[cacruden]

Well, I for one am a little more positive about the LRT Eglinton (underground portion). If they can make the line run fairly fast (no traffic lights), and it is underground (protected from cold), then whether it is a subway or just light rail - I am fine with that. My worries is that the TTC will screw it up, like Spadina and any other "LRT" line that they have previously done. Now if Eglinton fills to capacity, and they have to upgrade - maybe they will just do the same concept a little south or north (like St. Clair), which would provide more rapid transit lines - with the same amount of money. If it turns out to be like the french or english small train lines - then it will not be that bad - of course the TTC can still screw it up.

 

[Brandon716]

I think its possible to have issues with the intersections and signaling priority, but the simple fact that a full 10km chunk of the core of the Eglinton LRT is underground is what gained my tepid warm support.

I still wished they were building an Eglinton Subway, but I am also a realist. The current leadership in Toronto is working toward LRT, the economy isn't exactly booming so tax revenue is a concern from McGuinty's end, and if the core is subway-like (again, I'm using my experience with a subway LRT here in Pittsburgh as comparison), I'm all for the completion of a high quality Light Rail line on Eglinton.

The fact that it doesn't cost too much to complete from the airport to Kennedy in one single project instead of doing piecework, section by section, is a good factor.

LRT is what it is: its far better than buses, but its not going to be a rapid transit subway in any way.

Besides, European cities that have lots of transit use and dense urban fabric are using Light Rail increasingly, and with success.

Lets face it, those of us who wanted a subway aren't getting what we want. But on the positive we won't have a half-completed subway that gets defunded when some future Tory government grabs power at Queens Park.

There is good news in Transit City, I just hope they don't screw Sheppard up. Luckily that wasn't funded, and I'm pretty sure why McGuinty's government chose not to do that.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

This essay by Lawrence Solomon was in The Post today.



In a way I am sort of prone to agree. Insofar as governments interfere in transit planning it usually leads to a subsidy of sprawl. Free roads, subways to nowhere, distorting land use policy and such. On the other hand though, claiming the Eglinton Crosstown will lead to sprawl sort of stretches credulity. Isn't part of "sprawl" greenfield development? I don't quite see how the Crosstown will lead to that.

The article to me reads more of a neo-con anti public anything rant than an article about how the Eglinton line will encourage sprawl. How interesting! Sprawl happens in undeveloped lands, the lands surrounding Eglinton and specifically around the central area are quite built up already. Y&E could pass for the downtown of some smaller second tier cities for heavens sake!

But of course if a private interest were running transit in the city we'd be living in a pancea of transit!

 

[kEiThZ]

Amphibius,

You make several good points. I will respectfully challenge some:

I think a full subway from Kennedy to the airport would come in at least 9 billion (300 million/km X 30km). Were we to take that as the first round of Transit City, that would mean an Eglinton Subway and no Finch West, no SRT replacement and maybe even no Sheppard East. This city has lots of transit needs, of which Eglinton is only one. And the region at large has even greater transit needs. Here on in, we are going to have to compromise if we really want to build a network that spans the entire region. And yes the opportunity costs matter. You may dismiss other Transit City lines as irrelevant, but it's hard to make the argument that we're building a 'Transit City' if all we are building is one subway line. Eglinton is important but I would suggest to you that if you really want to get people out of their cars, you have to make efforts at improving transit at the outer edges of the 416.

Aside from the costs there are other issues. Look at Transit City as a whole. Eglinton and Finch-Sheppard are essential to the plan since they tie the lines in the east and west together facilitating common yards, shifting of vehicles, etc. Eglinton provides an essential connection for the southern half of the network.

Then there's also ridership. TC LRT is supposed to handle 8k riders per hour (and 12k per hour in an exclusive ROW). The bulk of the ridership for this line will be local ridership and some shift from the Bloor-Danforth line. I don't think we'll be maxing out anytime soon. LRT is sufficient for the Eglinton corridor. Just have a look at Eglinton through much of Scarborough. An HRT subway is not a necessity....capacity of 8k per hour is enough. As you get closer to Yonge, you need more....hence the tunnel.

I will readily admit that its not ideal and I'd prefer a subway so that we can see an increase in average speeds. But I don't think this is a bad compromise. After this line is complete, it can be continually improved on by adding tunneling every year till the entire line is buried (and that can actually be done while the line is operational). At that point, we'd have the subway. For now it's a start.

