[GraphicMatt]

I think, generally, that you get diminishing (or mostly irrelevant) returns as speed increases. The average rider couldn't tell you how fast the Yonge Subway goes - what matters most is that at any time of day you can go into a station on the Yonge line and be on a train within five minutes. If Eglinton can offer that level of surface (which is in stark contrast to, say, Queen car service) than they've done well.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I think, generally, that you get diminishing (or mostly irrelevant) returns as speed increases. The average rider couldn't tell you how fast the Yonge Subway goes - what matters most is that at any time of day you can go into a station on the Yonge line and be on a train within five minutes. If Eglinton can offer that level of surface (which is in stark contrast to, say, Queen car service) than they've done well.

This is true, but does it not raise a question: If Eglinton as a subway could get about 5x more riders than LRT, why aren't we building subway?

EDIT: oops, that's closer to at least 2x, probably closer to 3x. In the future, it will certainly approach the B-D's ridership.

 

[nfitz]

Why do we think that the ridership would be 2 times to 3 times higher? When Eglinton West was originally planned as full subway, they were only estimating 4,100 pphpd.

 

[junctionist]

Why do we think that the ridership would be 2 times to 3 times higher? When Eglinton West was originally planned as full subway, they were only estimating 4,100 pphpd.

That's a useful figure. Do you also know how Sheppard compares today with its predicted ridership?

 

[Rainforest]

Why do we think that the ridership would be 2 times to 3 times higher? When Eglinton West was originally planned as full subway, they were only estimating 4,100 pphpd.

It is reasonable to assume that ridership level in this corridor will be very dependent on the 1) length of the route, and 2) its speed. On one hand, Eglinton crosses the city in the middle, and intercepts nearly all major N-S routes. On the other hand, most of people who could use it, have alternatives (going to Bloor subway, or taking an E-W bus to Yonge or Spadina).

So, whether people choose to use Eglinton or an alternative route, depends on how fast Eglinton is, and how far it can take them.

For the original, short Eglinton West subway (5 stations only, Black Creek to Eglinton West, not even connecting to Yonge), 4,100 pphpd seems about right (perhaps even too much). Who would use that route? People living near along that part of Eglinton; people transferring from Eglinton West bus; and a portion of passengers from Bathurst, Dufferin, Keele, and Jane buses going downtown. And that's about it. For E-W crosstown trips, most would take Bloor subway.

If Eglinton LRT crosses the whole city but runs slower than subway, then again, many people will prefer to get to Bloor subway. In that case, the TTC projections of demand below 7,000 - 8,000 pphpd are probably valid.

However, if the Eglinton line (no matter subway or LRT) both crosses the whole city and runs as fast as subway (as they claim for the Don Mills - Pearson section now), then there is no reason for the demand on Eglinton to be substantially lower than the demand on Bloor. Bloor line does not have a lot of local density, and largely depends on feeder buses. And, south is not more dense than north. Passengers from feeder buses can transfer to Eglinton just as they can to Bloor. And in that case, the LRT capacity limitations might start to matter.

 

[Dan416]

Rainforest you make some good points. If Eglinton was that fast from the airport to Yonge St or so, a lot of people would switch from Bloor. But doesn't that just dump more riders onto Yonge? Which is, you know, what we don't want?

 

[Fresh Start]

Rainforest you make some good points. If Eglinton was that fast from the airport to Yonge St or so, a lot of people would switch from Bloor. But doesn't that just dump more riders onto Yonge? Which is, you know, what we don't want?

Not when the DRL on both sides is extended to Eglinton, not when commuters from the west end find it more convenient to transfer at Allen/Eglinton West Stn. Only those needing points right on the Yonge corridor would still flock to it. We could roughly divide the line into four segments and assume that most commuters will interchange upon whichever N-S subway they encounter first. I do like Rainforest's line of thinking though. Most of Bloor's riderships stems from N-S feeder bus routes well to the north of Bloor. Eglinton would dissect them all. I already demonstrated in the other thread how Eglinton West alone would see close to 9000 passengers per hour per direction just based on existing demand and 25% increase as other rapid services feed into it (Hwy 27 BRT, Mississauga Transitway, GO). So it's really no stretch to insinuate that Eglinton could easily replicate or even surpass B-D as a crosstown mass transit route (especially if the DRL is interlined to the western segment into Pearson). This seriously factors into why the Eglinton Line ought to be a subway from day one.

 

[Rainforest]

Rainforest you make some good points. If Eglinton was that fast from the airport to Yonge St or so, a lot of people would switch from Bloor. But doesn't that just dump more riders onto Yonge? Which is, you know, what we don't want?

I'd think that any improvements to E-W routes that cross Yonge, will have some effect of making Yonge more crowded. Even if Eglinton is LRT, it will bring more riders onto Yonge, going either downtown or midtown or north.

The straightforward, and highly desirable, solution to Yonge overcrowding is, obviously, DRL.

