[kettal]

Gweed123, the tunnel is being built to specifications for the easiest upgrade to subway if it's needed in the future. And stop spacing in the tunnel is comparable to the station spacing on Bloor-Danforth subway.

I've seen raised train platforms being built in less than a week. with my own eyes. Your fears are already accounted for my friend , you can rest easy

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Perhaps they're skipping a station at Laird because some Lawrence/Leaside/Flemingdon buses will continue to run on Eglinton (they claim no parallel bus service will operate but that doesn't exclude bus routes that currently feed onto Eglinton...I haven't seen specific details about what will happen to each bus route). Transit projects are planned in this city with zero concern for keeping budgets under control so they're definitely not worried about the cost of adding a stop or two. A station near Banff might also be considered 'missing.' Practically nobody will use Eglinton to travel across the city, so there's no point skipping stations for the sake of speed.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Easily?? No no no. Let me tell you why:

Why are you assuming you'd immediately have to convert to heavy rail transit? Tunnelled LRT offers a ton of capacity, runs at essentially the same speed, and if future demands warrant it they could make the tunnel extend further, adding grade separation to the whole line.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Where would passengers at the east end of the Eglinton line be headed? Downtown? If the DRL were built to Don Mills and Eg and an Eglinton subway were built between Jane and Don Mills (per Gweeds proposal) riders would only still only have a one transfer ride into the downtown core. Only instead of transferring at Yonge and Eg they are transferring to the eastern DRL. Not a major loss if you ask me, in fact it might be a gain.

If the Western leg of the DRL were built to Jane and Eglinton you'd have the same situation in the West as well.

 

[junctionist]

The Eglinton corridor isn't that dense, but suburban Toronto is dotted with clusters of towers in Etobicoke and North York with people, often immigrants who get onto arterial bus routes and head for the BD or YUS lines, which is often a long and inefficient journey to rapid transit.

Also, the airport area is emerging a large employment node with all the offices and hotels, not to mention the thousands who work at the airport. It's also the most important port in Canada's densest region. It should get a municipal grade separated transit link, and I think the feds could appreciate the value of the line.

Scarborough's centre is getting denser, Yonge and Eglinton now has a landmark tower of over fifty floors.

Rapid transit can open up new travel patterns and spur growth in Toronto, like highways in the suburbs. For instance, a person buys a more affordable condo in suburban Toronto. Taking the LRT or bus to an employment area will seem slow, and driving to an urban area with limited parking undesirable, so if the person can also find a similar employment opportunity in an office park surrounded by parking, that person is probably more likely to drive to the office park. Lost is ridership and development potential, and the LRT will probably not exceed capacity for many, many decades.

 

[gweed123]

Why are you assuming you'd immediately have to convert to heavy rail transit? Tunnelled LRT offers a ton of capacity, runs at essentially the same speed, and if future demands warrant it they could make the tunnel extend further, adding grade separation to the whole line.

I was just responding to an earlier post by kettal saying it would be easy to convert an LRT into a subway if needed. I just wanted to debunk that theory.

Obviously it would be pretty foolish to build an LRT subway and then turn around 5 years later and turn it into an HRT subway. If we do build an LRT subway along Eglinton, we're stuck with it for at least 25 years (ie after Metrolinx has implemented the RTP, and can now go around for seconds).

The same goes for adding grade separation to the whole line though. Metrolinx budgeted for 25 years and $55 billion. Some people may look at that number and go "well what's another $1 billion to make the whole thing grade separated?". Answer: a lot. Chances are they won't even look at grade separating the rest of the line until the RTP is finished. At least with my proposal, the Jane-Don Mills subway is in the 15 year plan, and the end sections in the 25 year plan. If you stipulate that in advance, then it will be included in the budget. If you don't (as the TTC has not), you wait your turn until everyone has had a chance.

 

[Darwinkgo]

I was just responding to an earlier post by kettal saying it would be easy to convert an LRT into a subway if needed. I just wanted to debunk that theory.

Obviously it would be pretty foolish to build an LRT subway and then turn around 5 years later and turn it into an HRT subway. If we do build an LRT subway along Eglinton, we're stuck with it for at least 25 years (ie after Metrolinx has implemented the RTP, and can now go around for seconds).

The same goes for adding grade separation to the whole line though. Metrolinx budgeted for 25 years and $55 billion. Some people may look at that number and go "well what's another $1 billion to make the whole thing grade separated?". Answer: a lot. Chances are they won't even look at grade separating the rest of the line until the RTP is finished. At least with my proposal, the Jane-Don Mills subway is in the 15 year plan, and the end sections in the 25 year plan. If you stipulate that in advance, then it will be included in the budget. If you don't (as the TTC has not), you wait your turn until everyone has had a chance.

