Jump to content

Recommended Posts

To be honest I dont think that the elimination of those 2 stops would make it automatically necessary for a parallel bus option, but if it means saving $20-$40 million in capital costs with slightly quicker service than so be it. Part of those savings could than be used to operate that bus service. The savings alone would be able to operate that service indefinitely for X years.

Bloor is doing just fine without a parallel bus service and the density within a 500 meter radius of that street is much greater,  there are hundreds of shops and businesses along there, with bustling pedestrian activity throughout the day. Eglinton by comparison is less dense, is scarce with shops and businesses, and has little to no pedestrian activity.

As for the surface stop policy, the thing the makes me skeptical is how there will be a difference in how vehicles will make stops at all underground stations vs. no stop at above ground stations. For example, if it happens that we have some grade separated stops at Islington and Kipling, while a few at-grade stops are built at let's say Wincott, would the surface stop on request policy still hold true?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, lip said:

To be honest I dont think that the elimination of those 2 stops would make it automatically necessary for a parallel bus option, but if it means saving $20-$40 million in capital costs with slightly quicker service than so be it. Part of those savings could than be used to operate that bus service. The savings alone would be able to operate that service indefinitely for X years.

Bloor is doing just fine without a parallel bus service and the density within a 500 meter radius of that street is much greater,  there are hundreds of shops and businesses along there, with bustling pedestrian activity throughout the day. Eglinton by comparison is less dense, is scarce with shops and businesses, and has little to no pedestrian activity.

As for the surface stop policy, the thing the makes me skeptical is how there will be a difference in how vehicles will make stops at all underground stations vs. no stop at above ground stations. For example, if it happens that we have some grade separated stops at Islington and Kipling, while a few at-grade stops are built at let's say Wincott, would the surface stop on request policy still hold true?

This has been discussed a lot. People don't live right a the intersections. If we remove the Wincott stop, the plaza there would only be accessible from a stop 500m away. If grade separation is added, make that 600m as people will have to walk down the platform to a set of stairs to get on the surface.

What if you live in a house on Wincott between Eglinton and The Westway? The walk is now a km plus a set of stairs if it's grade separated. Is it really accessible to the community? Yes a parallel bus service would be needed if that was the case. Bloor on the other hand is much closer to other bus services such as the 26 Dupont and 94 Wellesley. Danforth have the 62 Mortimer and whatever is south is pretty close to a N-S bus service. In Etobicoke, the only N-S service is 1km apart. There is the 52G on The Westway that's 1km north and the 48 Rathburn that is 2km south. It's totally different.

There isn't a lot of pedestrian activity but that doesn't mean stops like Wincott or Windicombe Blvd doesn't get used. The 32A is well used in rush hour. How much time would riders save without those stops if the traffic light is still there vs how many are inconvenience if you remove their stop and not build a stop there too. The stops along most parts of Line 2 are 800m apart vs 1km on a grade separated Line 5.

I don't believe in this request stop idea. Like the subway, the LRT will have to maintain a headway so they can't fly by stations and be ahead of schedule. The trains will have to eventually wait somewhere.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, lip said:

To be honest I dont think that the elimination of those 2 stops would make it automatically necessary for a parallel bus option, but if it means saving $20-$40 million in capital costs with slightly quicker service than so be it. Part of those savings could than be used to operate that bus service. The savings alone would be able to operate that service indefinitely for X years.

 

Look at what the stop spacing would be, and and the built form of the surrounding neighbourhood. Yes, a parallel local bus would absolutely be needed.

 

12 hours ago, lip said:

Bloor is doing just fine without a parallel bus service and the density within a 500 meter radius of that street is much greater,  there are hundreds of shops and businesses along there, with bustling pedestrian activity throughout the day. Eglinton by comparison is less dense, is scarce with shops and businesses, and has little to no pedestrian activity.\

 

The station spacing on the central part of the Bloor-Danforth is about equivalent to the stop spacing on the surface sections of the Eglinton Line, so I guess that just reinforces my argument, doesn't it?

