[nfitz]

Yep .. they knew that EELRT is on the books, they even kind of took those plans into account. And yet, they managed to make that connection difficult (if not impossible).

Yeah, it was baked into Metrolinx's plans early. But they don't seem to have consulted with the city, etc. It's not so much that it's impossible, but that it becomes very expensive - perhaps even digging under the new subway tunnel. I'm guessing it's adding the extra width to the replacement subway tunnel east of Kennedy so as to include the centre storage track that did it.

What's really sick is that they haven't built the problematic tunnel yet. In a normal world, you'd simply issue a change order, and build a short segment of the LRT at the same time. The lack of communication is stunning - not only between the Metrolinx team on the line 2 extension and the city team on Eglinton East LRT - but also between the Metrolinx team on the line 2 extension and the Metrolinx team on the original Crosstown! I'd assume between the GO folks working on the station at Kennedy too.

I took the bus into Kennedy last week - it looked to me like they were doing some early prep work for the extension of the existing Kennedy Line 2 station (for the HVAC, etc.). Which mean that all 3 groups were working within site of each other.

I interpreted this to mean that had the eastern segment of Line 5 been elevated, that a continuous line 5 would have been possible ...

Ah - possibly. I don't see any point in rehashing 10-year old history to such an extent though. Mind you there's still a poster or two here, claiming that they should go back to running regular service through the wye at Bay Station!

I guess those that used to claim that the horse-drawn streetcars were more reliable, and simpler, have moved on.

 

[Rainforest]

Yeah, it was baked into Metrolinx's plans early. But they don't seem to have consulted with the city, etc. It's not so much that it's impossible, but that it becomes very expensive - perhaps even digging under the new subway tunnel. I'm guessing it's adding the extra width to the replacement subway tunnel east of Kennedy so as to include the centre storage track that did it.

What's really sick is that they haven't built the problematic tunnel yet. In a normal world, you'd simply issue a change order, and build a short segment of the LRT at the same time. The lack of communication is stunning - not only between the Metrolinx team on the line 2 extension and the city team on Eglinton East LRT - but also between the Metrolinx team on the line 2 extension and the Metrolinx team on the original Crosstown! I'd assume between the GO folks working on the station at Kennedy too.

I took the bus into Kennedy last week - it looked to me like they were doing some early prep work for the extension of the existing Kennedy Line 2 station (for the HVAC, etc.). Which mean that all 3 groups were working within site of each other.

Ideally, they would build the subway tracks and LRT tracks between Kennedy and McCowan in one go. A two-level tunnel, subway at the lower level and LRT at the upper. Or, a subway tunnel with surface LRT tracks sitting right on top of the tunnel structure.

 

[Rainforest]

The business case looks at net new riders per $ spent, and net reduction in travel time for existing riders. It ranks poorly on the former, largely because it ranks poorly on the latter.

The issue at Kennedy doesn't really affect that. The issue at Kennedy is also because Mx modified its plans for the SSE and didn't fully take into account how any Eglinton East line would be designed.

The TTC can wear its share of blame for any number of things; but this, not so much.

The problem w/the idea is simply that on a surface route, with moderate transit priority and a roughly similar number of stops to the current/proposed 'Rapid TO' route shows next to no improvement in travel time.

To achieve an improvement would require fewer stops and more grade-separation, which in turn would drive the cost higher.

Again, I think you probably get a better result from an Ellesmere BRT (I said Markham Road previously, that was a typo).

There may be a re-think of the options here where it makes sense, but I think its a pretty big re-think.

All fair points; one remaining question is whether the future demand on Eg East can be handled by buses / Rapid TO lanes. Or light rail (more capacity) might be needed just to carry all of the future riders, even if the speed doesn't improve compared to bus lanes.

Naturally, much of demand that could originate north of Lawrence, including from/to UTSC, will shift to the Ellesmere and Sheppard routes utilizing a shorter path to subways.

However, the extended subways will make no difference for the residents living along Eg East (Kennedy to Kingston), and the portion of Kingston Rd south of Lawrence. The majority of them will keep riding to Kennedy, and some to the two LSE GO stations, taking the same Eglinton - Kingston route they take today. And the number of residents on Eglinton is expected to grow.

Wondering if there will be enough of those to bump the demand into the light rail territory, or the demand will remain manageable by buses.

 

[ARG1]

All fair points; one remaining question is whether the future demand on Eg East can be handled by buses / Rapid TO lanes. Or light rail (more capacity) might be needed just to carry all of the future riders, even if the speed doesn't improve compared to bus lanes.

Naturally, much of demand that could originate north of Lawrence, including from/to UTSC, will shift to the Ellesmere and Sheppard routes utilizing a shorter path to subways.

