nfitz
Superstar
Then why does the Gilbert article say differently?
|
|
|
smallspy
Senior Member
Geography. The station is on a hillside, with Keele to the west at a considerably lower elevation.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
Thoughtless Miscreant
Active Member
"Wouldn't provide a perfect substitute" is an understatement. Take out Laird station and you're looking at 2.3km between Bayview and Leslie, with an uphill stretch both ways in between. The hilly 1.3km between Avenue and Bathurst ain't pretty either.
At a certain point people have to be able to walk to the station. The spacing on the central section of Eglinton is already wider than on the equivalent section of Bloor. If it gets much wider it just won't be useful for local service at all.
Ansem
Banned
They should run a bus service every 30 minutes like the Yonge bus. At that price (250/KM) you want that line to be as fast as possible.
Drop oakwood, Chaplin and Laird
nfitz
Superstar
That section between Eglinton and York Mills? Yonge bus runs every 15-minutes off-peak on a Sunday! Surely this should be avoided.
Easy solution for the larger gaps between Laird and Yonge is to simply keep running the Leslie bus to Eglinton station - it covers the problematic bit in the current design very well.
Thoughtless Miscreant
Active Member
Who cares how fast the LRT goes if your only options for getting to a station are walking 20 minutes or waiting 30 minutes for a bus ride? The amount of speed gained would barely be noticeable for passengers, but the amount of inconvenience added for the people who actually live on the line would be massive.
Imagine for a second a Bloor Street where Runnymede and High Park didn't exist and the only transit between Jane and Keele was a bus that came twice an hour. Think of what a pain in the ass that would be!
If we're going to build this project we should build it right and put in transit that's actually convenient for the people who live and work on the corridor.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
Fair enough: Laird should probably stay.
The other two I still think are candidates for chopping. Chaplin is less obvious, but it's still a minor street with only a minor connecting surface route and almost no potential for development intensification (the property owners of Forest Hill are unlikely to allow their mansions to be redeveloped to higher density forms or other uses).
Oakwood is completely redundant. Not only is it a 5 minute walk from Eglinton West already, but the intersection of Oakwood and Eglinton will be served by a local bus, the 63, that already goes to Eglinton west subway station.
I see your point, but I don't think the stop-spacing on Bloor is anything we should emulate. For one, the BD was built in a different time (when you could do things like expropriate thousands of properties that are probably worth $1 million today and dig a giant trench) and place (even the urban parts of Eglinton are more suburban and dispersed in nature than Bloor). Furthermore, I think we should keep rapid transit rapid, and offer frequent, parallel bus service on the local sections. This seems to work fine on the 97 north of Eglinton, and certainly doesn't detract from the Yonge subway line's ridership and appeal.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
If the TTC or Metrolinx had any form of respect for the tax-weary citizens of Ontario. which they don't, the ONLY option would be to extend the SRT using SkyTrain.
SkyTrain is a proven, safe, comfortable, reliable, fast, high frequency, and efficient rapid transit system. On only has to look at Vancouver's SkyTrain to see that. It has been an incredible success and due to it's automation each trip on the Expo Line costs Translink a paultry 77 cents per rider. Considering Toronto and the TTC are always bitching about the lack of operational funding, SkyTrain is a logical choice. It is also manufactured by Bombardier which is the TTC defacto supplier and is a requirement for any funding coming from Queen's Park and everyone, including Bombardier itself, knows it.
Just because the TTC screwed up the SRT and has left it to rot has nothing to do with the technology and everyone to do with the TTC, Even the beloved Steve Munro speaks highly of the Vancouver SkyTrain system and clearly states that the reason for SkyTrain success is due to Translink and the reason for the SRT's failure is due to the TTC. It is also very reliable even in snow and it doesn't even have the heating mechanisms installed.
It is the most cost effective option for Eglinton due to the garage/maintenance centre already existing {yes it will needed to be expanded but that is far cheaper than building a brand new one}, there would be no massive funds needed to redo all the current stations which LRT will require. Remember due to the stupidity of using LRT not only will the tracks need to be replace, they will have to build all the overhead catenary wiring, and all the stations will have to have to "raise the roof" on the current SRT stations to accomodate the catenary. All this just for sake of Miller's wet dreams over LRT. All they have to do is put in the heating mechanisms, upgrade the one small section under the GO line to accomdate the new MK111 cars and problem solved.
With the hundreds of millions saved they could elevate the line from DM to Kennedy and make it one continous line, to say nothing of not having to shut down the system for years. It will also have over twice the capacity of LRT with similar sized stations due to the Eglinton line having to run at grade which essentially limits frequency to every 180 seconds per direction at the maximum. SkyTrain stations could be just 70 meters underground and still have far higher capacity than 100 meter LRT stations.
