News   Jul 16, 2024
News Roundup for July 16, 2024
 233     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
The Urban Jungle
 361     0 
News   Jul 15, 2024
Sculptural Pre-Cast Panels Now Adorning ANX Near Dupont Station
 1.1K     3 

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

innsertnamehere said:
I don't think so. The lights are far enough apart that it can easily run like the Calgary LRT. there are 9 lights to the Future Renforth Terminal, 2 of which can probably be eliminated. That makes less than 1 light per km.
Click to expand...

ehlow said:
In my opinion, no. The main advantage of elevated is skipping the traffic lights, however, driving on Eglinton along that route you rarely hit many red lights anyways.

I'd think that the elevated stations would require elevators and escalators, and require TTC staff. A surface stop would be much cheaper, it would be like the St Clair or Spadina stops, a simple shelter with some ticketing machines, no staff required. This seems appropriate since I don't think the stations along Eglinton West will get a huge amount of ridership.
Click to expand...

The Eglinton West bus is busier then Eglinton East right? I think either one would be good. I would prefer surface since that can be built faster and for less cash.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
The Eglinton West bus is busier then Eglinton East right? I think either one would be good. I would prefer surface since that can be built faster and for less cash.
Click to expand...

While Eglinton West does get higher ridership than Eg East, it's hard to judge on that alone because Lawrence East has a very high ridership and goes on Eglinton until Leslie. A lot of ridership gets on/off between Yonge & Leslie. Several other routes use Eglinton east: Leslie, Leaside, Flemington Park.

The other consideration is: how much of the Eglinton West ridership is on the section between Black Creek & Mississauga, where the west Eglinton extension will be?

I'm not saying there won't be high ridership, just not a huge amount. The stops on that stretch of Yonge don't have a lot around them.
 
ehlow said:
My hunch was right then. I have the feeling that the most probable way for the Eglinton West extension to become funded & approved is if it's cheap & fast to construct.
Click to expand...

I don't think that low ridership on the western part of the 32 bus really indicates low ridership on the Eglinton line. The 32 bus is a really slow way to get to the employment areas south of the airport, and does not go to the airport terminal. The Eglinton line would be much faster, and given how ridiculous the 401 traffic problems are (caused mostly by large numbers of people going to work near the airport) I think many people will want to use it. If making the line grade separated to double capacity doesn't cost very much why aren't we doing it?
 
rule #1 of transit planning: don't build transit lines to directly serve corridors served by car. the car wins. every. single. time. case and point: Sheppard. on a direct corridor driving is always faster, especially considering how the vast majority of drivers on the 401 come from elsewhere that the Eglinton or sheppard lines don't serve.
 
Since when was the first rule of transit planning "don't build transit lines to directly serve corridors served by the car"?
 
andrewpmk said:
I don't think that low ridership on the western part of the 32 bus really indicates low ridership on the Eglinton line. The 32 bus is a really slow way to get to the employment areas south of the airport, and does not go to the airport terminal. The Eglinton line would be much faster, and given how ridiculous the 401 traffic problems are (caused mostly by large numbers of people going to work near the airport) I think many people will want to use it. If making the line grade separated to double capacity doesn't cost very much why aren't we doing it?
Click to expand...

Fair enough re: 32 bus ridership, but I'm extremely skeptical that traffic on the 401 means Eglinton west of Jane would have huge ridership. I think the central, urban part will have greatest ridership as it does now.

I'm also skeptical of your claim that making it elevated "doesn't cost very much". Do you know of any cost estimates? I would think you would need an elevated structure and stations similar to the Vancouver Skytrain, which to me seems like it would cost much more than a simple surface shelter.

I don't think building the highest capacity possible is always a good thing, if that capacity isn't needed, and if it drives up the cost making a short line that can't be extended. Example: Sheppard subway. The great thing about choosing LRT for Eglinton is that the western extension is possible, and we can have a long continuous line without having to transfer.
 
innsertnamehere said:
rule #1 of transit planning: don't build transit lines to directly serve corridors served by car. the car wins. every. single. time. case and point: Sheppard. on a direct corridor driving is always faster, especially considering how the vast majority of drivers on the 401 come from elsewhere that the Eglinton or sheppard lines don't serve.
Click to expand...