However, the extended subways will make no difference for the residents living along Eg East (Kennedy to Kingston), and the portion of Kingston Rd south of Lawrence. The majority of them will keep riding to Kennedy, and some to the two LSE GO stations, taking the same Eglinton - Kingston route they take today. And the number of residents on Eglinton is expected to grow.

Wondering if there will be enough of those to bump the demand into the light rail territory, or the demand will remain manageable by buses.

As GO Expansion ramps up, the distribution of riders across the route should ease up, and the immediate demand for capacity should diminish. Assuming GO Expansion are built, and it gets fare integration (two big ifs I know), what we basically get is a bus where the majority of the demand captured is Kennedy --> Eglinton GO, with maybe a few riders continuing to Maybe Lawrence, as well as an opposite and barely overlapping UTSC to Guildwood demand (There might be demand beyond UTSC, but I do wonder how much would use the bus vs just using the Stouffville Line or Line 2 unless it's a local trip). The Kennedy to Eglinton GO stretch I doubt will see capacity for a while. Unless we see a ton of development there, that corridor doesn't have much use as a through corridor, unless people are using it to transfer between the ST and LSE. On the Morningside end of things, it could be possible that one day that stretch needs the capacity, but I doubt it would be for a while. Perhaps it could make sense to just make a standalone Morningside LRT running from Guildwood to Malvern, and just cut out the Eglinton part altogether, unless you plan on throughrunning it with Line 5.

The reality is that unlike what many TC supporters on Twitter will say, Scarborough will be incredibly well served by Rapid Transit in a decade, with 4 major RT corridors populating the region, alongside a possible 5th with Sheppard soon after. With so many options available, the idea that Scarborough (or at least Central Scarborough) will have a monolithic bus route that is overflowing with people other than the short stretch of Morningside seems unlikely. Remember, Transit City was designed with a disregard to GO's existence, as well as a completely different project for the SRT replacement with the SLRT, and yes under those circumstances an LRT makes a lot of sense, as the LRT would become a primary trunk that funnels riders all the way to Kennedy from places like UTSC and possibly even Sheppard (although there, the SLRT might've been more popular). However our reality is one where the major funneling point is in the middle of the line, rather than the very end, and as such the capacity requirements per direction significantly diminish.

 

[sixrings]

As GO Expansion ramps up, the distribution of riders across the route should ease up, and the immediate demand for capacity should diminish. Assuming GO Expansion are built, and it gets fare integration (two big ifs I know), what we basically get is a bus where the majority of the demand captured is Kennedy --> Eglinton GO, with maybe a few riders continuing to Maybe Lawrence, as well as an opposite and barely overlapping UTSC to Guildwood demand (There might be demand beyond UTSC, but I do wonder how much would use the bus vs just using the Stouffville Line or Line 2 unless it's a local trip). The Kennedy to Eglinton GO stretch I doubt will see capacity for a while. Unless we see a ton of development there, that corridor doesn't have much use as a through corridor, unless people are using it to transfer between the ST and LSE. On the Morningside end of things, it could be possible that one day that stretch needs the capacity, but I doubt it would be for a while. Perhaps it could make sense to just make a standalone Morningside LRT running from Guildwood to Malvern, and just cut out the Eglinton part altogether, unless you plan on throughrunning it with Line 5.

The reality is that unlike what many TC supporters on Twitter will say, Scarborough will be incredibly well served by Rapid Transit in a decade, with 4 major RT corridors populating the region, alongside a possible 5th with Sheppard soon after. With so many options available, the idea that Scarborough (or at least Central Scarborough) will have a monolithic bus route that is overflowing with people other than the short stretch of Morningside seems unlikely. Remember, Transit City was designed with a disregard to GO's existence, as well as a completely different project for the SRT replacement with the SLRT, and yes under those circumstances an LRT makes a lot of sense, as the LRT would become a primary trunk that funnels riders all the way to Kennedy from places like UTSC and possibly even Sheppard (although there, the SLRT might've been more popular). However our reality is one where the major funneling point is in the middle of the line, rather than the very end, and as such the capacity requirements per direction significantly diminish.

The reality is that all the statistics show that the majority of Scarborough transit trips are within Scarborough…. NOT DOWNTOWN which some here keep making out to be the be all and end all.

 

[afransen]

Travel times are not the be all end all of transit. You know what has great travel times? a 2 seater Lambo.

Ridership usage, long term operating costs, breakdowns, operating reliability, integration within the surrounding community etc, are all important metrics as well.

All else being equal, a vehicle that moves faster can serve more pax kms, and thus more riders for a given trip distance. It is more cost effective to have higher vehicle speeds. Complacency about needless slowness is not a good thing, it is wasteful for the operator and wasteful for passengers.