 

[Brandon716]

Suppose that the Eglinton Crosstown does get signal priority, hence ensuring a decent speed for the service, would there still be a negative vibe surrounding this addition? From all that I've read, Eglinton does not have the demand necessary to make a subway worthwhile (at least for now). So if capacity is not a concern (that is the LRT can handle it) and if decent speed can be attained, through the underground portion and signal prioritization, doesn't the Eglinton LRT represent a positive foot forward for transit in Toronto?

Part of the concern isn't traffic today, is traffic in the future. Eglinton may not warrant subway service right this second, but if it were to become more developed and condo towers start to spring up, traffic can be a concern.

If this LRT idea was only briefly underground and was running in the streets less than a kilometer from yonge and eglinton, I would have not supported this LRT line at all. 10km pretty much covers a nice urban core around Eglinton... Its possible in the future that more tunnels could be dug, say in 30+ years, if the system warranted such an expansion. Making more of the Eglinton LRT tunnel could resolve any problems in the future. LRT can be semi-heavy rail if they just make sure the stations can handle at least 3 cars per train (which would technically be 6 individual compartments since one car has two sections on most models).

But like other examples, such as the Docklands Light Rail in London, I think Eglinton LRT will have enough capacity and within the 10km tunnel system there won't be delays of any kind and it will be as close to a heavy rail subway system in terms of speed that you can get. Remember, LRT cars get up to 50-60 mph/90-100km/hr between stops where there aren't intersections.

I'm looking at it from the perspective that even if a subway were built, it couldn't have went from Pearson to Kennedy. It costs too much, and the political bickering over funding would create another stubway like Sheppard. In the past I didn't realize how hard it is to get a subway built pretty much anywhere in the world these days, unless you're in an Asian city.

So would it have been worth it to have a 10-15km stubway or a 30 km LRT with a subway-like tunnel in the middle? If it has to be a choice between stubway or a crosstown LRT I'll choose the LRT. Again, so long as its built correctly.

What I don't want to see is avoidance of a Downtown Relief Line. Now that Transit City has its core system started, they need to focus on the DRL. And I hope that's what McGuinty means when he says "there's more to come" because Miller and Giambrone have gotten their wishes on this other project. In my opinion its not worth the in-fighting and waiting another 10-20 (or even more) years to argue for an Eglinton Subway after there are new leaders in Toronto, of the TTC, and the provincial government after its went through another Tory era (which is bound to happen eventually).

But who knows, maybe the next Tory leader who gets a workable government will be slightly progressive and actually support transit? I hardly see how it can get worse than Mike Harris and Ernie Eves. At least those days are gone... Mike Harris should have known better than to fill in a hole that was already dug.

OR, what if another NDP government somehow gets elected? They would certainly be transit friendly. The future is always unpredictable.

 

[Kitsune]

The Rocket would look nice as a elevated+subway train. Thats prolly what they should end up doing: Subway+Elevated like the Canada line, and maybe use less cars to cut down costs.

 

[Brandon716]

What do you guys think about the intersection count outside the tunnel, does that seem extreme? I don't think its too bad.

 

[Brandon716]

Here's a video I snapped just moments ago. They are still running rush hour trains out of downtown, so it has 2 cars per train, and as you can see it has two compartments per car. So essentially it has mid grade capacity between buses and subway. I assume this is the typical setup Toronto would run basically all day since the traffic count would be higher.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFNF5zrQpIs

 

[kEiThZ]

What do you guys think about the intersection count outside the tunnel, does that seem extreme? I don't think its too bad.

Nope it isn't. A major goal of the LRT is to provide improved local service outside the 'core' and to do that you can't have stops that are 850m apart like in the tunnel (where the goal is speed). So it's not extreme. The spacing is ~450m. That's a pretty good compromise and in line with the other TC LRTs like Sheppard East for example.

 

[ellett44]

Part of the concern isn't traffic today, is traffic in the future. Eglinton may not warrant subway service right this second, but if it were to become more developed and condo towers start to spring up, traffic can be a concern.

If this LRT idea was only briefly underground and was running in the streets less than a kilometer from yonge and eglinton, I would have not supported this LRT line at all. 10km pretty much covers a nice urban core around Eglinton... Its possible in the future that more tunnels could be dug, say in 30+ years, if the system warranted such an expansion. Making more of the Eglinton LRT tunnel could resolve any problems in the future. LRT can be semi-heavy rail if they just make sure the stations can handle at least 3 cars per train (which would technically be 6 individual compartments since one car has two sections on most models).

