Eglinton-Crosstown Corridor Debate

[nfitz]

In order for a city/regions' transit network to be truly effective, it needs 3 things:
1) An efficient subway network that covers most of the city with a 3km span (ie no one is more than 3km away from a transit stop).
2) A well developed regional rail network that connects to the subway network at strategic locations to allow for an easy transfer from 1 mode to another.
3) A network of LRT/BRT that is complimentary (NOT a substitute) to the subway network, that allows for those along secondary corridors not within walking distance of a subway stop to reach that stop efficiently and quickly.

Toronto currently has half of #1 and #2, and seems hell bent on using #3 as a substitute for #1.

Given that building #1 will cost you about $50-billion ... and likely a century, and the province is dealing with #2. Then surely spending $10-bilion on #3 in a 10-year period is a reasonable. Though there certainly doesn't seem any exclusivity; there are 5 projects on the books that fit #1; Spadina Extension, Yonge Extension, SRT Extension, Eglinton underground LRT (same speed and more frequent than a subway), DRL) in various stages of construction and asessment). I can't remember any time period with so much rapid transit under development since the 1960s ... ).

 

[nfitz]

10 Billions for Streetcars run like St.Clair and Spadina is a complete waste of money.

Why do say things that are not true so frequently here? What do you think there is to gain by it? The operating speed on Spadina is 10.5 km/hr (afternoon rush-hour). This isn't at all comparable to TC. The operating speed on the underground section of Eglinton - by far the busiest - will be 30 km/hr ... the same as a subway train, but more frequent. The operating speed on the rest will still be more than twice-as-fast as Spadina.

This has been pointed out to you before, but you choose to ignore it, and repeat mistruths.

 

[Justin10000]

What Transit City fails to recognize is the difference between primary and secondary corridors, and what type of transit is suitable for each. Primary corridors (Yonge, Don Mills, Eglinton, Sheppard, Bloor, etc) deserve grade-separated rapid transit that allows for un-interrupted transit along the corridor. Secondary corridors (St. Clair, Finch, Lawrence, etc) need at the very minimum at-grade but dedicated lane rapid transit.

In order for a city/regions' transit network to be truly effective, it needs 3 things:
1) An efficient subway network that covers most of the city with a 3km span (ie no one is more than 3km away from a transit stop).
2) A well developed regional rail network that connects to the subway network at strategic locations to allow for an easy transfer from 1 mode to another.
3) A network of LRT/BRT that is complimentary (NOT a substitute) to the subway network, that allows for those along secondary corridors not within walking distance of a subway stop to reach that stop efficiently and quickly.

Toronto currently has half of #1 and #2, and seems hell bent on using #3 as a substitute for #1.

What you(and many others) fail to recognize is that subways are insanely expensive, and take decades to build. Toronto, and many other cities have missed the boat on cheap subway construction. Subway networks simply are not going to happen in North America anytime soon. No one can afford to build subways like we used to in the past. As it stands, surface rail transit is the best option to build viable networks, and LRT has been proven to provide the best service for the value. You only have to look at Europe, and Asia to see that LRT works just as well as subways.
I do agree about the regional network(but connecting to local transit networks, and not subways). We have GO already. It's time to electrify, and increase service to a 10-15 minute frequency where possible. While EMU's would be the best answer, I can live with loco-haul trains too.

 

[gweed123]

Given that building #1 will cost you about $50-billion ... and likely a century, and the province is dealing with #2. Then surely spending $10-bilion on #3 in a 10-year period is a reasonable. Though there certainly doesn't seem any exclusivity; there are 5 projects on the books that fit #1; Spadina Extension, Yonge Extension, SRT Extension, Eglinton underground LRT (same speed and more frequent than a subway), DRL) in various stages of construction and asessment). I can't remember any time period with so much rapid transit under development since the 1960s ... ).

The reason why so much is being built at once is because we pretty much stopped for a decade or so. From 1949 to 1980, there was an almost constant stream of subway construction in Toronto. It wasn't all in 1 place, but it was happening somewhere. If we had kept that up, we would be a lot closer to getting #1 done. Instead, we stalled, and now are putting in a cheaper substitute because we can't afford to foot the massive bill. If we had fixed provincial and federal funding for transit (particularly capital), we could rely on having $2B per year, every year, which would facilitate strategic construction throughout Toronto, instead of this building blitz (aka "let's get as much as we can started, no matter what it is, before they pull the funding plug") that we have now.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Well, yeah, if Toronto got 2 billion dollars of transit funding from higher levels of government every year, we'd have awesome transit everywhere. But that's not our reality.