In case DRL absolutely cannot be funded, we could look at seriously changing the commuting patterns: give employers incentives to encourage telecommuting where possible, and to stagger office hours for those workers who must be in the office ... Sounds nice in theory, but I don't know if those strategies have actually had been successfully used anywhere in the world.

 

[Rainforest]

This seriously factors into why the Eglinton Line ought to be a subway from day one.

Honestly - ideally I still would prefer to see LRT on Eglinton, but coupled with high-speed, high-frequency, electrified GO service on the Midtown GO line, with branches to the Airport and Mississauga. The GO line would be faster than subway for long-haul trips, and would protect the LRT from overcrowding, while the LRT would provide better local service for lower cost.

But unfortunately, Midtown GO express is not even seriously on the radar, let alone funded. It looks like Midtown line only gets small-scale commuter service from Summerhill to Seaton and Peterborough, and all rail service to the Airport we are getting is the expensive, limited-stop ARL.

For the 4.6 billion committed to the corridor, we have two ways of building incomplete solution. We can build subway to Pearson, I think it will only reach Yonge in Phase I (not Don Mills). That means no improvements for Eglinton East - this is bad, but a good service to Pearson from many parts of GTA - this is good. And, there will be a straightforward way to improve the corridor - just pull the subway towards Kennedy, incremental approach works.

Or, we can build Crosstown LRT. That means great local service for all of Eglinton - this is good. But then, do we pretend that we have everything in one box - LRT as local service and long-haul service? If so, we are into problems: the LRT is either too slow to satisfy long-haul travelers, or it is too fast for its own good (diverts too many passengers from Bloor and cannot handle them). Midtown GO as the rescuer? but we don't even know how much it would cost, and what is CP's take.

So, choosing between the above two imperfect solutions, I am starting to lean towards the first one: subway, even if it does not cover all of Eglinton - as long as it reaches Pearson.

 

[doady]

If Eglinton West LRT allowed 28 km/h travel that would be impressive. I would not be against the LRT if it was that fast. And it is especially important for it to be fast considering the airport and the connection with GO and MT BRT routes.

 

[GenerationW]

For the original, short Eglinton West subway (5 stations only, Black Creek to Eglinton West, not even connecting to Yonge)

If this had been built in the 90's, I wonder what Transit City would have proposed for Eglinton. An LRT on both sides?

 

[CapitalSeven]

These arguments lead to the conclusion that any planned line, built as heavy rail, will steal the ridership of an existing line, and therefore ought to be built that way. In other words, by spending four times as much on the surface portions, we can build much more capacity than is needed, and thereby render an existing line less efficient and more money-losing. Yes, that's a good plan for governments facing huge deficits. Not.

Here's another possible conclusion. If 12,000 people switch to the Eglinton line on day two of its operation, it will grind to a halt. The 12,000 people who stay on the Bloor line will observe that their trains are suddenly half empty and much more pleasant to use, and tell their friends about it, half of whom are the Eglinton riders. By day four or five, the loads will balance out and the increased capacity of the two combined lines will be used efficiently, allowing for ridership growth on both lines.

 

[Second_in_pie]

These arguments lead to the conclusion that any planned line, built as heavy rail, will steal the ridership of an existing line, and therefore ought to be built that way. In other words, by spending four times as much on the surface portions, we can build much more capacity than is needed, and thereby render an existing line less efficient and more money-losing. Yes, that's a good plan for governments facing huge deficits. Not.

And you don't think a LRT would bring up deficits? Who's saying there's much more capacity than is needed? Should we not be building the DRL, because it'll take away passengers from the Yonge corridor and make it less efficient? Network planning comes first. As the RT network gets extended more and more, more people will be choosing transit, and the transit operators throughout the GTA will become more efficient in terms of upkeep costs. It's staying nowheres that is going to continue losing money.

Here's another possible conclusion. If 12,000 people switch to the Eglinton line on day two of its operation, it will grind to a halt. The 12,000 people who stay on the Bloor line will observe that their trains are suddenly half empty and much more pleasant to use, and tell their friends about it, half of whom are the Eglinton riders. By day four or five, the loads will balance out and the increased capacity of the two combined lines will be used efficiently, allowing for ridership growth on both lines.

Actually, you're wrong. Why would someone choose to take the bus an extra 4 km when they could just take the Eglinton line to the YUS? It's basically saying people would be indifferent to taking the subway for 4km and a bus for 4km.
Eglinton, whether it be a LRT or a subway, will attract a vast majority of B-D riders. Unless the riders are bound for southern Etobicoke already, then almost all of them will switch to the subway.

 

[Dan416]

Given how low transit usage in Toronto is compared to European cities, I think we can do with having an Eglinton subway line and not losing too much ridership on Bloor, just because an Eglinton line would attract new riders, especially if it's fast.

 

[Rainforest]

If this had been built in the 90's, I wonder what Transit City would have proposed for Eglinton. An LRT on both sides?

That would be funny.

No, I think in that case, Transit City would propose to either extend the subway on one side, or else convert it to LRT (which has to be underground in that stretch anyway).