 

And while you're right that the built forms of the two streets is vastly different, that doesn't mean that accessing the stations on them is going to change.

 

12 hours ago, lip said:

As for the surface stop policy, the thing the makes me skeptical is how there will be a difference in how vehicles will make stops at all underground stations vs. no stop at above ground stations. For example, if it happens that we have some grade separated stops at Islington and Kipling, while a few at-grade stops are built at let's say Wincott, would the surface stop on request policy still hold true?

 

On the core section through the tunnel, the trains will all be run by ATO/ATC, and the sightlines are such that if the trains were operated manually it's just going to be safer to service every single stop. It would stand to reason that the same would apply to any grade-separated stops on the west side, but without seeing the design I don't think that it's fair that we could say that with any certainty, either.

 

Dan

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Xtrazsteve said:

This has been discussed a lot. People don't live right a the intersections. If we remove the Wincott stop, the plaza there would only be accessible from a stop 500m away. If grade separation is added, make that 600m as people will have to walk down the platform to a set of stairs to get on the surface.

What if you live in a house on Wincott between Eglinton and The Westway? The walk is now a km plus a set of stairs if it's grade separated. Is it really accessible to the community? Yes a parallel bus service would be needed if that was the case. Bloor on the other hand is much closer to other bus services such as the 26 Dupont and 94 Wellesley. Danforth have the 62 Mortimer and whatever is south is pretty close to a N-S bus service. In Etobicoke, the only N-S service is 1km apart. There is the 52G on The Westway that's 1km north and the 48 Rathburn that is 2km south. It's totally different.

There isn't a lot of pedestrian activity but that doesn't mean stops like Wincott or Windicombe Blvd doesn't get used. The 32A is well used in rush hour. How much time would riders save without those stops if the traffic light is still there vs how many are inconvenience if you remove their stop and not build a stop there too. The stops along most parts of Line 2 are 800m apart vs 1km on a grade separated Line 5.

I don't believe in this request stop idea. Like the subway, the LRT will have to maintain a headway so they can't fly by stations and be ahead of schedule. The trains will have to eventually wait somewhere.

 

The distance people would have to walk would all depend on whether the stops at Islington and Kipling would be located at the near-side or far-side of the intersection. Widdicombe Hill wouldnt be far at from the Martin Grove stop since it would be on the near side, which is why it would be essentially useless. As for Wincott, if the Kipling stop was placed at the near side, the walk wouldnt be bad at all.

I've been on the 32A enough times to know that there's virtually no one who lives around the Wincott area who walks to Eglinton to take that bus. They usually just go to Islington or Kipling and that's if they are even taking the bus.

 

7 hours ago, smallspy said:

 

Look at what the stop spacing would be, and and the built form of the surrounding neighbourhood. Yes, a parallel local bus would absolutely be needed.

 

The station spacing on the central part of the Bloor-Danforth is about equivalent to the stop spacing on the surface sections of the Eglinton Line, so I guess that just reinforces my argument, doesn't it?

 

And while you're right that the built forms of the two streets is vastly different, that doesn't mean that accessing the stations on them is going to change.

The station spacing on the central portion of the B-D line does do a good job at reinforcing your argument, but I was thinking of the portion between Kipling and Old Mill where the spacing is greater and people around there seem to be doing just fine.

I dont see a problem with having a parallel local bus on this stretch of Eglinton if that means making operations here more reliable with less stops but with the way Crosstown West is currently being proposed, I dont think we have to worry about that much.

 

10 hours ago, Ed T. said:

Well, except for all the businesses at Wincott and Widdicome.

It's going to be interesting to see if those stick around if the proposed development goes through. If not all we'd really have to worry about are the new Starbucks, Tim Horton's and generic other chains that would replace those businesses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2017 at 9:35 AM, smallspy said:

And again, a paralleling local bus option will have to be run, and with it all of the costs that are required to run it.