But like other examples, such as the Docklands Light Rail in London, I think Eglinton LRT will have enough capacity and within the 10km tunnel system there won't be delays of any kind and it will be as close to a heavy rail subway system in terms of speed that you can get. Remember, LRT cars get up to 50-60 mph/90-100km/hr between stops where there aren't intersections.

I'm looking at it from the perspective that even if a subway were built, it couldn't have went from Pearson to Kennedy. It costs too much, and the political bickering over funding would create another stubway like Sheppard. In the past I didn't realize how hard it is to get a subway built pretty much anywhere in the world these days, unless you're in an Asian city.

So would it have been worth it to have a 10-15km stubway or a 30 km LRT with a subway-like tunnel in the middle? If it has to be a choice between stubway or a crosstown LRT I'll choose the LRT. Again, so long as its built correctly.

What I don't want to see is avoidance of a Downtown Relief Line. Now that Transit City has its core system started, they need to focus on the DRL. And I hope that's what McGuinty means when he says "there's more to come" because Miller and Giambrone have gotten their wishes on this other project. In my opinion its not worth the in-fighting and waiting another 10-20 (or even more) years to argue for an Eglinton Subway after there are new leaders in Toronto, of the TTC, and the provincial government after its went through another Tory era (which is bound to happen eventually).

But who knows, maybe the next Tory leader who gets a workable government will be slightly progressive and actually support transit? I hardly see how it can get worse than Mike Harris and Ernie Eves. At least those days are gone... Mike Harris should have known better than to fill in a hole that was already dug.

OR, what if another NDP government somehow gets elected? They would certainly be transit friendly. The future is always unpredictable.

I take it by your response that you agree with my general assertion. I don't quite understand the negative reaction to the crosstown. Seemingly its just a reaction of 'its not a subway and therefore I don't like it'. It appears to me - from all the links provided by helpful posters here - that the LRT will easily handle the capacity demands of Eglinton now and into the future (a capacity that does not demand a subway) and the underground portion is a great compromise for speed in the central core. Furthermore, as you pointed out in your post, it leaves the option of further upgrade in the future.

 

[kEiThZ]

I take it by your response that you agree with my general assertion. I don't quite understand the negative reaction to the crosstown. Seemingly its just a reaction of 'its not a subway and therefore I don't like it'. It appears to me - from all the links provided by helpful posters here - that the LRT will easily handle the capacity demands of Eglinton now and into the future (a capacity that does not demand a subway) and the underground portion is a great compromise for speed in the central core. Furthermore, as you pointed out in your post, it leaves the option of further upgrade in the future.

I think the disagreement arises from those who see the primary function for the Eglinton corridor as a Crosstown route (in which case speed is required) and those who see the Crosstown function as secondary to improved local service (Miller, Giambrone et al.).

Personally, I see it as a secondary function. How often is someone going to be taking the TTC from Kennedy all the way to the airport? There might some exceptions for airport staff who live in Scarborough. But even then, this line is an upgrade for them. For everyone else who will be using Eglinton for anything less than its full crosstown value, this line is a major upgrade.

However, I can see the complaints as being valid in that this line was sold as 'crosstown' line. And if that's function being advertised then it is rather weak at what it does.

 

[doady]

I think the disagreement arises from those who see the primary function for the Eglinton corridor as a Crosstown route (in which case speed is required) and those who see the Crosstown function as secondary to improved local service (Miller, Giambrone et al.).

Personally, I see it as a secondary function. How often is someone going to be taking the TTC from Kennedy all the way to the airport? There might some exceptions for airport staff who live in Scarborough. But even then, this line is an upgrade for them. For everyone else who will be using Eglinton for anything less than its full crosstown value, this line is a major upgrade.

However, I can see the complaints as being valid in that this line was sold as 'crosstown' line. And if that's function being advertised then it is rather weak at what it does.

Even without the "crosstown" moniker, speed would still very important for this line, as would connect to the airport, Yonge-Eglinton Centre, Airport Corporate Centre, the Mississauga Transitway (and all of the associated MT and GO express bus routes, including GO's busiest, the York U service), regular Mississauga Transit service, three subway lines... it really doesn't make any sense for this line to be on the street.

