Transit City Plan

[AKS]

Eglinton will certainly be comparable to a subway {all the more reason to elevate it from DM to Kennedy to give it subway speed} but Finch and Sheppard will only be comparable to a regular bus.

It's only good if it can run. Unless they put de-icers or some sort, part of the line might end up closed. For example, sometimes (not often) during the winter when they can't clear the ice/snow from the rails, the train doesn't run between warden and victoria park or somewhere around there, where the trains run outside.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

At rush hour a subway on Eglinton and Sheppard ought to be at least comparable in speed to driving on the 401. Let's assume that building subways does not reduce congestion on the 401 significantly, because anyone who switches to transit from driving on the 401 is replaced by new traffic (probably true). A subway goes about 30 km/h and due to traffic congestion the 401 can often be slower than this in rush hour. A subway or underground LRT on Eglinton will definitely be faster than driving because Eglinton is congested all day long 7 days a week. I am pretty sure that if driving and transit take about the same amount of time lots of people will take transit, because driving in heavy stop and go traffic is no fun at all, though lots of people will drive anyway.

A LRT on Eglinton, as long it is well designed (like Calgary LRT, not St. Clair) should be only slightly slower than a subway, the big issue is capacity. With headways constrained for 5 minutes for the line to run efficiently and shorter trains than a subway, you are limited to 1/4 the capacity of a subway which means that the line risks being a victim of its own success and becoming overcrowded. Sheppard on the other hand will be a lot slower because of the transfer at Don Mills/Sheppard (5 minutes wasted), and the lack of connection to Scarborough Centre (people going there will have to either transfer again, or avoid the Sheppard LRT and use the York Mills bus). I have a strong suspicion that the trip from Scarborough Centre to Yonge/Sheppard by TTC will take LONGER than it does now due to the elimination of bus #190, if the Sheppard LRT is built.

The only way to build a rail line that is a lot faster than driving in rush hour would be to buy the CP main line and run trains every 5 minutes on it. Convincing CP to sell this line to GO will be hard, and this line would only stop at major stations so you still really need a subway on Eglinton and/or Sheppard as well to serve the more local stops. This line could take a ton of people off the 401 but connections to Eglinton and Sheppard at Sheppard/Kennedy and Eglinton/Leslie are absolutely essential. Lakeshore and Georgetown GO might take a bit of traffic off 401 as well but are too far from the 401 in most areas to make much of a difference.

Central Eglinton is under the ground.

 

[Justin10000]

Oh god.. Please do not let this turn into a subway vs. 401 debate.

 

[sixrings]

The spike in GAS sucks but I hope that it puts pressure on the building of more LRT lines.....

Im still for tolling the express, the 427, the qew, gardner, and DVP at all times. To me that seems to be the most useful way to pay for transit expansion.

 

[BurlOak]

Eglinton will certainly be comparable to a subway {all the more reason to elevate it from DM to Kennedy to give it subway speed} but Finch and Sheppard will only be comparable to a regular bus.

The 5 or 6 km at-grade median portion dictates the speed, reliability and capacity of this 30+ km line.

 

[rbt]

The 5 or 6 km at-grade median portion dictates the speed, reliability and capacity of this 30+ km line.

Why? Dozens of bus routes use branches. Even a few of our streetcar routes have regularly scheduled turnbacks like Queen which runs different service level on Longbranch than downtown.

It is pretty trivial to run 3 minute frequencies in the tunnel and 6 minutes frequencies in the street if we want to. Heck, could run 90 second frequencies in the tunnel (ATO will be installed) and 6 minute frequencies in the surface portions by turning back 3 out of 4 LRVs at the tunnel exit.

Similaly, you can run LRT without drivers in the tunnel via ATO and have a driver board at the portals to the surface. I'm not saying TTC will do this, just that they could.

Capacity on Yonge subway is actually what will limit Eglinton service. You cannot have a line of several thousand people trying to transfer to southbound Yonge at either Eglinton or Bloor stations.

Service at Eglinton will be kept low enough to allow people at Bloor to transfer to southbound Yonge.

 

[BurlOak]

Why? Dozens of bus routes use branches. Even a few of our streetcar routes have regularly scheduled turnbacks like Queen which runs different service level on Longbranch than downtown.

It is pretty trivial to run 3 minute frequencies in the tunnel and 6 minutes frequencies in the street if we want to. Heck, could run 90 second frequencies in the tunnel (ATO will be installed) and 6 minute frequencies in the surface portions by turning back 3 out of 4 LRVs at the tunnel exit.

Similaly, you can run LRT without drivers in the tunnel via ATO and have a driver board at the portals to the surface. I'm not saying TTC will do this, just that they could.

Capacity on Yonge subway is actually what will limit Eglinton service. You cannot have a line of several thousand people trying to transfer to southbound Yonge at either Eglinton or Bloor stations.

Service at Eglinton will be kept low enough to allow people at Bloor to transfer to southbound Yonge.

If (when) the DRL gets built up to Eglinton, a high capacity line from Malvern to Don Mills would be really improve service for those in the NE. With the current plan, those on the line will transfer to the B-D subway at Kennedy and then become part of the crowd transfering at Yonge-Bloor. (true that some will transfer to the DRL at Pape, depending on their final destination downtown). Some passengers may even want to come eastwards from Bayview towards Don Mills. However, with the median LRT from Brentcliffe to Don Mills, these people will continue to go to Yonge since service to Don Mills will be significantly worse. It would also help having two parallel routes (Eglinton and Danforth) to provide service redundancy.

