[Justin10000]

Thanks for your constructive criticism guys. It's not even my map but I find that vaguely insulting. It's one thing to point out things you disagree with in a constructive manner. It's very much another to dismiss someone's hard work as "silly". Unless you're saying it in jest, but somehow I doubt that's the case.

That map does not deserve constructive criticism.

 

[saiho]

That's not the purpose of the loop and you know it. I just included a stop along the way as a bonus. The current tail-tracks of the Sheppard Line end just a few blocks east of Senlac anyway, there's no way to physically turn the line back without first passing through that intersection. Interlining the Sheppard and YUS subways increases the utility of both corridors by eliminating transfers and enhancing interconnection of major nodes (SCC - Agincourt - Consumers - NYCC - Midtown - Bloor/Yonge - Downtown); and particularly for Yonge guarantees customers trying to board south of North York that they'll be able to get a seated ride.

you know there is already an exsisting connection between the yonge and sheppard line for non revenue runs

That map does not deserve constructive criticism.

good call...i laughed when i saw that map. i think i need to save it for personal enjoyment. the best part is the crazy all over the map DRL

 

[Disparishun]

good call...i laughed when i saw that map. i think i need to save it for personal enjoyment. the best part is the crazy all over the map DRL

What, no love for a tunnelled twisty mode-transfer IRL?

 

[LAz]

This is good! If there was only more opposition.

 

[eddiek]

Based on the St. Clair ROW and the fact that the LRT's have to share the road with Cars and Busses, It would be a better idea just to take the whole project under ground. Eglington east of DVP is very busy road during peak hours. This would cause a lot of problems with left turns and the delays they might cause the LRT's. From what I have seen, it’s not that much better west of the city as well.

I say keep it an LRT but run it like a subway. This will allow flexibility in ridership and allow the line to run more trains without inconvenient stops at street level. The subways don’t have to be a work of art either, just keep the functional and deigne them with an open concpent.

 

[nfitz]

Based on the St. Clair ROW and the fact that the LRT's have to share the road with Cars and Busses, It would be a better idea just to take the whole project under ground.

Wouldn't that add $3-4-billion to the construction cost? Where would they get the money?

 

[RedRocket191]

Based on the St. Clair ROW and the fact that the LRT's have to share the road with Cars and Busses, It would be a better idea just to take the whole project under ground. Eglington east of DVP is very busy road during peak hours. This would cause a lot of problems with left turns and the delays they might cause the LRT's. From what I have seen, it’s not that much better west of the city as well.

Your initial assumption is incorrect. Streetcars on St. Clair will no longer share the road with cars and buses. They will not be delayed by left turns or congestion. As such, there is no need to tunnel the entire line for the reasons you've listed.

The St. Clair project was not designed to make it faster. It was designed to make it more reliable. Once they tweak the schedules to adjust to the new conditions it will be doing its job quite well.

 

[Dan416]

Building the whole thing underground AND as LRT would be a big mistake. It'd be MORE expensive than a subway. LRT rolling stock costs more and has less capacity.

The ONLY justification for using LRT on this route is that it can be used on the above-ground sections that wouldn't be possible to fund as underground subway at present.

The real debate, in my mind, is between LRT from the Airport to Kennedy, with the underground portion as planned; OR subway where the underground portion is, but BRT/buses along the extremities. I see advantages to both.

 

[fanoftoronto]

Building the whole thing underground AND as LRT would be a big mistake. It'd be MORE expensive than a subway. LRT rolling stock costs more and has less capacity.

Just for the record, LRT rolling stock cost a less that subway but carry less people per car.

The ONLY justification for using LRT on this route is that it can be used on the above-ground sections that wouldn't be possible to fund as underground subway at present.

This is not completely true for the western side, as the subway has a lot of clearance to run above ground north of eglinton due to the excess land available from richview expressway corridor. Granted, it would cost more but not as much as running it underground.

The real debate, in my mind, is between LRT from the Airport to Kennedy, with the underground portion as planned; OR subway where the underground portion is, but BRT/buses along the extremities. I see advantages to both.

