[Dan416]

Even if they started building Eglinton as an LRT, since the tunnel portion is being built to be converted to subway in the future, if the funding became available (or the city changed it's mind) then maybe they could convert it at the same time as it was being built? A pipe dream, I know.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Even if they started building Eglinton as an LRT, since the tunnel portion is being built to be converted to subway in the future, if the funding became available (or the city changed it's mind) then maybe they could convert it at the same time as it was being built? A pipe dream, I know.

to salt the earth so nothing will grow, they will probably build the at-grade sections first.

why leave your options open?

 

[299 bloor call control.]

The benefits case study for the Eglinton Crosstown line will decide which way Metrolinx will go - that is due for the June board meeting.

 

[W. K. Lis]

June 2009 Open House Display Boards

The June 2009 Open House Display Boards are now available for downloading in PDF form from these links:

Part 1.
Part 2.
Part 3.

From the Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit (LRT) Preliminary Planning for a Transit Project Assessment Study.

 

[MetroMan]

It could be another reason why Metrolinx has been pushing ICTS/ART on the Eglinton line, because in their mind they can have Eglinton service the airport and kill off Blue22. And in order to do that, they need something bigger than a LRT but smaller than a subway. And here is where bombardier comes in with a solution to save the day.

It's a valid proposition that can save a lot of money and headache (Weston community):
1) Build a real subway along Eglinton
2) Have your regular Eglinton service every 1 to 3 minutes
3) Every 3rd train is a downtown pickup airport service train: It goes from Scarb. to Yonge, down the Yonge line, looping through Union Station up the University line to Eglinton and then heads West on Eglinton to YYZ.

Boom. Instant Blue22 without the blues and the green.

EDIT 1: It can get better still: build the DRL and have this baby use it to pick up passengers all along the downtown and head for the Airport.

EDIT 2: It can get even better than that: build a 3rd track for express trains on Eglinton and on the DRL. The Airport Rocket would skip by most stations, only stopping at the key ones, using the express line to overtake regular subway service, completing the trip to Mississauga International in a third of the time.

 

[unimaginative2]

It's a good idea, but unfortunately it's not workable. Not only would that cost far more than an express service along the Weston Sub while being much less comfortable or quick, it would also be impossible to implement because Yonge trains are already crowded all the way up to Finch and there is no way that one in three could be turned back at Eglinton.

I just don't understand the intense problems people have with Blue 22. Anyone who has seen the number of people who spend 60 bucks to sit in traffic in a taxi out to the airport would realize there is a very substantial market for Blue 22. The NIMBY claims are clearly illegitimate, especially if the route is electrified and GO is operating a frequent service anyway. None of it precludes offering another more local service to the airport, such as a branch of the Eglinton LRT, the existing Airport Rocket, or a shuttle from the GO line.

 

[MisterF]

Huh? I'm not sure what you're talking about exactly, but I was pointing out how Eglinton and the Blue22 aren't really replacements of each other in terms of an Airport link. An Eglinton Subway/LRT would attract a totally different rider base than Blue22 would, and vice-versa. Eglinton might not attract as many riders as Blue22, but it will attract riders that would find Blue22 inconvenient to their needs.

I'm not saying that Blue22 will get more riders than the Eglinton line. I'm saying that a light rail line along the Weston sub would get more airport passengers using it than the Eglinton LRT will.

 

[Republic of Toronto]

TTC Politics

Its funny how they worded it; "potentially less disruptive at the surface" so they don't really know if its going to be any better than cut and cover.

That's TTC politics when they can't accept that water is wet. They use the term "potentially".

Its cheaper, faster and much, much less disruptive.

 

[kEiThZ]

The Jane line shows the flaw in the Transit City plan. I am guessing they needed north-south lines (Jane and Morningside) in the east and the west to flesh out the network and connect the East-West lines (Sheppard, Eglinton, Finch). But the placement seems to be somewhat arbitrary. There are corridors other than Jane in the west end where a LRT line would have been more effective. Ditto for the east end (Kennedy or McCowan North for example).

