[nfitz]

Here is an example:

Who We Are | Crosslinx Transit Solutions

[...]Read More...

www.crosslinxtransit.ca

750 for a 3 car trainset, 20 times an hour (3 minute frequency) is needed to hit the max planned capacity of 15,000 passengers per hour per direction (or ~250 per car as opposed to a more typical ~160).

I thought they were using every 2-minutes. 30 trains an hour. 500 for a 3-hour train. 15,000 an hour.

But that's ultimate, not day one. With 2-car trains every 3'10" (19 trains an hour) that's 9,500 an hour - near double the estimated 2031 demand.

 

[urbanclient]

I thought they were using every 2-minutes. 30 trains an hour. 500 for a 3-hour train. 15,000 an hour.

But that's ultimate, not day one. With 2-car trains every 3'10" (19 trains an hour) that's 9,500 an hour - near double the estimated 2031 demand.

Probably outdated so take it with a grain of salt, but here is Metrolinx's case analysis from 2012:

Pdf page 20: "TABLE 2.4 SUMMARY STATISTICS BY OPTION"

https://assets.metrolinx.com/image/upload/v1663237573/Documents/Metrolinx/Benefits_Case-Eglinton_Crosstown.pdf

It's still unclear how they expect to hit 15,000 "paxpphpd" since this table appears to show 163 as the capacity for each 5 module train. Either they change to train cars that are more than 5 modules long like Edmonton's 7 or they max out headway at 2 minutes which seems at least somewhat unfeasible for the surface section due to left turning automobiles potentially blocking the box. Line 1 peak headways are 2 minutes 52 seconds currently, but they still cannot hit that consistently due to slow zones that lead to trains having to wait at certain stations to prevent bunching. Anyone who has been on Line 1 recently knows that the travel time is 5 to 10 minutes longer than scheduled (TTC Service Summary, Google Maps) for ~10-15 stations and that's with ATO.

 

[nfitz]

Probably outdated so take it with a grain of salt, but here is Metrolinx's case analysis from 2012:

Pdf page 20: "TABLE 2.4 SUMMARY STATISTICS BY OPTION"

https://assets.metrolinx.com/image/upload/v1663237573/Documents/Metrolinx/Benefits_Case-Eglinton_Crosstown.pdf

It's still unclear how they expect to hit 15,000 "paxpphpd" since this table appears to show 163 as the capacity for each 5 module train. Either they change to train cars that are more than 5 modules long like Edmonton's 7 or they max out headway at 2 minutes which seems at least somewhat unfeasible for the surface section due to left turning automobiles potentially blocking the box. Line 1 peak headways are 2 minutes 52 seconds currently, but they still cannot hit that consistently due to slow zones that lead to trains having to wait at certain stations to prevent bunching. Anyone who has been on Line 1 recently knows that the travel time is 5 to 10 minutes longer than scheduled (TTC Service Summary, Google Maps) for ~10-15 stations and that's with ATO.

With a completely underground line or ground-separated, they'd be unlikely to use low-floor or narrower vehicles; that would be very Mickey Mouse!And I'd guess not 30-metre long cars either.

That's for the 100% grade-separated, with the extension to Scarborough Town Centre - which was causing concerns about the ultimate demand being too high before the cancelled the project.

But that's not what has been built. With Line 2 going to STC rather than Line 5, for most people that are continuing all the way to Line 1, they are going to stay on Line 2, rather than change to Line 5. This moves the peak PPDPH back to west of Cedarvale, instead of east of Yonge (somewhere ... I can't remember if it was west of Mount Pleasant or east of Don Mills).

 

[Admiral Beez]

The testing trains run pretty slowly to account for those loading time.

And seemingly only during the day time. Last week I drove along Eglinton around 9pm and the line was dead.

 

[Obsidian]

They don't have enough cars to run three car trainsets with a decent frequency and the platforms are not fully ready for 90 metre trains. They would need to place an order for new rolling stock which would take years. In Metrolinx time, that would be 3-5 years.

In what way are the platforms not ready for 90m trains?
in any case for users it better to have more frequent 60m trains than fewer 90m trains.
I don't think capacity will be an issue on the line long term because we can always add more trains.

 

[bearcat]

View attachment 692552

Source: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-115657.pdf

Map showing proposed road/mobility connections:

View attachment 692553

Orientation of above, North on Left, East on top, South to right, bottom is West.

Source: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-115649.pdf

My apologies, I should just assume you know what you're talking about lol.

I will add this I found from https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/u...ea-Safety-Improvements-Information-Panels.pdf which supports what you said:

 

[Rainforest]

The truth is, nobody knows for sure what will happen when the Line 5 opens in 2025/2026, and how fast ridership will grow as people get used to a (hopefully) reliable and fast crosstown transit option. As Reece Martin and many other people have predicted, the ridership estimates for Eglinton could be woefully low. As late as 2016, Metrolinx predicted only 162,000 daily riders by 2031, a third of Line 2's current daily weekday ridership. In 2017, Metrolinx predicted the GTHA would reach 10 million by 2041, but by the most conservative estimates it is already around 8.5 million, and likely closer to 9.5 million when factoring in disproportionate growth in the GTHA vs. non-metropolitan areas since 2021 and overstayed visas (Benjamin Tal from CIBC).

