[GraphicMatt]

Yes, but if they didn't build stations and instead just had people leap off the train onto gym mat padding, you could totally get that price down by a few million dollars.

 

[Second_in_pie]

^^ Imagine how much faster it would be if they did that!

 

[Rainforest]

LRT is a reasonable compromise for Eglinton route, as long as that LRT is designed well. TTC is already taking some steps in the right direction: 90-m (3-car) platforms, and trying to eliminate left turns.

However, other opportunities to enhance the service should be explored as well:

1) Using off-road alignment where feasible - Richview corridor in Etobicoke, and some sections in East York. The EAs published so far did not even analyze that option.

2) Tunneling under / bridging over intersections where the landscape favors it. Tunneling or bridging may not be an option where the landscape is flat (speed loss when exiting the tunnel / entering the bridge negates the time saving). However, at some intersections in York and Etobicoke, a tunnel or bridge could fit naturally.

3) Turn-back facilities are definitely needed at both ends of the central tunneled section. If one of the on-street sections is down due to an accident or another problem, the most heavily used central section must keep working.

 

[Fresh Start]

What's disappointing is how 'visionary' the planners of the mid-1990s were in contrast to this generation's Transit City crowd. Imagine had the Eglinton West subway Phase I actually been built to Mount Dennis. By now the next logical would be extending the line to Pearson, with an equally compelling bid to extend east to Leaside. No absurd midblock 'stations' like Mulham Pl or Emmett. No road median, five minute headwayed, queue-jump lacking, motorist nightmare LRT trek. No meandering tour of the Airport Corporate Ctr en route, when frequently scheduled buses out of Carlingview or Martin Grove Stns would be suffive enough.

This is the legacy of years of transit stagnation then too hasty a scramble to piece something 'distributive' together that the whole city, in theory, would find beneficial.

The Crosstown LRT deserves to really be a subway corridor. If low ridership in Etobicoke is a deterrent, then consider the section from Keele to Kingston Rd. By far the busiest and most continuous local crosstown south of the 401. The numbers don't lie, combined overlapping services through Eglinton number in the six figures and with the Crosstown LRT looking like it'll total $5 billion... it just may be a better trade-off long-term to end up with a shorter subway line that more people will be willing to transfer onto and commute along day-to-day because of its larger carrying capacity, improved speeds from being in exclusive ROW and minimal headways. Come to think of it, even Etobicoke stops will be heavily used, if not by walk-ins (although Scarlett, RY, Kipling and MG around Eglinton are all flanked by apartment buildings so low local patronage is unlikely) then definitely from southbound feeder buses letting off people prior to the Bloor-Danforth Line. And then there's all the MT and possibly BT routes that'd feed into the western terminii.

Instead of a opened trench however as you guys suggest, why not an elevated guideway? The portal could emerge out of Mt. Dennis (west of Guestville), dip breify under the Jane intersection running at grade through Eglinton Flats west to the Humber Valley, then cross via its own bridge which gradually ascends to the guideway, an average 10m above ground level. Stations at 200m length could bridge the gaps in-between major and minor intersections such the the need for a parallel bus route along Eglinton would be unnecessary. I take it that the expenditure for the elevated guideway for roughly 6 kms (and an additional 4 kms beyond Richview to get to the airport) would be less expensive than the central tunneled section, itself estimated at $2.2 billion for 10-12 kms.

In light of such appraisal a subway from PIA to the DVP, with dedicated bus lanes prioritized for Eglinton to the east, would cost no more than $5 billion and satisfy the need for a crosstown rapid transit through the central 416 area.

 

[Rainforest]

^ I think that any Eglinton subway plan that does not reach the airport, defeats the purpose of Eglinton subway. Everything else but the airport connection, can be handled quite well by the LRT. At the same time, a mixed-traffic bus connection to the airport from a midway terminal is inferior to a continuous LRT link.

A subway from PIA to the DVP is a better idea. However, the suggestion that those 24 km can be built for less than 5 B is way too optimistic, given the projected per-km cost of Spadina extension (even if those 6 km in Richview can be built somewhat cheaper).

