Eglinton-Crosstown Corridor Debate

[Voltz]

Which is exactly why I'm proposing (temporary) terminuses at Jane and Don Mills, that way the section between the 2 proposed LRT lines (hopefully the Don Mills LRT gets morphed into the northeast extension of the DRL instead, but that's beside the point) is subway. Higher capacity, reliable, expandable (like I said earlier, start with 4 car trainsets like on Sheppard. If ridership demand increases, add on more cars). Have the rest of the line made up of BRT, which is much cheaper to build than LRT, and that can be easily replaced if the line is extended in either direction.

The TTC sees running an express bus (technically not even BRT) between Sheppard-Yonge and Downsview as being an acceptable solution, so why not a BRT between Eglinton-Don Mills and Kennedy? I would imagine that passenger demand on that portion of the Eglinton line would be roughly the same as the Sheppard West express bus.

The main concern I would have with building the inner section as a subway (to be extended later as some have suggested), is that I don't see any chance of the outer sections requiring a subway for a very long time, as there are several other east west routes running through that part of the city (the BD subway, and the Lakeshore and future Midtown GO lines).

And what is with this "LRT fans" BS? I could just as easily surmise that you are a subway lover, since you are proposing a line that is unnecessary and provides worse service than what is currently proposed.

 

[gweed123]

There's a difference between acceptable and ideal.

Everybody knows Sheppard has become a dog's breakfast of transfers. Due to cut-backs, overbuilding stations, and "we'll finish it later" mentality (which you seem to exhibit with your Eglinton stub proposal). Nobody wanted it to come out the way it did. Do we really need Eglinton to become another mess like Sheppard?

Well hopefully we learn from Sheppard to not overbuild stations. And I really feel that with Metrolinx running the show (something the Sheppard line didn't have the advantage of having), that if we build the central portion of the Eglinton subway now, that it will get finished.

You bring up Sheppard as an example of this not working, so I'll bring up Bloor-Danforth as an example of it working. It was built in 3 phases: Keele to Woodbine initially (central trunk, similar to what I'm proposing along Eglinton), with the streetcar continuing the service on the two extremities of the line. It was then extended several years later to Islington and Warden. This is expansion was all part of the initial subway plan, and was not seen as an afterthought, merely it was divided up due to lack of capital funds. The later extensions to Kennedy and Kipling were for different reasons.

It worked on Bloor-Danforth, I believe it can work along Eglinton.

 

[kettal]

Yes, it could happen that way too. Nobody knows the future, and every election is another game of russian roulette.

But there's still no compelling reason not to get it done and over with, now, as LRT. There's no rational expectation of it exceeding capacity.

 

[nfitz]

It was built in 3 phases: Keele to Woodbine initially (central trunk, similar to what I'm proposing along Eglinton), with the streetcar continuing the service on the two extremities of the line. It was then extended several years later to Islington and Warden.

Several years? When the initial phase of the BD line opened from Keele to Woobine, construction was already well underway on the Islington and Warden extension, and opened about 2 years after the first phase. You make it sound like it was much later.

 

[Dan416]

Several years? When the initial phase of the BD line opened from Keele to Woobine, construction was already well underway on the Islington and Warden extension, and opened about 2 years after the first phase. You make it sound like it was much later.

Kipling did come much later.

I would prefer an Eglinton subway from Jane to Don Mills or wherever.

I don't see how LRT apologists can say the Sheppard transfer is fine, but building an Eglinton subway along the core section would be unacceptable due to the transfer.

I find the Transit City advocates to be intellectually dishonest.

And Metrolinx isn't any better by avoiding studying extending the Sheppard subway west to Downsview AND east to Consumers/Vic Park/STC.

I do no understand what's wrong with the phased approach. It's worked on Bloor-Danforth, University-Spadina, Yonge. I'd rather start a subway than kill off a subway. SOS--Save Our Subways.

 

[EnviroTO]

I don't see how LRT apologists can say the Sheppard transfer is fine, but building an Eglinton subway along the core section would be unacceptable due to the transfer.

I find the Transit City advocates to be intellectually dishonest.

Most people supporting Transit City would say if built today the Sheppard line would be built as LRT and a sizable portion of the supporters would convert the existing tunnel to LRT. That seems like a fairly consistent stand. Transit City didn't create the Sheppard subway which is an obstacle to the ideal Transit City LRT plan. Where is the inconsistency? The only thing I find inconsistent is how the Eglinton Line is being built with spaced out stops and the other lines are being built like a bus route. The Transit City supporters seem pretty consistent that if it can be built as LRT it should be.