Sorry to contradict all your points but it is necessary to build a system that produces the least number of transfers. It increases ease of use and encourages people to use the system. The only options are LRT or subway the entire way and the LRT was chosen because of lower cost. If I had to give you an example, someone in Scarborough trying to get to the airport, would not want to catch a bus to get to the eglinton subway, then transfer onto another bus to get to the airport. I'm just happy that TTC is building a rail system to the airport. It's long overdue

 

[W. K. Lis]

Most likely the Eglinton LRT would be used by employees to get to the airport. Which raises the question of if the line will be a 20 hour or 24 hour opoeration. If the first plane takes off at 6 in the morning, employees have to be there to check in the passengers way before that time.

 

[Dan416]

Just for the record, LRT rolling stock cost a less that subway but carry less people per car.
This is not completely true for the western side, as the subway has a lot of clearance to run above ground north of eglinton due to the excess land available from richview expressway corridor. Granted, it would cost more but not as much as running it underground.
Sorry to contradict all your points but it is necessary to build a system that produces the least number of transfers. It increases ease of use and encourages people to use the system. The only options are LRT or subway the entire way and the LRT was chosen because of lower cost. If I had to give you an example, someone in Scarborough trying to get to the airport, would not want to catch a bus to get to the eglinton subway, then transfer onto another bus to get to the airport. I'm just happy that TTC is building a rail system to the airport. It's long overdue

I guess how you could cost of LRT versus HRT rolling stock depends on where you're talking about per passenger or per unit. Remember how long a subway train is versus an LRT car. If you link up enough LRT cars to make up a subway train, yes, it's more expensive than HRT and that's what I'm referring to. Trying to make it as apples-to-apples as possible.

In regards to running the Eglinton subway above ground on the west side, remember the TTC's (not SOS's) stand on running subways aboveground--i.e. not gonna happen.

In regards to producing the least number of transfers, this has nothing to do with that and everything to do with technology choice. On Sheppard and in Scarborough, they're producing transfers at Kennedy and Don Mills that won't go away for half a century. So you can't say they're building Eglinton as LRT to avoid transfers when they're not avoiding transfers to begin with. They're cheaping out is all it is.

We can debate the detrimental effects of transfers, yes they exist. But I think they affect short lines a lot more than they do longer ones. People don't mind transferring ON to the B-D subway or transferring at Yonge-Bloor to the other line. But the Kennedy transfer is hated, and the SRT itself is a joke.

I really find it amusing you use Scarborough as proof that transfers are bad. Someone in Scarborough travelling to the airport via an Eglinton LRT? Really? How about someone in Scarborough traveling from STC to NYC. Oh that's right...

 

[fanoftoronto]

^^^I guess when you put it that way, then what your saying is good. As for the Scarborough example, I used it because it was one of the pros that was given by Adam Giambrone and David Miller when the funding for the Eglinton LRT was announced. ie: transferless travel from Kennedy to the airport.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Just for the record, LRT rolling stock cost a less that subway but carry less people per car.



This is not completely true for the western side, as the subway has a lot of clearance to run above ground north of eglinton due to the excess land available from richview expressway corridor. Granted, it would cost more but not as much as running it underground.



Sorry to contradict all your points but it is necessary to build a system that produces the least number of transfers. It increases ease of use and encourages people to use the system. The only options are LRT or subway the entire way and the LRT was chosen because of lower cost. If I had to give you an example, someone in Scarborough trying to get to the airport, would not want to catch a bus to get to the eglinton subway, then transfer onto another bus to get to the airport. I'm just happy that TTC is building a rail system to the airport. It's long overdue

To be honest, I think that costs of operation and vehicles should be a secondary factor in determining what should go on a line. The first should be service and capital costs themselves.