 

[Second_in_pie]

The Jane line shows the flaw in the Transit City plan. I am guessing they needed north-south lines (Jane and Morningside) in the east and the west to flesh out the network and connect the East-West lines (Sheppard, Eglinton, Finch). But the placement seems to be somewhat arbitrary. There are corridors other than Jane in the west end where a LRT line would have been more effective. Ditto for the east end (Kennedy or McCowan North for example).

I'd go with Islington for the West and McCowan/Danforth Road for the East. McCowan/Danforth Road might make more sense as just BRT, but I'm not quite sure.

EDIT: I don't think that it's as much a need for an extra North-South Line as it is for the politics that a Jane and Malvern LRT will bring. The N-S linkage is just a side-effect.

 

[nfitz]

I'd go with Islington for the West

The Islington bus has only 16,600 riders compared to 39,000 on Jane. In addition Jane has other routes that run along it for shorter distances, while Islington has none.

Why would you choose Islington over Jane?

 

[Second_in_pie]

I'm not sure, but I believe Kipling has a very high ridership. Either one is fine, it doesn't really matter and putting LRT on either route will take most of the ridership of the other one.

The other thing is that LRT is only useful over BRT in that it can accommodate more riders that BRT and that it attracts more people. On Jane, many people use the bus because they have to. That means it's much closer to it's maximum possible ridership than most of the other routes in the city. Ergo, less people will be attracted to it simply due to the fact that it's LRT. Also, that means that there's less future ridership that needs to be accommodated for, and most of that can be served by Articulated busses. Of course we can't forget about Jane, so Articulated Busses, maybe HOV lanes to Eglinton and Signal Priority would do just fine.

My facts are not 100% accurate, but when putting Jane up against Islington or Kipling, that's my breakdown of the difference.

Does anyone have any actual numbers on Kipling? I could swear it's number was around the same as Jane, but I can't be sure at all. Somehow my TTC surface transit ridership link died ):

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

it will be interesting to see how the introduction of each new TC line will effect ridership on other routes.

 

[Dan416]

As had been pointed out a few times on UT, successful conversions of premetros to full metros had been vanishingly few. Pretty much the only examples are Lines 1 and 2 of Brussels, Lines U2 and U4 of Vienna, and Line 2 of Rio de Janeiro. Vienna's lines basically required a complete rebuild (which took 5 years each) so are not the most comparable examples. The Rio line already started out with high-platforms, partial third rail and a separate ROW with grade crossings, and had a very low service frequency, but the conversion to full metro (mainly by removing grade crossings) still took 3 years. The stations of Brussels' premetro lines all have partial high platforms so that only part of the platforms need to raised for conversion; line 1 (2 km, 6 stations) took 4 years, line 2 (3.5 km, 8 stations) took a miraculous 2 years (compare that to Eglinton's 8-10 km, 12-14 stations), and none of the other lines had since been converted in 30 years. None of the German and American premetros, many of which have built-in conversion-ready features, have ever been converted in the past 100 years. As I've said before, given the trackrecord of TTC (and Canadian transit in general), I do not see we'll do any better, and Eglinton is unlikely to ever see conversion in the next 1-2 centuries.

I'm not saying I trust the TTC either. I'm not familiar with how convertible the Brussels lines were built. But here are some quotes from TRZ on SSC about the Eglinton LRT:

It's using subway specifications for the underground portion. Streetcars and subways can use the same tracks if the tunnel is both wide and tall enough.

I can confirm from people actually involved in the project that subway compatability is in fact planned. It's a challenging design problem, but the TTC definately wants it, as it fears it could be embarrassed in the future if it doesn't protect for it.

 

[golodhendil]

I'm not saying I trust the TTC either. I'm not familiar with how convertible the Brussels lines were built. But here are some quotes from TRZ on SSC about the Eglinton LRT:

Brussels' premetro is about as conversion-ready as one could get. Here is a schematic of a typical station, showing how the stations, tunnels and ROW are all of the right dimensions to fit metro trains:

This is one of the many stations that have remained premetro after 40 years:

Notice the raised platforms that cover most of the station; the only things that need to be done is to fill in the depressed portions (which happened progressively while trams were still running, until the final fill-in), removing overhead wires, changing the rails and adding third rail (which required closing down the system).
This is as, if not more, conversion-ready as Eglinton would be.