TheTigerMaster
Superstar
West of Mt. Dennis peak AM point/hour is 3,500.
East of Don Mills peak AM point/hour is 4,000.
Source
|
|
|
West of Mt. Dennis peak AM point/hour is 3,500.
East of Don Mills peak AM point/hour is 4,000.
Source
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
Can the LRT be upgraded in the tunneled portion in order to accept higher ridership numbers like the LRT in Ottawa can?
aquateam
Active Member
Thanks for linking to the source; the background reports are always fascinating to read. Just wish the combination of internet explorer and my work's internet filter would let me read them
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Yes. Eglinton Line is designed with a capacity of 15,000 persons. On opening day the line will be using trains of either one or two cars in length (I'm not sure which one). Up to three cars can be used without any infrastructure upgrades, providing a capacity of 15,000 persons, approximately three times of the expected 2031 ridership. If usage on the line exceeds 15,000 persons, stations can be expanded to accept additional cars, or the light rail system can be upgraded to heavy rail. Upgrading to heavy rail would result in a configuration similar to Sheppard Line (4 car T1 train sets).
For reference, Yonge-University Line and Bloor-Danforth Line have capacity for approximately 30,000 persons.
Last edited:
TransitPolicyChanger
Active Member
A heavy-rail upgrade would be difficult and expensive unless that option is selected before stations are designed/constructed. You would be talking about a complete closure of the line and reconstruction of the platform level of all the stations (platform heights, stairs, escalators, elevators, etc.). Safe to say if it says LRT (which I see no reason it wont) it will always be LRT.
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
We will see once Eglinton opens but I am confident Eglinton will exceed ridership projections. I don't think the EAs took into account the massive development that would take place along the Eglinton line and already fudged the numbers when it comes to commuting pattern changes in order to justify LRT over heavy rail.
I wouldn't be shocked to live to see debates in ~2060 about what to do with the overcrowded Crosstown. Wouldn't be surprised if future crosstown routes on Lawrence and York Mills to take the pressure off of Eglinton would be considered by then.
Anyway, just some future speculating.
I wouldn't be shocked to live to see debates in ~2060 about what to do with the overcrowded Crosstown. Wouldn't be surprised if future crosstown routes on Lawrence and York Mills to take the pressure off of Eglinton would be considered by then.
Anyway, just some future speculating.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
AndrewPMK will be vindicated!
(You'll know what I'm talking about if you've lurked here long enough)
(You'll know what I'm talking about if you've lurked here long enough)
jeffreym
Active Member
We will see once Eglinton opens but I am confident Eglinton will exceed ridership projections. I don't think the EAs took into account the massive development that would take place along the Eglinton line and already fudged the numbers when it comes to commuting pattern changes in order to justify LRT over heavy rail.
I wouldn't be shocked to live to see debates in ~2060 about what to do with the overcrowded Crosstown. Wouldn't be surprised if future crosstown routes on Lawrence and York Mills to take the pressure off of Eglinton would be considered by then.
Anyway, just some future speculating.
45 years from now we might need to build a parallel route a few km away? The horror!
nfitz
Superstar
True, though it did assume that the Crosstown would be built all the way to Pearson. West of Jane though, the AM peak was only 2,300; 1,700 west of Kipling, and only 800 west of Renforth (with only 400 eastbound departing Renforth). Interestingly, by the time you get to Royal York, there's a many heading west as east.
Meanwhile while east of Don Mills was 4,000, it was still 3,000 east of Victoria Park, and 2,700 departing Kennedy station.
salsa
Senior Member
ehlow
Senior Member
It will never be converted to heavy rail or have the station platforms widened beyond 90m (three 30m car trains). It's just completely impractical. Just like how impractical/difficult it would be to convert Sheppard subway to LRT.
It'll have ATO in the tunnelled sections so that part will be high frequency.
The only upgrade I could see for the underground section is to have a 90m continuous (articulated) train like the rockets rather than three separate 30m car trains, to save double ended cab space.
The surface section east of Laird could conceivably be "upgraded" to elevated or underground sometime in the distant future though.
But anyways it's somewhat irrelevant since they're building this thing with a lot of spare capacity.
nfitz
Superstar
Agreed. If Toronto changes overwhelmingly so that it does become necessary in 50 or 100 years, then you just build other east-west lines. Down Lawrence, or down St. Clair (that would be useful, a line that connects St. Clair East in Scarborough to St. Clair station).
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Miller is the gift that keeps on giving
I saw Miller in your post and for a second I assumed it was AndrewPMK rising from the dead!
ehlow
Senior Member
Exactly. Building more lines & expanding the system is a better approach than very expensively & impractically trying to convert & modify existing ones. The headwalls of the Eglinton stations are 30m and that's pretty much the limit on train length. I'm no civil engineer, but I'd assume it's insanely disruptive & expensive to change the actual station box.
Like with the Yonge subway, it will be very difficult & impractical to expand the existing platforms beyond their current length for longer trains (beyond 6.5 car trains). Even if you could extend some platforms, there are all these other issues like the station entrances not being able to handle the amount of people, all the train yard & tunnel issues.
The other thing is, if you can do the conversion/upgrade while the current service is running, it's much more practical than if you have to shut the line down. For example, Union station staying open while adding the 2nd platform. The more the current thing is used, the more inconvenient & impractical it is to shut it down to convert. If you can build parallel to the existing thing, then it's much more practical in my opinion. For example, if the Eglinton East surface section of LRT needs to be elevated sometime in the future, I could imagine it being built south or north of the existing ROW and quickly switching over to minimize service disruption.
sixrings
Senior Member
500 people per hour doesn't seem like much a difference for the east to be built guaranteed but the west be ostracized into oblivion.