Toronto is building the most expensive LRT line on the planet yet using LRT will result in the lowest capacity and highest operational costs of any of the 4 train technologies of subway/metro, SkyTrain, LRT, or monorail.
Heads should be rolling over such an obscnely high cost line which will be the most expensive to operate and build, and be slowest and most unreliable due to running that small at grade section.
SkyTrain is a proven, safe, comfortable, reliable, fast, high frequency, and efficient rapid transit system. On only has to look at Vancouver's SkyTrain to see that. It has been an incredible success and due to it's automation each trip on the Expo Line costs Translink a paultry 77 cents per rider. Considering Toronto and the TTC are always bitching about the lack of operational funding, SkyTrain is a logical choice. It is also manufactured by Bombardier which is the TTC defacto supplier and is a requirement for any funding coming from Queen's Park and everyone, including Bombardier itself, knows it.
Just because the TTC screwed up the SRT and has left it to rot has nothing to do with the technology and everyone to do with the TTC, Even the beloved Steve Munro speaks highly of the Vancouver SkyTrain system and clearly states that the reason for SkyTrain success is due to Translink and the reason for the SRT's failure is due to the TTC. It is also very reliable even in snow and it doesn't even have the heating mechanisms installed.
It is the most cost effective option for Eglinton due to the garage/maintenance centre already existing {yes it will needed to be expanded but that is far cheaper than building a brand new one}, there would be no massive funds needed to redo all the current stations which LRT will require. Remember due to the stupidity of using LRT not only will the tracks need to be replace, they will have to build all the overhead catenary wiring, and all the stations will have to have to "raise the roof" on the current SRT stations to accomodate the catenary. All this just for sake of Miller's wet dreams over LRT. All they have to do is put in the heating mechanisms, upgrade the one small section under the GO line to accomdate the new MK111 cars and problem solved.
With the hundreds of millions saved they could elevate the line from DM to Kennedy and make it one continous line, to say nothing of not having to shut down the system for years. It will also have over twice the capacity of LRT with similar sized stations due to the Eglinton line having to run at grade which essentially limits frequency to every 180 seconds per direction at the maximum. SkyTrain stations could be just 70 meters underground and still have far higher capacity than 100 meter LRT stations.
Toronto is building the most expensive LRT line on the planet yet using LRT will result in the lowest capacity and highest operational costs of any of the 4 train technologies of subway/metro, SkyTrain, LRT, or monorail.
Heads should be rolling over such an obscnely high cost line which will be the most expensive to operate and build, and be slowest and most unreliable due to running that small at grade section.
car4041
Active Member
You seem to be saying that the B-D line is not rapid transit. I have to disagree. I think the B-D stop spacing is ideal for the areas it runs through and would work equally well for the central section of Eglinton (much of which is not really that different from the Danforth in built form and density). The B-D stations are far enough apart that the line is reasonably quick, but close enough together that a parallel bus is not needed. Running both a subway and a frequent bus in the same corridor seems like a non-optimal duplication that we should avoid when possible, not an ideal that we should aim for. Also, it's highly unlikely that the parallel bus would actually be very frequent when most of the ridership in the corridor would be using the subway.
And in any case, I don't see how removing two stops from the Eglinton line would amount to "keeping rapid transit rapid". The increase in speed would be negligible, but the 1.3km gap between Bathurst and Avenue might be enough to force a parallel bus service that wouldn't otherwise be needed. Chaplin is a Chester-type station; it's never going to be the busiest stop on the line, but omitting it would leave a big transit black hole (with the added problem of the hills in the vicinity).
I agree that the case for Oakwood is weaker.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
For Caledonia they could at least have a sidewalk entrance at the intersection and an underground path to get to the station.
car4041
Active Member
This post is so full of misrepresentations that I almost feel like trollbait for responding. For one thing, a new yard would be needed regardless of the choice of LRT or SkyTrain, as there will be a massive increase in the size of the fleet and no space for a massive expansion of the Ellesmere yard. Also, the entire human-run TTC only costs 86 cents per rider, and that includes money pits like the Sheppard Subway, so 77 cents per rider on the Expo Line isn't much of a difference. And I'm highly doubtful that using SkyTrain rather than LRT for the Scarborough RT upgrade would save enough funds to elevate the entire eastern leg of the Eglinton line -- it's longer than the whole Scarborough RT and would have to be built from scratch; can we really expect to build it with the spare change from the RT upgrade?
officedweller
Senior Member
Ahh. So I guess that the depth is to mitigate the grade between Caledonia and Keele, especially since the distance between the two is quite short.
The central part of Eglinton can be bored, the outer sections can be cut and cover.