 

[Ansem]

Why do say things that are not true so frequently here? What do you think there is to gain by it? The operating speed on Spadina is 10.5 km/hr (afternoon rush-hour). This isn't at all comparable to TC. The operating speed on the underground section of Eglinton - by far the busiest - will be 30 km/hr ... the same as a subway train, but more frequent. The operating speed on the rest will still be more than twice-as-fast as Spadina.

This has been pointed out to you before, but you choose to ignore it, and repeat mistruths.

Things that are facts then

A) No studies for a ''complete subway''

B)Spacing 400-500 metres for the surface route

C)Why not Don Mills to Jane being underground?

D)What if there an accident on Eglinton...Even if you short turn some LRT, part of the line will be paralyzed. You don't get that with a subway.

E) The cost...man! Wouldn't it be better, wiser, to put more to reach the airport and make it subway , than spending so much on this.

Am I a subway freak, no. I said in the past, it could have been elevated. I have a problem with red lights and ignoring all the other alternatives they could have used.

trench
elevated
Subway

Remember that it was advertised as Rapid Transit at first.
The LRT being rapid transit would have been truly revolutionary. low cost+ rapid transit (the whole line)

We're getting, high cost + not rapid Transit...

 

[Justin10000]

Things that are facts then

A) No studies for a ''complete subway''

Studies ruled out a subway. You are ignoring this.

B)Spacing 400-500 metres for the surface route

Which will attract the greatest number of riders. For the record, people are complaining that the spacing on the underground portion is too wide.

C)Why not Don Mills to Jane being underground?

Because the time-savings does not justify the added cost. And also, accessibility. Riders want stop close by.

D)What if there an accident on Eglinton...Even if you short turn some LRT, part of the line will be paralyzed. You don't get that with a subway.

Unnecessary fear mongering. You are trying to justify an expensive investment to avoid an event that may occur once or twice a year. This is the tactic anti-rail activists would use.
You do not get that with subways? How about suicides? Track level incidents?

E) The cost...man! Wouldn't it be better, wiser, to put more to reach the airport and make it subway , than spending so much on this.

Most of Pearson arrivals head to Peel Region.

Am I a subway freak, no. I said in the past, it could have been elevated. I have a problem with red lights and ignoring all the other alternatives they could have used.

No, you have limited transit knowledge. Do not take it to offense, but you cannot beyond grade-seperated transit, and that can be a problem. It's why we haven't had much transit expansion in this city. The planners had no vision except for subways.

Remember that it was advertised as Rapid Transit at first.
The LRT being rapid transit would have been truly revolutionary. low cost+ rapid transit (the whole line)

We're getting, high cost + not rapid Transit...

Again, your lack of experience is binding your judgement. Have you actually ridden a system like Transit City, or are you just assuming based on your established criteria of "rapid transit"?

 

[unimaginative2]

I'm not concerned by the stores so much as the lack of alternative parallel routes. Just the loss of Eglinton bus service alone will destory thousands of commutes. Unless you can think of an alternative (run the bus through forest hill neighbourhood streets, perhaps?)

Work on a couple blocks at a time with short detours. Same as Cambie. It may also be possible to retain one or two lanes during construction, especially if the tracks are stacked like in Vancouver. For longer trips, there's St. Clair and Lawrence.

Again, a much more detailed cost-benefit analysis would need to be done. Unfortunately the TTC hasn't seriously studied the savings from cheaper construction options on any of its new lines.

The bulk of the money to be spent on lines is for 30 km/hr service in the Eglinton subway section of the Eglinton RT, the Spadina Subway extension, and the SRT upgrade and extension. Though the bulk of the new km is from the slower LRT service (that alone should tell you something!).

The bulk? That sounds an awful lot like a majority. And it's not! The tunneled portion is less than 50% of the cost of Transit City! Less than 49% too.