 

[gweed123]

Honestly, I don't like this plan. In the short term, it will result in less efficient transit along Eglinton than the existing LRT plan: too many transfers. The bus transit to airport from a subway terminus at Keele or Jane, likely in mixed traffic, will not be appealing at all (I'd rather take 192 Rocket from Kipling, or 401 GO bus from Yorkdale).

In the long term, if we keep investing in Eglinton subway, it will eventually create better transit in this particular corridor. However, the extra cost (over LRT) would be at least 3 or 4 billions, which can build a lot of other projects.

Why does it have to be shared lane? Widening the outer portions of Eglinton would not be a truly significant venture, and installing outside lane BRT would negate all of this left turn nonsense.

By the calculations listed above, BRT is quite able to handle the passenger load on the extremities of the corridor as a temporary measure. Like I've said before, BRT is easier and cheaper to implement, and easier and cheaper to upgrade later on.

And I fail to see how digging an HRT tunnel from Jane to Don Mills would be significantly more than digging an LRT tunnel from Keele to Laird. The lowered cost of using BRT instead of LRT for the extremities would balance out the extra tunnelling costs, while leaving much more opportunity for expansion further down the road. How many people are actually going to be using Eglinton as a "crosstown" anyways? You can't tell me that Kennedy to Martin Grove is a significant trip generator. People will use the line to access YUS.

Also, using BRT along the Western section of Eglinton opens up the possibility for the Mississauga BRT (currently ending at the 427) to use the same lanes, creating a more seamless connection between MT and the TTC.

If modal transfers are going to work so well on Sheppard (as the TTC is claiming), why not on Eglinton too? At least doing it on Eglinton still leaves the chance for expansion in the future. The Sheppard subway's eastern terminus will forever be Don Mills.

 

[kettal]

And I fail to see how digging an HRT tunnel from Jane to Don Mills would be significantly more than digging an LRT tunnel from Keele to Laird. The lowered cost of using BRT instead of LRT for the extremities would balance out the extra tunnelling costs, while leaving much more opportunity for expansion further down the road. How many people are actually going to be using Eglinton as a "crosstown" anyways? You can't tell me that Kennedy to Martin Grove is a significant trip generator. People will use the line to access YUS.

Also, using BRT along the Western section of Eglinton opens up the possibility for the Mississauga BRT (currently ending at the 427) to use the same lanes, creating a more seamless connection between MT and the TTC.

So you think it's more important to make a "seamless connection" between MT and the TTC than it is to have a "seamless connection" for someone wanting to make as simple a journey as Royal York & Eglinton to Bathurst & Eglinton? Sheesh.

If modal transfers are going to work so well on Sheppard (as the TTC is claiming), why not on Eglinton too? At least doing it on Eglinton still leaves the chance for expansion in the future. The Sheppard subway's eastern terminus will forever be Don Mills.

Arbitrary transfers are never ideal. But the sheppard transfer will involve nothing more than walking to another train on the same platform. Is this even possible in the subway-bus scenario?

There's literally no advantage to making a subway from Keele to Don Mills, or whatever. What's the advantage?? There's no legitimate capacity concerns, and it's underground and at equal speed regardless of technology. Your subway idea is a solution in search of a problem.

 

[kettal]

EDIT: As I think about it, this really is urban planning at it's absolute worst. There is no way that a LRT will bring high density, mixed use development to Eglinton west.

The definition of good planning is not to build ultra high density everywhere. What Toronto really needs is more medium density neighbourhoods. Consider that even as the 416 area population grows, the number of families with children is shrinking, schools are closing. Families just don't want to live in 45-story condo buildings. With the LRT through Eglinton West, it can provide a sustainable community where more than just yuppies will want to live.

 

[Rainforest]

Why does it have to be shared lane? Widening the outer portions of Eglinton would not be a truly significant venture, and installing outside lane BRT would negate all of this left turn nonsense.

By the calculations listed above, BRT is quite able to handle the passenger load on the extremities of the corridor as a temporary measure. Like I've said before, BRT is easier and cheaper to implement, and easier and cheaper to upgrade later on.

You are probably right that building BRT west of Jane should be relatively cheap.

However, even that does not make trips to / from airport with luggage particularly appealing - too many transfers. A continuous LRT link is not as good as continuous subway, but is clearly better than a subway / BRT combo.