With 5 car trains (125 m platforms), the LRT in Calgary will be able to provide 30,000 people per direction per hour of capacity. The only reason LRT may not be able to meet capacity, is if the trains are too short, or the platforms are constructed too short. It wouldn't help to convert to subway in that situation anyways. It will likely never need to be converted, only the tunnel may be extended in the future. There is little benefit in converting the line in the future to subway rolling stock unless you really need the marginal increase in capacity that subway trains provide over similar length LRT trains. If there are big demand differences between the tunnel section and the above ground section you can short turn trains to stay in the tunnel.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Ok, I'm getting sick of this so I'll speak my mind.

These are pathetic excuses for not building subway. LRT is not the solve all problems for an incredibly low price form of transit. They have their place, but subway does as well.

You go on and on about improved speeds, Eglinton's underground segment and low cost, but the fact of the matter is that Subways are needed, they're justified, they have obvious advantages over LRT, and the TTC's ludicrously high subway costs are blatantly political propaganda for the method of supporting LRT instead of subway.
Sheppard was in fact built for less than $160 million/km (less than $190 million/km in today's dollars) with a difficult interchange, irresponsibly overbuilt stations and full underground tunnel boring. And on routes like Eglinton and Don Mills, there are numerous ways to lower that cost dramatically using cut and cover, trenching and raised guideways that could cut the cost of building even further.

LRT is being advertised as a subway alternative, and the TC advocates on this board are treating it as so. It is most certainly not. They cite cities in European countries building LRT networks like Transit City, yet that's not a full description. These cities already have hugely expansive subway and regional rail networks that they are in fact continuing to expand to this day (see: London, Paris, Madrid, New York, and countless other cities in Europe and Asia.)
They are building their LRT and BRT networks as simply better bus routes, not as actual Rapid Transit routes. They see routes that are over capacity or aren't getting their true potential flushed out, and increase their speed and capacity marginally to provide a better service to people using that line. Suggesting that they expect people from the far reaches of the city to transfer onto these LRTs for kilometers to reach one of two subway lines is ridiculous and untrue.

There are rare cases such as Curitiba (Brasil, and their population is about half of ours,) where a full BRT system has worked quite well. In this situation of Curitiba, the BRTs have total rule of the road, with limited stops, high frequencies and high bus speeds. Downtown, the routes weave together to create a dense network of separate routes instead of one single route as the YUS does, which allows the system ridership to be significantly more spread out that the likes of the YUS. Transit City will not be doing this, and will continue to support the entire city on just two subway lines.
If the designers of Transit City could come up with a plan to radially bring the population into the CBD using busses and LRTs across the entire city (which, when considering the lakeside geography, is over twice the distance that Curitiba has to travel,) then I might support it if the numbers looked good and it could do so reliably and quickly. I'd consider such a feat impossible considering the geography and preexisting 2 subway lines, but I would support it if it looks like it would work.

Over the past two months, the pro-TC arguments have been getting shakier and shakier, stretching boundaries even further. The truth is that LRT will provide nowhere near subway-level service. It won't get people out of their cars unlike subway, and unless there is a bigger rapid transit network to accommodate their travels and increased ridership, it won't get people out of their cars at all.
I've said it many times, and I think that most if not all of the anti-TC people here have stated that they're not against LRT, but Transit City. I've said it myself several times, LRT is a good thing. It can increase speeds and can increase capacity on routes that don't have much of an alternate option. Most LRTs in the world have full signal priority at intersections, and are designed so the LRTs can operate at a very high speed in a separated median, which Transit City is not looking into. Most LRTs in the world are also supplements to preexisting rapid transit networks, essentially as souped-up bus services. Toronto does not have that network that most cities of our size have, and should not be taking LRT as an easier alternative to true rapid transit.

Unless the pathetic arguments stop, I'm not commenting on any more of these TC debates. When Transit City gets built and we realize that the idea was stupid and not good planning at all, I'll just be laughing. I don't plan to directly affiliate myself with the City anytime soon, but I think I'll also be sad that our city's future got screwed over by a Mayor who was pushing a transit "plan" that really had no base in reality. The "key" parts of Transit City, being Eglinton and Sheppard, will quite seriously maim, if not kill our city's transit future and will definitely take away from the good other lines such as Finch West could do.

So unless someone agrees with me on this, I guess I'll be off on this debate until the project is finished.

 

[kettal]

Sheesh. All those words, and not one of them explains why the current design for Eglinton is insufficient to the needs of this corridor.

