[rbt]

Well Eglinton will be 4x longer than the Sheppard subway, so it should be more useful. It will also run smaller trains since it's not a subway.

Not to be picky, but Eglinton's capacity will actually be higher than Sheppard without additional work being done on Sheppard (knock down temporary walls to run 6-car trains).

Eglinton's trains are shorter, but moving-block signalling should allow for 90 second* frequencies in the tunnel where Sheppard's older signalling is limited to about 140 second frequencies.

* 90 seconds or better since shorter trains require less time in switches than a 6-car subway train. Vancouver has had luck running skytrain at 65 second frequencies reliably.

 

[ehlow]

Not to be picky, but Eglinton's capacity will actually be higher than Sheppard without additional work being done on Sheppard (knock down temporary walls to run 6-car trains).

Eglinton's trains are shorter, but moving-block signalling should allow for 90 second* frequencies in the tunnel where Sheppard's older signalling is limited to about 140 second frequencies.

* 90 seconds or better since shorter trains require less time in switches than a 6-car subway train. Vancouver has had luck running skytrain at 65 second frequencies reliably.

Good to know, thanks. I should also add that as far as I know, they're starting with 2 car trains which are 60m length, but Eglinton is expandable to 3 car trains at 90m, which I believe is about the same length as the subway trains on Sheppard. Although Sheppard trains will be wider.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

* 90 seconds or better since shorter trains require less time in switches than a 6-car subway train. Vancouver has had luck running skytrain at 65 second frequencies reliably.

Wow. I'd love to see how that performs at terminal stations

 

[datamouse]

It's also the automation that allows for shorter headways. Now if only ATO would magically be finished quicker on Yonge.

 

[ehlow]

It's also the automation that allows for shorter headways. Now if only ATO would magically be finished quicker on Yonge.

There were signal problems at Yonge this week, I heard. All I could tell people was that it hopefully will get better in 2018.

Also the Yonge line was shut down while I was trying to get downtown last night due to "injury at track level". Hopefully platform glass doors are eventually installed after 2018 to prevent people from throwing stuff and themselves into the tracks, improving reliability.

Or, maybe Ford was getting rid of a political enemy like on House of Cards last night.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Why is B-D being reified as the template for subways? Yonge north of Eglinton has much wider spacing, why not emulate it?

Just like every part of route design, the main concern should be ridership and cost. Not matching arbitrary stop spacing goals.

B-D's stations were much cheaper to build (closer to surface, far less complex) than the ECLRT's. Stations which may have been rational to build then aren't necessarily rational now. There's nothing wrong with how designers back then built the line, necessarily, but it shouldn't justify anything nowadays.

+1

B-D is a very bad example to follow, because it was built at a time so far removed from our present era, that comparisons are ludicrous.

50 years ago, planners simply expropriated historic homes by the thousands, bulldozed them, carved a trench into the landscape and built a cut and cover subway box for endless miles. They did this through neighbourhoods where this would be unthinkable today: Rosedale, the Annex, Playter Estates.

Just expropriating 1,000 of those homes today would set us back a billion dollars...and that's assuming that the rest of the residents of these neighbourhoods would be okay with that - which, I would wager, they wouldn't. And that's before a nickel has been spent on actual subway construction!

It would have been much easier to build stations every 400 meters or so back then. The stations themselves weren't carved out or dug out, simply built atop an endless trench.

This picture is from the Yonge line construction, but the methods for the Bloor line were the same:

 

[ehlow]

Yeah but I think the reason people compare is that a lot of people think that Bloor's stop spacing works well for various purposes, in terms of balancing speed & accessibility, and works well for the neighbourhoods it goes through, and that it's a very successful line.

 

[Palma]

I originally read that the trains on the Eglinton Crosstown would run 10 min apart which I was shocked to hear because I suspect most people are thinking subway timing of lets say 4 minutes during rush hour (its not the Yonge line after all)

 

[ehlow]

I originally read that the trains on the Eglinton Crosstown would run 10 min apart which I was shocked to hear because I suspect most people are thinking subway timing of lets say 4 minutes during rush hour (its not the Yonge line after all)

lol... there's no way they're spending billions of dollars building a tunnel & track, buying the vehicles, and only running a vehicle every 10 minutes. Especially given the ridership expected.

 

[Palma]

+1

B-D is a very bad example to follow, because it was built at a time so far removed from our present era, that comparisons are ludicrous.

50 years ago, planners simply expropriated historic homes by the thousands, bulldozed them, carved a trench into the landscape and built a cut and cover subway box for endless miles. They did this through neighbourhoods where this would be unthinkable today: Rosedale, the Annex, Playter Estates.