Why do say things that are not true so frequently here? What do you think there is to gain by it? The operating speed on Spadina is 10.5 km/hr (afternoon rush-hour). This isn't at all comparable to TC. The operating speed on the underground section of Eglinton - by far the busiest - will be 30 km/hr ... the same as a subway train, but more frequent. The operating speed on the rest will still be more than twice-as-fast as Spadina.

This has been pointed out to you before, but you choose to ignore it, and repeat mistruths.

Why that sounds like a personal attack, and yet I know you would never do that considering how often you criticize others for the same thing.

You don't mention St. Clair, which is much more comparable to the Transit City lines. You're also going by the TTC's best-case-scenario projected speeds. They don't take into account the delays that their own reports are expecting.

What you(and many others) fail to recognize is that subways are insanely expensive, and take decades to build. Toronto, and many other cities have missed the boat on cheap subway construction. Subway networks simply are not going to happen in North America anytime soon. No one can afford to build subways like we used to in the past.

Yes. No one is building subways. It's impossible. Except Madrid, Munich, Copenhagen, New York, Sydney, Barcelona, Berlin, Paris... Not to mention dozens of developing world cities with a fraction of our GDP per capita who somehow find it entirely affordable. It's patently obvious that we could build all of the subway plans that we have discussed over the past decades for the price of Transit City. The choice to go with light rail is purely ideological and I'd be happy if people at least recognized that fact.

Studies ruled out a subway. You are ignoring this.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with government or planning, but you can get a study to say anything. They did a study fifteen years ago that said a subway was the only option for Eglinton. Now suddenly they did another study and light rail is the best option, coincidentally because we now have light rail fans in the mayor's office.

No, you have limited transit knowledge. Do not take it to offense, but you cannot beyond grade-seperated transit, and that can be a problem. It's why we haven't had much transit expansion in this city. The planners had no vision except for subways.

Wow. Uh, I'm not going to go declaring that my knowledge is superior, but that's a pretty wild statement considering that we're going to be spending 12 times as much on light rail as we have spent on subway over the last thirty years.

Again, your lack of experience is binding your judgement. Have you actually ridden a system like Transit City, or are you just assuming based on your established criteria of "rapid transit"?

I've ridden quite a number of light rail systems around the world, but I haven't ridden one like Transit City because there aren't any. Nobody has built tracks down the middle of the street stopping at every traffic light and with stations less than 500 metres apart over dozens of kilometres through the suburbs. Nobody. There's not one example of it in the world. There's lots of light rail in Europe, but the average line is about 6 km long. Tell us some of these systems that you've ridden that give you such superior knowledge.

Unnecessary fear mongering. You are trying to justify an expensive investment to avoid an event that may occur once or twice a year. This is the tactic anti-rail activists would use.
You do not get that with subways? How about suicides? Track level incidents?

Do you ever actually ride the streetcar? I ride Spadina and there's an incident at least every week--at the very least.

Most of Pearson arrivals head to Peel Region.

Uh, where did you get that idea?

 

[golodhendil]

What you(and many others) fail to recognize is that subways are insanely expensive, and take decades to build. Toronto, and many other cities have missed the boat on cheap subway construction. Subway networks simply are not going to happen in North America anytime soon. No one can afford to build subways like we used to in the past. As it stands, surface rail transit is the best option to build viable networks, and LRT has been proven to provide the best service for the value. You only have to look at Europe, and Asia to see that LRT works just as well as subways.
I do agree about the regional network(but connecting to local transit networks, and not subways). We have GO already. It's time to electrify, and increase service to a 10-15 minute frequency where possible. While EMU's would be the best answer, I can live with loco-haul trains too.

So which European or Asian city should I be looking towards? London, Paris, Madrid, Barcelona, Berlin, Vienna, Naples, Moscow, Tokyo, Osaka, Seoul, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, Taipei, or Singapore? All of which either a) has 1-4 times the existing size of Toronto's rapid transit network, and/or b) will as much as double their HRT network size in the next decade or two, and/or c) building fully grade-separated "LRT" lines akin to what Vancouver is doing, and/or d) building non-grade-separated LRT lines with full signal priority, hardly comparable to TC, as a supplement to their extensive HRT networks and not as the backbone of their transit systems?

It's funny how TC apologists love to make generalized accusations of those who disagree with certain lines of the TC plan as either Toronto-haters or ignorant of what's going on in the rest of the world.