It's a total myth that you have to be "either with us or against us" on the whole Transit City plan. You're allowed to like some of the lines on a project-by-project basis. I promise, nobody will call you a traitor.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I just like supporting transit plans that will meet our near-term needs and actually have a chance of getting built in the next decade but whatever, let's act like the world is ending.

 

[Fresh Start]

Perhaps they're skipping a station at Laird because some Lawrence/Leaside/Flemingdon buses will continue to run on Eglinton (they claim no parallel bus service will operate but that doesn't exclude bus routes that currently feed onto Eglinton...I haven't seen specific details about what will happen to each bus route). Transit projects are planned in this city with zero concern for keeping budgets under control so they're definitely not worried about the cost of adding a stop or two. A station near Banff might also be considered 'missing.' Practically nobody will use Eglinton to travel across the city, so there's no point skipping stations for the sake of speed.

A station at Banff is not necessary and would lack preforming the secondary function of intercepting a north-south bus route like other stops along the line do. Were the stop spacings more ergonomical, Banff easily becomes walking distance of either Mount Pleasant (with an eastern exit out to Foreman) or Bayview Statons (with a western exit out to Mann Ave).

I do however think that skipping Laird is a major mistake. The 56 bus sees more traffic than the 88 does and that intersection is literally the heart of Leaside's commerical activities. Add to that the 1300 metre gap in-between Bayview and Brentcliffe, and one quickly realizes most of residential Leaside is getting snubbed. A station spanning Sutherland to Laird at least makes it possible for folk at say Rumsey to have an easier walk to/from the subway by contrast instead of enduring long waits for the over lapping bus service.

Where would passengers at the east end of the Eglinton line be headed? Downtown? If the DRL were built to Don Mills and Eg and an Eglinton subway were built between Jane and Don Mills (per Gweeds proposal) riders would only still only have a one transfer ride into the downtown core. Only instead of transferring at Yonge and Eg they are transferring to the eastern DRL. Not a major loss if you ask me, in fact it might be a gain.

If the Western leg of the DRL were built to Jane and Eglinton you'd have the same situation in the West as well.

As a subway, transferring at all would not even be necessary. DRL Subway and Eglinton Subway could be amalgamated into one single line. This is why I'm so adamant that the modes be the same along both routes so that interlined trips to the airport from either corridor is a possibility. Eastbound trips from Pearson could wye at Mount Dennis Stn whereby every second train coninues east along Eglinton while the rest head down the Weston-Galt Sub into the downtown core.

As it'd be a loop service, eastbound Eglinton trips eventually become westbound DRL trips after veering down Don Mills Rd and in turn eastbound DRL trips become westbound Eglinton trips. Dedicated bus or LRT service would hence carry forth rapid service along Eglinton East, Don Mills and Jane for the areas beyond the subway.

Below's an illustration of just how this would look like (take note how my version of the DRL is geared more towards alleviating dense pockets within the innercity and the downtown streetcars than the waterfront area which will be overserved by mass tranist within a few short years).

 

[GraphicMatt]

I've said it many times, and I think that most if not all of the anti-TC people here have stated that they're not against LRT, but Transit City. I've said it myself several times, LRT is a good thing. It can increase speeds and can increase capacity on routes that don't have much of an alternate option. Most LRTs in the world have full signal priority at intersections, and are designed so the LRTs can operate at a very high speed in a separated median, which Transit City is not looking into.

This is the best part because it includes a reasonable concern (lack of signal priority) which could be dealt with through a relatively simple fix (install good signal priority) but instead is part of a larger argument that advocates for throwing the entire plan away and starting from scratch.

It's like you're making a big pot of soup, and give it a taste and find out it needs salt. But instead of adding salt you overturn the entire pot, spilling it onto the floor, and then you order a pizza. But in this case maybe your pizza won't show up for another decade.

 

[Voltz]

Ok, I'm getting sick of this so I'll speak my mind.

These are pathetic excuses for not building subway. LRT is not the solve all problems for an incredibly low price form of transit. They have their place, but subway does as well.

You go on and on about improved speeds, Eglinton's underground segment and low cost, but the fact of the matter is that Subways are needed, they're justified, they have obvious advantages over LRT, and the TTC's ludicrously high subway costs are blatantly political propaganda for the method of supporting LRT instead of subway.
Sheppard was in fact built for less than $160 million/km (less than $190 million/km in today's dollars) with a difficult interchange, irresponsibly overbuilt stations and full underground tunnel boring. And on routes like Eglinton and Don Mills, there are numerous ways to lower that cost dramatically using cut and cover, trenching and raised guideways that could cut the cost of building even further.

