Eglinton East LRT | Metrolinx

[Northern Light]

You make a good case for the Brimley infill station, but ~$400M seems too low. The at-grade, now shelved King-Liberty GO Station was pegged at 500M+, no?

Yes, but ....the 400M per station is significantly higher than the real cost per station for the caverns on the TYSSE.

The 500M for Liberty GO......to be charitable is NOT a believable number, I have no clue what Mx imagines spending that money on, but that is in no way a reasonable cost for an above-ground commuter rail station w/no train shed.

Italy can deliver underground Metro stations for less than 150M CAD as of 2023.

Above ground for substantially less.

Boston is cheaper too, a lot.

I just think Mx is out to lunch......150M for a 2km bike path.........

The answer is not to accept Mx numbers and to dismantle the organization if they can't learn to deliver projects at global peer costs.

 

[Northern Light]

No it wont. Why are you lying?

Please do not accuse other members of lying. Its a school-yard type taunt and it will naturally lead to escalation.

You're welcome to disagree, strongly, with another member's position on an issue, but unless you can see that they are willfully misrepresenting facts, 'lying' is not a good term to use.

***

I do agree, however, that investing in an at-grade LRT, in this corridor, one which would deliver service at a similar journey time to today is not a good use of funds.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Yes, but ....the 400M per station is significantly higher than the real cost per station for the caverns on the TYSSE.

The 500M for Liberty GO......to be charitable is NOT a believable number, I have no clue what Mx imagines spending that money on, but that is in no way a reasonable cost for an above-ground commuter rail station w/no train shed.

Italy can deliver underground Metro stations for less than 150M CAD as of 2023.

Above ground for substantially less.

Boston is cheaper too, a lot.

I just think Mx is out to lunch......150M for a 2km bike path.........

The answer is not to accept Mx numbers and to dismantle the organization if they can't learn to deliver projects at global peer costs.

As mentioned elsewhere, its the North American "soft costs" that inflate the cost of transit projects. The "soft costs" means we have to pay the engineers, lawyers, NIMBYs, politicians, and others, mostly to re-invent or re-design projects that could be copied and pasted.

 

[Voltz]

No it wont. Why are you lying?

That will make it worse and slower than the current bus service with less stops, just like what happened with Finch West.

The whole reason why RapidTO works right now is because of bus lanes and drivers that like to go fast, especially on routes like 986, 905, etc.

If any solution is going to be slower than the current bus service it should not get built. The line should be at least double the speed of current busses.

We don't need the line to be built if it's going to make things worse.

It doesn’t have to be slower, Finch West is being operated wrong, they could just as easily have bad operating rules for buses too. The surface LRT’s were proposed for passenger demand that buses wouldn’t be able to serve, express buses won’t be any good to passengers being left at stops.

 

[smallspy]

It doesn’t have to be slower, Finch West is being operated wrong, they could just as easily have bad operating rules for buses too. The surface LRT’s were proposed for passenger demand that buses wouldn’t be able to serve, express buses won’t be any good to passengers being left at stops.

Since it needs to be said again.....

When the majority of people are using the service - rush hour - it is faster than the bus.

Dan

 

[duty free]

I'd vote 100% elevated.

Ok, but then that begs the question of why make it a separate Line at all?

At that point they might as well elevated all Line 5 east of wherever (the DVP or some other place), rebuild Kennedy and have Line 5 continue east from there.

I've also heard that elevated light rail is or at least should be significantly cheaper than elevated heavy rail subways. I might be wrong though on that, so if someone can confirm or deny that claim that would be great.

 

[Westey]

Ok, but then that begs the question of why make it a separate Line at all?

At that point they might as well elevated all Line 5 east of wherever (the DVP or some other place), rebuild Kennedy and have Line 5 continue east from there.

I've also heard that elevated light rail is or at least should be significantly cheaper than elevated heavy rail subways. I might be wrong though on that, so if someone can confirm or deny that claim that would be great.