 

Transit is not a zero-sum game. One seemingly minuscule change will have repercussions elsewhere and potentially for years and years to come.

 

How can you figure that? That would be like saying the TTC would make all stops on St. Clair and Spadina all-stops all the time - and frankly, I think that would require a huge stretch of logic to come to that conclusion.

 

Dan

Why? There are no paralleling bus services on the Yonge Line, BD line, or the Spadina line. Sheppard is the exception, but it's a stub. Why should Eglinton (A line that is going to be about 40 km if both extensions are built) be any different? An extra 200 meters at most is literally a 2-minute walk. If people complain about that, then there's something wrong with the health of our society.

Consider Bessarion: A station with 1500 daily users (for a total of 3000 passings). What would happen there if the station wasn't built? Most people would make the extra two-minute walk to either Leslie or Bayview Stations (because it's North York and you only use transit up there if you absolutely have to). What repercussions occur? Increased ridership at Bayview and Leslie Stations? That seems like a no-brainer and an incentive for riders. Higher ridership for low (but adequately used) stations, and reduced trip times for passengers. The extra walk cancels. The same logic can also be applied to Eglinton West. 

Assume they don't, remember, Crosstown trains will be 2-3 vehicles long. With trains that long, it is certain that even barely used stops will see adequate ridership for one or even two people to get off for almost every train. Think about it, St Clair cars only hold 100 people and are usually only half full outside of rush hours, yet it never skips any stops. An LRT train can hold around 100-250 people (outside of rush hours, but the range can't really be determined because we have no ridership analysis for the corridor currently available), therefore, every daytime train will almost certainly stop at these barely used stations. Even for stations as redundant as Ellesmere, Bessarion, Midland, and McCowan, they're still used. There's no doubt these won't be used either.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

Why? There are no paralleling bus services on the Yonge Line, BD line, or the Spadina line. Sheppard is the exception, but it's a stub. Why should Eglinton (A line that is going to be about 40 km if both extensions are built) be any different?

There are plenty of short paralleling services to B-D that help riders whose destination is between stations. Prince Edward, Symington, Dovercourt, Cliffside, etc. all parallel the subway for some distance. And they do get used by riders to travel that intermediate distance.

Quote

An extra 200 meters at most is literally a 2-minute walk. If people complain about that, then there's something wrong with the health of our society.

No, it's only 'literally' a two-minute walk if you're healthy, walk quickly (6 km/h), and there's no snow or other adverse conditions slowing you down.

In addition, after a five or ten minute walk to get to the main street, it does nothing for this rider to have to walk another two minutes one way or another to a stop....only to have the bus/streetcar go flying by.

Quote

Consider Bessarion: A station with 1500 daily users (for a total of 3000 passings). What would happen there if the station wasn't built? Most people would make the extra two-minute walk to either Leslie or Bayview Stations (because it's North York and you only use transit up there if you absolutely have to).

Bessarion station to Leslie station: 12 minutes and 1.1 km. Bessarion station to Bayview station: 11 minutes and 850 m. I'll take google's estimates over yours, thanks.

By the way, Kipling to Wincott is a 6 minute, 500m walk. Kipling to Widdicombe is a 7 minute, 600m walk. Great fun if it's pouring rain or -15º.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2017 at 1:12 AM, nfitz said:

image.thumb.png.e6b92f26420eb6c1b38279891ced7855.png

I never really considered the 97 because it seems like it's only there to serve for people requiring elevators. I mean, it only runs every half hour and has a ridership of 4K PPD (Which is extremely low considering how dense the Yonge corridor is). 

 

On 11/22/2017 at 7:01 AM, Ed T. said:

Bessarion station to Leslie station: 12 minutes and 1.1 km. Bessarion station to Bayview station: 11 minutes and 850 m. I'll take google's estimates over yours, thanks.

