[Midtown Urbanist]

The Midtown line is not really competing for the same type of transit users that will be using the Crosstown.

It is a bit like saying that upgrading the Richmond Hill GO Line would be a substitute for building the Relief Line.

 

[Rainforest]

The CL, unlike the other SkyTrain lines, was built short-sighted and it will come back and bite them in the ass. That said, the Canada Line still has higher capacity than the Eglinton line with it`s 100 meter stations as opposed to 50 meter CL ones. CL can run every 90 seconds and it is impossible for ANY grade line to run more than every 3 minutes especially one that goes right down the centre of a busy road. The CL is cheaper to run due to automation, is faster, and far more reliable than Eglinton.

Eglinton should be a completely grade separated line but Miller`s `LRT or nothing mantra` greatly limits the speed, reliability, and capacity of the line.

Eglinton can run with 2-min headways if needed, and won't be less reliable than CL (or even than our subway Lines 1 and 2; they have delays on a regular basis even though they never run in street median).

Speed is another matter, the Canada Line obviously wins in that respect.

 

[Rainforest]

Regarding Eglinton West, full grade-separation may be an overkill given the relatively modest ridership predictions. However, separating at some of the major intersections would be a useful compromise.

Btw, Eglinton West is not duplicating the UPX. Eglinton West will connect to the employment cluster south of the airport; UPX doesn't serve that area at all.

 

[steveintoronto]

The Midtown line is not really competing for the same type of transit users that will be using the Crosstown.
It is a bit like saying that upgrading the Richmond Hill GO Line would be a substitute for building the Relief Line.

If it comes to building a parallel line to supplement Crosstown, Midtown would indeed alleviate a good part of the load on Crosstown. Just as Crossrail alleviates subway overcrowding in London. And increasing the service on the Richmond Hill line, and in fact *merging it* in parts with the Relief Line, would in fact greatly increase capacity on that corridor, the pre-requisite being it is RER single deck for the in-tunnel sections, DDs could still run express down the valley to Union.

 

[Rainforest]

If it comes to building a parallel line to supplement Crosstown, Midtown would indeed alleviate a good part of the load on Crosstown.

Midtown RER would be very helpful, and not just to shift the load from Crosstown. It would open a list of new viable connections.

Unfortunately, the midtown corridor is CP's mainline, and they won't allow frequent passenger service unless they get that rail bypass to the north of the city.

If it comes to building a parallel line to supplement Crosstown, Midtown would indeed alleviate a good part of the load on Crosstown. Just as Crossrail alleviates subway overcrowding in London. And increasing the service on the Richmond Hill line, and in fact *merging it* in parts with the Relief Line, would in fact greatly increase capacity on that corridor, the pre-requisite being it is RER single deck for the in-tunnel sections,

That configuration would do marvels, but only if the city departments are open to designing DRL South for RER single decks. But at present they seem to be set on building a TTC gauge line.

DDs could still run express down the valley to Union.

That section would still be needed to handle diesel trains serving the northern sections of Bala / RH corridor if it's not electrified for the whole length, as well as The Canadian and possibly the restored Northlander.

However in terms of speed, that "express" would be no faster than the tunneled / DRL branch running with multiple stops but taking a more direct route.

 

[rbt]

It is a bit like saying that upgrading the Richmond Hill GO Line would be a substitute for building the Relief Line.

I'm pretty sure a RH GO line running at 5 minute frequencies making stops at most major streets (Steeles, Finch, Sheppard, York Mills, Eglinton, express to Union would be a perfectly viable substitute for the north component of the relief line.

Reports compare Option A @ $5B and Option B @ $1B; it's no surprise that Option A has higher capacity. That extra $4B can solve a large number of issues for Option B, and surface lines are much cheaper to maintain.

 

[robmausser]

When Eglinton is jammed to the gills (which won't be long if the success of something like the Canada Line and the general high ridership of the TTC is accounted for) I wouldn't be so sure, Toronto doesn't have a good reputation for building the lines that are needed

Wont ever happen.

