|
|
|
Eglinton East LRT | Metrolinx
- Thread starter W. K. Lis
- Start date
SaugeenJunction
Senior Member
I just realized this. With Eglinton East being a distinct line now (Line 7?) and it being a TTC not Metrolinx project, it’s likely we will see LRVs in TTC colours.
KhalilHeron
Active Member
Half of their reasons for not continuing with the tunnelled option are just due to poor planning and foreign by the province on the SSE... so really this subway designed to eliminate a linear transfer is just creating another one... typical
nfitz
Superstar
I'll predict this proposal is dead in the water, with all the issues raised. Sad, as they haven't even started building the new subway tail tracks and running tunnel at Kennedy. Metrolinx and it's engineering consultants really cocked this up. They were 100% aware of the LRT alignment and elevations.
Amare
Senior Member
Ironically eliminating the transfer was the main reason in justifying the subway extension and why various parties were against an LRT replacement of the SRT.
Toronto politicians never cease to amaze in their stupidity.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
not really how I'd describe it as the transfer today is to STC which will be eliminated, while the bus transfer to go to UTSC is already there and nobody really complains about it.
I suspect most EELRT riders would transfer to the subway at Kennedy anyway and aren't impacted by this. The only ones impacted are those who would continue along Eglinton, of which I suspect there aren't a ton of.
TRONto
Active Member
With the latest changes since this was proposed - losing the direct connection and the extension of line 2 deeper into Scarborough, it may be better to spend the money on creating a proper BRT network within Scarborough. Maybe instead of ending at Malvern this line should end at Sheppard/McCowan
smallspy
Senior Member
And yet, when the original line was planned it was going to be a separate line because - spoiler - the number of people who would actually be riding through was so low as to not warrant the effort.
You also seem to forget that the majority of the people currently leaving Kennedy Station in the mornings are doing so on the subway. And guess where they are coming from? And do they have a transfer now?
Dan
11th
Senior Member
So either TTC colour + 500 series route number (516 or similar), or grey cars + "line 7".
SaugeenJunction
Senior Member
I’d guess we will get red cars and “Line 7”. The TTC will not give Scarborough a 500 series number as people will call it a streetcar not “LRT” and grey LRVs is a Metrolinx thing.
Rainforest
Senior Member
Thanks for the links!
Finally I got time to read the report. I wasn't impressed; it looks like the authors cannot make a strong case for LRT on Eglinton East:
1. They want smaller LRVs, to reduce the footprint and minimize the impact on the Highland Creek valley.
Fair enough. However, this negates one of the key advantages of LRT over buses: higher capacity. Will the capacity of those smaller LRVs be any bigger than the capacity of artic buses? If not, then they should consider “Option 3”: median BRT lanes.
2. The loss of the direct connection to ECLRT, due to the SSE tunnel being in the way. Again, fair enough. And, one can blame the SSE design team, that was certainly aware of the EE LRT plans and could accommodate the LRT tunnel from the east, but chose to neglect that element.
The benefits of ECLRT connection wouldn’t be limited to avoiding the transfer for those who want to continue along Eglinton. There would be operational benefits, too.
Currently, the MSF for ECLRT is placed on the west side, near Mt Dennis. In the morning there is more demand towards the centre than towards the suburbs. But the LRVs that serve the demand from Kennedy towards Yonge, will first have to travel from Mt Dennis all the way to Kennedy. If there was at least a non-revenue connection between ECLRT and EELRT, then some of the ECLRT vehicles could be stored in the EELRT’s MSF overnight, and they could get to Kennedy faster in the morning.
Plus, additional opportunities would exist to deal with planned repairs, as well as accidental blockages. If all those operational benefits are out, then one point is subtracted from the LRT option’s score.
3. They are dropping the tunnel at Kennedy for a good reason, but that doesn’t explain why they are dropping the underground station at Lawrence / Morningside as well. There are no constructability issues with that station. If they are doing that to cut the costs, they should say so. However, the cost reduction will not be that big, and won’t improve the chances of this project getting funded.
4. The authors do not expect the LRT travel times to improve compared to the existing RedTO bus lanes (Table 5 on Page 27).
Moreover, the transit ridership impact from the LRT is stated as negative (-4,700, continuation of Table 5 on Page 28). This could be a modeling mistake: they only counted riders boarding in the LRT corridor for the LRT’s total count, while the Bus RedTO’s total count includes the boardings on Guildwood, Meadowvale, Morningside north of Sheppard, etc. The actual count for the LRT option might be better than their estimate.
But even then, if they do not forecast a growth in ridership, then how can they expect a positive "city building" impact of the LRT (Page 18)? If residents and businesses settle next to higher-order transit, they aren’t doing so because the rails are cool, or because they can shout "Bingo!" when an LRV is coming. If they settle next to higher-order transit, then they want to use that higher-order transit. And then, the forecast ridership counts have to go up. If they don't go up, then there is no "city building" impact.
Rainforest
Senior Member
All of the above must lead to one of three possible conclusions:
Either, LRT is not a good option for the EELRT corridor.
Or, LRT is a good option, but should be designed differently.
Or, LRT is a good option and the design concept is fine, but the authors of the report made mistakes in their modeling, and aren't presenting the LRT option accurately.
Either, LRT is not a good option for the EELRT corridor.
Or, LRT is a good option, but should be designed differently.
Or, LRT is a good option and the design concept is fine, but the authors of the report made mistakes in their modeling, and aren't presenting the LRT option accurately.
north-of-anything
Active Member
If they're really stretching to justify an LRT here, my thoughts are that it might be better to give Kingston Road rapid transit service from East Toronto to Morningside, and just have a terminal for transferring to Eglinton East and/or Markham Road. That would cover more ground, but also it might be easier than working multiple turns into a service that has to cross in front of traffic.
The city would be better served with throwing all of the LRT weight into the Waterfront projects and maybe Queensway or St Clair.
The city would be better served with throwing all of the LRT weight into the Waterfront projects and maybe Queensway or St Clair.
sixrings
Senior Member
True. The suburbs don’t want more streetcars.
CapitalSeven
Senior Member
We're focusing on the transfer to subway, but are forgetting that with the preferred at-grade terminus, the end of the platform would be less than 100 feet, with no change in grade, from the outbound GO platform. You could theoretically be off the train and on the tram in well under a minute.
It's frustrating to have ridden fast light rail and higher-order trams around the world that zip along through urban areas, while in Toronto it seems impossible to build anything that isn't slower than a bus. Spadina is a difficult case in that it crosses four other busy streetcar lines, and you can't give them all priority. But the disaster that is the line from Union to Exhibition is baffling. The fundamentalist article of faith that left turns have to go first is the most obvious symptom.
Last edited: