[Rainforest]

It is possible and practical to maintain 90 second headways in the tunnel and 5 minute headways on the street portions.

This is certainly true. However, where will the turnbacks be located?

With the current design, likely at Keele and Yonge (maybe Bayview if they have a crossover or a pocket track there). The 90-sec headway service will reach neither Jane nor Don Mills, since ATO cannot safely work in a street-median ROW. So, we will see a frequent and very comfortable but lightly used short-turn branch between Yonge and Keele, and a still overcrowded long-range branch that runs all the way.

The scheme would make a lot more sense if they extended the fully exclusive section to Jane in the west and Don Mills in the east. Unfortunately, adding that expense, either now or as a future upgrade, will drive the cost of this line even closer to the cost of a full-fledged subway line.

 

[rbt]

This is certainly true. However, where will the turnbacks be located?

In 30 to 40 years, long after stations have been built out to their full 3-car length (I understand trains will be initially 2-cars); a single underground station may be added to the end of the tunnel sections with the appropriate turnbacks for service of that frequency.

 

[Rainforest]

Having Eglinton built to TTC subway standards would cost a good deal of extra money.

The question is, how much extra? Do you realize that the latest cost estimate for Eglinton LRT is 303 million/km and this is in the subway cost territory?

This link, page 26, shows the latest cost forecasts. For Eglinton, it is 6.065 billion for a 20-km line.

Following the current scheme it would also add two extra transfers at either end of the underground section.

Transfer at the western end is being added anyway, since they are cutting the LRT line at Jane. Prospects of future extension further west are quite dim at this point.

Added transfer at Don Mills (assuming the subway Phase I runs Jane to Don Mills only) is a disadvantage of the subway option, but not a critical one. You can run Eglinton East buses from Don Mills through Kennedy to Kingston Rd and that would eliminate one transfer for some riders.

 

[Rainforest]

People keep throwing out numbers like that for Eglinton. According to the transit analysts at the city, the peak ridership for the Eglinton line in 2031 will be 5,400 per hour. (For references see here or page 7 of here)

These are estimates by people who have spent their lives learning how to do studies like this. Why would their numbers be so wrong?

OK, but then how do you explain such a huge difference in the expected peak loads of Bloor subway versus Eglinton LRT? The former at 24,000, the latter at 5,400.

Bloor draws most of its ridership from the feeder buses. Bus routes running north of Bloor are more frequent and carry more passengers than routes south of Bloor. For Eglinton West LRT, they predicted a speed of 30 kph which is almost same as Bloor subway. Then, isn't it logical to assume that a large percentage of riders from the northern buses will transfer to Eglinton LRT?

It would be nice to know what assumptions about riders' behavior TTC / Metrolinx made for their modeling. Did they take into account the bus riders transferring to Eglinton? If their model gives counter-intuitive results, then we deserve an explanation and should not merely rely on their credentials.

 

[kettal]

For one thing, most riders are headed downtown during AM peak, not midtown. Even the best Eglinton subway won't have the draw that Bloor does for this reason.

 

[fanoftoronto]

People keep throwing out numbers like that for Eglinton. According to the transit analysts at the city, the peak ridership for the Eglinton line in 2031 will be 5,400 per hour. (For references see here or page 7 of here)

These are estimates by people who have spent their lives learning how to do studies like this. Why would their numbers be so wrong?

Funny how transit analysts thought a subway was suitable for this corridor a mere 15 years ago! And guess what, they had also spent their lives learning how to do studies like this!

The truth is both these studies are biased toward one technology. The 5400 is assuming LRT level demand. A subway will produce more ridership than LRT. Add to this the fact that the passengers bound to the BD subway line will transfer to the LRT increasing ridership, a subway along this corridor will not run empty as some have been saying.

 

[fanoftoronto]

For one thing, most riders are headed downtown during AM peak, not midtown. Even the best Eglinton subway won't have the draw that Bloor does for this reason.

Actually, it will have a great draw since the number of transfers is the same and also, the distance travelled by rapid transit will be increased (you travel the Eglinton to Bloor stretch in a subway). It reduces time, increases comfort, I don't see a downside to using an Eglinton subway (or LRT for that matter) to go downtown.

 

[Paleo]

Funny how transit analysts thought a subway was suitable for this corridor a mere 15 years ago! And guess what, they had also spent their lives learning how to do studies like this!

The truth is both these studies are biased toward one technology. The 5400 is assuming LRT level demand. A subway will produce more ridership than LRT. Add to this the fact that the passengers bound to the BD subway line will transfer to the LRT increasing ridership, a subway along this corridor will not run empty as some have been saying.

I'm pretty sure the projections for the original Eglinton Subway were pretty low. It was originally planned as a busway before the politicians started crying about wanting a subway (much like how York Region is behaving today).

 

[kettal]

Funny how transit analysts thought a subway was suitable for this corridor a mere 15 years ago! And guess what, they had also spent their lives learning how to do studies like this!

The truth is both these studies are biased toward one technology. The 5400 is assuming LRT level demand. A subway will produce more ridership than LRT. Add to this the fact that the passengers bound to the BD subway line will transfer to the LRT increasing ridership, a subway along this corridor will not run empty as some have been saying.

Which 15 year old analysis was that? IIRC, network2011 proposed BRT for Eglinton.

 

[kettal]

Actually, it will have a great draw since the number of transfers is the same and also, the distance travelled by rapid transit will be increased (you travel the Eglinton to Bloor stretch in a subway). It reduces time, increases comfort, I don't see a downside to using an Eglinton subway (or LRT for that matter) to go downtown.

if your starting point is even just one block south of Eglinton, then Bloor makes more sense for you. Bloor captures downtown-bound riders from both the north and south, unlike Eglinton. Furthermore, anyone along Finch or points north will have their Finch alternative getting them to Keele Finch station, or the equivalent in Sheppard East. While I wouldn't be surprised if the ridership is above estimates, I have no concern it will break 15,000 ppdph

 

[fanoftoronto]

if your starting point is even just one block south of Eglinton, then Bloor makes more sense for you. Bloor captures downtown-bound riders from both the north and south, unlike Eglinton. Furthermore, anyone along Finch or points north will have their Finch alternative getting them to Keele Finch station, or the equivalent in Sheppard East. While I wouldn't be surprised if the ridership is above estimates, I have no concern it will break 15,000 ppdph

Exactly, 15000 ppdph justifies a subway. While I accept an LRT has design capabilities to accomodate this ridership, it makes more sense to build extra capacity for the future. If the LRT has to be replaced with a subway within say 20 years of opening the LRT, it makes more sense to build the line as an HRT from the start.

 

[fanoftoronto]

Which 15 year old analysis was that? IIRC, network2011 proposed BRT for Eglinton.

But subway construction started, not BRT. As I mentioned this numbers are biased toward subway. My point is that the ridership estimates are always dependant on the selected technology. I read an FAQ on one of the Sheppard LRT public consultations (I can't seem to find it now) in which there was a question on the ridership increase if the LRT was built as a subway. The answer was that there would be a 30%(?) increase in ridership if a subway was built. I will search for the FAQ and put the source if I find it.

 

[kettal]

But subway construction started, not BRT. As I mentioned this numbers are biased toward subway. My point is that the ridership estimates are always dependant on the selected technology. I read an FAQ on one of the Sheppard LRT public consultations (I can't seem to find it now) in which there was a question on the ridership increase if the LRT was built as a subway. The answer was that there would be a 30%(?) increase in ridership if a subway was built. I will search for the FAQ and put the source if I find it.

That was a pork barrel project, and the only analysis done was how many votes will it get. Ask Bob Rae, and you'll find even that analysis was severely misjudged.

 

[lafard]

The whole thing is that if Eg does ever reach >20k pphpd then we're pretty much screwed elsewhere in the system anyways, which will force construction of the DRL. The Spadina subway may be operating at 40% capacity today, but that much traffic on Eglinton would overwhelm even that.

The DRL will divert much of that traffic off of the central part where capacity will be the issue. We don't need to go nuts with capacity.

Regarding capacity calculations, the loading standards are pretty generous. If a CLRV can hold 100 passengers, a 3 car LRV can hold 600. At crush load it's >700. At 90 second intervals that's 24k pphpd. If we're going to use offpeak loading standards then the capacity of a regular subway line is 15k.

 

[rbt]

The whole thing is that if Eg does ever reach >20k pphpd then we're pretty much screwed elsewhere in the system anyways, which will force construction of the DRL. The Spadina subway may be operating at 40% capacity today, but that much traffic on Eglinton would overwhelm even that.

The DRL will divert much of that traffic off of the central part where capacity will be the issue. We don't need to go nuts with capacity.

Indeed, the lesson of the Madrid story is to run smaller trains in more places. Vehicles capable of running on the surface in mixed traffic do have advantages in the suburbs, so it makes sense to use them as the smaller vehicle in more places.

It is unfortunate much of Eglinton needs to be in a tunnel, otherwise we could be building Eglinton and Lawrence at the same time for the same money.

In fact, If I was head of Metrolinx I would have abandoned Eglinton entirely for now in-favour of building surface routes on Lawrence, York Mills/Wilson, and Finch.