Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[Steve X]

This. This a million times over. Look at most LRT systems in the USA and Calgary/Edmonton. They are not run like streetcars, in the median of a street (except for sometimes downtown sections in small parts). They run in hydro corridors, Rail ROWS, in the median of a highway (with grade sep) or streets that are closed to cars and converted to rail corridors.They are elevated, tunneled, etc. They are fenced off so that people can't trespass and that allows them to run at higher speeds (unlike the Queens Quay disaster, for example)

The problem with Transit City and Toronto is that we have a legacy streetcar system that clouds our judgement on what an LRT should be.

Haven't we discovered that stations located on highway and hydro corridors aren't easily accessible by pedestrians? It usually involves dodging cars or worrying about safety at night on a low use station. Look at the entrance of Wilson, Lawrence West or Ellesmere. You would want to take a bus out for a couple of stops instead of walking.

 

[ssiguy2]

I don think anyone is stating that Toronto is not getting a better standard of service than they have now. The portion underground will be reasonable fast even if it has too many stations, and the eastern portion will still offer a more comfortable and pleasant ride which should not be discounted. This however is not the point.

The point is that Toronto is getting an LRT at subway prices. If you are spending a fortune you should be getting the gold standard. It not so much that they built LRT as it is that they are not getting value for the dollar.

 

[H4F33Z]

Haven't we discovered that stations located on highway and hydro corridors aren't easily accessible by pedestrians? It usually involves dodging cars or worrying about safety at night on a low use station. Look at the entrance of Wilson, Lawrence West or Ellesmere. You would want to take a bus out for a couple of stops instead of walking.

I will however say, that express services on hydro corridors and highways are amazing!

 

[Streety McCarface]

Those LRT systems are the highest level of transit those cities have, they have to perform the role that our Subways and GO Trains fill.

Eglinton is getting rapid transit, if a real rapid transit line had been planned it would have never made it east of Don Mills, and no one would have thought it should have. We are better off with what we are getting, a long underground rapid transit line that continues transfer free to a high capacity traffic free line..

And cities, such as LA, Boston, Denver, Philadelphia, and Newark don't exist? Because those cities also have either electrified regional rail, a subway system, or both.

Haven't we discovered that stations located on highway and hydro corridors aren't easily accessible by pedestrians? It usually involves dodging cars or worrying about safety at night on a low use station. Look at the entrance of Wilson, Lawrence West or Ellesmere. You would want to take a bus out for a couple of stops instead of walking.

And yet Wilson, Yorkdale, Sheppard West, Eglinton West, and Lawrence West still get great ridership.

You can very easily build a subway/rapid transit in a freeway median/hydro corridor and make it work — You just need to integrate it with your local surface network, and ensure your line's frequency isn't 3 TPH.

 

[robmausser]

Haven't we discovered that stations located on highway and hydro corridors aren't easily accessible by pedestrians? It usually involves dodging cars or worrying about safety at night on a low use station. Look at the entrance of Wilson, Lawrence West or Ellesmere. You would want to take a bus out for a couple of stops instead of walking.

No, its just rhetoric people use when they want to support one ideology over the other

Notice how no one complains that the REM is using a highway corridor?

 

[W. K. Lis]

And cities, such as LA, Boston, Denver, Philadelphia, and Newark don't exist? Because those cities also have either electrified regional rail, a subway system, or both.

And yet Wilson, Yorkdale, Sheppard West, Eglinton West, and Lawrence West still get great ridership.

You can very easily build a subway/rapid transit in a freeway median/hydro corridor and make it work — You just need to integrate it with your local surface network, and ensure your line's frequency isn't 3 TPH.

The old Eglinton West Station was built in the median of the "Allen Expressway" (now "Allen Road"). Patrons had to cross the on or off ramps of the Allen to get to or from the entrance of the Station.

With the revised Cedarvale Station, there are now entrances to the station without having to cross the on or off ramps. And an entrance on the south side of Eglinton. These improvements would benefit the patrons who use the station.

From link.

 

[syn]

I don think anyone is stating that Toronto is not getting a better standard of service than they have now. The portion underground will be reasonable fast even if it has too many stations, and the eastern portion will still offer a more comfortable and pleasant ride which should not be discounted. This however is not the point.

The point is that Toronto is getting an LRT at subway prices. If you are spending a fortune you should be getting the gold standard. It not so much that they built LRT as it is that they are not getting value for the dollar.

It's a relatively long line. As a subway you're probably looking at double the cost, minimum.

Ford's plan to bury the whole thing and take it to STC doubled the cost, and that was a decade ago.

 

[syn]

Cars.

People who have the will and means to drive downtown or across the city were probably not going to take transit anyways - even if it was a full-fledged subway.

 

[11th]

People who have the will and means to drive downtown or across the city were probably not going to take transit anyways - even if it was a full-fledged subway.