First off, it's too embarrassing to close Eglinton from Laird to Kennedy to elevate it. What's done is done and that mistake must be lived with for a while. Maybe at some point in the distant future when there is more of a network (Ontario Line to Seneca, Sheppard Line to Scarborough, etc.) they could think of changing to elevated.

Kennedy is not a terrible place to terminate a line. From the Eglinton Eastbound, riders might change to B-D, or Eg. East, for frequent GO. Eglinton Westbound could switch to B-D, Eg. West, or GO. It won't be the same as 25 years ago where there was really only one connection that could be made - and it was a true linear transfer.

 

[Rainforest]

I don't see fully grade separated option a high priority for this corridor, given that a shortcut between Kennedy Stn and UTSC will exist (take the subway to STC, and then a short express bus / BRT ride to UTSC). Plus, the area has two existing rapid transit stations (on the Lakeshore E GO line).

If the LRT in median is deemed too expensive, plus the technology got into a PR disaster on Finch West and needs to be redeemed first; then maybe an upgraded BRT plus an infill subway station at Brimley is a good alternative.

However, will the buses be able to handle the growing demand along Eg East? Say, an express BRT running artic buses in the street median, plus a frequent mixed-traffic all-stop bus service between Kennedy and Kingston Rd?

Or, is LRT needed just to handle the demand, regardless of speed?

 

[north-of-anything]

I have trouble believing that Eglinton east of Kennedy has the population or the development potential to justify a separate light rail line. The ridership converging on the corridor might be high, but I think it would make more sense to do a Mississauga Transitway-style operation in the median, so buses from all parts of Scarborough can provide one-seat trips to Kennedy Station (or a Brimley infill, if their destination is on Line 2).

You can then extend the system south along Kingston, or use it as a template for BRT along Wilson or a N-S Etobicoke corridor.

 

[JSF-1]

I can't believe there are people here who honestly believe terminating an Eglitnon east line at Brimley is a good idea. Basically for people who want to continue their journey along Eglinton you are forcing them to make not 1 but 2 linear transfers. They would need to transfer onto Line 2 at Brimley, ride the subway 1 stop and then transfer again at Kennedy to continue on Line 5. That is not good transit planning. One of the arguments often brought up about the SSE was eliminating the linear transfer with the SRT and now you want to create an even worse one? All to save a couple of dollars at the cost of convenience? That is penny-wise, pound foolish. Any Eglinton East line be it a BRT or LRT MUST terminate at Kennedy to create a hub where passengers can access Line 2, 5 and the GO Train all in one place.

 

[duffo]

I can't believe there are people here who honestly believe terminating an Eglitnon east line at Brimley is a good idea. Basically for people who want to continue their journey along Eglinton you are forcing them to make not 1 but 2 linear transfers. They would need to transfer onto Line 2 at Brimley, ride the subway 1 stop and then transfer again at Kennedy to continue on Line 5. That is not good transit planning. One of the arguments often brought up about the SSE was eliminating the linear transfer with the SRT and now you want to create an even worse one? All to save a couple of dollars at the cost of convenience? That is penny-wise, pound foolish. Any Eglinton East line be it a BRT or LRT MUST terminate at Kennedy to create a hub where passengers can access Line 2, 5 and the GO Train all in one place.

Unfortunately already a lot of this kind of thing happening. On Line 1, Line 6, Downsview GO, and the future Line 4 west extension are all one stop away from each other. On Line 2, the future Line 4 east extension will likely terminate at McCowan, one stop away from Scarborough Town Centre and the future Durham-Scarborough BRT.

 

[Rainforest]

I can't believe there are people here who honestly believe terminating an Eglitnon east line at Brimley is a good idea. Basically for people who want to continue their journey along Eglinton you are forcing them to make not 1 but 2 linear transfers. They would need to transfer onto Line 2 at Brimley, ride the subway 1 stop and then transfer again at Kennedy to continue on Line 5. That is not good transit planning. One of the arguments often brought up about the SSE was eliminating the linear transfer with the SRT and now you want to create an even worse one? All to save a couple of dollars at the cost of convenience? That is penny-wise, pound foolish. Any Eglinton East line be it a BRT or LRT MUST terminate at Kennedy to create a hub where passengers can access Line 2, 5 and the GO Train all in one place.

