[nfitz]

I'm curious why Finch is so expensive though. I get that the 400 crossing might be pricey, but otherwise it's pretty roomy through most of that stretch.

Finch looks about the same price as Sheppard East - once you account for the 5 to 6 years of inflation. These dollars are all in year of expenditure rather than in 2008 or 2010 dollars.

 

[Rainforest]

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.

Not all of Lawrence can be on surface. Jane to Bathurst to Jane is pretty wide and have space for ROW in median. But Bathurst to Yonge will certainly have to be tunneled. West of Jane, it is rather tight and might need tunneling, except that the area has low density and the route might have to be altered anyway.

East of Yonge, it might have to be tunneled for about 3 km to the eastern boundary of the Glendon campus.

 

[Rainforest]

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.

My understanding is that the crush load max for the new LRV will be about 175 per car, or 525 per a 3-car train.

The 90-seconds interval requires ATO, and ATO requires full grade separation. Technically it can operate between Keele and Laird; more likely, between Keele and Yonge where pocket tracks will be located. That misses high-volume transfers at Jane and Don Mills.

In the partially-exclusive sections that reach Jane and Don Mills, it will be good if we can reach 2-min headways, which means 30 trains per hour and a capacity limit around 15k pphpd.

If they upgrade the Keele-Jane and Laird - Don Mills sections to full grade separation in future, the total cost might well exceed the cost of building a subway from the onset (given that we are already at 80 - 85 % of the full subway cost).

If we're going to use offpeak loading standards then the capacity of a regular subway line is 15k.

The 3-car LRT train will be about as long as 4 subway cars. A standard TTC subway train is 1.5 times longer (6 cars) and about 1 m wider. Hence, a subway train's total capacity must be 1.8 - 2 times higher than that of a 3-car LRT train; whether you use nominal loads or crush loads as a measure.

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.

I partly agree with this statement, in application to the eastern leg of Eglinton. Yonge line cannot handle another subway-scale feeder and needs relief anyway; and if we get DRL East up to Eglinton / Don Mills, it will skim the peak off the eastern leg of Eglinton LRT and prevent it from hitting the limit.

However, DRL West is very far in future, if it ever gets built at all. Therefore, Eglinton West LRT might get overwhelmed by riders transferring from the N-S bus routes.

 

[Rainforest]

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

So, Eglinton to the lakefront (Bloor subway catchment area) is 7-9 km wide dependent on the location; Eglinton to Finch (Eglinton subway catchment area) is 8 km wide.

I don't claim the ridership on Bloor and Eglinton will be same (density might differ, Spadina line close to the north-western corner might have an effect, etc); just that the riderships should be somewhat similar, not 24 k vs 5.4 k.

And if Eglinton reaches even half of Bloor, 24k / 2 = 12k, then the wisdom of building LRT that will be almost at capacity from the beginning, at 80 - 85 % of HRT cost, should be questioned.

I would understand it if we could build LRT for 25 - 30 % of the subway cost, as was hoped for originally (the first cost projection for Eglinton Crosstown LRT was just 2.2 billion). Then, even if the ridership exceeded expectations, we could upgrade the existing line or build a parallel line, and still spent less than for subway.

But at 80 - 85 % of the subway cost from the onset? ...

 

[SimonP]

So, Eglinton to the lakefront (Bloor subway catchment area) is 7-9 km wide dependent on the location; Eglinton to Finch (Eglinton subway catchment area) is 8 km wide.

I don't claim the ridership on Bloor and Eglinton will be same (density might differ, Spadina line close to the north-western corner might have an effect, etc); just that the riderships should be somewhat similar, not 24 k vs 5.4 k.

