News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 2.3K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 568     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 1.2K     1 

Eglinton East LRT | Metrolinx

Rainforest said:
It feels that they might have mis-modeled the business case though.

I've seen strangely conflicting statements in one of their recent report: a) Eg East LRT will facilitate Transit-Oriented development and increase the density along the route, and b) The total ridership will remain at the same level as in the base case without LRT.

I can't understand how the two statements can be correct at the same time. Either the density increases, that means there are more riders in the area and many of them moved in because of the LRT; then the ridership will increase. Or, the ridership doesn't increase, means no additional riders; then how would the density grow.

Feels like they are embarassed that the project lingers without funding for so many years, and twist the business case (either on purpose or subconsciously) to make it look less worthy.
Click to expand...
More riders from TOD, less riders from SSE/GO Expansion?
 
APTA-2048 said:
Building a light rail line that is slower than the bus seems more like a failure in policy and planning than technology.
Click to expand...
I think a good rule of thumb is that planned transit should be time competitive with the dominant or fastest mode of travel in the area. At least faster than what transit already exists. This typically means the further out you are, or the longer a line is, the faster it ought to be (especially given a suburban character).

As it stands, we are not prioritizing speed or cost efficiency, because if we were LRT would not be chosen. Eg East feels like a remnant of the city-building ambitions of transit city. Fine, sure, but thats not going to materially improving the transit needs of the community.

This disconnect requires someone to clearly state the project’s priorities as to why we are sticking with LRT. If it’s a development tool, just say that. Because right now it is a bad *transit* project, and is probably part of why Metrolinx doesn’t want in.
 
Sunnyside said:
I think a good rule of thumb is that planned transit should be time competitive with the dominant or fastest mode of travel in the area. At least faster than what transit already exists. This typically means the further out you are, or the longer a line is, the faster it ought to be (especially given a suburban character).

As it stands, we are not prioritizing speed or cost efficiency, because if we were LRT would not be chosen. Eg East feels like a remnant of the city-building ambitions of transit city. Fine, sure, but thats not going to materially improving the transit needs of the community.

This disconnect requires someone to clearly state the project’s priorities as to why we are sticking with LRT. If it’s a development tool, just say that. Because right now it is a bad *transit* project, and is probably part of why Metrolinx doesn’t want in.
Click to expand...
Even so, they didn't have to botch the tunnel. This is why people don't like them. This should be a through project. But the TTC is at fault too. They don't want to operate a long line.
 
robmausser said:
I tend to agree with people here; unless this was an extension of the existing Crosstown LRT, I see no reason for it not to be a BRT.
Click to expand...
There is the issue of passenger capacity, Eglinton east of Kennedy is one of the busiest bus corridors in the city. Most riders are going to or from the subway anyway, it's not worth the operational issues and significant extra cost to build it as a through running line.
 
Voltz said:
There is the issue of passenger capacity, Eglinton east of Kennedy is one of the busiest bus corridors in the city. Most riders are going to or from the subway anyway, it's not worth the operational issues and significant extra cost to build it as a through running line.
Click to expand...
Also, the city just can't comprehend not having at least one unnecessary transfer at Kennedy station. With the SRT being torn down they had to find another way to get it back.

I still however stand by BRT. There are now double bendy buses, I see them all over latin america and they work fine.

Speaking of passenger capacity, has anyone run the models of how GO-RER coming to 3 of the GO stations that this LRT line will touch will affect ridership?

I'm wondering if frequent electric service all day coupled with some kind of fare integration won't steal ridership from the route.
 
robmausser said:
Also, the city just can't comprehend not having at least one unnecessary transfer at Kennedy station. With the SRT being torn down they had to find another way to get it back.

I still however stand by BRT. There are now double bendy buses, I see them all over latin america and they work fine.

Speaking of passenger capacity, has anyone run the models of how GO-RER coming to 3 of the GO stations that this LRT line will touch will affect ridership?

I'm wondering if frequent electric service all day coupled with some kind of fare integration won't steal ridership from the route.
Click to expand...
I really don’t think a local LRT would compete with a regional rail line; the nature of trips are just too different in scale. They’ll compliment each other rather than compete, If anything. Anyone near the sections north of Eglinton could be fed into LSE or all the way to Kennedy (although that’s better if your west of Kingston/Eg). Plus, it is a direct link to UTSC, so people on GO Stouffville or LSE can get there with only one transfer. Not to mention, WB LSE riders could get to Kennedy pretty easily.

The line as planned will be better at facilitating all these shorter trip patterns, so full end-to-end travel isn’t make-or-break, which is nice. But it’s still questionable if the service quality isn’t materially different.
 
Sunnyside said:
I really don’t think a local LRT would compete with a regional rail line; the nature of trips are just too different in scale. They’ll compliment each other rather than compete, If anything. Anyone near the sections north of Eglinton could be fed into LSE or all the way to Kennedy (although that’s better if your west of Kingston/Eg). Plus, it is a direct link to UTSC, so people on GO Stouffville or LSE can get there with only one transfer. Not to mention, WB LSE riders could get to Kennedy pretty easily.