IMHO, this partly depends on whether light rail or BRT is chosen.

For light rail, the absense of tracks between Brimley and Kennedy is an absolute limitation; no LRT train from the east can get to Kennedy without tracks. Therefore, if LRT is being built, I would prefer it going to the Kennedy interchange rather than ending at Brimley.

But if BRT is chosen in the near term, then some of the buses can continue from Brimley to Kennedy in mixed traffic. A BRT on Eglinton East would likely combine two or free separate routes with different endpoints in the east / northeast. One of those routes can run from Brimley to Kennedy in mixed traffic, other routes can turn back at Brimley Stn. The number of riders who need to make an extra transfer (compared to routing everything to Kennedy) will not be zero, but significantly reduced.

Thus, one option to consider is to start with BRT east of Brimley and an infill station at Brimley, and protect a possible future right-of-way between Brimley and Kennedy. And then, if that BRT ever gets converted to LRT, the route can be extended to Kennedy as a part of convertion project.

 

[duty free]

First off, it's too embarrassing to close Eglinton from Laird to Kennedy to elevate it. What's done is done and that mistake must be lived with for a while. Maybe at some point in the distant future when there is more of a network (Ontario Line to Seneca, Sheppard Line to Scarborough, etc.) they could think of changing to elevated.

Kennedy is not a terrible place to terminate a line. From the Eglinton Eastbound, riders might change to B-D, or Eg. East, for frequent GO. Eglinton Westbound could switch to B-D, Eg. West, or GO. It won't be the same as 25 years ago where there was really only one connection that could be made - and it was a true linear transfer.

I agree about Line 5. What about just branching Line 2 east on Eglinton? Bad idea?

 

[Westey]

I agree about Line 5. What about just branching Line 2 east on Eglinton? Bad idea?

I had the B-D line following Eglinton - back when the Eglinton Line was planned to go up to STC (circa 2011). This would have been a 4km extension of B-D, to Kingston (Road, not City), along with a 2km extension of elevated Eglinton Line to Centennial. Then 3km branches to Malvern or UTSC.
Pretty much everything Scarborough could have wanted was maybe $2.5B away (at the time). Add in the Sheppard Line and Ontario line and the East side of Toronto is set. Buses or BRT from Pickering and/or along Kingston Road would have finished it out.
Instead we scrapped the Eglinton Line up to STC, and with the $2.5B savings we spent $8B to extend B-D to STC (and Sheppard).

Now. I am not crazy about branching an underground line. It is expensive enough already, and as a branch it only serves half the people (or at least half the frequency).

 

[duty free]

I had the B-D line following Eglinton - back when the Eglinton Line was planned to go up to STC (circa 2011). This would have been a 4km extension of B-D, to Kingston (Road, not City), along with a 2km extension of elevated Eglinton Line to Centennial. Then 3km branches to Malvern or UTSC.
Pretty much everything Scarborough could have wanted was maybe $2.5B away (at the time). Add in the Sheppard Line and Ontario line and the East side of Toronto is set. Buses or BRT from Pickering and/or along Kingston Road would have finished it out.
Instead we scrapped the Eglinton Line up to STC, and with the $2.5B savings we spent $8B to extend B-D to STC (and Sheppard).

Now. I am not crazy about branching an underground line. It is expensive enough already, and as a branch it only serves half the people (or at least half the frequency).

View attachment 728882

Nice map. Something like that would have worked well.

I do think branching could work on Line 2 or any subway line in Toronto, but not with how they build lines here like the TYSSE or the SSE. It's got to be elevated or built pragmatically to reduce costs. 36m is plenty of room to do so.