They can easily upgrade to 3 car trains, and then theyve designed the underground stations to be expandable to 4 car trains by blowing out some walled off areas on either sides of the platforms.

The latter would take some work to upgrade the above ground stations but its feasible.

4 car trains is well beyond the anticipated capacity of the Crosstown, and is an emergency situation only, but is feasible.

 

[steveintoronto]

That configuration would do marvels, but only if the city departments are open to designing DRL South for RER single decks. But at present they seem to be set on building a TTC gauge line.

This is one of the instances where 'uploading' the TTC subways to the Province may make a huge amount of sense. The City still hasn't the funding for its share, and ML already has full responsibility for the northern leg, and executive power over the southern leg, and yet the parochial pedantic approach to what this can do prevails still. It could have a massive regional effect for almost the same amount of expenditure if built as a metro looping through the core and connecting run-through to RER each end.

If this were Paris, it would be double decker RER without any second thoughts, relieving the subways rather than further involving them.

 

[Allandale25]

^ great catch!

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

BTW. A Bombardier Toronto Rocket subway car is 23.9 m in length. A Bombardier Flexity Freedom light rail car is 30.8 m. So 3 light rail cars would be about 92.4 in length, about 3.8 subway cars in length. Almost the same length as a Line 4 Sheppard subway train.

 

[Streety McCarface]

BTW. A Bombardier Toronto Rocket subway car is 23.9 m in length. A Bombardier Flexity Freedom light rail car is 30.8 m. So 3 light rail cars would be about 92.4 in length, about 3.8 subway cars in length. Almost the same length as a Line 4 Sheppard subway train.

The problem is width, and the inefficient use of space on the flexity.

 

[Steve X]

BTW. A Bombardier Toronto Rocket subway car is 23.9 m in length. A Bombardier Flexity Freedom light rail car is 30.8 m. So 3 light rail cars would be about 92.4 in length, about 3.8 subway cars in length. Almost the same length as a Line 4 Sheppard subway train.

It's narrow width like the montreal metro but quad seats layout kills a lot of space. The Alstom LRVs would be more effective in holding more people.

 

[ssiguy2]

Eglinton will be quickly over capacity. When Miller introduced TC it was based on a 2030 population of 3 million. Well Toronto has already passed that threshold and is growing at 70,000 a year bringing it closer to 4 million by 2030 and the GTA is also growing much faster than anticipated.

 

[robmausser]

Eglinton will be quickly over capacity. When Miller introduced TC it was based on a 2030 population of 3 million. Well Toronto has already passed that threshold and is growing at 70,000 a year bringing it closer to 4 million by 2030 and the GTA is also growing much faster than anticipated.

Eglinton will quickly be over capacity; with their initial 2 car train setup.

Then they will easily add 3 car trains to it, as they designed it to be, and it will no longer be over capacity.

There is plenty of un-used platform at the launch of the Crosstown.

Then, if capacity is still an issue, you can convert to 2 full length Alstom trains, which have more total capacity or have Bombardier convert the 3 car, 5 segment LRTS to 2 7 segment LRTs, which both affords more capacity (less space wasted between couplings, like the Toronto Rockets)

Then, if capacity is STILL an issue, the underground stations have been designed to be expandable to 4 car train lengths. (Or 3 full size Alstom LRTS) At the end of each platform in the station box are storage areas, which can be blown out to lengthen the platform.

This would require either having 4 car trains only operate in the tunnels, short turning, or lengthening the platforms on the above ground sections, which is expensive but feasible.

Capacity will not be an issue.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Eglinton will quickly be over capacity; with their initial 2 car train setup.

Then they will easily add 3 car trains to it, as they designed it to be, and it will no longer be over capacity.

There is plenty of un-used platform at the launch of the Crosstown

Will the surface stops be 3 car compatible?