The line as planned will be better at facilitating all these shorter trip patterns, so full end-to-end travel isn’t make-or-break, which is nice. But it’s still questionable if the service quality isn’t materially different.
Click to expand...
You're right, but the big question is whether or not there is enough demand to justify the increased capacity of LRT, especially for $4B
 
LemonCondo said:
When will we learn to stop building stupid trams?

There's a reason Vancouver and Montreal aren't doing this, and Calgary and Edmonton are.

CHEAPNESS!
Click to expand...

Don't bring poor Calgary into this equation. Yes, Calgary has Light Rail Transit but quite unlike Eglinton & Finch, it is also Light RAPID Transit.

Calgary's CTrain uses old rail corridors, highway medians, overpasses, rail crossing guards, and 100% signal priority and the result is that it is as fast and reliable as any Metro system. Yes, the downtown section is slower but it still has it's own transit-only corridor thru the whole downtown. Building a tunnel at the time would have been too expensive for a city of 600,000 when it was first built due to downtown Calgary having a very high water table. It decided it was a better use of funds to build several lines serving hundreds of more destinations and tens of thousands of more people. Edmonton did the opposite and built a small system with a subway and hence it only gets one-third the ridership of the CTrain. In the next 8 years Calgary will be adding another 40 km of RAPID LRT transit to it's system including a downtown tunnel.

Calgary has built rapid transit while Toronto is building is building glorified streetcars. When considering CT only serves a city of about 1.4 million, Calgary has the best damn transit system in the country.
 
Last edited:
ssiguy2 said:
Calgary has the best damn transit system in the country.
Click to expand...

NorthAmericanPublicTransport.png


I would say the best transit system is the one people actually use.
 
ssiguy2 said:
Don't bring poor Calgary into this equation. Yes, Calgary has Light Rail Transit but quite unlike Eglinton & Finch, it is also Light RAPID Transit.

Calgary's CTrain uses old rail corridors, highway medians, overpasses, rail crossing guards, and 100% signal priority and the result is that it is as fast and reliable as any Metro system. Yes, the downtown section is slower but it still has it's own transit-only corridor thru the whole downtown. Building a tunnel at the time would have been too expensive for a city of 600,000 when it was first built due to downtown Calgary having a very high water table. It decided it was a better use of funds to build several lines serving hundreds of more destinations and tens of thousands of more people. Edmonton did the opposite and built a small system with a subway and hence it only gets one-third the ridership of the CTrain. In the next 8 years Calgary will be adding another 40 km of RAPID LRT transit to it's system including a downtown tunnel.

Calgary has built rapid transit while Toronto is building is building glorified streetcars. When considering CT only serves a city of about 1.4 million, Calgary has the best damn transit system in the country.
Click to expand...
Rapid? The downtown section is a glorified streetcar. It takes up to 20 minutes to travel through the downtown core (pre-pandemic) and have similar loading issues like the Yonge Line in rush hour (pre-pandemic). They dwell over a minute at each station for boarding and waiting for the lights. It's basically like King Street.

Reliable? I guess you never tried to take it during a snowstorm where it's half functional. I would say TTC subway runs better in a snowstorm. I guess the lower number of idiots roaming around make it better. Bringing the same system to Toronto would probably result in similar "rider caused" incidences.

Is it a functional system? If you live beside a station, good for you. You have access to great train service. What if you live a kilometer away? Good luck, just drive if it's not rush hour. The bus network is just not there unlike the TTC where you can get across the city. Calgary buses loop around infrequently in the burbs to catch people to the stations. Since they are build in the middle of the highway or railway, it's definitely not pedestrian friendly to walk to the stations. What good is fast trains when you can't get to it? The indeed employ a go train-like commuter parking to get drivers to the stations. Living car-less in Calgary is much worst than Toronto.
 
^^^^. I agree and that exemplifies how incredibly successful CT has been.

Just look at those figures you posted. Calgary has higher ridership than much bigger and much older Philly, Boston, Wash, and SF. It has the same ridership levels as Vancouver despite only serving a population half it's size. It is lower than Ottawa but Ottawa was a much larger city post-war when the suburban sprawl started. It only had 130,000 in 1951 so 90% of the city is post-war and yet it has an incredibly high ridership level. As I stated when you consider Calgary's size compared to other cities in NA, Calgary is in a league of own. Ottawa could be if they ever decides to build a rapid transit system that actually works and even then it will be much smaller than Calgary's.

Calgary is the poster-child of how a post-war city can build a large and fast rail network at an affordable rate that people will actually use. Easterners may still consider Calgarians just a bunch of urban cowboys but these cowboys sure as hell know how to build transit
 
Steve X.....................what part of "when considering Calgary's population" didn't you understand? Of course it's not as good as the transit in Toronto because the GTA has 6X Calgary's population.

As I originally stated, one cannot compare the streetcars Toronto is building with the Light RAPID Rail transit that Calgary has.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top