Right, I don't see how putting subways beside highways is a good general policy. Look at the subway on Allen Rd, or Sheppard. Highways tend to create extremely low density areas filled with industrial parks and parking lots that are very difficult to serve with transit, and destinations near the highway tend to be so dispersed that there are huge walks to the nearest station.

The lines with highest ridership tend to be urban areas with both feeder buses & some density like Yonge, Bloor, Queen, King, Eglinton.
 
ehlow said:
Fair enough re: 32 bus ridership, but I'm extremely skeptical that traffic on the 401 means Eglinton west of Jane would have huge ridership. I think the central, urban part will have greatest ridership as it does now.

I'm also skeptical of your claim that making it elevated "doesn't cost very much". Do you know of any cost estimates? I would think you would need an elevated structure and stations similar to the Vancouver Skytrain, which to me seems like it would cost much more than a simple surface shelter.

I don't think building the highest capacity possible is always a good thing, if that capacity isn't needed, and if it drives up the cost making a short line that can't be extended. Example: Sheppard subway. The great thing about choosing LRT for Eglinton is that the western extension is possible, and we can have a long continuous line without having to transfer.
Click to expand...

A lot of the people that would use Eglinton west are going to Kipling , Islinton subway stations and the Dixon bus. The western leg would up those riders and reduce a 3 transfer ride to a 1 transfer ride(get off at Eglinton West subway station or Y/E).
 
Ridership on the Eglinton West LRT in Etobicoke is going to be very dependant on perpendicular transfers from surface routes (Royal York, Islington, Kipling, Martin Grove, etc). So naturally, whatever design is chosen needs to optimize transfer efficiency. IMO, an in-median alignment (whatever configuration is chosen) is a poor setup for this type of transfer, as people are going to need to cross at least one side of the intersection, possibly two, in order to reach the LRT platform.

I believe that whether or not it's at-grade, elevated, trenched, or tunnelled is secondary. In order to maximize transfer efficiency, it needs to make use of the Richview corridor. Elevated or trenched would allow for the LRT station to be placed directly underneath or overtop of the cross street, allowing for curbside bus lanes dropping people off right at the station door on either side of the street. This would be a very similar setup to what is going to be built at Pimisi Station (LeBreton Station) on the Confederation line:
image010.jpg


This setup would be similar regardless of if it's trenched or elevated. My preference would be elevated, as that would allow green space to be preserved underneath the guideway, and would be a very pleasant commute, as you would be travelling through a tree-lined linear park for a substantial portion of the ride, instead of in a trench or in the middle of a busy avenue.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
A lot of the people that would use Eglinton west are going to Kipling , Islinton subway stations and the Dixon bus. The western leg would up those riders and reduce a 3 transfer ride to a 1 transfer ride(get off at Eglinton West subway station or Y/E).
Click to expand...

My point is that the Eglinton line is going to be used by a significant fraction of the many people who live in Toronto and work in the large employment areas in and surrounding the airport, once it gets extended further west. Currently most of those people use 401 (or 427, Gardiner, or 407), that is why the traffic on 401 is so bad. The 32 bus is not very useful because getting from Eglinton West station to Airport Corporate Centre is incredibly slow, and it drops people off in a rather inconvenient location, and it does not go to the west side of Airport Corporate Centre or the Pearson Airport terminal. The only other way of getting from Toronto to those parts of Mississauga is to take a bus from Islington or Kipling station (Mississauga Transit 35 or 109 or TTC 112), which is not at all convenient if you are coming from the northern side of Toronto and the buses have limited capacity and get stuck on the 427. The traffic in that area is so awful that I think that a transit alternative will be used by a huge number of people. Building elevated costs more than surface sure, but you get what you pay for, it can carry a lot more people than surface, and certainly doesn't cost as much as tunneling. There is no excuse for the provincial government wanting $30 billion in tax increases and then cutting corners like not making Eglinton fully grade separated.
 
A lot of these jobs near the airport would still require a massive walk to get to from any stations on Eglinton West. Time consuming in the summer and quite unfeasible in the wintertime.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top