Just expropriating 1,000 of those homes today would set us back a billion dollars...and that's assuming that the rest of the residents of these neighbourhoods would be okay with that - which, I would wager, they wouldn't. And that's before a nickel has been spent on actual subway construction!

It would have been much easier to build stations every 400 meters or so back then. The stations themselves weren't carved out or dug out, simply built atop an endless trench.

This picture is from the Yonge line construction, but the methods for the Bloor line were the same:

But the line runs underneath Yonge Street, what houses were expropriated? I could understand when they wanted to do the Spadina expressway, that would have run through neighbourhoods, but if its a line underneath a major street that runs north / south or even east / west, they would not be bulldozing anything. They are not bulldozing anything along Eglinton, well they do need to put the stations someplace, I never thought of that

 

[ehlow]

But the line runs underneath Yonge Street, what houses were expropriated? I could understand when they wanted to do the Spadina expressway, that would have run through neighbourhoods, but if its a line underneath a major street that runs north / south or even east / west, they would not be bulldozing anything. They are not bulldozing anything along Eglinton, well they do need to put the stations someplace, I never thought of that

The subway doesn't run directly under Yonge between Eglinton and Bloor, it runs beside Yonge in the open trench. Even the part between Summerhill and St Clair was a trench that was covered.

Keep in mind this is the early 1950's. Eglinton is dug by tunnel boring machine so it's a different construction technique. Technology has changed since the 50's.

They did something similar for Bloor, that's why the subway runs north of Bloor and is elevated or open in many areas.

 

[junctionist]

It would probably still be cheaper to build a subway through Scarborough subdivisions by demolishing a row of houses today just like in the 1950s.

 

[muller877]

+1
50 years ago, planners simply expropriated historic homes by the thousands, bulldozed them, carved a trench into the landscape and built a cut and cover subway box for endless miles. They did this through neighbourhoods where this would be unthinkable today: Rosedale, the Annex, Playter Estates.

Just expropriating 1,000 of those homes today would set us back a billion dollars...and that's assuming that the rest of the residents of these neighbourhoods would be okay with that - which, I would wager, they wouldn't. And that's before a nickel has been spent on actual subway construction!

Amazing old picture. And that's why the HK MTR makes money...real estate. They would buy up all the land for a billion, build a subway for a fraction of the price that we do which drives up the land value even farther and then develop. A mall and a couple of office towers at every stop and then 20+ apartments surrounding each stop.

There are pro's and con's to this....something probably best done in a different thread. But there are areas of Eglington that it would have cut the cost considerably.

 

[smallspy]

Huh? What consecutive circles? Where are they meeting?

On the map, you drew circles with roughly 600 metre radii around each station, no? Look at the points at which one circle from one station intersects the next circle. The distance from that point to the nearest station entrance, despite being 600 metres in a straight line, is 800 metres or more once one takes into account the actual route that one is capable of walking.

You did... "Only a small percentage of the catchment area of any given station is on Eglinton."

You were the one arguing about how important it is to have these coverage stations because of demand originating from the houses off of Eglinton. Yet a station at Oakwood really wouldn't benefit more than a small number of houses. The businesses along Eglinton, which you earlier said were only a "small percentage of the catchment area," would be well covered regardless of an Oakwood station existing.

So, you are suggesting then that Oakwood and Dufferin have no businesses on them near Eglinton then?

You want more proof? Watch how many people walk north and south on Dufferin from Eglinton in the morning or afternoon, and not to the Dufferin Bus stops.

Because it's minor. Even Yonge and Eglinton, which is several times denser than Oakwood, would only see 1,900 walk-in/walk-offs during peak hour. Extrapolating through the day you'd still end up with middling ridership. Eglinton West is only expected to see 1,100 peak hour walk-ins. Oakwood would surely be only a few hundred.

Eglinton West is only expected to see 1,100 peak hour walk-ins because it is located between a highway and a park.

Okay, that's a slight exaggeration - but it doesn't change the fact that it isn't the easiest station to get to, and that the current built form and zoning won't change that. Oakwood will be located in an area where there are existing businesses and residences within metres of the proposed station entrances.

Oakwood and Eglinton isn't exactly comparable to Yonge or Bloor through downtown. It's a fairly modest retail strip surrounded by not-very-dense single family homes.

I think you are taking me too literally. By the central portion of the Bloor-Danforth Line, I was referring to the portion between Jane and Main Street - which is very similar in character to that part of the Eglinton Line.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[CityPlaceN1]

Today I bet a lot of stations along Bloor/Danforth would not be built due to cost.