Eglinton East LRT | Metrolinx

[Rainforest]

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2019/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-131528.pdf

The current recommended solution, 45 metre trains, would need a train every 2.5 minutes to handle that level of passenger demand. Which is right at the upper level of potential frequency for the corridor, if not higher.

We do not know if that 7,400 demand forecast is per hour, or per the whole morning rush period (~ 3 hours). The report isn't clear on that.

The required train type / size / frequency needed for 7,400 per hour is quite different from what's needed for 2,500 per hour. For 7,400, a street-median LRT would be near the capacity limit, and something more advanced should at least be considered. On the other hand, 2,500 is an easy job for the street-median LRT.

 

[nfitz]

We do not know if that 7,400 demand forecast is per hour, or per the whole morning rush period (~ 3 hours). The report isn't clear on that.

The peak hourly demand (per direction) for the Eglinton Crosstown was only just over 5,000. It doesn't seem that 7,400 would be just an hour (in one direction).

Are there any clues in the approved Transit City EA?

 

[Steve X]

The peak hourly demand (per direction) for the Eglinton Crosstown was only just over 5,000. It doesn't seem that 7,400 would be just an hour (in one direction).

Are there any clues in the approved Transit City EA?

That could be the forecast for many years later while 5,000 ppdph is for the near future from the transit city EA. ML had the crosstown peaking at 12k (westbound at Yonge in AM) back in 2012 with the combine SRT+ entire 19km crosstown line tunneled. However the forecast is around 7k (eb at Cadervale in AM) for the currently constructed mix tunnel + surface ROW.

The report is here: https://www.metrolinx.com/en/region...itscases/Benefits_Case-Eglinton_Crosstown.pdf

I also think the "near future" for the transit city EA is for year 2021 which we already know actual demand was a big fat ZERO!

 

[innsertnamehere]

We do not know if that 7,400 demand forecast is per hour, or per the whole morning rush period (~ 3 hours). The report isn't clear on that.

The required train type / size / frequency needed for 7,400 per hour is quite different from what's needed for 2,500 per hour. For 7,400, a street-median LRT would be near the capacity limit, and something more advanced should at least be considered. On the other hand, 2,500 is an easy job for the street-median LRT.

The direct qoute:

In the case where the EELRT is built, future travel demand modelling estimates that peak hour ridership in the busiest direction in the morning peak period would be approximately 7,400 riders on the LRT and on buses in the corridor.

So yes, we do know it's peak hour.

 

[Rainforest]

The direct qoute:

In the case where the EELRT is built, future travel demand modelling estimates that peak hour ridership in the busiest direction in the morning peak period would be approximately 7,400 riders on the LRT and on buses in the corridor.

So yes, we do know it's peak hour.

I guess you are right. I was not sure if "peak hour" is the literal 1-hour period when 7,400 riders are expected, or a synonym of "peak period".

If so, then they forecast an unusually high peak ridership for a surface corridor with few feeder routes. No other street service in Toronto gets anywhere close to 7,000+ riders per hour. King streetcar and Dufferin bus are way below that.

In fact, Sheppard subway is below that (~ 5,500), SRT is below that (~ 5,000, the demand is probably higher but the capacity limit is achieved), and the forecast for tunneled ECLRT is below that (5,500 to 7,000 according to various reports).

 

[innsertnamehere]

It does include buses and the LRT on the corridor, so I imagine the LRT would be a bit lower.

The Line is ultimately quite long though and has a lot of time to build ridership without any "transfer off" points.

 

[kalis0490]

Unironically, A better value proposition than to built the Eglinton East as is would be to extend the Sheppard subway to UTSC in the next subway expansion, and keep the bus lanes until a proper cheap grade separate solution can be built

 

[Voltz]

Unironically, A better value proposition than to built the Eglinton East as is would be to extend the Sheppard subway to UTSC in the next subway expansion, and keep the bus lanes until a proper cheap grade separate solution can be built

This boggles my mind, spending how many billions to build a subway out that far where there is no rational reason for it, and for the purpose of building something else cheap. wow.

 

[Rainforest]

Unironically, A better value proposition than to built the Eglinton East as is would be to extend the Sheppard subway to UTSC in the next subway expansion, and keep the bus lanes until a proper cheap grade separate solution can be built

I think that's only doable if Sheppard is converted to a lighter train type, something similar to the OL trains. And even then, that would be a long-shot project, not the immediate priority.

 

[TRONto]

Unironically, A better value proposition than to built the Eglinton East as is would be to extend the Sheppard subway to UTSC in the next subway expansion, and keep the bus lanes until a proper cheap grade separate solution can be built

That seems like a good potential route option. The question is whether it's a good spend of ~$5 billion at this time (using SSE cost/km).

 

[ARG1]

That seems like a good potential route option. The question is whether it's a good spend of ~$5 billion at this time (using SSE cost/km).

as long as you don't build it as deep and overbuilt as SSE, it shouldn't be $5B (at least if we ignore inflation)

 

[TossYourJacket]

as long as you don't build it as deep and overbuilt as SSE, it shouldn't be $5B (at least if we ignore inflation)

It's Toronto, we'll probably somehow overbuild it even more, as part of some politician's effort to pander to voters who think deeper tunnels are always good.

 

[SashaLemon]

I agree; though the problems w/the optics are pretty obvious. You have a report suggesting that a transfer, not merely from Line 2, but the ECLRT will be needed, which may be entirely reasonable, but which will instantly recall for people here the SRT transfer to Kennedy that so many disliked. A transfer not merely disliked because its a transfer, but because it was also a convoluted transfer requiring one to traverse multiple levels and escalators etc.
The report then goes on to suggest that may we should use smaller vehicles............ The SRT of course also used relatively small vehicles and its capacity was relatively quickly maxed out; leaving people to immediately think of overcrowding.
The cherry on top is the travel time being the same as it is today, or perhaps even negligibly worse. The version of the EELRT as proposed in the report I would oppose; I simply don't see any ROI.



Based on the enormous development proposals for the Golden Mile area, burying the whole thing was pretty much essential (if what's proposed gets built, there is a good chance it will exceed the design capacity in a comparatively short time)

Since the Western extension is grade separated, and we have not touched this one yet, I think it would be wise to build this extension elevated so that all we have to worry about is converting the small non-separated part. Open the line sure, but then tunnel under it when its in operation. Or build it elevated off to the north or south where possible:

 

[Amare]

Since the Western extension is grade separated, and we have not touched this one yet, I think it would be wise to build this extension elevated so that all we have to worry about is converting the small non-separated part. Open the line sure, but then tunnel under it when its in operation. Or build it elevated off to the north or south where possible:
View attachment 423731

As long as this is a city-led project, there's a 0% chance Eglinton East will be tunneled or elevated. As we saw when the city was in charge of the Eglinton West project, they will do everything in their power to ensure all other options asides from at-grade look like absolute trash.

 

[nfitz]

Since the Western extension is grade separated, and we have not touched this one yet, I think it would be wise to build this extension elevated so that all we have to worry about is converting the small non-separated part.

What eastern extension?

As discussed earlier, the plans to extend this line further east have been cancelled, in favour of a completely separate surface LRT - which TTC is currently calling Line 7.