 

[Dan416]

Most people supporting Transit City would say if built today the Sheppard line would be built as LRT and a sizable portion of the supporters would convert the existing tunnel to LRT. That seems like a fairly consistent stand. Transit City didn't create the Sheppard subway which is an obstacle to the ideal Transit City LRT plan. Where is the inconsistency? The only thing I find inconsistent is how the Eglinton Line is being built with spaced out stops and the other lines are being built like a bus route. The Transit City supporters seem pretty consistent that if it can be built as LRT it should be.

The inconsistency is saying that people can transfer at Don Mills to the LRT or at Kennedy to the SRT or LRT whereas building a subway on Eglinton is not good because you'd have to transfer at the extremities.

I'm well aware that some would like to see Sheppard converted to LRT. And I can't see any politician endorsing that idea. That would be a nightmare. Any candidate to support that would get torn to shreds. Replacing subway with a streetcar? That'd be crazy.

The thing is, people WILL transfer ON to a subway. Because they know a subway is fast and reliable. Certainly faster than a bus or streetcar.

 

[EnviroTO]

The inconsistency is saying that people can transfer at Don Mills to the LRT or at Kennedy to the SRT or LRT whereas building a subway on Eglinton is not good because you'd have to transfer at the extremities.

But the transfer which exists at Don Mills or Kennedy wasn't created by Transit City it was created by the people who built the Sheppard subway and the SRT. A good local transit system would allow a person to get between all stations in the grade separated rapid transit network with only two transfers. All local routes should go to a station. LRT allows a single route to provide both grade separated rapid transit and local service. It gets rid of a transfer.

Brussels pre-metro system is a model that should be followed. A short stub should never be built as the highest capacity mode of transport... it should be built as LRT because it can be rapid transit in one section and local beyond. Once the LRT route is grade separated for a long stretch which ties appropriately into the network then it is ready to be converted to a subway.

The SRT is a mistake. There shouldn't be grade separated rapid transit extensions to subway routes which require a transfer. Based on capacity requirements an extension beyond an existing rapid transit line should be either at grade which would require a transfer or it should be an extension of the same line without a transfer which if required could be served by every other train, every third train, etc.

The thing is, people WILL transfer ON to a subway. Because they know a subway is fast and reliable. Certainly faster than a bus or streetcar.

People will transfer between slow buses too. What people will do and what is the least complicated, most cost effective, and optimal is different. LRT can be as fast as a subway.

The proper evolution
Bus Route
-- ridership growth --
Frequent Service Bus Route
-- ridership growth --
LRT/BRT with no grade separation
-- congestion, capacity issues, or faster service required --
LRT/BRT with grade separation in core area
-- congestion, capacity issues, or faster service required --
LRT/BRT gets an increase in the amount of grade separated area
-- capacity not met with grade separated LRT/BRT --
Subway with at grade Bus, BRT, or LRT via transfer beyond
-- ridership growth on route beyond the subway --
Extension of subway with at grade Bus, BRT, or LRT via transfer beyond
-- ridership growth on route beyond the subway --
Extension of subway with at grade Bus, BRT, or LRT via transfer beyond
... etc, etc.

The evolution can skip steps if required but the evolution should roughly follow this path. Stub subways and transfer required line extensions should not exist.

 

[Tdot_one]

Do you think the street car would be as fast if it stops on red lights? The long-range (vs. short range, local European trams) do exist in Melbourne, Australia. From what I've seen Airport West 59 is definitely unreliable with its 59 stops.

Transit use in Toronto is much higher than in Melbourne. That is despite the fact that the Australian city has a more expansive commute service and a much larger tram network.Why do many here think that the experience will be any different?

 

[kettal]

Do you think the street car would be as fast if it stops on red lights? The long-range (vs. short range, local European trams) do exist in Melbourne, Australia. From what I've seen Airport West 59 is definitely unreliable with its 59 stops.

Transit use in Toronto is much higher than in Melbourne. That is despite the fact that the Australian city has a more expansive commute service and a much larger tram network.Why do many here think that the experience will be any different?

The 59 Airport does not have a tunnel. In fact, it runs through the CBD where it has to share a track with 10 other tram routes. It also runs in mixed traffic and has no signal priority.

If you want to compare to a Melbourne tram, try route 96, but even that tram has to go through the congested CBD, which does not apply to Eglinton.

 

[Second_in_pie]

You show a failure to understand the prevailing travel patterns...

Will the average commuter use Eglinton only to go to Jane street? no. Will he use it to go to Don Mills? no (at least not until there is a new DRL subway). For this reason, a transfer at either of these points is an arbitrary inconvenience.

Very few riders coming from Scarborough, for example, will be going any further west than Dufferin. Yes, some will, but not enough to make the transfer point (for eastbound trains originating in scarborough) become a bottleneck of the journey. The real cross-town travellers, who will use it from Scarborough all the way to Etobicoke, is insignificant in terms of capacity.

And as I said earlier, the subway + brt combo doesn't bring any advantage to a partially tunnelled LRT, except adds a transfer.

Just sit back, relax and watch, it will be built and it will work great. The sky is not falling.

And you show a failure to understand true subway building.

When a city says "let's build a subway," they don't build the entire route of the line all at once. They start by building a short yet useful line, and then extend it later when more money comes in.
Building Eglinton as a Jane-Don Mills subway is a great example of that. It connects with the Jane LRT, Don Mills LRT and possibly the DRL. It's also in a prime position to be extended quite easily to Pearson and Kennedy or Kingston Road.

I don't understand why you think the whole thing should be built at once. Just look at how they built the B-D and Yonge line. They didn't go "let's build the whole thing all at once to get rid of arbitrary transfers." No, they planned to extend the lines in the east, west and north.

I'm sure that a bunch of people living along Eglinton would be more than happy to have a subway to Jane or Don Mills and transfer there from a bus. It's in no way "an arbitrary transfer" because it's a genuine improvement to the system, unlike what the SELRT will be, when extending the subway is so obviously the right thing to do.
And building the Eglinton LRT precludes building a true RT route along all of Eglinton, which there is actually quite a high demand for. You can go on about "conversion-ready" all you want, it's not going to use subway technology for at least 50 years, probably closer to 100. And we could get a full Pearson-Kingston Road subway within 30 years.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Nothing really precludes them from extending the tunnelled portion of the Eglinton LRT in 25 years, if capacity calls for it. What's the difference?

 

[kettal]

Nothing really precludes them from extending the tunnelled portion of the Eglinton LRT in 25 years, if capacity calls for it. What's the difference?

Exactly. There's no reason to go crazy over this. The funding is in place, it will be built.

If for some strange reason the entire population of Newfoundland decides to move to a 200 storey skyscraper at Eglinton & Martingrove, then it can be easily converted to a subway.

 

[gweed123]

Exactly. There's no reason to go crazy over this. The funding is in place, it will be built.

If for some strange reason the entire population of Newfoundland decides to move to a 200 storey skyscraper at Eglinton & Martingrove, then it can be easily converted to a subway.

Easily?? No no no. Let me tell you why:

1) You can build the tunnels to the right dimensions all you want, but the fact is LRT uses different platform heights and lengths. The length issue can be solved by simply building longer platforms, but then why not just build a subway in the first place if you wouldn't be spending any extra to do so? Changing the platform height would require a pretty substantial (and expensive) overhaul to every station.

2) There are more stations on the proposed LRT line than there were on the proposed subway line (if you're looking at west of Eglinton West). This shorter stop spacing is fine for LRT, because the vehicles are smaller and thus can accelerate and decelerate faster. Subway vehicles can't to the same extend. Changing it to subway later on would hinder it's effectiveness as the trains wouldn't even be able to reach full speed before they'd have to slow down again.

3) This is the big one. How do you think people in Toronto would feel if the line they used to get to work everyday was shut down for a year or more to be "upgraded". They would flip. The travel patterns would drastically change, causing chaos on other routes, or chaos on Eglinton as they would have buses running in mixed traffic every 20 seconds during peak hour to handle the congestion. Ever been stuck on one of those days where a portion of the subway shuts down and they divert everyone onto buses? Yeah, try that for over a year.

Upgrading may seem like a good option on paper, but the station revamping cost and the headache of delays and "temporary service measures" aren't worth it.

 

[nfitz]

2) There are more stations on the proposed LRT line than there were on the proposed subway line (if you're looking at west of Eglinton West).

The spacings are sill further apart than the Bloor-Danforth or the original Yonge line! And some seem exceedingly far apart (Mount Pleasant-Bayview-Brentcliffe). I don't think this is an issue, unless you consider our two busiest lines failures!