[EnviroTO]

That's the nature of this kind of grand infrastructure project. It's not about 'you' (no offense). It's about vision, and we expect our leaders to have it. If they'd had it twenty or thirty years ago you'd be enjoying all kinds of new subway lines now, just as future generations will be enjoying the ones we build. The problem is not the scale of this project and the seemingly endless time waiting for it, it's the fact that politicians are not serving their constituents responsibly in these matters on an ongoing basis by making the required investments. Far better for them to spend money buying votes and pacifying noisy interest groups like cyclists (not that I'am against cyclists!!).

The Eglinton LRT line is getting built. If the argument is that it should have been built a long time ago then I would agree. However that is not the argument... the argument being made is cancel what we are building now after a long time waiting and delay it further. You can't make the argument to cancel the project while stating an improvement should have been made a long time ago. It can't both be necessary now, and delayable at the same time. It simply isn't a logical argument. Hopefully our leaders have a more logical thought process than that. The argument to replace the SRT with a subway is a logical argument as it is LRT now, needs replacing, adds a transfer, and is at capacity. On Eglinton there is currently buses, rarely am I not able to get on although it is always crammed, and LRT tunnel with longer trains sets can easily handle the expected loads for the foreseeable future. With the biggest expense on Eglinton being the tunnel which is of a diameter larger than the subway tunnels getting built there is no logical argument to stopping construction other than a lack of vision. It takes a lack of vision for someone to not see the potential of this tunnel and instead close their minds to believe that only a subway can be a good solution. The only reasonable argument is a belief that the line cannot handle the expected loads but such a belief has not been supported by numbers but is instead supported by blind faith that the studies cannot be correct, that subway fanboys know better, etc.

The haven't been building much for cyclists either. There are hardly any additional off road cycling connections that have been built. They have painted lines on the road and that is it.

 

[EnviroTO]

Nobody really answered my question here; but why would the TTC bulldoze through this project, pushing it so strongly and insisting upon an LRT when councilors along the corridor don't want it, neither do the citizens of Toronto living on it?

Because that is all there was to have. The councilors did approve it reluctantly for that reason. Every councilor wants a subway in their city ward and being a democracy means making concessions... the limited budget meant LRT to almost every city ward. It was not a question of having loads of cash to build subways everywhere. It was a fact the whole city has a public transit system that is strained, not in just one place but everywhere. There isn't money to build subway everywhere. There isn't even money to build Transit City which attempts to deliver improvements everywhere. Prior to McGuinty we weren't even sure the subways, buses, and streetcars would be replaced as the fleet was growing old and no money was coming to fix the issue. There was talk of needing to cut bus routes. Now we have new subway cars, new buses, and new streetcars and a Transit City plan which will be implemented in 20 years which is a huge improvement to the extended life GM Fishbowls we were looking at less than 10 years ago. It was 15 years ago that the Eglinton subway got cancelled. Even before then the decision where to put the subway expansions was not based on capacity requirements but based on spreading non-existent money around evenly between Etobicoke - Peel, North York - York, and Scarborough.

Cancelling the Eglinton LRT would be like shutting down VIA until we get the high-speed rail we want. Why? If the next government wants a subway they shouldn't cancel the current project, they should keep in going and make revisions to use subway trains instead because the tunnels can handle subways. Stopping the project is a waste of money.

 

[Rainforest]

Nobody really answered my question here; but why would the TTC bulldoze through this project, pushing it so strongly and insisting upon an LRT when councilors along the corridor don't want it, neither do the citizens of Toronto living on it?

IMO, this is because LRT has become a matter of policy, and a behemoth like TTC can't change political course easily.

When Transit City was first announced in 2007, they hoped to build the whole 30-km Eglinton LRT line for $ 2.2 billion. At that price tag, the proposal was reasonable, since the alternative would be only 7 or 8 km of subway (Yonge to Jane or Yonge to Vic Park).

As they researched the details, the cost grew to $ 3.4 billion, then $ 4.6 billion, and finally we are looking at $ 6 billion of "escalated" dollars for a truncated 20-km line.

At some point, they should have thought "come on, we are about to spend a subway-like amount of money here, let's at least consider a subway alternative". But too many public figures have already given their support to the LRT option, and it is hard for them to backtrack.

 

[Rainforest]

Every councilor wants a subway in their city ward and being a democracy means making concessions... the limited budget meant LRT to almost every city ward. It was not a question of having loads of cash to build subways everywhere. It was a fact the whole city has a public transit system that is strained, not in just one place but everywhere. There isn't money to build subway everywhere.

This logic is valid in general, but does not apply to the Eglinton case. The amount of money already allocated to Eglinton is sufficient to build subway of a meaningful length, no new funding is required for the first phase of this particular route, and hence no other Transit City route would be compromised if the subway is chosen for Eglinton.

Metrolinx has allocated $ 6 billion of "escalated" dollars to the 20-km Eglinton LRT line, this is $ 300 million / km and is almost equal to the cost of TYSSE.

Even if $ 300 million / km is not sufficient for 20-km Eglinton subway due to the construction cost inflation, they could scale it back to a 14-km Jane - Don Mills subway line. Then , $ 6 billion translate to $ 428 million / km.

