Metrolinx: Sheppard East LRT (In Design)

[rbt]

How can it take 4 years to put that LRT in?

The LRT terminates at the end of Don Mills subway platform (no stairs needed to transfer). This requires some tunnelling.

That feature is also much of the cost.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Metrolinx, while it is a government agency, doesn't have an unlimited budget. It needs to spread its projects out so the yearly budget and staff can manage it. I suspect the Crosstown is taking a lot of their time and money this year and next.

I mentioned previously that some people are thinking that ML is working to fast track SELRT funding.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Eglinton being a subway from day one from Pearson to Kennedy would have shut up a lot of people. It would be, Toronto is build a new subway from the airport to Scarborough and people would not be whining in the burbs about subways.I have to agree with Andrew, eglinton should be a subway. I wish they would change, but they won't.

An Eglinton Subway would be almost as poorly used as Sheppard. The assumptions they used to justify Eglinton West back in 1984 didn't pan out as expected.

I suppose that's the one good thing about Harris' ill informed decision to cancel Eglinton West.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

But LRT is cheaper and can carry the amount of people for the density! Who cares if it'll be slower and less suited for long distance trips, it's perfectly adequate for the density and local trips.

There's nothing inherant about subways or LRT that make them better or worse for long distance trips. Build an LRT with 1 km stop spacing on Eglinton, and we'll have an incredibly rapid LRT line.

 

[Palma]

[SUP][/SUP]

There's nothing inherant about subways or LRT that make them better or worse for long distance trips. Build an LRT with 1 km stop spacing on Eglinton, and we'll have an incredibly rapid LRT line.

And thats when complaints will start coming in, having to walk too far for a stop. They can start by canceling Oakwood and many stops east of Don Mills

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

But LRT is cheaper and can carry the amount of people for the density! Who cares if it'll be slower and less suited for long distance trips, it's perfectly adequate for the density and local trips. Oh, and nobody goes to Scarborough or etobicoke, so the need for these long-distance trips is moot.

On a serious note. If the LRT is ever completed to Pearson, I'd be very surprised if somebody is willing to take that trip from Kennedy all the way through to Pearson. IT could go one of two ways. YES they will because there's really no alternative so they have to settle for it. Or no they won't and they'll just use whatever means they were using before like a Taxi because the cost savings and hassle of going on an LRT with luggage won't be worth it.

We now have to shift our view of the Eglinton line towards that of a high capacity local route, and NOT a long-distance route. The sooner we move away from this, the better we'll be and can focus on potential other improvements to cater to these long-distance trips (like Improved GO shuttles between Scarborough and Pearson or better connections to the future 407 transitway or other routes that can better serve the airport.)

An Eglinton Subway would be almost as poorly used as Sheppard. The assumptions they used to justify Eglinton West back in 1984 didn't pan out as expected.

I suppose that's the one good thing about Harris' ill informed decision to cancel Eglinton West.

I don't believe that. I think Eglinton would be well used and take a whole pile of pressure off the buses. I'm with BMO and Andrew on this one, but reality is here. I just hope Eglinton West is started under a new mayoralty. And eglinton subway would have made suburban complaints invaild. BMO I think people would go from Kennedy to Terminal 1 for 3.50 dollars as opposed to the 40 or whatnot it will take now or the 15 plus on the UPX.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I don't believe that. I think Eglinton would be well used and take a whole pile of pressure off the buses.

Take a look at page 7: http://stevemunro.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/201103TransitTechnologyTable.pdf

And the LRT will also be taking a whole pile of pressure off busses.

 

[ehlow]

Take a look at page 7: http://stevemunro.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/201103TransitTechnologyTable.pdf

And the LRT will also be taking a whole pile of pressure off busses.

I've never understood this obsession with connecting North York Centre to Scarborough Town Centre, and why that's a top priority for some politicians. I would think the more common trip is from those two centres to downtown.

I would think CityRail or electric, two-way, all day GO service would help vastly more people.

