Canadian LRT/RT projects U/C

[J.OT13]

Is Eglinton absolutely needed to open the Line? They can't do a partial opening?

[Innsertnamehere]

Eglinton is by far the most important station on the line. Crosslinx apparently proposed opening without it and Metrolinx refused as something like 25-30% of the line's riders are expected to use it.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Eglinton is by far the most important station on the line. Crosslinx apparently proposed opening without it and Metrolinx refused as something like 25-30% of the line's riders are expected to use it.

Not sure how I fee about that. Reverse those numbers, and opening the line now would benefit 70%-75% of the anticipated ridership.

[samne]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Delayed by another year....again? I hate to think how long they will take for other projects like the Scarborough extension, the Ontario line and the elecrtification of the Go trains.

Scarborough should be a piece of cake compared to Eglinton. Scarborough subway corridor is mostly on existing TTC or other Right-of-way with very little existing constraints.

I get that Eglinton had alot more existing constraints, but this is nothing new in subway construction. Paris, London, Madrid, NYC have been able to do this for a very long time.


Utilities only run a certain depth below grade. I get the sense there was a lot of conflicts with all the condo construction happening simultaneously in same intersection.

[Luisito]

Was it absolutely necessary to build partially underground for this project? Seems like a lot of resources for what is essentially a tram system. Was building elevated lines not an option?

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by samne;9743183[B

]Scarborough should be a piece of cake[/B] compared to Eglinton. Scarborough subway corridor is mostly on existing TTC or other Right-of-way with very little existing constraints.
.

I sure hope so, for the sake of people that live in Scarborough and rely on the trains.

[samne]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Was it absolutely necessary to build partially underground for this project? Seems like a lot of resources for what is essentially a tram system. Was building elevated lines not an option?

Absolutely necessary. Eglinton is quite narrow and congested in below grade sections compared the at grade sections.

Most people think this is just a streetcar. It actually runs more like a subway. Closer to Montreal’s STM metro in capacity and system.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by samne

Absolutely necessary. Eglinton is quite narrow and congested in below grade sections compared the at grade sections.

Most people think this is just a streetcar. It actually runs more like a subway. Closer to Montreal’s STM metro in capacity and system.

Not sure it compares to the Metro. The Azure have a capacity of 1,555 while the Bombardier Flexity has maybe capacity for 600. Can't imagine that Crosstown will be able to achieve anything better than the Metro's frequency, if that.

Max capacity I could find for the Crosstown varies between 12k and 15k an hour while the Metro can probably achieve 30k-40k. Even Ottawa with its fully grade separated system, longer platforms and ATC has a max capacity of only 24k, roughly the same as SkyTrain.

I'd call Corsstown a streetcar on steroids at best.

[samne]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Not sure it compares to the Metro. The Azure have a capacity of 1,555 while the Bombardier Flexity has maybe capacity for 600. Can't imagine that Crosstown will be able to achieve anything better than the Metro's frequency, if that.

Max capacity I could find for the Crosstown varies between 12k and 15k an hour while the Metro can probably achieve 30k-40k. Even Ottawa with its fully grade separated system, longer platforms and ATC has a max capacity of only 24k, roughly the same as SkyTrain.

I'd call Corsstown a streetcar on steroids at best.

I might be wrong but Azur is only currently used on 2 lines of STM.

I was comparing to Blue line uses different rolling stock and has a capacity of about 600-700 people per train.

I can’t argue the frequency and only assuming something similar.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by samne

I might be wrong but Azur is only currently used on 2 lines of STM.

I was comparing to Blue line uses different rolling stock and has a capacity of about 600-700 people per train.

I can’t argue the frequency and only assuming something similar.

Yes, you're right. I do believe Azure is currently not operating on Bleu and Jaune. Both also operate shorter trains, if I'm not mistaken.

So yes, it's a fairer comparison. Crosstown may even have a higher ridership than those two Lines (and Sheppard for that matter).

[hipster duck]

There's plenty of blame to go around on Eglinton.