 

[Aplus23]

As GO Expansion ramps up, the distribution of riders across the route should ease up, and the immediate demand for capacity should diminish. Assuming GO Expansion are built, and it gets fare integration (two big ifs I know), what we basically get is a bus where the majority of the demand captured is Kennedy --> Eglinton GO, with maybe a few riders continuing to Maybe Lawrence, as well as an opposite and barely overlapping UTSC to Guildwood demand (There might be demand beyond UTSC, but I do wonder how much would use the bus vs just using the Stouffville Line or Line 2 unless it's a local trip). The Kennedy to Eglinton GO stretch I doubt will see capacity for a while. Unless we see a ton of development there, that corridor doesn't have much use as a through corridor, unless people are using it to transfer between the ST and LSE. On the Morningside end of things, it could be possible that one day that stretch needs the capacity, but I doubt it would be for a while. Perhaps it could make sense to just make a standalone Morningside LRT running from Guildwood to Malvern, and just cut out the Eglinton part altogether, unless you plan on throughrunning it with Line 5.

The reality is that unlike what many TC supporters on Twitter will say, Scarborough will be incredibly well served by Rapid Transit in a decade, with 4 major RT corridors populating the region, alongside a possible 5th with Sheppard soon after. With so many options available, the idea that Scarborough (or at least Central Scarborough) will have a monolithic bus route that is overflowing with people other than the short stretch of Morningside seems unlikely. Remember, Transit City was designed with a disregard to GO's existence, as well as a completely different project for the SRT replacement with the SLRT, and yes under those circumstances an LRT makes a lot of sense, as the LRT would become a primary trunk that funnels riders all the way to Kennedy from places like UTSC and possibly even Sheppard (although there, the SLRT might've been more popular). However our reality is one where the major funneling point is in the middle of the line, rather than the very end, and as such the capacity requirements per direction significantly diminish.

I'm not sure many Scarborough ppl use guildwood or port union station unless that's the best option for them. I'm not wording what I want to say properly, but majority of Scarborough ppl use the TTC for their trips. My mom works downtown for 20yrs and she would never use the go transit. Ino guild and port union has riders, but I feel like go transit is for ppl with cars who wanna go long distances, or ppl who are walking distance to the station.

East of McCowan will still be underserved by rapid transit in Scarborough

 

[Northern Light]

The reality is that all the statistics show that the majority of Scarborough transit trips are within Scarborough…. NOT DOWNTOWN which some here keep making out to be the be all and end all.

Did I miss something? because I didn't feel that was what @ARG1 said.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm not sure many Scarborough ppl use guildwood or port union station unless that's the best option for them. I'm not wording what I want to say properly, but majority of Scarborough ppl use the TTC for their trips. My mom works downtown for 20yrs and she would never use the go transit. Ino guild and port union has riders, but I feel like go transit is for ppl with cars who wanna go long distances, or ppl who are walking distance to the station.

East of McCowan will still be underserved by rapid transit in Scarborough

@ARG1 will correct me if I'm misreading his post............

But I think his point was that GO is something your mom could use, subject to it evolving in a certain way.

If there is fare integration; meaning, more or less, that it costs the same as TTC, your 2-hour presto fare is mode-neutral at least within Toronto; and if service is much more frequent, at least every 15M most of the day, and perhaps even moreso.

IF those things were true (recognizing that they are not, today); would your mom not consider taking GO to downtown?

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

@ARG1 will correct me if I'm misreading his post............

But I think his point was that GO is something your mom could use, subject to it evolving in a certain way.

If there is fare integration; meaning, more or less, that it costs the same as TTC, your 2-hour presto fare is mode-neutral at least within Toronto; and if service is much more frequent, at least every 15M most of the day, and perhaps even moreso.

IF those things were true (recognizing that they are not, today); would your mom not consider taking GO to downtown?

I think if and it's a big if all of those happen with Go train fares being the same as TTC fare within the city and the service is more frequent more people would probably use it if it goes somewhere they want to go. Unfortunately due to where the tracks are in the city they aren't convenient for everyone to be able to use Go trains plus even with additional trains the focus is still on people going downtown.

 

[MisterF]

I think if and it's a big if all of those happen with Go train fares being the same as TTC fare within the city and the service is more frequent more people would probably use it if it goes somewhere they want to go. Unfortunately due to where the tracks are in the city they aren't convenient for everyone to be able to use Go trains plus even with additional trains the focus is still on people going downtown.

Of course not everyone will be able to use GO. But between the Lakeshore and Stouffville lines, there's a lot of potential for people to use them who aren't today. Those lines will essentially function like the subway.