By the way, Kipling to Wincott is a 6 minute, 500m walk. Kipling to Widdicombe is a 7 minute, 600m walk. Great fun if it's pouring rain or -15º.

 

By that, I meant that most people in Bayview Village that currently walk to Bessarion would have to walk an extra two to three minutes because the majority of its users live in Bayview Village (Take someone who lives on Howard Dr, Bessarion might be the closer station, but the difference in distances in terms of getting to each station is insignificant). If you look at the area, there's nothing remotely significant around Bessarion to justify a subway stop, not even a bus route (which is imperative for any sort of higher order rapid transit). The same will occur on Eglinton West. Don't build where it's not necessary. It's rapid transit, not a streetcar.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

I never really considered the 97 because it seems like it's only there to serve for people requiring elevators. I mean, it only runs every half hour and has a ridership of 4K PPD (Which is extremely low considering how dense the Yonge corridor is).

The sole purpose of the 97 is to provide local service along Yonge after the subway was built. That it is accessible while many of the stations are not is more a coincidence than anything - because that certainly wasn't the case in the 1970s when it started running.

 

Dan

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2017 at 3:35 PM, Streety McCarface said:

I never really considered the 97 because it seems like it's only there to serve for people requiring elevators. I mean, it only runs every half hour and has a ridership of 4K PPD (Which is extremely low considering how dense the Yonge corridor is). 

 

By that, I meant that most people in Bayview Village that currently walk to Bessarion would have to walk an extra two to three minutes because the majority of its users live in Bayview Village (Take someone who lives on Howard Dr, Bessarion might be the closer station, but the difference in distances in terms of getting to each station is insignificant). If you look at the area, there's nothing remotely significant around Bessarion to justify a subway stop, not even a bus route (which is imperative for any sort of higher order rapid transit). The same will occur on Eglinton West. Don't build where it's not necessary. It's rapid transit, not a streetcar.  

Do you see the 10 condos that are being built at bessarian Station. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2017 at 9:17 AM, smallspy said:

The sole purpose of the 97 is to provide local service along Yonge after the subway was built.

Amusingly, it was approved after Glencairn, Yonge Boulevard/Glen Echo and Empress stations were dropped from the north Yonge extension as a cost saving measure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, skyfirenet said:

Amusingly, it was approved after Glencairn, Yonge Boulevard/Glen Echo and Empress stations were dropped from the north Yonge extension as a cost saving measure.

It wasn't amusing at all - one decision begat the other.

 

Of course, this also raises the (largely philosophical and rhetorical) question - how would the inclusion of those stations affected things? Would ridership be higher because it's easier to walk to the service, or lower because the longer trip time? How has that affected the costs of the service - maintaining stations versus running the paralleling bus service?

 

Dan

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, smallspy said:

Of course, this also raises the (largely philosophical and rhetorical) question - how would the inclusion of those stations affected things? Would ridership be higher because it's easier to walk to the service, or lower because the longer trip time? How has that affected the costs of the service - maintaining stations versus running the paralleling bus service?

North York Centre (the ultimate expression of Empress station) did get built and is reasonably used (I went through it yesterday). I would assume that those using it are happy it exists. I'm not sure if riders to/from Finch would care that much, especially given the frequent backups approaching the terminal.

In the larger picture, you have the question: if the North Yonge extension was built as a more local subway with those intermediate stops, how might this affect the push to extend the subway to Richmond Hill?

Of the various subway lines, the west end of Bloor-Danforth is the most 'local' in function, and it's the least likely end to see an extension (top of Spadina line: done deal; east end of B-D, close to a done deal; Richmond Hill, got a lot of push). Well, okay, I'm ignoring the Sheppard line (but who doesn't?).

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, smallspy said:

It wasn't amusing at all - one decision begat the other.

 

Of course, this also raises the (largely philosophical and rhetorical) question - how would the inclusion of those stations affected things? Would ridership be higher because it's easier to walk to the service, or lower because the longer trip time? How has that affected the costs of the service - maintaining stations versus running the paralleling bus service?