Crosslinx (the private partner) is a terrible project manager. Infrastructure Ontario meddled with the TTC's original design, costing years. And the TTC and former mayor David Miller should deserve blame for the shortsightedness of building what amounts to a glorified streetcar for subway prices, and for planning a project of this size without any thought to integration with regional transit. IO's meddling saved the line somewhat from being essentially an expensive "bus replacement".

I moved to a house near the Crosstown route 5 years ago and have had to endure the construction mess ever since. I'm of two minds about this project.

On one hand, I really wish this were an automated, fully-grade separated light metro with half the stops - especially underground. Not only would it likely have cost the same, or less, but it would have more capacity and much faster travel times and it would probably be done by now. Tunnel boring is relatively straightforward; it's constructing the stations that's costly, and building long stations deep below the surface at forgettable destinations like Oakwood and Chaplin probably didn't help speed things along.

On the other hand, it was a product of its time. In the early 2000s when this line was planned, nobody had much in the way of transit vision and there wasn't even a regional transit body like Metrolinx. It was built to serve City of Toronto residents traveling by TTC and it's an important crosstown corridor that helps a lot of local people who live in dense neighbourhoods, but it's not regionally important like getting to Union Station, and nobody would use it to cross the region. If the project were planned today, it probably wouldn't see the light of day.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by samne

I might be wrong but Azur is only currently used on 2 lines of STM.

I was comparing to Blue line uses different rolling stock and has a capacity of about 600-700 people per train.

I can’t argue the frequency and only assuming something similar.

The Orange line was the 1st to have it. The Azur is capable of caring 45k/hr per direction.

[Luisito]

Yeah I would not compare the Eglinton line to any line of the Montreal metro. Low floor LRT can simply not compare to high floor high capacity metro trains.


The blue line will probably use the azur trains eventually.
• Video Link

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Not sure it compares to the Metro. The Azure have a capacity of 1,555 while the Bombardier Flexity has maybe capacity for 600. Can't imagine that Crosstown will be able to achieve anything better than the Metro's frequency, if that.

Max capacity I could find for the Crosstown varies between 12k and 15k an hour while the Metro can probably achieve 30k-40k. Even Ottawa with its fully grade separated system, longer platforms and ATC has a max capacity of only 24k, roughly the same as SkyTrain.

I'd call Corsstown a streetcar on steroids at best.

I don't think the Azur can actually carry 1,555 each. Manufacturers sometimes provide exaggerated capacity numbers based on extreme crush loads that wouldn't actually be feasible in regular revenue service. Even the new Toronto rockets are only rated at 1458 crush load and while they're a bit shorter (~138m vs 152m) they're also wider at 3.1m vs 2.5m. The interior area of the Toronto rocket is actually greater 427.8m2 vs 380m2. The other factors are mostly equal including similar seating arrangements and doors.

So with the Toronto rockets that yields about 3.4 people per m2 while Azur's quoted number is 4.1. The Crosstown's longest trains of 90m will have three driver cabs rather than two and one separation between a 60m and a 30m unit but will also be slightly winder than in Montreal (2.65m vs 2.5m) so both should be assumed to have a slightly lower passenger per m2 rating than the rocket, let's say 3.2 people per m2. This is quite consistent with rolling stock on other systems as well (but with trains containing fewer seats having higher crush capacity than those with more). That means the Azur trains each has a capacity of 1216 and the Flexity about 763. The 6 car blue line trains would be about 810 people.

But regardless, there are many metro systems that don't have the high capacity trains of Toronto and Montreal so having less than them doesn't make a system un-metro like. Most of the Paris metro, one of the world's oldest and most famous systems has 75m or 90m trains for instance. The underground section of the Crosstown (about 10km initially with the proposed western part having another ~4.5km) will very much be like a metro line and completely incomparable to a streetcar. Even the surface sections will be more like like LRT than other TTC streetcar routes since even the couple routes with with own ROW have much denser stop spacing and trains 1/3 the max length.

People seem to place far too much importance on the appearance of the rolling stock in my experience. Especially since most systems don't spend most or any of their service duration at the absolute crush load capacity.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I don't think the Azur can actually carry 1,555 each. Manufacturers sometimes provide exaggerated capacity numbers based on extreme crush loads that wouldn't actually be feasible in regular revenue service. Even the new Toronto rockets are only rated at 1458 crush load and while they're a bit shorter (~138m vs 152m) they're also wider at 3.1m vs 2.5m. The interior area of the Toronto rocket is actually greater 427.8m2 vs 380m2. The other factors are mostly equal including similar seating arrangements and doors.