 

[Rainforest]

With the biggest expense on Eglinton being the tunnel which is of a diameter larger than the subway tunnels getting built there is no logical argument to stopping construction other than a lack of vision.

Compatible tunnel width is a good thing, but there are other design details that affect the HRT compatibility: slopes, curves, sizes of station boxes, and lengths of crossover tracks.

If the tunnel is not designed with HRT, or long LRT trains, in mind, then some of those components might prevent the line from being ever converted to higher capacity.

 

[Rainforest]

The premiere, Hudak in this case, may opt to cancel the current project and order a new subway EA without replacing funding, or with funding allocated for a construction start immediately before the 2016 provincial election.

I'm not very familiar with Hudak (ate dinner, etc. with Harris a few times prior to his premiership) but his speeches indicate he strongly believes the work Harris did was incomplete. To anticipate a pro-transit platform from anyone other than McGuinty (and I include other provincial liberals here too) would be asking for a lot.

IMO, the best way to continue is to thank McGuinty for work completed and ask for DRL funding as an election promise. Expending McGuinty's political capital by opposing funded projects is a quick way to end up without capital or operations subsidies from the province again.

I am pretty sure that from the public transit standpoint, McGuinty is a better premiere than Hudak. However, should the latter get elected, there is no guarantee he won't trim the projects already underway, including Eglinton even if it is LRT.

Also, any support of Eglinton LRT, or opposition against it, is unlikely to change the outcome of the 2011 provincial elections.

 

[EnviroTO]

This logic is valid in general, but does not apply to the Eglinton case. The amount of money already allocated to Eglinton is sufficient to build subway of a meaningful length, no new funding is required for the first phase of this particular route, and hence no other Transit City route would be compromised if the subway is chosen for Eglinton.

But then everyone west of Keele and east of Laird would need to transfer to a bus. Knowing that the LRT in a tunnel is equally fast for those people and the transfer would make things slower, why would anyone beyond Keele or Laird vote for that? Why would the other councilors that also want subway vote for that? The argument was pitched to council that the LRT is running in a tunnel only because the width of the street doesn't allow for another option. It wasn't approved because council saw a reason to treat those areas to better service but because giving Eglinton surface LRT would be too brutal for traffic and businesses.

 

[EnviroTO]

Compatible tunnel width is a good thing, but there are other design details that affect the HRT compatibility: slopes, curves, sizes of station boxes, and lengths of crossover tracks.

The plans are available and the line is relatively straight, no steep grades, and the station boxes are longer than required by the LRT with mechanical rooms at each end of the platform.

 

[Rainforest]

But then everyone west of Keele and east of Laird would need to transfer to a bus.

East of Don Mills, not Laird; and west of Jane, not Keele. Don Mills and Jane are 14 km apart, surely 14 km of subway can be built for 6 billion (428 billion / km) even taking into account the inflation.

Knowing that the LRT in a tunnel is equally fast for those people and the transfer would make things slower, why would anyone beyond Keele or Laird vote for that? Why would the other councilors that also want subway vote for that?

I agree that replacing that LRT with subway would not be a win-win situation for everybody. It would be less convenient for those between Don Mills and Kennedy. And, although there would be no immediate difference for riders west of Jane (where the first phase of LRT will terminate anyway), in future it would be harder (more costly) to extend the subway further west than to extend LRT.

But on the balance, we would have lots of spare E-W capacity through the central part of the city, which could be utilized (by directing multiple bus routes to the subway termini) if the overall TTC ridership beats expectations. Note that although Bloor - Danforth is not in a crunch like Yonge, its peak-hour utilization (24,000 pphpd) is above 70% already.

What if the input assumptions, that led to the predicted 5,400 or 7,000 max for Eglinton, do not hold? For example, the "peak oil" materializes, and people flock to public transit?

I don't call for spending a lot of extra money preparing for abnormal scenarios that might never materialize; but if the money are already allocated and it is only a matter of changing the way they are used, why not go for that?

 

[rbt]

I am pretty sure that from the public transit standpoint, McGuinty is a better premiere than Hudak. However, should the latter get elected, there is no guarantee he won't trim the projects already underway, including Eglinton even if it is LRT.

Agreed, but it is far easier to trim a project if it is being actively questioned by other partners in the project.

 

[doady]

For me it is not a matter of light rail vs heavy rail. It doesnt' matter to me. I don't mind this line being light rail, but even as light rail there is no reason for it to be on the street. On the west side there is plenty of space at the side, and much of line has to be be underground anyways. So why bother with at-grade on-street sections at all? It could be an completely grade-separated line fairly easy, and so it could have the same fare-policy as the existing subway/RT system, which is important. They have an opportunity to build an LRT line that can be part of the subway/RT system, but they are insisting on these pointless at-grade and on-street sections. It is such a waste. It just completely ignores the existing TTC system.

 

[rbt]

It could be an completely grade-separated line fairly easy, and so it could have the same fare-policy as the existing subway/RT system, which is important. They have an opportunity to build an LRT line that can be part of the subway/RT system, but they are insisting on these pointless at-grade and on-street sections. It is such a waste. It just completely ignores the existing TTC system.

