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

[adrianaliu]

i think crosstown west should be built more as a rapid transit line, i assume most of the people travelling that far west are either destined to the airport, corporate centre or are getting off somewhere they can transfer to the bus (kipling, islington, etc.), i dont think there are really many destinations directly located on eglinton west like there are on finch and other parts of eglinton. so this is different than finch west lrt for example, which is basically an enhanced surface route with better capacity, speed and reliablity not really designed for long trips, line 5 when complete will cross the whole city so i think there should only be frequent stopping where it is really justified, other than that it should be designed for speed, especially in the west where there is little to no density or redevelopment potential. with that said i dont think tunneling is the best solution, i think a surface lrt is fine and a few grade separations would be even better

 

[W. K. Lis]

From link. Which is why we are twiddling our thumbs waiting.

 

[BurlOak]

i think crosstown west should be built more as a rapid transit line, i assume most of the people travelling that far west are either destined to the airport, corporate centre or are getting off somewhere they can transfer to the bus (kipling, islington, etc.), i dont think there are really many destinations directly located on eglinton west like there are on finch and other parts of eglinton. so this is different than finch west lrt for example, which is basically an enhanced surface route with better capacity, speed and reliablity not really designed for long trips, line 5 when complete will cross the whole city so i think there should only be frequent stopping where it is really justified, other than that it should be designed for speed, especially in the west where there is little to no density or redevelopment potential. with that said i dont think tunneling is the best solution, i think a surface lrt is fine and a few grade separations would be even better

If a politician says "tunneled", they could mean using TBM to minimize disruption in the mid-block areas, and maximize disruption at the intersections with stations. But it could also mean cut-and-cover. The trouble is - that the politician doesn't even know what they want, but the transit planners try to guess their intentions and propose many ridiculous ideas.

 

[Hopkins123]

Considering the 3 km gap between Martin Grove and Commerce Blvd (Renforth Stn), it's not that unreasonable to include a station at the The East Mall, especially if it's designed to have a grade-separated connection to the other side of the 427 for Rangoon area users.

 

[sixrings]

2 speed and access balance please

From link. Which is why we are twiddling our thumbs waiting.

 

[robmausser]

2 speed and access balance please

That was sort of the choice Metrolinx was leaning for with this proposal. I really think it is the best mix of rapid frequency and station placement.

However i feel like Islington and Royal York should be grade separated as well.

If you are going to spend the money to grade separate 80% of the line and major intersections, might as well do all of them.

 

[BurlOak]

Considering the 3 km gap between Martin Grove and Commerce Blvd (Renforth Stn), it's not that unreasonable to include a station at the The East Mall, especially if it's designed to have a grade-separated connection to the other side of the 427 for Rangoon area users.

My guess is most passengers boarding at East Mall are coming by bus. If you look at that intersection, there is a highway and a river taking up most of the land that would be within walking distance. If they are coming by bus, why not bus 1 extra stop to Martin Grove. (Same thing, I thing Rangoon will keep their bus and it would end at Commerce.

 

[BurlOak]

2 speed and access balance please

If you look at details, the best B/C ratio was for full grade separation and 6 stops (3 in Toronto).
The next best was 11 stops, 8 on Eglinton, on street.

The best solution seems to be between these. Grade-separated with 8 stops (5 in Toronto). Of course, not looked at.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...0160628_BoardMtg_Regional_Express_Rail_EN.pdf

 

[aquateam]

From link. Which is why we are twiddling our thumbs waiting.

The stop spacing for the more grade-separated lines are a little silly... 3 stops at the airport and then just Kipling and Scarlett. Why would you need a stop between Pearson and Renforth, let alone 3? And the Islington bus is one of the busiest in the system with a weekday ridership of ~18 000, so it would make sense to at least have a stop there.

All these configurations seem a bit strange. I'd just expect Bloor-Danforth spacing (i.e. every arterial), or something speedier since this is nowhere near as dense as Bloor/Danforth. Not double the spacing. And certainly not the strange combination of several closely spaced stops then nothing for a few kilometers, passing over busy bus routes.

My preferred spacing would be:
Pearson -> Renforth Gateway -> Martin Grove -> Kipling -> Islington -> Royal York -> Scarlette -> Jane -> Mount Dennis (9 stops total)

But if you wanted to be extra speedy you could cut out Martin Grove, Islington and Jane (6 stops total), but you would miss out on some good connecting bus routes.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Here's a report from June, 2016 on the "Enhanced Eglinton West Rapid Transit", at this link.

I would have to add 10% to the budget costs because of the time delays in doing anything.

 

[Rainforest]

From link. Which is why we are twiddling our thumbs waiting.

Perhaps the best option is a combination of 2 and 4. Reasonable number of stops, plus some grade separation to speed up the service and reduce the traffic backlogs.

But, we shouldn't make this line so expensive that we could as well build a subway. When the choice was made to build the central section of Eglinton as LRT, it was a trade-off to have medium capacity instead of high capacity, but allow for cheaper extensions at the edges. Hopefully that's the right choice, and the capacity won't be exceeded. However if we change the approach mid-way and start selecting the most expensive design for extensions, we will end up with a light rail line at a cost of full subway.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Perhaps the best option is a combination of 2 and 4. Reasonable number of stops, plus some grade separation to speed up the service and reduce the traffic backlogs.