 

[ARG1]

The reality is that all the statistics show that the majority of Scarborough transit trips are within Scarborough…. NOT DOWNTOWN which some here keep making out to be the be all and end all.

The majority of trips are within Scarborough, however the strongest and most used corridors are filled with people headed towards downtown. That's why the major trunk routes with the largest ridership are what they are. What makes monolithic trunks what they are is because they have the demand to funnel a large number of people to specific destinations of interest, and major transit hubs like GO stations, Subway Stations, Shopping areas, and Post-Sec institutions are the biggest ridership generators and where the vast majority of people will be headed. And that's the thing, local trips are served by busses, what makes major capacity increases like subways or LRTs viable is when not only is it carrying general purpose local transit, but also higher demand services to major destinations, and Scarborough will be getting those.

 

[Rainforest]

As GO Expansion ramps up, the distribution of riders across the route should ease up, and the immediate demand for capacity should diminish. Assuming GO Expansion are built, and it gets fare integration (two big ifs I know), what we basically get is a bus where the majority of the demand captured is Kennedy --> Eglinton GO, with maybe a few riders continuing to Maybe Lawrence, as well as an opposite and barely overlapping UTSC to Guildwood demand (There might be demand beyond UTSC, but I do wonder how much would use the bus vs just using the Stouffville Line or Line 2 unless it's a local trip). The Kennedy to Eglinton GO stretch I doubt will see capacity for a while. Unless we see a ton of development there, that corridor doesn't have much use as a through corridor, unless people are using it to transfer between the ST and LSE. On the Morningside end of things, it could be possible that one day that stretch needs the capacity, but I doubt it would be for a while. Perhaps it could make sense to just make a standalone Morningside LRT running from Guildwood to Malvern, and just cut out the Eglinton part altogether, unless you plan on throughrunning it with Line 5.

The reality is that unlike what many TC supporters on Twitter will say, Scarborough will be incredibly well served by Rapid Transit in a decade, with 4 major RT corridors populating the region, alongside a possible 5th with Sheppard soon after. With so many options available, the idea that Scarborough (or at least Central Scarborough) will have a monolithic bus route that is overflowing with people other than the short stretch of Morningside seems unlikely. Remember, Transit City was designed with a disregard to GO's existence, as well as a completely different project for the SRT replacement with the SLRT, and yes under those circumstances an LRT makes a lot of sense, as the LRT would become a primary trunk that funnels riders all the way to Kennedy from places like UTSC and possibly even Sheppard (although there, the SLRT might've been more popular). However our reality is one where the major funneling point is in the middle of the line, rather than the very end, and as such the capacity requirements per direction significantly diminish.

All good points. Nevertheless, it is hard to predict the future demand level for local Eglinton East trips, as many trip patterns are involved. Some cases that will push the local demand:

1. If many highrises are built along those streets, Eg East east of Kennedy and Kingston Rd north of Eglinton; then long-range trips for the many residents of those highrises will start with the local route. Even with the peak flow split between 3 offload stations, Guildwood GO / Eglinton GO / Kennedy, there could be quite a few riders heading to each of those.

2. Lakeshore East trains are good for trips to downtown near Union, East Harbor, Gerrard Square. But if the destination is closer to Bloor, or north of Bloor, then a route that involves LSE and a transfer at Union doesn't make much sense; riders who want to make such a trip will rather stay on the Eg East route to Kennedy and then transfer either to Line 2 or to ECLRT. Those trip patterns will be adding up to a greater flow to/from Kennedy in the peak direction.

3. Local trips, for example out-of-town UTSC students who rent a place near Eglinton. They will take the local route to the campus, and the Guildwood GO / Eglinton GO connections won't change that.

Difficult to model all of the above, as the future residential density isn't known with enough accuracy, future transit modal share is unknown, TTC / GO fare integration model is unclear.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The TTC has more passengers (except for New York City) using its buses, streetcars, and subway in the non-rush hours, than most other North American cities. We use it for shopping and medical appointments in local destinations.

 

[ARG1]

The TTC has more passengers (except for New York City) using its buses, streetcars, and subway in the non-rush hours, than most other North American cities. We use it for shopping and medical appointments in local destinations.

Sure, but that doesn't mean there is demand for LRT or something higher order. Most American LRT and even metro systems run at horrible frequencies, and exist not out of necessity, but out of some vague obligation to provide public transit. In other words, we really shouldn't be looking at other places and judging whether or not we need to build x because y place has x.

The Eglinton East LRT as it stands is a $4B capacity upgrade, with no tangible benefits in any other field other than maybe as a development tool, an excuse to do a street rebuild, or to adhere to some form of rail bias: none of which are good reasons to build transit.