It looks like we are debating the quality of predictions about predictions. This line will be in active operation within several months, and then we will have the real-life counts.

Absolulely "worst" case scenario: demand beats all expectations, then the TTC has to continue running substantial bus service together with the LRT, and scramble to order more LRT cars. Still not the end of the world.

 

[urbanclient]

With a completely underground line or ground-separated, they'd be unlikely to use low-floor or narrower vehicles; that would be very Mickey Mouse!And I'd guess not 30-metre long cars either.

That's for the 100% grade-separated, with the extension to Scarborough Town Centre - which was causing concerns about the ultimate demand being too high before the cancelled the project.

But that's not what has been built. With Line 2 going to STC rather than Line 5, for most people that are continuing all the way to Line 1, they are going to stay on Line 2, rather than change to Line 5. This moves the peak PPDPH back to west of Cedarvale, instead of east of Yonge (somewhere ... I can't remember if it was west of Mount Pleasant or east of Don Mills).

I am confused, how do line length and/or terminus impact PPDPH assuming the requisite trainsets and platforms can be acquired? If you look at Option 3, 19km, which is more or less what we got in the end (Table 2.2, 2.4), the only way to hit 15,000 passengers per hour with the added condition of having 90 metre platforms is to do 3 car trainsets, 2 minutes apart, each car holding 163 people. 3*30*163=14,670. I personally doubt the real-world feasibility of maintaining 2 minute headways without bunching on a mixed grade LRT. The TTC has proven incapable of running consistent <3 minute headways on Line 1 and 2.

https://assets.metrolinx.com/image/upload/v1663237573/Documents/Metrolinx/Benefits_Case-Eglinton_Crosstown.pdf

 

[nfitz]

I am confused, how do line length and/or terminus impact PPDPH assuming the requisite trainsets and platforms can be acquired? If you look at Option 3, 19km, which is more or less what we got in the end (Table 2.2, 2.4), the only way to hit 15,000 passengers per hour with 90 metre platforms is to do 3 car trainsets, 2 minutes apart, each car holding 163 people. 3*30*163=14,670. I personally doubt the real-world feasibility of maintaining 2 minute headways without bunching on a mixed grade LRT.

Most of the line is grade-separated. Including the highest PPHPD east at Cedarvale, east at Yonge, and west at Yonge. By the time you get out to Kennedy, the westbound demand at AM peak is almost half that as eastbound at Cedarvale.

In the unlikely event that all the experts are wrong, then they can ultimately schedule more trains that short-turn before Scarborough, and use the ATC - which would get them close to a 90-second frequency.

Eglinton certainly has problems now, and likely will operationally. But that it's going to start too crowded is laughable. The hugely successful Canada line subway in Vancouver is surviving quite well with only 40-metre long platforms, 15-year after opening - and even I fear that there may be long-term issues there.

 

[cplchanb]

It looks like we are debating the quality of predictions about predictions. This line will be in active operation within several months, and then we will have the real-life counts.

Absolulely "worst" case scenario: demand beats all expectations, then the TTC has to continue running substantial bus service together with the LRT, and scramble to order more LRT cars. Still not the end of the world.

Thats rather a good problem to have vs the opposite like line 4

 

[Rainforest]

I personally doubt the real-world feasibility of maintaining 2 minute headways without bunching on a mixed grade LRT.

"Without bunching" is obviously preferable, but not an absolute requirement. Yes, you can gain more capacity by running more trains and tolerating some degree of bunching. In fact, that's a typical situation on subway Line 1 during the peak periods

Too many unknowns at this point to make accurate predictions. Will the demand push close to the capacity limit at all. If yes, then which sections will experience the highest demand (if that's west of Laird, you can short-turn half of the trains at Laird, and avoid bunching in the eastern section).

There could be challenges, and there will be ways to deal with those challenges. I don't see anything catastrofic in the design, even if it is not the optimal design.

 

[smallspy]

.... and the platforms are not fully ready for 90 metre trains.

This is incorrect.

Dan

 

[StreetcarRider]

Some good news. Lots of coupled vehicles were out for revenue testing today, and based on an unscientific little jaunt between Laird and Bermondsey, the vehicles seem to be faster than cycling.

 

[Jm gravel]

Yes lots of vehicles out over the weekend but some pretty interesting traffic jam ups of people turning onto Eglinton while waiting for trains to clear the intersections…yesterday afternoon there was a very long line at Bermondsey and this morning for some reason unknown (except coordination of traffic lights) the ramp from the Don Valley Parkway was backed up onto the Parkway itself…some further work to do from my observations.

 

[urbanclient]

This is incorrect.

Dan

Was being pedantic here, you mean to say with absolutely 0 change such as the addition of yellow bollards, the platforms are ready to go for 3 car trains on Day 1? In that case that's great news. I meant that I expected there was at least a nominal amount of work to be done, something a developing country wage slave company might be able to do in one work day, but Crosslinx Transit Solutions might take several weeks. 99.99% of the issue is that I think more rolling stock is needed for 3 car trains, 3 minute headways, both ways. There was a lead time of nearly 4 years when Edmonton ordered LRVs from Hyundai Rotem recently.