Toronto Eglinton Line 5 Crosstown West Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[M II A II R II K]

So the route from the Airport to the Science Centre would be grade separated only to have an eastern section that would be slower in the middle of the road.

 

[M II A II R II K]

They should split the line in two at Science Centre. The western portion can be an underground rapid transit subway type surface, and the eastern portion can be a streetcar in the middle of the road that's stop ridden along its route.

Best not have the eastern section slow down and disrupt the western section.

 

[Streety McCarface]

They should split the line in two at Science Centre. The western portion can be an underground rapid transit subway type surface, and the eastern portion can be a streetcar in the middle of the road that's stop ridden along its route.

Best not have the eastern section slow down and disrupt the western section.

If the OL or the Relief Line is actually built, this would honestly make the most sense, especially if you're trying to encourage people to take future Line 3 downtown.

 

[BurlOak]

They should split the line in two at Science Centre. The western portion can be an underground rapid transit subway type surface, and the eastern portion can be a streetcar in the middle of the road that's stop ridden along its route.

Best not have the eastern section slow down and disrupt the western section.

West portion from Pearson to Laird.
East portion from Kennedy to Mount Dennis.

 

[CapitalSeven]

West portion from Pearson to Laird.
East portion from Kennedy to Mount Dennis.

That would defeat the purpose of planning the line the way they did, a no transfer ride across the city. A transfer is an atrocity against the human rights of anyone west of Yonge.

 

[W. K. Lis]

From link. In 1966...

For the first six months of operation, the subway was operated as a single system, with trains from Eglinton station running through to either Keele or Woodbine station, while other trains connected the latter two points. However, the manoeuvre made operation of both lines more difficult, and the practice was abandoned after the initial trial period, leaving Lower Bay station abandoned.

From link...

The scheme, known as interlining, meant riders could catch a train at, say, Greenwood and get downtown via Union without changing. The same system applied to eastbound trains. Riders could get on at Dundas West and get off at Eglinton without switching at St. George, Spadina or Yonge. Lower Bay enabled two separate routes to pass through the Yorkville station without having to share platform space. Despite presenting some advantages, the plan only lasted six months from the opening of the Bloor-Danforth line.

 

[north-of-anything]

A primarily grade-separated section from Pearson to the Science Centre would make sense, and a primarily on-road section from the Science Centre east to Kennedy (and beyond). I think it would be more practical to have some trains short-turn at the Science Centre and return to Pearson, with some continuing into Scarborough, rather than dividing Eglinton into two separate lines.

 

[Rainforest]

They should split the line in two at Science Centre. The western portion can be an underground rapid transit subway type surface, and the eastern portion can be a streetcar in the middle of the road that's stop ridden along its route.

Best not have the eastern section slow down and disrupt the western section.

The Science Centre station is not designed to be the terminus of both the western and the eastern section. It is a through station, with a crossover for occasional turn backs, but isn't very suitable for double terminal operation.

They would have to use only one platform for each direction, and that would disrupt all operations to a greater extent than the surface section in the east could disrupt them.

West portion from Pearson to Laird.
East portion from Kennedy to Mount Dennis.

I like the notion of overlapping branches. However, I think it will only be necessary if / when Eglinton East is built, making the whole route quite long.

As long as the line runs from Pearson to Kennedy only, it will be simpler both for the riders and for the operation to have the main branch that runs from Pearson to Kennedy at all times. I don't expect the 6 km long surface section in the east, using dedicated lanes, to disrupt the service. During the rush hours, a short-turn branch could be added between say Mt Dennis and Laird, just to help manage the flows.

Once Eglinton East is added, the whole route may become too long for reliable operation. Overlapping branches could help in that case. Say, one branch from Pearson to Laird, and another from MtDennis to UTSC, running at all times. Plus, a rush-hours branch from Kennedy to UTSC, if necessary.

 

[M II A II R II K]

And Science Centre connection when the DRL connects there. Between a subway western service verses a streetcar service in the east. Separate them

 

[micheal_can]

They should split the line in two at Science Centre. The western portion can be an underground rapid transit subway type surface, and the eastern portion can be a streetcar in the middle of the road that's stop ridden along its route.

Best not have the eastern section slow down and disrupt the western section.

Why not make every interchange station a split where you have to switch trains to go further? Makes sense, doesn't it?

 

[north-of-anything]

Better idea:

Service A: Pearson to UTSC
Service B: Pearson to Science Centre (before 7 pm)

No same-line transfers, no vehicle congestion on the on-street part (which I don't believe is that big a problem anyways so whatever).

 

[Steve X]

The Science Centre station is not designed to be the terminus of both the western and the eastern section. It is a through station, with a crossover for occasional turn backs, but isn't very suitable for double terminal operation.

They would have to use only one platform for each direction, and that would disrupt all operations to a greater extent than the surface section in the east could disrupt them.



I like the notion of overlapping branches. However, I think it will only be necessary if / when Eglinton East is built, making the whole route quite long.

As long as the line runs from Pearson to Kennedy only, it will be simpler both for the riders and for the operation to have the main branch that runs from Pearson to Kennedy at all times. I don't expect the 6 km long surface section in the east, using dedicated lanes, to disrupt the service. During the rush hours, a short-turn branch could be added between say Mt Dennis and Laird, just to help manage the flows.

Once Eglinton East is added, the whole route may become too long for reliable operation. Overlapping branches could help in that case. Say, one branch from Pearson to Laird, and another from MtDennis to UTSC, running at all times. Plus, a rush-hours branch from Kennedy to UTSC, if necessary.

We still don't know if a continuous Line 5 through Kennedy is happening. It's up to ML to decide. Majority of the riders won't ride through Kennedy. So why not just split at Kennedy as originally planned?

Given the fact that TTC line management sucks and that they decided to run all trains to Vaughan on Line 1 during PM rush, a short turn at Laird seems increasingly unlikely during most times of the day. The Spadina Line itself (north of St George) has significant less ridership than Yonge side and yet they don't short turn any trains at SCW. It is pretty easy to get a seat north of SCW in PM rush.

A short turn branch will happen if they need to run more frequency service that the surface section doesn't support but not in the foreseeable future. A switch to 3 car trains would be more ideal.

We also cannot predict ridership on Eglinton West. Unlike the east end where Lines 2 and 5 meets, Line 2 is 15-25 minutes (depending on bus route) south of Line 5 in Etobicoke. Significant riders could make the switch. If Eg West is built grade separated beyond Martin Grove, having a short turn branch between Martin Grove and Laird wouldn't be a bad idea. Plus TTC could reduce bus service between Lines 2 and 5 if people start using Eg West instead.

 

[BurlOak]

The advantage of LRT is the ability to run on-street in portions. The down-side of on-street operation is reduced capacity. The solution is to have a common grade-separated portion with on-street segments at the end.
The plan is (was) to end the grade-separated portion at Brentcliffe. How can you have on-street branches from here?

Maybe it could have been underground to Don Mills, and then one branch along Eglinton and the other up the DVP and across on Lawrence.
More logical would have been grade-separated to Kennedy. Then 1 branch could have gone up the SRT corridor and the other along Eglinton towards Kingston Road.
Maybe grade-separated to Eglinton/McCowan with branches along McCowan and along Eglinton.

We have to admit that the decision has already been made that this $8B (?) transit line will not satisfy what was actually required.

 

[Steve X]

The advantage of LRT is the ability to run on-street in portions. The down-side of on-street operation is reduced capacity. The solution is to have a common grade-separated portion with on-street segments at the end.
The plan is (was) to end the grade-separated portion at Brentcliffe. How can you have on-street branches from here?

Maybe it could have been underground to Don Mills, and then one branch along Eglinton and the other up the DVP and across on Lawrence.
More logical would have been grade-separated to Kennedy. Then 1 branch could have gone up the SRT corridor and the other along Eglinton towards Kingston Road.
Maybe grade-separated to Eglinton/McCowan with branches along McCowan and along Eglinton.

We have to admit that the decision has already been made that this $8B (?) transit line will not satisfy what was actually required.

Surface branch routes would be a better idea than putting all eggs in one basket and tunnelling one low ridership portion. Many European tram/light rail network work like this. Eg east of Don Mills to Kennedy has far less ridership growth potential than Eg West. Even for Eg West, they could send a branch up Scarlett and west on Dixon to the airport. That'll attract significantly more riders than a 3km link between Renforth and Pearson for pretty much nobody to ride.

 

[BurlOak]

Surface branch routes would be a better idea than putting all eggs in one basket and tunnelling one low ridership portion. Many European tram/light rail network work like this. Eg east of Don Mills to Kennedy has far less ridership growth potential than Eg West. Even for Eg West, they could send a branch up Scarlett and west on Dixon to the airport. That'll attract significantly more riders than a 3km link between Renforth and Pearson for pretty much nobody to ride.

Eg. east of Don Mills (to Kennedy) has a redevelop-able Golden Mile. The only reason the #'s showed fewer riders was because the plan forced everyone off their train and onto another mode. The Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown studies showed that the Don Mills to Kennedy ridership was actually almost the same as the Don Mills to Yonge.

Agree with Dixon Road being an option. The big problem is that they screwed up the East part so what to do with the west. Should we do similar to what the right thing was in the East, or just say screw it and put it down the middle of the road.