 

Dan

Well, amusing in the context that the 97 was not considered a relevant example for why Eglinton would need parallel bus service if you start cutting "unneeded" stations.

As for the impact of what would have happened if Glen Echo and Glencairn had been built, ridership would probably be higher due to the better headway management they would impose. It's easy to focus on the speed of the trains between York Mills and Eglinton while ignoring the logjam that occurs when the station spacing drops south of Eglinton.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shaun said:

Do you see the 10 condos that are being built at bessarian Station. 

According to Urban Toronto, all are closer to Leslie than they are to Bessarion. (I like Bessarion for nostalgic purposes (Finding Bessarion), but it wasn't and will never be a practical place for a subway station, not within the next 10-20 years at least (City place is being slow)).

3 hours ago, Transit geek said:

Which introduces the possibility of renaming the station as "Concord ParkPlace" under a naming rights deal with the developer.

I hope they never do that. Advertizing much...

5 hours ago, Ed T. said:

Of the various subway lines, the west end of Bloor-Danforth is the most 'local' in function, and it's the least likely end to see an extension (top of Spadina line: done deal; east end of B-D, close to a done deal; Richmond Hill, got a lot of push). Well, okay, I'm ignoring the Sheppard line (but who doesn't?).

 

PCs are pushing for Sheppard Subway extension. However, it's political BS. Also, the spadina line is far more local than everything except the west end of the BD line, yet it got the extension first. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Bombardier Transportation Statement on New MetroLinx Agreement

December 21, 2017 Berlin Transportation,  Press Release

  • The amended contract, settles the arbitration, resets the relationship with Metrolinx and brings certainty to the completion of this project
  • The 18-month extension on the GO Transit Operations and Maintenance contract solidifies Bombardier’s prominent role as a service provider in the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area (GTHA)

Bombardier has agreed to amend the contract terms with Metrolinx to produce world-class light rail vehicles for the Eglinton Crosstown light rail transit (LRT) system on-time. This clearly resets the relationship with Metrolinx under its new leadership, and provides a clear path forward to ensure certainty on the technical and financial obligations of both partners. Furthermore, it settles the arbitration with Metrolinx, benefiting all parties.

The agreement is for Bombardier Transportation to now manufacture 76 light rail vehicles (LRVs) for the Eglinton Crosstown project, 106 vehicles less than the original contract for 182 vehicles. In addition, the GO Transit Operations and Maintenance contract was extended by 18-month. This extension solidifies Bombardier’s prominent role as a provider of Operations and Maintenance in the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area (GTHA) and is a recognition of Bombardier’s unsurpassed performance on the GO Transit contract. Overall, the revised contracts do not change materially the size of our relationship with Metrolinx.

“We have always been resolved to find a clear negotiated path forward, one that delivers value to all parties, and foremost to the people of Ontario. Bombardier is fully committed to the Metrolinx project and to the people of the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area (GTHA),” said Benoit Brossoit, President, Americas Region at Bombardier Transport. “I look forward to working with Metrolinx’s CEO, Phil Verster’s, to advance this project and ensure that riders have the most efficient, comfortable and reliable transit system in the world.”

This new agreement is positive news for commuters who can continue to have full confidence that we are providing maximum value in safety and comfort for them when it comes to mobility solutions. Bombardier is committed to ensure that the vehicle quality is sustained throughout the lifespan of the vehicles. From a manufacturing standpoint, this is good news for the province, as we are doing everything necessary to deliver value to the people of Ontario.

 

Thousands of Bombardier Transportation employees in Ontario remain fully committed to the Metrolinx project. Over the past few months, Bombardier reached new milestones confirming that it is on track to deliver the LRT projects, including high speed testing on our track in Kingston. In addition, the first pilot vehicle successfully completed its climate testing at the National Research Council of Canada facility. We are preparing our manufacturing activities to deliver the first vehicles as required. Bombardier looks forward to launching this outstanding new service for the benefit of the people of Toronto.