Currently, we are looking at high capacity from Malvern to Kennedy, low capacity across the rest of Scarborough, and high capacity from Brentcliffe westward. I do not know Queen that well, but I doubt it goes from high to low to high service.

 

[Rainforest]

Currently, we are looking at high capacity from Malvern to Kennedy, low capacity across the rest of Scarborough, and high capacity from Brentcliffe westward.

Brentcliffe is a minor street with a low passenger volume, there will be no turnback facility there.

Either they will extend the high-capacity section to Don Mills (the south side of the road option won't cost much more than street-median), or will run consistently low capacity all the way from Kennedy to Yonge.

 

[car4041]

Currently, we are looking at high capacity from Malvern to Kennedy, low capacity across the rest of Scarborough, and high capacity from Brentcliffe westward. I do not know Queen that well, but I doubt it goes from high to low to high service.

No, we're looking at high capacity from Malvern to Kennedy (the RT) and even higher capacity from Kennedy to downtown (the B-D subway). You can't ignore the network. (And with a DRL to Eglinton, as presumed in your post, capacity on the Danforth line and at Bloor-Yonge will not be issues.)

Also, there's not much between Brentcliffe and Don Mills, so it makes little difference to the travel time whether or not this section is underground. I can't see how it would be "significantly worse" on the surface as you say. It's a clear run from Brentcliffe to Leslie and from Leslie to Don Mills.

 

[rbt]

No, we're looking at high capacity from Malvern to Kennedy (the RT) and even higher capacity from Kennedy to downtown (the B-D subway). You can't ignore the network. (And with a DRL to Eglinton, as presumed in your post, capacity on the Danforth line and at Bloor-Yonge will not be issues.)

The GO Train from Kennedy to Union has potentially 2 to 3 times the capacity as B-D subway and a much shorter trip. This is the real Scarborough to downtown solution once they figure out to demand it. ~$500M for a 15 minute trip from Kennedy to Union with 5 minute frequencies from 6am to 1am.

 

[car4041]

The GO Train from Kennedy to Union has potentially 2 to 3 times the capacity as B-D subway and a much shorter trip. This is the real Scarborough to downtown solution once they figure out to demand it. ~$500M for a 15 minute trip from Kennedy to Union with 5 minute frequencies from 6am to 1am.

Agreed. Still hoping that the idea of a "Toronto S-Bahn" one day gains political traction. Yet another non-subway mode to educate the public about!

 

[RedRocket191]

Agreed. Still hoping that the idea of a "Toronto S-Bahn" one day gains political traction. Yet another non-subway mode to educate the public about!

It's not really a new concept - just an evolution of an existing one. If you say "more frequent GO trains with more stops", people will get it. The minute we start getting too technical and using terms like S-Bahn is the minute average Joe's eyes roll back.

Personal agenda = I hate the term S-Bahn because it adds needless jargon to an otherwise straightforward concept.

 

[car4041]

It's not really a new concept - just an evolution of an existing one. If you say "more frequent GO trains with more stops", people will get it. The minute we start getting too technical and using terms like S-Bahn is the minute average Joe's eyes roll back.

Personal agenda = I hate the term S-Bahn because it adds needless jargon to an otherwise straightforward concept.

Oh, I didn't mean we should actually call it that -- just using it as a shorthand for the kind of service we should be envisioning. You might be right that people would just get it. Maybe it's the TTC and GO that need to be educated rather than the public...

 

[rbt]

Oh, I didn't mean we should actually call it that -- just using it as a shorthand for the kind of service we should be envisioning. You might be right that people would just get it. Maybe it's the TTC and GO that need to be educated rather than the public...

Metrolinx gets it.

GO's operating budget won't let them do it. It will take a few years heavy subsidy to build up that 300,000 trips per line per day to pay for the service.

I'm hopeful that discussions about a DRL to meet with Georgetown trains will force some kind of fare integration across the entire network; fare by distance or 50 cents per transfer or something.

 

[gweed123]

Oh, I didn't mean we should actually call it that -- just using it as a shorthand for the kind of service we should be envisioning. You might be right that people would just get it. Maybe it's the TTC and GO that need to be educated rather than the public...

I've been advocating this for a while now. And I agree, we shouldn't actually call it S-Bahn (I for one prefer calling it GO-REX).

I think if it can be properly explained to the public, possibly using examples of the S-Bahn, Paris RER, or London Overground. I think it definitely would gain a lot of political traction. This is especially true in the outer 416 and the 905. To me anyway, I think that GO-REX would be more advantageous to them than most of the LRT/BRT expansion that's being prioritized in these areas. I think there needs to be a shift in prioritization once these "second round" projects come up (Hurontario LRT, North Yonge Extension, Don Mills LRT, etc), to have GO-REX pushed ahead of these projects. What good is having ribs if you don't have a solid backbone to connect them to?

What GO-REX needs though is a political champion. Someone who will say "This is what Toronto and the GTA actually needs. The suburbs don't need subways. For the cost of a single suburban subway project, most of the GO lines can be upgraded to all-day minimum 15 minute service, running electrified trains. It combines the capacity, speed, and traffic separations of subways, with the cost-effectiveness of LRT."