To add some numbers to the argument:

Bloor corridor (St Clair South to Lakeshore)
*Population: 780,000
*Density: 5800 ppkm
*Car commute: 43%
*Transit: 39%
*Walk/bike: 17%

Eglinton corridor (St Clair to Lawrence)
*Population: 596,000
*Density: 4100 ppkm
*Car commute: 58%
*Transit: 36%
*Walk/bike: 5%

North (Lawrence to Steeles)
*Population: 1,087,000
*Density: 3259 ppkm
*Car commute: 65%
*Transit: 30%
*Walk/bike: 4%

The Eglinton corridor has fewer people and is less dense than the Bloor one, but neither figure is dramatically lower. I'm not sure what multipliers transit planners use to get ridership projections, but the Eglinton estimates do seem a bit low.

 

[Rainforest]

Thanks for the numbers SimonP

Remarkably large population within the Lawrence / Steeles boundary ...

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

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

Bollocks! Are you saying that if I lived even one block south of Eglinton that I'd universally chose the South to Bloor route over the East/West to Yonge/University-Spadina? That's bs because I did similar routes, starting from Steeles and Islington I did the 37 to Islington station and the 60 to Finch station and often found that the 60 route was as quick or only margianally slower than the 37 route.

If I were close to an Eglinton route that was evan close to being as quick and reliable as the Bloor line, hell I'd be riding the Eglinton route all the time. It's one less transfer and I don't have squeeze onto a crowded YUS train to complete my trip.

You are vastly underestimating the catchement area that the Eglinton corridor would have and it's effect on people's travel patterns.

*** EDIT ***

FWIW according to myttc.ca Jane is the rough boundary where it becomes faster to travel to Eglinton West Station vs to the Bloor line. Any improvement to transit on Eglinton would certainly push that boundary to Islington or Kipling, and a subway would likely eliminate the need for any dt bound riders from north of Eglinton to travel to Bloor.

 

[Fresh Start]

If Eglinton doesn't qualify for subway technology then nowhere does.

"the 2017 ridership for south of Steeles is over 9,100 ppdph, but north of Steeles, would be around 7,100 ppdph, well below the 10,000 ppdph that the TTC says is required for considering subway technology.”
http://stevemunro.ca/?p=1589

See when there's political will, it doesn't matter to the TTC whether their line extensions will be underused leading into operational deficits. Eglinton gets more profitable the longer it stretches. It could become a true alternative to the Bloor-Danforth for over one-third of current riders of that line (particularly in the Martin Grove to Victoria Park stretch). We only need to lay down the foundation now. And there's more infomation from that pro-LRT site that I can gleam that actually supports the case for building Eglinton as metro sooner rather than later.

The BD subway now carries 425,000+ riders per day. In 1969, when it ran from Islington to Warden (roughly the same length as today), the ridership was in the 100,000-ish range. Ridership was so low in its early years that it ran with 4-car trains at all times from ‘67 to the mid-70s. In 40 years, the ridership on that line has increased by 400%. If the same thing happens on Eglinton, in 40 years an LRT subway may not cut it if longer trainsets can’t be run. When the Spadina subway opened, the TTC did an O-D survey in 1978 and they found that a lot of BD riders from the west shifted to Spadina and E-W surface routes further north to avoid the transfer at St. George. So, if Eglinton has that same kind of pull, capacity could become a problem in 30-40 years.

This is why the 5,400 estimate for Eglinton is rubbish — a number pulled out of thin air. It fails to take into account the “BD interceptor” effect that Eglinton would have. Every N-S bus route in this city will feed that line between Jane and Kennedy, so we’re not just looking at how many people use the Eglinton buses today. I tallied all of the north-of-BD N-S routes plus parallel routes like 52, 54 and 58 and deduced that if even one-third of all present-day riders transfered at Eglinton a figure closer to 9400 ppdph could be attained. And this could occur a lot sooner than we think. If 3-car LRVs moves 750 passengers every 2 minutes, that's 22,500 per hour. So during peak hours alone 180,000 would move through the tunnel.

 

[nfitz]

This is why the 5,400 estimate for Eglinton is rubbish — a number pulled out of thin air.

Why are you trying to deceive people with this? I put it to you that the number isn't pulled out of thin air, but is actually calculated by people who are a lot more qualified than you!