 

[gweed123]

So which European or Asian city should I be looking towards? London, Paris, Madrid, Barcelona, Berlin, Vienna, Naples, Moscow, Tokyo, Osaka, Seoul, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, Taipei, or Singapore? All of which either a) has 1-4 times the existing size of Toronto's rapid transit network, and/or b) will as much as double their HRT network size in the next decade or two, and/or c) building fully grade-separated "LRT" lines akin to what Vancouver is doing, and/or d) building non-grade-separated LRT lines with full signal priority, hardly comparable to TC, as a supplement to their extensive HRT networks and not as the backbone of their transit systems?

It's funny how TC apologists love to make generalized accusations of those who disagree with certain lines of the TC plan as either Toronto-haters or ignorant of what's going on in the rest of the world.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks that subways are not "passé" in Toronto, and that we a) still need them, and b) can still afford them. Enough with the LRT fanboy-ism. LRT is NOT a 1-size-fits-all option. There has to be a reason why Metrolinx at first favoured a subway for the Eglinton corridor, before finally being bullied by the TTC into accepting the LRT. Oh wait, because it was the right choice for the corridor...

EDIT: I'd like to point out however that I am not against LRT on Jane, Waterfront West, or Finch. I would just like to see some sensibility and independent judgement put into where it's used, instead of the "it'll work everywhere!" attitude prevailing at City Hall.

 

[kettal]

What Transit City fails to recognize is the difference between primary and secondary corridors, and what type of transit is suitable for each. Primary corridors (Yonge, Don Mills, Eglinton, Sheppard, Bloor, etc) deserve grade-separated rapid transit that allows for un-interrupted transit along the corridor. Secondary corridors (St. Clair, Finch, Lawrence, etc) need at the very minimum at-grade but dedicated lane rapid transit.

In order for a city/regions' transit network to be truly effective, it needs 3 things:
1) An efficient subway network that covers most of the city with a 3km span (ie no one is more than 3km away from a transit stop).
2) A well developed regional rail network that connects to the subway network at strategic locations to allow for an easy transfer from 1 mode to another.
3) A network of LRT/BRT that is complimentary (NOT a substitute) to the subway network, that allows for those along secondary corridors not within walking distance of a subway stop to reach that stop efficiently and quickly.

Toronto currently has half of #1 and #2, and seems hell bent on using #3 as a substitute for #1.

May I ask how you came to the conclusion that Don Mills is a primary corridor and Finch is a secondary corridor?

 

[nfitz]

C)Why not Don Mills to Jane being underground?

I really are having a hard time understanding much of what you write. I've picked an example; this is a fact? It has a question mark ... it looks like a question. But if it is a question, what does it mean? Most of Jane to Don Mills is underground. In the west it will daylight east of Brentcliffe ... there isn't a single road that fully crosses Eglinton between there Don Mills; only Leslie dead-ends onto Eglinton ... clearly there isn't going to be much delay on that segment (given there is some thought of putting the Don Mills station underground, I wonder if it would make sense to run the tracks on the south side of Eglinton between Brentcliffe and Don Mills Road so as not to interfere with the Leslie intersection).

 

[Ansem]

Studies ruled out a subway. You are ignoring this.

Like they did for Sheppard east. But they did studied Sheppard West and evaluated all the factors, economic impact, ratio cost-benefit, environmental, etc… It was just ruled out…
The lack of transparency here is evident and it would have served them better to have at least studied the option like they did for Sheppard West and Sheppard East extension to Consumers.

Which will attract the greatest number of riders. For the record, people are complaining that the spacing on the underground portion is too wide.

Says who? You?
If LRT can attract people, what about a subway? Oh, right…they never studied it…
No one is disputing that the LRT won’t attract riders, but C’MON!!!!
It will never draw more than a subway.

Because the time-savings does not justify the added cost. And also, accessibility. Riders want stop close by.

From Ea page 29
Jane: There are many items that will be considered prior to
making a decision about the preferred option, including what is the best
way to connect to the proposed Maintenance and Storage Facility; what
option will provide the best opportunities for future development and
future connection to GO Transit; and which option will provide the best
overall usability by providing well located stops or stations. A decision
about the preferred option will be made prior to Open House 3.