In regards to Eglinton only, the transfer game is kind of silly to play. Comparing the people that would have their travel improved drastically through better speeds and better capacity, to the riders that would have to bear with a small transfer at Don Mills and Eglinton (to either Eglinton or the DRL, mind you,) that argument sound kind of weird. If it was actually that big a deal (i.e. there are enough people that it starts to become inconvenient,) the subway could be extended over towards Kennedy or Kingston Road in a cheap above-ground ROW. Also, with a fully extended Sheppard and Eglinton West, both Scarborough and Etobicoke would have two subway connections each to the centre of the city, and so passengers coming from Kennedy aren't really that huge a deal, especially with an extended Sheppard.

 

[Fresh Start]

^^^I guess when you put it that way, then what your saying is good. As for the Scarborough example, I used it because it was one of the pros that was given by Adam Giambrone and David Miller when the funding for the Eglinton LRT was announced. ie: transferless travel from Kennedy to the airport.

Their plan is still BS. If you live in eastern Scarbrough you'll still require 2 transfers to get to the airport. Also who has the time to spend 80 minutes on a streetcar carrying luggage? The only part of the ECLRT that "promises" to be fast and reliable is the central tunneled section and even this is heavily contestable. Take the 512. How many times have you taken the subway to St Clair West Stn awaiting a eastbound streetcar only to witness four westbounds appear before your trip arrives? Honestly in the time I waited to get to Deer Park from SCW I may as well had reboarded the subway, gone to St George, transfer to Yonge, transfer to St Clair Stn then walk westwards. My point is that it matters not how fast the line can travel within the tunneled section (e.g. the 510 between Union and Queens Quay) if the at-grade sections operate that much slower such that any time advantages gained in the tunnel are quickly lost at red light after red light. Speed and reliability are key. If you've noticed the TTC's schedulings are extremely unreliable. This typically is not an issue on 905 systems wherein buses show up either on-time or too early, never late during peak. The only mode that shows up frequently is the subway. The only mode capable of carrying 900+ passengers per trip or 18,000+ pphpd is the subway. Given the track record the TTC has with both modes: LRT and subway, why should we the public endorse a subpar mode to connect major trip generators like the airport to the greater city and region? Why should the 29th busiest airport in the world have to make due with a glorified streetcar line when cities smaller than Toronto and with less daily traffic/congestion have heavy-rail metros to their airports or within a few kilometres of them? Why the double standard?

In reagrds to the "transferless" argument, we all must transfer from somewhere because 75% or more regular users of the Eglinton corridor originate from areas that are some distance away of it. It's a straw man to claim that because one line initially will be longer that it must be impirically better. Arguably Eglinton East and Kingston Road could have a continuous busway down the median of the corridor(s) to provide a one-seat direct ride to the Eglinton Subway of which Phase 1 would be brought all the way across to Don Mills or even to Wynford Dr. A busway not to be obscured by mitigating traffic and red lights. Its in the same league as LRT but can be built for tens of millions of dollars less, putting the leftover money towards a mode that's highly popular and well preceived by the public at large. And unlike LRT, BRT wouldn't prevent the construction of subways underneath in the future as funds become available. BRT would still have a functional purpose on Eglinton East due to the wide spacing gaps of the subway so its a long-term good investment for the city.

So if I were you, I wouldn't take stock in the opinion of a few internet bloggers whom can't see the flaws in light-rail advocacy. They are the minority. Their one consummate retort is that no one wants to pay for subways, when there's a lot of things the gov't pays for that's of zero social benefit to Canada nor Canadian citizens, but that's another story. If we demanded to be treated to a higher standard, we would be. It's public apathy and indifference that's at the root of bad transit planning ~ more in the vain of pork acquirement, less in actual concern for the substance of the end product.

 

[kettal]

Why should the 29th busiest airport in the world have to make due with a glorified streetcar line when cities smaller than Toronto and with less daily traffic/congestion have heavy-rail metros to their airports or within a few kilometres of them? Why the double standard?

Pearson Airport is getting a heavy-rail express train, remember?

Anybody going from Scarborough to the airport would be well-advised to use GO transit plus the airport train. That would save a lot of time, even compared to an Eglinton Subway.