 

[Asterix]

However, I can see the complaints as being valid in that this line was sold as 'crosstown' line. And if that's function being advertised then it is rather weak at what it does.

But is that the function it is being advertised as?

I get the impression that it is named the Eglinton 'crosstown' because it runs across the town, from one side to the other, not necessarily that it is intended or to be used to completely travel 'crosstown'.

While there may be a few people who are interested in such a trip, what is the real demand for those kinds of trips instead of shorter ones?

 

[ellett44]

... it really doesn't make any sense for this line to be on the street.

By the same token taken from a capacity perspective, it really doesn't make any sense for this line to be underground. The capacity demands on Eglinton do not currently necessitate a subway over the entire crosstown length. The projected numbers don't even come close.

My question for all the LRT Eglinton crosstown detractors is, if not an LRT what should be the selected mode? A subway? Beyond the fact that the demand across the whole route is not there, the projected cost for a subway linking Kennedy to the airport would be exorbitant, and I ask wouldn't that money be better spent elsewhere, i.e. the DRL, which has the demand numbers that necessitate a subway already.

 

[Second_in_pie]

By the same token taken from a capacity perspective, it really doesn't make any sense for this line to be underground. The capacity demands on Eglinton do not currently necessitate a subway over the entire crosstown length. The projected numbers don't even come close.

My question for all the LRT Eglinton crosstown detractors is, if not an LRT what should be the selected mode? A subway? Beyond the fact that the demand across the whole route is not there, the projected cost for a subway linking Kennedy to the airport would be exorbitant, and I ask wouldn't that money be better spent elsewhere, i.e. the DRL, which has the demand numbers that necessitate a subway already.

If Eglinton is built as a subway, I guarantee you that the ridership will be much more than what is projected, and much more than the TTC's (rather stupid) subway ridership limit. Take a look at the Bloor Danforth line. In Bloor withinin walking distance of the subway, is there really that demand at Runnymede, or Jane or Old Mill stations? Of course not, but nobody's arguing with it.

Even without the "crosstown" moniker, speed would still very important for this line, as would connect to the airport, Yonge-Eglinton Centre, Airport Corporate Centre, the Mississauga Transitway (and all of the associated MT and GO express bus routes, including GO's busiest, the York U service), regular Mississauga Transit service, three subway lines... it really doesn't make any sense for this line to be on the street.

This hits the nail right on the head for me. All these different centers (these aren't even all of them) are rather far apart and there is a lot of demand for them, and in the future, there will be a massive demand for all of them, requiring both the speed and capacity of a subway. If only we could get enough money for all the transit we need...

EDIT: Oh, and

I see that the Eglinton-Crosstown LRT could have 6 major stops/stations.

The airport terminal will be a major terminal requiring 24 hour-7 day access. This station will need to accessible to everyone with luggage. That means no stairs, but ramp access to the airport terminal. Informational messages would have to be in several languages (not just English and French) and stick-figure signs.

The Jane stop will be a transfer point with the Jane LRT. There should also be a short-turn crossover to handle long trains to return east.

The Allen Road station will be a transfer point with the Spadina HRT. There should be crossovers at both ends of the station, in case of problems with the line. It will have to handle large crowds of commuters.

The Yonge station will be a transfer point with the Yonge HRT. As with the Allen Road station, there should be crossovers at both ends of the station, in case of problems with the line. It will have to handle large crowds of commuters, as well.

The Don Mills stop will be a transfer point with the Don Mills LRT. As with the Jane stop, it should have a short-turn crossover to handle long trains to go west. Because of the proximity of the Ontario Science Centre, it will be also be a major destination (if the Science Centre could decrease the distance to its entrance to avoid its parking lot).

Last, and not least, is the Kennedy station. It will be a major transfer point with the Bloor-Danforth HRT, the Scarborough-Malvern LRT, and the Scarborough RT (unless it becomes an extension to the Eglinton LRT). Large crowds of commuters will be expected to be handled.

All six of those stops/stations will need to be major focal points for the line. All will need to have crossovers, and can expect large crowds.

I do hope that if it's not a subway (god help me then) there will at least be underground stations when it crosses with the other TC lines, possibly with ticket guys (my brain's too numb to remember what they're called) to make transfers as painless as possible. Waiting twice for a LRT which runs at 5 minute intervals in the middle of the winter is kind of a turn off.