So with the Toronto rockets that yields about 3.4 people per m2 while Azur's quoted number is 4.1. The Crosstown's longest trains of 90m will have three driver cabs rather than two and one separation between a 60m and a 30m unit but will also be slightly winder than in Montreal (2.65m vs 2.5m) so both should be assumed to have a slightly lower passenger per m2 rating than the rocket, let's say 3.2 people per m2. This is quite consistent with rolling stock on other systems as well (but with trains containing fewer seats having higher crush capacity than those with more). That means the Azur trains each has a capacity of 1216 and the Flexity about 763. The 6 car blue line trains would be about 810 people.

But regardless, there are many metro systems that don't have the high capacity trains of Toronto and Montreal so having less than them doesn't make a system un-metro like. Most of the Paris metro, one of the world's oldest and most famous systems has 75m or 90m trains for instance. The underground section of the Crosstown (about 10km initially with the proposed western part having another ~4.5km) will very much be like a metro line and completely incomparable to a streetcar. Even the surface sections will be more like like LRT than other TTC streetcar routes since even the couple routes with with own ROW have much denser stop spacing and trains 1/3 the max length.

People seem to place far too much importance on the appearance of the rolling stock in my experience. Especially since most systems don't spend most or any of their service duration at the absolute crush load capacity.

Ottawa's Citadis Spirits have a theoretical capacity of 600, but that's crush load Covid petri dish. Surprised the Flexity's capacity is that much higher.

Considering the capacity, I guess it is unfair to call it a streetcar. But it's also not a subway or "rapid transit". As you say, it's more classic LRT.

[samne]

Excellent breakdown. Much better and informed than the comparison I was trying to make with STM Azur or blue line.

Also, the use of an OCS makes it appear like a typical Toronto lumbering streetcar in congested streets. While it does have a fully separated ROW portion above ground, majority of it is underground running at operating speeds up to 80km/h.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Considering the capacity, I guess it is unfair to call it a streetcar. But it's also not a subway or "rapid transit". As you say, it's more classic LRT.

It is more like a street car because it is low floor but yeah I agree it runs more like a classic LRT. Low floor trains run like this are just pretty rare

But regardless, there are many metro systems that don't have the high capacity trains of Toronto and Montreal so having less than them doesn't make a system un-metro like. Most of the Paris metro, one of the world's oldest and most famous systems has 75m or 90m trains for instance.

Sure, that doesn't make them any less metro like, but none of the trains on the Paris metro run at grade or have low floors. That does make a big difference with the Eglinton crosstown LRT. There is nothing wrong with that, it still holds a good number of people. I just hope it doesn't have as much trouble as the Ottawa tram-trains.

That means three cars, and a capacity of almost 500 people.A full length LRV can hold more than 490 customers

https://blog.metrolinx.com/2022/07/2...0the%20project.

[Luisito]

Speaking of Montreal, Does anyone know how the REM project is coming along? Will the South Shore portion open up on time this year? What happened the REM east project?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Sure, that doesn't make them any less metro like, but none of the trains on the Paris metro run at grade or have low floors. That does make a big difference with the Eglinton crosstown LRT. There is nothing wrong with that, it still holds a good number of people. I just hope it doesn't have as much trouble as the Ottawa tram-trains.

Grade separation definitely makes a difference because there's the potential for delays across the line due to conflicts with traffic on the surface part. But whether the vehicles are low or high floor has very little impact since the relevant aspect is whether or not there is level boarding. Yes the floor height slightly affects the layout and circulation and sometimes vehicle maintenance but the differences are overhyped imo.

[samne]

Kinda related to high/low floor. I remember a report I saw about GO Rail expansion and one area that slowed frequency was the gap from rail car stair to platform that slowed passenger on/off boarding. By levelling the platform to the rail car entrance would increase passenger efficiency and cumulatively from each station increase the frequency along the line substantially by the time it reached the terminus. (I.e. Union station)