The fact that you state that it doesn't account for “BD interceptor” effect demonstrates that you don't understand what you are talking about. An examination of the equations behind a transport demand model indicate that this is accounted for.

 

[Justin10000]

Don't worry he is not deceiving anyone with his posts.

 

[SimonP]

To add some numbers to the argument:

Bloor corridor (St Clair South to Lakeshore)
*Population: 780,000
*Density: 5800 ppkm
*Car commute: 43%
*Transit: 39%
*Walk/bike: 17%

Eglinton corridor (St Clair to Lawrence)
*Population: 596,000
*Density: 4100 ppkm
*Car commute: 58%
*Transit: 36%
*Walk/bike: 5%

North (Lawrence to Steeles)
*Population: 1,087,000
*Density: 3259 ppkm
*Car commute: 65%
*Transit: 30%
*Walk/bike: 4%

The Eglinton corridor has fewer people and is less dense than the Bloor one, but neither figure is dramatically lower. I'm not sure what multipliers transit planners use to get ridership projections, but the Eglinton estimates do seem a bit low.

The one big thing the above numbers don't take into account are employment figures. I only have those numbers by ward, but here are some rough figures:

Bloor corridor (~Dupont to Lakeshore)
*Jobs: 608,000
*Area: 150 km2
*Job density: 4052 j/km
*Wards : 5, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36 (14 total)

Eglinton (~Dupont to 401)
*Jobs: 258,000
*Area: 186 km2
*Job density: 1386 j/km
*Wards: 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 25, 26, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 (16 total)

North (Above the 401)
*Jobs: 255,000
*Area: 148 km
*Job density: 1723 j/km
*Wards 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 23, 24, 39, 40, 41, 42 (12 total)

That the Bloor corridor has more than twice as many workers and about thrice the density of workers as Eglinton may be the biggest factor in why the ridership projections are so different.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Here is my impression of this thread in the 1950s:

This Yonge subway from Union to Eglinton they're thinking of building is totally going to reach capacity within the next 50 years so we should definitely scrap this plan and design a quad-track system.

 

[Hipster Duck]

^I'm not sure I know where you're going with that example. In hindsight, a quad-track Yonge express/local line might have been the smartest and most prescient investment the city would have ever made.

IMHO, our transit woes largely set in once we started becoming unambitious. The "efficiencies" of building an ICTS system as an appendage to the Bloor-Danforth subway rather than just extending the subway itself to STC was when our transit planning and prominence started going downhill.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

It's not that 5400 per hour is rubbish, it's that the number could have been 3800 or 14600 per hour or anything else by making different assumptions...but different assumptions were not chosen this time. Pulled out of thin air is a fair description of the forecasting process.

A subway line across the full length of Eglinton from the airport to Kennedy or Kingston would undoubtedly move peak loads above 5400 per hour, but how much more? One problem is that there's basically nothing on Eglinton other than miscellaneous medium density neighbourhoods...no malls, no schools, few jobs other than where the Yonge line and (potentially) the DRL already run, etc. A rail link to downtown like Blue 22 would eat up much of the airport riders. The Bloor/Danforth line already goes across the city - and from Kennedy station, so it's not exactly a detour and they'll continue to compete for the same riders going long distances. Sure, bus routes using Eglinton each day count over 100,000 riders, but a large percentage of them do so because their buses use Eglinton to get to the subway and may be moved elsewhere. Eglinton would be split by 3 or maybe more subway lines, so it could move hundreds of thousands of people per day even while not cracking peak loads of 10,000. Riders transferring from N/S routes and/or switching from parallel routes like Lawrence are the real question mark and could be a difference of several thousand riders per hour. The busiest point on Eglinton is east of Kennedy and the line doesn't even go that far.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

One factor I thought about is this. If the Eglinton line is built it is plausible that the N/S bus routes that cross it would be split into North and South routes. Much like Yonge splits the E/W routes in two.