But, we shouldn't make this line so expensive that we could as well build a subway. When the choice was made to build the central section of Eglinton as LRT, it was a trade-off to have medium capacity instead of high capacity, but allow for cheaper extensions at the edges. Hopefully that's the right choice, and the capacity won't be exceeded. However if we change the approach mid-way and start selecting the most expensive design for extensions, we will end up with a light rail line at a cost of full subway.

With it terminating at the proposed Pearson Transit Hub, the western LRT extension could be more used more than the eastern leg of the Crosstown LRT.

 

[aquateam]

Perhaps the best option is a combination of 2 and 4. Reasonable number of stops, plus some grade separation to speed up the service and reduce the traffic backlogs.

But, we shouldn't make this line so expensive that we could as well build a subway. When the choice was made to build the central section of Eglinton as LRT, it was a trade-off to have medium capacity instead of high capacity, but allow for cheaper extensions at the edges. Hopefully that's the right choice, and the capacity won't be exceeded. However if we change the approach mid-way and start selecting the most expensive design for extensions, we will end up with a light rail line at a cost of full subway.

At $280 million/km, we already are getting a light rail line at the cost of a subway on Eglinton. LRT was an odd technology choice for this corridor; it made sense in the Transit City concept of LRT everywhere, where you could share carehouses, equipment, interline, etc. But by itself, with an airport at one end and the SRT at the other and no connecting lines, it would have made more sense as automated ICTS. It would have prevented the $3.5-billion 1-stop SSE from happening, Eglinton west could have been elevated (there is lots of ROW and most of the development there has its back to the road, as a legacy of the Richview expressway) and the 10 km central tunnel would have been cheaper to build because of the smaller cross-section.

I just want to point out in the EA that even the speediest option, which skips Islington, Jane, and every major cross-road, includes stops here at Silver dart, hedged in by the airport and two highways:

And another one here on Convair, also hedged in by highways and the airport:

So I am seriously questioning the judgement and the options decided by an EA which ignores its own business case and then produces this as the approved option:

 

[BurlOak]

The stop spacing for the more grade-separated lines are a little silly... 3 stops at the airport and then just Kipling and Scarlett. Why would you need a stop between Pearson and Renforth, let alone 3? And the Islington bus is one of the busiest in the system with a weekday ridership of ~18 000, so it would make sense to at least have a stop there.

All these configurations seem a bit strange. I'd just expect Bloor-Danforth spacing (i.e. every arterial), or something speedier since this is nowhere near as dense as Bloor/Danforth. Not double the spacing. And certainly not the strange combination of several closely spaced stops then nothing for a few kilometers, passing over busy bus routes.

My preferred spacing would be:
Pearson -> Renforth Gateway -> Martin Grove -> Kipling -> Islington -> Royal York -> Scarlette -> Jane -> Mount Dennis (9 stops total)

But if you wanted to be extra speedy you could cut out Martin Grove, Islington and Jane (6 stops total), but you would miss out on some good connecting bus routes.

If Jane is proposed for an LRT, it's ridership must be high enough to warrant a stop. 1 extra stop at the airport (Convair or Silver Dart) doesn't bother me that much - especially if the feds pay some. Maybe another stop at T3 is needed though - since the link train can't handle much more.
I think this list is pretty good though:
Pearson -> Renforth Gateway -> Martin Grove -> Kipling -> Islington -> Royal York -> Scarlette -> Jane -> Mount Dennis (9 stops total)

 

[BurlOak]

At $280 million/km, we already are getting a light rail line at the cost of a subway on Eglinton. LRT was an odd technology choice for this corridor; it made sense in the Transit City concept of LRT everywhere, where you could share carehouses, equipment, interline, etc. But by itself, with an airport at one end and the SRT at the other and no connecting lines, it would have made more sense as automated ICTS. It would have prevented the $3.5-billion 1-stop SSE from happening, Eglinton west could have been elevated (there is lots of ROW and most of the development there has its back to the road, as a legacy of the Richview expressway) and the 10 km central tunnel would have been cheaper to build because of the smaller cross-section.

Is $280M correct - maybe in 2008 dollars. I would have guessed it was well into the mid $350M's.
The only reason to spend $5+ Billion on a central core and use LRT is if multiple lines will share the tunnel. Transit City consider a full build-out of many LRT lines - but in no location was branching (interlining) even considered). In the West, maybe 1 branch could have been along Dixon and the other along Eglinton West. In the East, maybe 1 branch up to STC and another along Eglinton and Kingston Road. But since the grade-separation ended at Brentcliffe, I guess 1 branch would have to be Eglinton and other through Edwards Gardens park and along Lawrence? There is no doubt this was poorly thought out.

I just want to point out in the EA that even the speediest option, which skips Islington, Jane, and every major cross-road, includes stops here at Silver dart, hedged in by the airport and two highways:
View attachment 124315

And another one here on Convair, also hedged in by highways and the airport:

View attachment 124316

So I am seriously questioning the judgement and the options decided by an EA which ignores its own business case and then produces this as the approved option:

View attachment 124317

It's hard to argue with this. Not sure if any more buildings are planned. Maybe the Airport Link train needs be extended to serve these more minor stops (and also change to self-propelled trains so more than 2 can fit.