LRT is being advertised as a subway alternative, and the TC advocates on this board are treating it as so. It is most certainly not. They cite cities in European countries building LRT networks like Transit City, yet that's not a full description. These cities already have hugely expansive subway and regional rail networks that they are in fact continuing to expand to this day (see: London, Paris, Madrid, New York, and countless other cities in Europe and Asia.)
They are building their LRT and BRT networks as simply better bus routes, not as actual Rapid Transit routes. They see routes that are over capacity or aren't getting their true potential flushed out, and increase their speed and capacity marginally to provide a better service to people using that line. Suggesting that they expect people from the far reaches of the city to transfer onto these LRTs for kilometers to reach one of two subway lines is ridiculous and untrue.

There are rare cases such as Curitiba (Brasil, and their population is about half of ours,) where a full BRT system has worked quite well. In this situation of Curitiba, the BRTs have total rule of the road, with limited stops, high frequencies and high bus speeds. Downtown, the routes weave together to create a dense network of separate routes instead of one single route as the YUS does, which allows the system ridership to be significantly more spread out that the likes of the YUS. Transit City will not be doing this, and will continue to support the entire city on just two subway lines.
If the designers of Transit City could come up with a plan to radially bring the population into the CBD using busses and LRTs across the entire city (which, when considering the lakeside geography, is over twice the distance that Curitiba has to travel,) then I might support it if the numbers looked good and it could do so reliably and quickly. I'd consider such a feat impossible considering the geography and preexisting 2 subway lines, but I would support it if it looks like it would work.

Over the past two months, the pro-TC arguments have been getting shakier and shakier, stretching boundaries even further. The truth is that LRT will provide nowhere near subway-level service. It won't get people out of their cars unlike subway, and unless there is a bigger rapid transit network to accommodate their travels and increased ridership, it won't get people out of their cars at all.
I've said it many times, and I think that most if not all of the anti-TC people here have stated that they're not against LRT, but Transit City. I've said it myself several times, LRT is a good thing. It can increase speeds and can increase capacity on routes that don't have much of an alternate option. Most LRTs in the world have full signal priority at intersections, and are designed so the LRTs can operate at a very high speed in a separated median, which Transit City is not looking into. Most LRTs in the world are also supplements to preexisting rapid transit networks, essentially as souped-up bus services. Toronto does not have that network that most cities of our size have, and should not be taking LRT as an easier alternative to true rapid transit.

Unless the pathetic arguments stop, I'm not commenting on any more of these TC debates. When Transit City gets built and we realize that the idea was stupid and not good planning at all, I'll just be laughing. I don't plan to directly affiliate myself with the City anytime soon, but I think I'll also be sad that our city's future got screwed over by a Mayor who was pushing a transit "plan" that really had no base in reality. The "key" parts of Transit City, being Eglinton and Sheppard, will quite seriously maim, if not kill our city's transit future and will definitely take away from the good other lines such as Finch West could do.

So unless someone agrees with me on this, I guess I'll be off on this debate until the project is finished.

Thank you!!!

And this is not an argument, just a question; other than the outdated cost of the sheppard subway, why does all of eglinton need a subway?

 

[nfitz]

Ok, I'm getting sick of this so I'll speak my mind.

These are pathetic excuses for not building subway. LRT is not the solve all problems for an incredibly low price form of transit. They have their place, but subway does as well.

If you would provide solid technical and financial reason that the line should be subway then do so. But I just don't see that in your post. We've established that subway is not needed to meet demand. We've also established that the LRT service in the busier, underground section will be better than subway service, as it will be the same speed, but more frequent trains. We've established that the line could be upgrade to subway in the distant future, if need arises.

I just don't see what there is to debate on that issue.

As for the Brentcliffe-Bayview gap ... I don't know why they just don't move that station to Laird. There's almost nothing worth mentioning that would use the Brentcliffe station east of Brentcliffe ... and Leslie station isn't that far away. I'd think that people would be better served with the station at Laird instead of Brentcliffe.

 

[CodeMonkey]

^^^^


The problem is that right now we have the politicians agreeing on the Provincial and Federal levels to help pay for these projects. The problem is if we don't invest in subways now we won't see a subway ever on this line for the next 20-30 years, or maybe never? They'll throw every excuse in the book, "We don't have the money", "We have to raise taxes", "taxpayers outside of the city won't benefit", "it will be too costly to convert the LRT and reroute people in the meantime", etc, etc.

So lets invest in something that can handle traffic for the next 20-30 years. LRT's are a great idea and there are parts of the city than can benefit from them. But lets not kid ourself that a mass network of LRTs is the solution to our transit problems.