 

[Electrify]

But I thought Metrolinx was suppose to be independent. Now funding is based on the election. I suppose this is to see which revenue tools will be implemented. Can't believe 10 years after in principle having a SELRT, it takes 10 years before (maybe) the plan is even begun to put shovels in the ground.

It was supposed to open this year, but then Ford declared Transit City dead...

... and the province was too chickenshit to put him in his place.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

It was supposed to open this year, but then Ford declared Transit City dead...

... and the province was too chickenshit to put him in his place.

Thanks for reminding me... the SELRT would have been a huge improvement to parts of my commute. Thankfully I don't travel those parts more than a few times a week.

 

[BMO]

There's nothing inherant about subways or LRT that make them better or worse for long distance trips. Build an LRT with 1 km stop spacing on Eglinton, and we'll have an incredibly rapid LRT line.

My comment was tongue in cheek. I know of-course there's nothing inherently better or worse for either technology (save for capacity which LRT cannot match due to body size and length restrictions), but it's often tossed around that LRT is better for such and such, mainly arguing about it's greater accessibility and higher number of stops making it a so called "city building tool" without acknowledging the need for long-distance trips. The planners are absolutely correct that this area only justifies LRT both with regards to density and existing ridership. What it fails to touch on, though, is the inherent built form in a lot of Toronto that are not destinations in of themselves like we see in Paris or other places where LRTs are used to foster mid-rise avenues. Toronto is very much a city of nodes. Which lays out the issue of having areas of high density with low-density areas in between. I don't have the numbers right in front of me, but I'd say that an LRT does much more to improve local transit than it does as a connection between two high density nodes for instance, specifically when you have it in the middle of the road. This point would obviously be moot if an LRT is completely grade separated at which point we'd see less benefit to local trips and more benefit to longer trips.

I'm sure the planners went through the numbers to find out where the majority of the origin-destinations are for the proposed line. Which stands to point that we shouldn't be making LRTs a panacea for long-distance trips. But acknowledge them for what they are: High-capacity, and efficient transportation for local trips. It stands to reason that even if the whole of Transit City was built as planned, we would still be dealing with the issue of East-west transit from one end of Toronto to the other and I think any plans to cater to commuters from Scarborough going to the Airport would best be served by other options that could be implemented.

 

[ehlow]

My comment was tongue in cheek. I know of-course there's nothing inherently better or worse for either technology (save for capacity which LRT cannot match due to body size and length restrictions), but it's often tossed around that LRT is better for such and such, mainly arguing about it's greater accessibility and higher number of stops making it a so called "city building tool" without acknowledging the need for long-distance trips. The planners are absolutely correct that this area only justifies LRT both with regards to density and existing ridership. What it fails to touch on, though, is the inherent built form in a lot of Toronto that are not destinations in of themselves like we see in Paris or other places where LRTs are used to foster mid-rise avenues. Toronto is very much a city of nodes. Which lays out the issue of having areas of high density with low-density areas in between. I don't have the numbers right in front of me, but I'd say that an LRT does much more to improve local transit than it does as a connection between two high density nodes for instance, specifically when you have it in the middle of the road. This point would obviously be moot if an LRT is completely grade separated at which point we'd see less benefit to local trips and more benefit to longer trips.

I'm sure the planners went through the numbers to find out where the majority of the origin-destinations are for the proposed line. Which stands to point that we shouldn't be making LRTs a panacea for long-distance trips. But acknowledge them for what they are: High-capacity, and efficient transportation for local trips. It stands to reason that even if the whole of Transit City was built as planned, we would still be dealing with the issue of East-west transit from one end of Toronto to the other and I think any plans to cater to commuters from Scarborough going to the Airport would best be served by other options that could be implemented.

These very long range trips like Scarborough to Airport aren't really well served by any transit in general, they wouldn't really be any better served by subways either. I mean, longer trips will be much faster using either LRT or subway compared to local buses, because the stop spacing is much greater, and some riders will do that as they do now on Bloor, but neither subways or LRT really gets you from Scarborough to Mississauga very fast compared to a car.