And I fail to see how digging an HRT tunnel from Jane to Don Mills would be significantly more than digging an LRT tunnel from Keele to Laird. The lowered cost of using BRT instead of LRT for the extremities would balance out the extra tunnelling costs, while leaving much more opportunity for expansion further down the road.

I'd like to see a tunnel from Jane to Don Mills, even if it is LRT. However, it will cost noticeably more than Keele to Laird. Extra 5 km of tunnel is not cheap.

How many people are actually going to be using Eglinton as a "crosstown" anyways? You can't tell me that Kennedy to Martin Grove is a significant trip generator. People will use the line to access YUS.

I think that the majority of Eglinton LRT riders will, indeed, use it to access YUS. But even for those, extra transfer at Jane or Don Mills will be a nuisance.

Regarding cross-town trips: there is no single large generator of such trips, but there are many origin-destination pairs for which Eglinton Crosstown LRT will be useful. Say, I want to get from Islington / Dixon to Ontario Science Centre. I can take Islington bus to Eglinton: 7 min, LRT to Don Mills: 35 min, bus to Science Centre: 5 min, total 47 min. If I use Bloor subway: 20 min by bus to Islington Stn, 22 min by subway to Pape Stn, 15 min to Science Centre: total 57 min.

If modal transfers are going to work so well on Sheppard (as the TTC is claiming), why not on Eglinton too? At least doing it on Eglinton still leaves the chance for expansion in the future. The Sheppard subway's eastern terminus will forever be Don Mills.

I don't think transfers will be helpful on Sheppard, either. Therefore, I'd rather extend the subway to Agincourt and have the LRT run east of Agincourt only. That will not eliminate all transfers, but substantially reduce the number of passengers who have to transfer.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The Ontario Science Centre is at Eglinton Avenue East and Don Mills Road. At the current time, I use the 35 Jane bus to get to the 2 Bloor-Danforth HRT subway, transfer to the HRT subway to get to the Pape station, where I transfer again to the 25 Don Mills bus to get to the Ontario Science Centre. The bus stop on Don Mills is right in front of the entrance. I would avoid the 32 Eglinton West and 34 Eglinton East because of the traffic jams on Eglinton.

With the LRT, once I get to it, I would be able to get to the Ontario Science Centre easily and quickly. The LRT would generate a lot more visitors.

However, there is one big problem with the Centre. The asphalt desert, which we will have to transverse to get to the entrance from Eglinton. Will there be an expansion or renovation to the Ontario Science Centre to convert, what will be, a wasteland to a new building entrance?

 

[Second_in_pie]

Why does it have to be shared lane? Widening the outer portions of Eglinton would not be a truly significant venture, and installing outside lane BRT would negate all of this left turn nonsense.

By the calculations listed above, BRT is quite able to handle the passenger load on the extremities of the corridor as a temporary measure. Like I've said before, BRT is easier and cheaper to implement, and easier and cheaper to upgrade later on.

And I fail to see how digging an HRT tunnel from Jane to Don Mills would be significantly more than digging an LRT tunnel from Keele to Laird. The lowered cost of using BRT instead of LRT for the extremities would balance out the extra tunnelling costs, while leaving much more opportunity for expansion further down the road. How many people are actually going to be using Eglinton as a "crosstown" anyways? You can't tell me that Kennedy to Martin Grove is a significant trip generator. People will use the line to access YUS.

Also, using BRT along the Western section of Eglinton opens up the possibility for the Mississauga BRT (currently ending at the 427) to use the same lanes, creating a more seamless connection between MT and the TTC.

If modal transfers are going to work so well on Sheppard (as the TTC is claiming), why not on Eglinton too? At least doing it on Eglinton still leaves the chance for expansion in the future. The Sheppard subway's eastern terminus will forever be Don Mills.

This. So much this.

The reason that the modal transfer at Sheppard is so bad is because that's expected to be a permanent fix. Putting BRT at the extremities of Eglinton is in no way permanent. Putting bus lanes at the edge of the road would probably cost less than $5k! The point is that the subway would get extended later after the first portion is built. With Sheppard, there's no way that the subway will still get built if the SELRT is built.

But I think that's what should be done on Eglinton. Subway+BRT might be worse than LRT initially, but it leaves for expansion. LRT won't create a better trip than a longer subway and BRT at the extremities, yet Subway+BRT means the subway can easily be extended to go to Pearson or Kingston Road, and I believe that it would if it were built.