About Bombardier Transportation

Bombardier Transportation is a global leader in rail technology and offers the broadest portfolio in the industry. It covers the full spectrum of rail solutions, ranging from trains to sub-systems and signalling. The company also provides complete transport systems, e-mobility technology and maintenance services. As an innovation driver, Bombardier Transportation continuously breaks new ground in sustainable mobility. It provides integrated solutions that create substantial benefits for operators, passengers and the environment. Headquartered in Berlin, Germany, Bombardier Transportation employs around 37,150 people and its products and services operate in over 60 countries.

About Bombardier

Bombardier is the world’s leading manufacturer of both planes and trains. Looking far ahead while delivering today, Bombardier is evolving mobility worldwide by answering the call for more efficient, sustainable and enjoyable transportation everywhere. Our vehicles, services and, most of all, our employees are what make us a global leader in transportation.

 

Bombardier is headquartered in Montréal, Canada and our shares are traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange (BBD). In the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, we posted revenues of $16.3 billion. News and information are available at bombardier.com or follow us on Twitter @Bombardier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MK78 said:

Hmmm. So how is making 106 less vehicles good? Didn't they require the 182 vehicles for a reason?

76 vehicles are enough for Eglinton and that is the only LRT line to be built in Toronto in the foreseeable future. Considering the recent developments and the election coming up in 2018, I would be astounded if the Finch West LRT is ever built.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MK78 said:

Hmmm. So how is making 106 less vehicles good? Didn't they require the 182 vehicles for a reason?

They haven't required all 182 vehicles since Toronto Council cancelled the SRT conversion. And the purchase of the Alstom cars certainly didn't help any in that matter.

 

Maybe it's me, but I still read the press releases from Metrolinx and the MTO as a result of poor decision making and momentary panic.

 

Dan

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, smallspy said:

Maybe it's me, but I still read the press releases from Metrolinx and the MTO as a result of poor decision making and momentary panic.

I agree. However, as they were able to hammer out a deal with Bombardier to get rid of the extra, unnecessary vehicles, I am sure they will find a way to re-assign those 17 Alstom cars supposedly needed for Finch West to some other project once Finch is officially dead, probably in a year's time or so. Or simply have the order reduced. After all, 17 vehicles are not that many to begin with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MK78 said:

Hmmm. So how is making 106 less vehicles good? Didn't they require the 182 vehicles for a reason?

Well, the 182 car-order was probably the largest ever single order for LRVs made in North America (not counting the 204-car TTC Flexity order, which is really intended for a legacy streetcar network). The next largest would be the 175-car San Francisco MUNI LRV order from Siemens. Yet the nature of all these orders is completely different: while both the TTC and MUNI's orders are largely for fleet replacement (though a portion of MUNI's order is for fleet expansion), the Metrolinx order is destined entirely for newly-constructed (though largely independent) lines, and with only one of these networks actually funded and under construction and the others still up in the air, reducing their order to save some cash was probably the best thing to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ttc rider said:

I agree. However, as they were able to hammer out a deal with Bombardier to get rid of the extra, unnecessary vehicles, I am sure they will find a way to re-assign those 17 Alstom cars supposedly needed for Finch West to some other project once Finch is officially dead, probably in a year's time or so. Or simply have the order reduced. After all, 17 vehicles are not that many to begin with.

Okay, I'll bite - what makes you think that Finch West is dead?

 

10 hours ago, jordankcw said:

Yet, despite this the pilot vehicle is still not operational by Metrolinx Standards, just look at what the CEO had to say (yes, he was ducking the question but that's probably a sign of it's not working but he doesn't want to say it)

I suspect that the reason why Mr. Verster is skirting the question is more to do with trying to save face for his organization more than anything else. Despite the serious spin put on by this story, Metrolinx really, really looks the fool in this.

 

Dan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...