expected (in- or)sufficient capacity on ELRT. My own criterion of sufficient capacity is whether there is a seat for me when I go more than two stops. I realize this is not scientific enough, so here is a more precise question for those who feel confident enough to make predictions:
What will the ridership numbers on Eglinton LRT be one year after the opening date? Say the peak number of passengers per hour, on a weekday. If you think you have a good idea, just post your number here. We'll come back in (hopefully) the fall of 2026 and see how close you were.