 

[gweed123]

This. So much this.

The reason that the modal transfer at Sheppard is so bad is because that's expected to be a permanent fix. Putting BRT at the extremities of Eglinton is in no way permanent. Putting bus lanes at the edge of the road would probably cost less than $5k! The point is that the subway would get extended later after the first portion is built. With Sheppard, there's no way that the subway will still get built if the SELRT is built.

But I think that's what should be done on Eglinton. Subway+BRT might be worse than LRT initially, but it leaves for expansion. LRT won't create a better trip than a longer subway and BRT at the extremities, yet Subway+BRT means the subway can easily be extended to go to Pearson or Kingston Road, and I believe that it would if it were built.

That's what I've been trying to say, and what some previous repliers have chosen to ignore. The BRT is not a permanent solution. Nor is it intended to be a permanent solution. It's just a heck of a lot easier down the road to just repaint the lines of the BRT lane and turn them into regular lanes than it is to rip up LRT tracks and dig a subway underneath.

Upgrading LRT to HRT is an extremely expensive endeavour, and thus will likely never get done. Built LRT now, forget about building HRT later. There is NO way the TTC is going to allow upgrades to the tunnelled portion (likely in the high $## millions or low $### millions), and to have that portion of the line shut down for YEARS while the upgrades take place.

Also, if we did build LRT, and one day decided to extend it, we would either need to use a deep bore under the street (very costly), or rip up the LRT tracks, replace them with buses during construction anyways (no sense relaying tracks to rip them up again a few years later). If we build BRT now, the upfront costs are a few cue jump lanes and a few bigger bus shelters (ie peanuts in the grand scheme of things). That way, the subway can be cut and covered under half of Eglinton, with traffic (including buses) using the other half. Aside from some traffic delays, a seamless extension process of a full fledged subway.

In terms of the Metrolinx RTP, the subway from Jane to Don Mills would fall under the 15 year plan, and the extensions from Jane to Pearson, and from Don Mills to Kennedy would fall under the 25 year plan.

I would also like to point out that the B-D subway was also built using this method. The original line (Keele to Woodbine) was completed first, with the extensions to Islington and Warden completed several years later. The existing streetcar tracks were used on the un-subwayed portions of B-D, until the subway replacing it opened. Temporary transfer platforms from streetcar to subway were built at the terminuses. It can be done. It has been done. It has worked.

 

[Dan416]

Arbitrary transfers are never ideal. But the sheppard transfer will involve nothing more than walking to another train on the same platform. Is this even possible in the subway-bus scenario?

I find the transfer double-standard re: Eglinton versus Sheppard. A transfer is okay for Sheppard, but not for Eglinton where it'd make more sense. I'd prefer a subway for the tunneled portion, and as others have pointed out, it's not permanent as the subway gets extended toward the extremities in the future. I absolutely do NOT like the underground section coupled with the on-street portions. It really doesn't make any sense from any perspective. For the TTC, it's going to be a nightmare to run.

There's literally no advantage to making a subway from Keele to Don Mills, or whatever. What's the advantage?? There's no legitimate capacity concerns, and it's underground and at equal speed regardless of technology. Your subway idea is a solution in search of a problem.

1. Subway was started on this corridor in the past 2. I don't hear about any capacity concerns on the Bloor-Danforth line either, but I don't hear anyone clamouring to go backward and replace it with the streetcar that was there before 3. Underground the speed is the same, of course, because it's in its own tunnel and subways and LRVs have the same approximate speed. But LRT as a technology can run on-street, and therein lies the problem. Subways can't run on streets. That is why they're so attractive. They're not delayed by cars, traffic, etc. Bunching isn't a problem on the subway system. It most definitely is on our streetcar routes.

 

[Dan416]

LRT is almost the worst of two worlds: streetcar and subway. By that I mean it has the high cost of subway (tunnelled especially) but it has the on-street problems of a streetcar (traffic, bunching).

 

[nfitz]

By that I mean it has the high cost of subway (tunnelled especially) but it has the on-street problems of a streetcar (traffic, bunching).

The design is supposed to stop bunching and spacing issues. It seems to be a bit early to be complaining that the design isn't working, when operations have yet to begin.