Don Mills: Still under study…

I was pointing out that such busy intersection would be better served if it was underground. Your little theory is not in the EA…too bad

Unnecessary fear mongering. You are trying to justify an expensive investment to avoid an event that may occur once or twice a year. This is the tactic anti-rail activists would use.
You do not get that with subways? How about suicides? Track level incidents?

From the Sheppard-Finch Study case: Page 19
The operational reliability of the route will vary. Even with significant signal priority there will be
delays in road intersections from cross-traffic, congestion and accidents. Experience from similar
tram/LRT systems shows that this delay may be in the order of 10%, which on the proposed route
could provide a variation in runtime of about 4-5 minutes for each segment. This potential
variability in journey time may result in differential headways, which at peak times can increase
the dwell times of vehicles at busy stops and further increase travel time.

The numbers wont be the same for eglinton but that’s the reality of LRT crossing intersection. Are subway perfect? No. Better reliability? absolutely

Most of Pearson arrivals head to Peel Region.

Then what’s the point of building a link to the city then? The French are insane. They have a subway going to the airport. Vancouver? What a waste of money… Let’s be smarter then everybody else and not even bother…
(Shaking my head)

No, you have limited transit knowledge. Do not take it to offense, but you cannot beyond grade-seperated transit, and that can be a problem. It's why we haven't had much transit expansion in this city. The planners had no vision except for subways.

You should go out more…

Again, your lack of experience is binding your judgement. Have you actually ridden a system like Transit City, or are you just assuming based on your established criteria of "rapid transit"?

Have you? I have family in France; visited major European cities…went to Tokyo…whatever man…

I wont bother with you. I can’t stomach people insulting others because they don’t share the same view as they do. You want to believe everything politicians feeds you, that’s your story and I’m not disputing that, but if I want to express how skeptical I am toward this poor planed transit city idea, I will.

They do not have any mental power that I do not possess myself. There is no problem in discussing other alternative and giving our opinion. If it’s a problem for you, you can always go elsewhere. This is a iscussion board…and we discuss and debate in a “MATURE WAYâ€

 

[Justin10000]

So which European or Asian city should I be looking towards? London, Paris, Madrid, Barcelona, Berlin, Vienna, Naples, Moscow, Tokyo, Osaka, Seoul, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, Taipei, or Singapore? All of which either a) has 1-4 times the existing size of Toronto's rapid transit network, and/or b) will as much as double their HRT network size in the next decade or two, and/or c) building fully grade-separated "LRT" lines akin to what Vancouver is doing, and/or d) building non-grade-separated LRT lines with full signal priority, hardly comparable to TC, as a supplement to their extensive HRT networks and not as the backbone of their transit systems?

It's funny how TC apologists love to make generalized accusations of those who disagree with certain lines of the TC plan as either Toronto-haters or ignorant of what's going on in the rest of the world.

Whoa. Over your head. You are missing the point that many cities recognize the importance of LRT, and that HRT is not the only answer. We are not like those cities. We do not have the population, nor density to justify a subway, and only a fool would think we can become like those cities if we build subways like them. We CANNOT. Again, I am amazed why you guys chose to ignore this, or are simply ignorant of other transit modes. I do not know. Keep on preaching subways. No one is really listening anymore.

TC Apologist? Hardly. More like a Transit Enthusiast who loves transit, and knows enough to understand Toronto doesn't need subways to have a great system.

And please. The Canada LIne is not LRT. It's a automated light metro that has already reached capacity, and cannot be expanded without a huge cost. $2 Billion waste of money.

 

[Ansem]

I really are having a hard time understanding much of what you write. I've picked an example; this is a fact? It has a question mark ... it looks like a question. But if it is a question, what does it mean? Most of Jane to Don Mills is underground. In the west it will daylight east of Brentcliffe ... there isn't a single road that fully crosses Eglinton between there Don Mills; only Leslie dead-ends onto Eglinton ... clearly there isn't going to be much delay on that segment (given there is some thought of putting the Don Mills station underground, I wonder if it would make sense to run the tracks on the south side of Eglinton between Brentcliffe and Don Mills Road so as not to interfere with the Leslie intersection).

I meant both Don Mills and Jane should be underground as well, but they haven't decided yet