I think the Eglinton LRT will be similar to the Bloor subway, which will have similar stop spacing & speed and length, it will serve the same kind of trips.

 

[WislaHD]

My gripe about the talk of making Eglinton a route for long-distance trips is that Eglinton, especially in the central portion in Midtown but also to an extent in the Golden Mile in Scarborough, is a corridor that would benefit the most from having a high-capacity local route. Having a long-distance route along Eglinton with development focused at nodes rather than throughout the corridor is a reversal of the trend and ideal of this part of the city, which I remind you is not a suburb. It seems this talk has got its priorities wrong.

Eglinton LRT will still offer a rapid transit route along the Eglinton corridor that is a tons more efficient and rapid than the current bus routes. If the need and demand for an East-West route north of Bloor that could truly serve the purpose of long-distance traveling is there, then the corridor to look at is Sheppard/Finch, not Eglinton. With the one caveat that they don't connect to Pearson but as ehlow says above, long-distance trips to Pearson wouldn't be well served by transit anyway.

 

[BMO]

These very long range trips like Scarborough to Airport aren't really well served by any transit in general, they wouldn't really be any better served by subways either. I mean, longer trips will be much faster using either LRT or subway compared to local buses, because the stop spacing is much greater, and some riders will do that as they do now on Bloor, but neither subways or LRT really gets you from Scarborough to Mississauga very fast compared to a car.

I think the Eglinton LRT will be similar to the Bloor subway, which will have similar stop spacing & speed and length, it will serve the same kind of trips.

Agreed, there's no one definite trip pattern towards the airport. My comment was more geared towards the fact that the system is void of almost ANY rapid solution to getting from one end of the East to the other end at the West.

My gripe about the talk of making Eglinton a route for long-distance trips is that Eglinton, especially in the central portion in Midtown but also to an extent in the Golden Mile in Scarborough, is a corridor that would benefit the most from having a high-capacity local route. Having a long-distance route along Eglinton with development focused at nodes rather than throughout the corridor is a reversal of the trend and ideal of this part of the city, which I remind you is not a suburb. It seems this talk has got its priorities wrong.

Eglinton LRT will still offer a rapid transit route along the Eglinton corridor that is a tons more efficient and rapid than the current bus routes. If the need and demand for an East-West route north of Bloor that could truly serve the purpose of long-distance traveling is there, then the corridor to look at is Sheppard/Finch, not Eglinton. With the one caveat that they don't connect to Pearson but as ehlow says above, long-distance trips to Pearson wouldn't be well served by transit anyway.

Also, agreed. I think Sheppard, even though it has abysmal ridership now, will eventually become a key transit corridor for east/west trips.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

These very long range trips like Scarborough to Airport aren't really well served by any transit in general, they wouldn't really be any better served by subways either. I mean, longer trips will be much faster using either LRT or subway compared to local buses, because the stop spacing is much greater, and some riders will do that as they do now on Bloor, but neither subways or LRT really gets you from Scarborough to Mississauga very fast compared to a car.

I think the Eglinton LRT will be similar to the Bloor subway, which will have similar stop spacing & speed and length, it will serve the same kind of trips.

Exactly.

I have to question the need for midtown transit with long distance trips in mind. We have to remember that for the largest chunks of trips, our Eglinton LRT serves as little more than a feeder route for the subway lines. Most riders will be alighting/boarding at Kennedy, Eglinton-Don Mills (if Relief Line is built there), Yonge or Eglinton-Allen. For the most part, I'd expect riders on ECLRT to pass through no more than five or six stations for their daily commute. Since most of these trips are relatively short, I think it makes sense to built the ECLRT with more local transit in mind rather than sacrificing potential ridership for speed.

The same thing could also be said about Sheppard and most other longitudinal transit corridors in the city.