That is a generalization. Me and most of my friends who live around/north of the 401 will choose transit when it suits them (park and ride at a suburban station), and drive to almost everywhere else not downtown. Even if they are to drive downtown, it's mostly a full carpool or the entire family.

 

[afransen]

People who have the will and means to drive downtown or across the city were probably not going to take transit anyways - even if it was a full-fledged subway.

This thinking creates a vicious cycle of poor transit service and low ridership. This is why the US has awful transit--only poor people take the bus.

People will use the transport mode that creates the most value for them, where value is a combination of speed, convenience, cost and comfort. It is plainly wrong that people who own cars will use only them for the trips they make. Speed is critical in increasing transit ridership as many people will only consider switching from driving when it is faster.

 

[syn]

That is a generalization. Me and most of my friends who live around/north of the 401 will choose transit when it suits them (park and ride at a suburban station), and drive to almost everywhere else not downtown. Even if they are to drive downtown, it's mostly a full carpool or the entire family.

That was my point.

I'm not saying everyone with a car will drive. I was questioning the idea that the Eglinton LRT will provide such poor service that people will choose to drive instead.

This thinking creates a vicious cycle of poor transit service and low ridership. This is why the US has awful transit--only poor people take the bus.

People will use the transport mode that creates the most value for them, where value is a combination of speed, convenience, cost and comfort. It is plainly wrong that people who own cars will use only them for the trips they make. Speed is critical in increasing transit ridership as many people will only consider switching from driving when it is faster.

That's not what I'm suggesting at all.

The US has awful transit for reasons that go beyond attitudes. I'd argue a consistent lack of investment in transit helps to foster such negative attitudes. It's certainly not true in areas of the US where transit sees heavy investments.

That isn't what's happening here. The Eglinton LRT certainly isn't perfect but I think terming it 'poor transit service' is extreme.

I asked:

"Are you telling me Scarborough residents won't use the Eglinton LRT because they'll deem it beneath them?

It's an essential service. What will they use instead? "

Your answer was "Cars".

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Are you really suggesting the Eglinton LRT will be so far below an acceptable level of service that people will be compelled to drive instead?

 

[afransen]

Some will, because it is slower than it could have been.

 

[JSF-1]

This thinking creates a vicious cycle of poor transit service and low ridership. This is why the US has awful transit--only poor people take the bus.

People will use the transport mode that creates the most value for them, where value is a combination of speed, convenience, cost and comfort. It is plainly wrong that people who own cars will use only them for the trips they make. Speed is critical in increasing transit ridership as many people will only consider switching from driving when it is faster.

I think another thing that needs to be understood about getting people out of cars and onto transit isn't just the transit line itself but the convenience of driving. I know over here in North America it is a sacrilegious idea but one of the things that needs to be accepted is the fact that building transit alone won't get people out of their cars. You also need to make driving itself less desirable. This is one of the less talked about reasons for why transit usage is so high over in Europe and East Asia, its because driving over there comes with more "baggage" then over here. Planners over there have absolutely no qualms with taking away driving lanes for things like Bike Lanes, pedestrian space, or transit lanes whereas over here its like pulling teeth from a dog. You also have things like congestion charges like in London, streets being closed to car traffic entirely like in Madrid, or the incredible expense of owning a car in Japan. Then of course there is the question of our atrocious urban planning practises that also lends itself to the car culture we have over here and further hurts the ability of public transit to be used and be built.

 

[daniel_kryz]

I think another thing that needs to be understood about getting people out of cars and onto transit isn't just the transit line itself but the convenience of driving. I know over here in North America it is a sacrilegious idea but one of the things that needs to be accepted is the fact that building transit alone won't get people out of their cars. You also need to make driving itself less desirable. This is one of the less talked about reasons for why transit usage is so high over in Europe and East Asia, its because driving over there comes with more "baggage" then over here. Planners over there have absolutely no qualms with taking away driving lanes for things like Bike Lanes, pedestrian space, or transit lanes whereas over here its like pulling teeth from a dog, and in Japan for example owing a car is incredibly expensive with both the insurance and the many taxes imposed upon car owners (not to mention every national highway is tolled).

Definitely agree about this. However, I don't think making driving more expensive would be the solution. It would make more sense to readapt our cities for people, rather than taxing drivers. There will always be drivers (although hopefully in the minority), so there's no point to make their lives more expensive if the real issue (car-oriented cities and bad infrastructure) isn't solved.

 

[syn]

Some will, because it is slower than it could have been.

Some may - but that's what I was getting at.

@superelevation wrote:

"build low quality transit and nobody will ride it and it will confirm your belief that demand could never have been high."

Whatever our qualms over the ELRT, calling it 'low quality transit' seems completely unreasonable to me.

It's difficult to imagine a significant number of riders choosing their car over this line because a portion of it isn't underground. Especially with a connection to the OL.