I'm a little confused. How is the fare policy for subway lines different than buses at a station?

How is the will the fare policy for Eglinton at the underground station be different than subway, or Eglinton at a street station?

It's not like we're going to go through the front door, pay the driver, then get off and walk back to an empty car and reboard.

 

[Filip]

This logic is valid in general, but does not apply to the Eglinton case. The amount of money already allocated to Eglinton is sufficient to build subway of a meaningful length, no new funding is required for the first phase of this particular route, and hence no other Transit City route would be compromised if the subway is chosen for Eglinton.

Metrolinx has allocated $ 6 billion of "escalated" dollars to the 20-km Eglinton LRT line, this is $ 300 million / km and is almost equal to the cost of TYSSE.

Even if $ 300 million / km is not sufficient for 20-km Eglinton subway due to the construction cost inflation, they could scale it back to a 14-km Jane - Don Mills subway line. Then , $ 6 billion translate to $ 428 million / km.

Exactly my issue with this whole debacle happening on Eglinton. The two are so similar in price that it is completely illogical not to build it as a full fledged subway. This is the only 'possible' crosstown route that connects all boroughs and would finally bring an adequate transit option for the airport. Imagine being stuck in an 'LRT' (note glorified streetcar, as I imagine this will be just as bad as St. Clair if not worse) from Kennedy to the airport, assuming some poor soul actually thinks it's rapid transit. Two hours later you'd still be somewhere in Etobicoke.. Absolutely unacceptable and insulting that the TTC is selling this to citizens as rapid transit. The common denominator living on the corridor SHOULD BE INFORMED that this is NOT rapid transit.

In an ideal universe, funding for the Eglinton LRT will be moved to the Eglinton subway which will run from Jane to Don Mills (using the $6 billion allocated) and as funding becomes available (which seems to be the direction Ontario is heading in) extend it both sides to its full length. That's how you build connectivity with the existing system, not by sending LRTs everywhere to overload the already crowded subway.

My biggest beef is with Eglinton and Sheppard (which logically should be completed to STC, a transit hotspot) instead of sending LRT to the zoo; whoever thought of that one should get a medal, is that it flies in the face of decades of studies on rapid transit which deemed these corridors to be subway-ready. I had nothing against the other Transit City routes, but since the TTC is adopting an all or nothing stance regarding that, I adopt one too. I hope Transit City dies the death it deserves.

 

[Dan416]

Exactly my issue with this whole debacle happening on Eglinton. The two are so similar in price that it is completely illogical not to build it as a full fledged subway. This is the only 'possible' crosstown route that connects all boroughs and would finally bring an adequate transit option for the airport. Imagine being stuck in an 'LRT' (note glorified streetcar, as I imagine this will be just as bad as St. Clair if not worse) from Kennedy to the airport, assuming some poor soul actually thinks it's rapid transit. Two hours later you'd still be somewhere in Etobicoke.. Absolutely unacceptable and insulting that the TTC is selling this to citizens as rapid transit. The common denominator living on the corridor SHOULD BE INFORMED that this is NOT rapid transit.

In an ideal universe, funding for the Eglinton LRT will be moved to the Eglinton subway which will run from Jane to Don Mills (using the $6 billion allocated) and as funding becomes available (which seems to be the direction Ontario is heading in) extend it both sides to its full length. That's how you build connectivity with the existing system, not by sending LRTs everywhere to overload the already crowded subway.

My biggest beef is with Eglinton and Sheppard (which logically should be completed to STC, a transit hotspot) instead of sending LRT to the zoo; whoever thought of that one should get a medal, is that it flies in the face of decades of studies on rapid transit which deemed these corridors to be subway-ready. I had nothing against the other Transit City routes, but since the TTC is adopting an all or nothing stance regarding that, I adopt one too. I hope Transit City dies the death it deserves.

Transit City does deserve to die. Transit City, the whole anti-Presto rants, the blame rests with Giambrone and Miller. On the transit file they have failed miserably. I don't know if any other mayor would have done better, but Transit City is poorly thought out, poor in execution, and just a bad idea. If we're gonna spend all this money on LRTs, shouldn't we build the DRL first? (Which LRTistas claim to support, but don't ask them to cancel TC for it).

 

[Filip]

Literally most of my friends live along the Eglinton corridor in Etobicoke (I went to high school at Richview, so Eglinton and Islington) and I can attest very well to how that road functions. It is CROWDED, rush hour, during mornings, afternoons, nights.. It's a mess. It's the main spine for Etobicoke. I can't even fathom what that will look like with a streetcar taking up two PRECIOUS lanes on that road.

Don't give me that shit that drivers will drop their cars to take this glorified streetcar as well! Consensus in that neighbourhood is that with a subway they'd be tempted, with a streetcar? NO WAY; they're keeping their cars. I spoke to councilor Holyday today who is strongly anti Eglinton LRT.. He told me he gets daily calls from concerned constituents about traffic snarls that will inevitably develop on Eglinton and won't even help their commute times - with all honesty the LRT is only marginally faster than a bus.