The University Line was built using a combination of cut and cover and bored tunnel.
Wasn't the Sheppard Line built using both methods too?
I don't see why the Eglinton Line needs to be all bored tunnel especially when you see wide rights of way in the east and west segments.
As for alternate routes - St. Clair and Lawrence parallel Eglinton, don't they?
The narrowest part of Cambie street (through Cambie Village) was reduced from 4 lanes to two lanes with a trench for stacked tunnel construction down the middle. The stacked tunnel was the innovative way of using cut and cover in a narrow street. The rest of Cambie was reduced from 2 or 3 lanes each way to one or two lanes each way depending on the segment.
Here's pic of Canada Line cut and cover at Cambie and King Edward (where the grassy median disappears and the road narrows)
- the tunnels are stacked so the excavation is a narrow trench. The extra width to the left is to connect to the King Edward Station.
You can see that two-way traffic is maintained to the left of the fence (one lane each way).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canada_Line_Construction,_Vancouver,_Cambie_Street_at_25th.jpg
Last edited:
Paleo
Active Member
Everything I have seen in print said 50m platforms. If the trains are oversized to 60m I could see 500 per but not at 50m. If the branches are really single tracked, I have to ask why. Not only shoe box sized stations but constrained terminals.
The way that guy from BC keeps coming in here extolling the virtues of the Canada Line, you would have thought that it was immaculate but the whole thing smacks of corners being cut everywhere.
Wow so people from the east will save 30 seconds and people from the west will save 1 minute.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
Yes, that's a possibility. The Don Mills area might be suitable for cut-cover for example - most of the areas where it would have less impact on local businesses, it will be at surface.
Though looking at the photos, I'm pondering the soil types and groundwater table in Vancouver. I'm not that familiar with the geology of the Cambie area they used cut-and-cover. What is the soil type?
Yes, there's pieces of both - and there's also the piece of Sheppard that's above-ground east of Leslie. You do what makes sense. Most of the Spadina extension is bored, but for the Yonge extension, there's more cut-and-cover - for example much of the proposed tunnel from Finch station to Cummer station is cut-and-cover.
Well they do ... but it's about 2 km away from Eglinton. Oak and Main are closer ... checking Google, I get 2.1 from Eglinton to Lawrence, and 850 metres from Cambie to Oak. Granville and Fraser are closer to Cambie than Lawrence and St. Clair. Also, I never see the type of congestion in that part of Vancouver in rush-hour when I drive compared to around Eglnton. Heck, even though I live here, I drive more frequently in that part of Vancouver in rush-hour than I do around Eglinton ... because I just wouldn't try it here.
BurlOak
Senior Member
I knew you would chime in and I am glad you did. I wish I had been paying more attention 5 or 10 years ago, since it would be nice to know the logic (or lack thereof) that brought us to where we are today.
1. I read that in 2006, converting SRT to Mark 2 was the TTC top priority - then in 2007 everything switched to LRT. I guess they wanted a one-size-fits-all solution to transit - LRT everywhere.
2. There was significant extra closure time predicted for converting the SRT to LRT in 2006. After Transit City and LRT everywhere, the difference in closure time was suspiciously reduced to a minimal amount.
3. Transit City wanted to be at-grade as much as possible to save money. It appears that when about 80% of the Crosstown line became grade separated, nobody looked at the benefits of grade separating the entire line. Smaller tunnels with full subway (as Sheppard) or Skytrain would have reduced the excavation (TBM) costs and also marginally reduced many station depths - even without considering cut-and-cover.
4. Eglinton/Don Mills station appears to have been planned as at-grade. When it was decided to build it underground, a side-of-road alignment appears to not have been considered even though it could reduce the cost of the station and reduce traffic disruption.
5. Many transit City proponents state that LRT is needed at-grade, which spurs development better than underground. This week, the star had an article about how the central portion of Eglinton is already transforming (http://www.thestar.com/news/transpo...he-eglinton-lrt-will-transform-neighbourhoods).
It seems that the main requirements were to use LRT and to have a least some portions in the median. If the goal was simply to get the best transit bang-for-the-buck, we quite probably could have seen the Skytrain here.
As for cut-and-cover, I would like to know how much less expensive it really is. I would guess that a TBM tunnel is about $100M/km, and each station is about $100M/km, and the track, signals, cars, etc. are $100M/km. Could cut-and-cover save $50 to $100M/km? How about construction time. I would guess that deep cut-and-cover stations needed with TBM would take about 4 years and be located 800m appart. With cut-and-cover, I expect the exacavation is essentially continuous, but lasts maybe half the time. I am not sure that cut-and-cover could have worked in the Central portion, but there are some advantages that appear to never be considered.
Last edited: