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

[Voltz]

The crosstown cannot be automated if it runs next to cars and pedestrians. The fully grade-separated route will allow the trains to run with automation from Laird all the way to Renforth. (basically Line 1) East of Laird, it would run like a streetcar. West of Renforth is still a question mark that will depend on whether the line is actually seperated from traffic and pedestrians.

Spending the extra money now makes sense if you think of the line as built for the future.

There is no need for automation, or for full grade separation, just ducking under a few major intersections will yield most all of the speed benefits of tunnels. I would also not characterize the surface section as Streetcars. except maybe comparable to the Queensway.

Spending the extra money now means we can't build another line now,

 

[W. K. Lis]

There is no need for automation, or for full grade separation, just ducking under a few major intersections will yield most all of the speed benefits of tunnels. I would also not characterize the surface section as Streetcars. except maybe comparable to the Queensway.

Spending the extra money now means we can't build another line now,

They could run the streetcars on The Queensway with near LRT performance if it wasn't for the automobile followers in Toronto's Transportation Department.

 

[crs1026]

They could run the streetcars on The Queensway with near LRT performance if it wasn't for the automobile followers in Toronto's Transportation Department.

And a couple further fixes. There's a slow order on the last part into Humber Loop, supposedly because the recent reconstruction wasn't up to snuff. And, the loop is now too small for the length of multiple laying-over Flexities (the schedule is padded, so many have lots of dwell time). Operators tend to "dog it" from High Park westwards, to be sure that they will have space at the platform to unload. Otherwise, they have to stop and sit just east of the platform, with a load of impatient passengers still on board and demanding that the doors be opened, which is contrary to operating instructions (for good reason).

- Paul

 

[robmausser]

There is no need for automation, or for full grade separation, just ducking under a few major intersections will yield most all of the speed benefits of tunnels

Yes, but the city sabotaged this by purposefully creating a report that inflated the costs by creating "Taj Mahals" at each intersection and elevating the track rather lowering the road down like an underpass, or a combination of each.

 

[Steve X]

Yes, but the city sabotaged this by purposefully creating a report that inflated the costs by creating "Taj Mahals" at each intersection and elevating the track rather lowering the road down like an underpass, or a combination of each.

The city is bias in creating a less structural footprint project. They rather have the line fit in the current environment than to build a fast rail link which would be fine if this city wasn't so sparely spaced with destinations over a hour away.

 

[afransen]

And a couple further fixes. There's a slow order on the last part into Humber Loop, supposedly because the recent reconstruction wasn't up to snuff. And, the loop is now too small for the length of multiple laying-over Flexities (the schedule is padded, so many have lots of dwell time). Operators tend to "dog it" from High Park westwards, to be sure that they will have space at the platform to unload. Otherwise, they have to stop and sit just east of the platform, with a load of impatient passengers still on board and demanding that the doors be opened, which is contrary to operating instructions (for good reason).

- Paul

If that's the situation (you have an extra vehicle laying over), is it actually needed? Can't it just run out of service to get out of the way? Or be a bonus service that isn't scheduled?

 

[syn]

Sure, it can! The question is . . . will it? Most past evidence and examples says no, I mean the TTC has a lot of TSP installed in reality in different places it just isn't very good which kind of makes the point. The sad feeling I have is that it may be better to build reliability in to the project than to rely on policy and implementation.

Past evidence tells us that overbuilding infrastructure where it's not needed is a colossal waste of money. That's exactly why the system is bursting at the seams. We keep implementing large scale suburban expansions that aren't necessary based on ridership.

Despite all these examples, we keep doing it.

I guess you're asking if we'll put the politics aside and build transit with some common sense. I'd hope so...it just doesn't seem we're going to get a government anytime soon that's interested in listing to experts.

 

[ARG1]

Past evidence tells us that overbuilding infrastructure where it's not needed is a colossal waste of money. That's exactly why the system is bursting at the seams. We keep implementing large scale suburban expansions that aren't necessary based on ridership.

Despite all these examples, we keep doing it.

I guess you're asking if we'll put the politics aside and build transit with some common sense. I'd hope so...it just doesn't seem we're going to get a government anytime soon that's interested in listing to experts.

The only real example I can think of is the Sheppard Subway, but even then the issues with that line stem from horrible city planning, and the reluctance of the city to support it in the same way North York did with its city center, before the amalgamation. The Sheppard Corridor was meant to be another North York Centre, with stations being directly integrated into a dense urban area. By significantly cutting the scope of the project, and refusing to upzone the area around the subway line and try and push for Transit Oriented Development, the Sheppard Subway was effectively designed to fail. Apart from that, I can't really find any examples that support your claim.

 

[syn]

The only real example I can think of is the Sheppard Subway, but even then the issues with that line stem from horrible city planning, and the reluctance of the city to support it in the same way North York did with its city center, before the amalgamation. The Sheppard Corridor was meant to be another North York Centre, with stations being directly integrated into a dense urban area. By significantly cutting the scope of the project, and refusing to upzone the area around the subway line and try and push for Transit Oriented Development, the Sheppard Subway was effectively designed to fail. Apart from that, I can't really find any examples that support your claim.

At the time the Sheppard Line was proposed and approved, transit experts were already pointing out it was a mistake to build a subway extension there. It didn't have the residential and commercial density necessary to justify it. Time has proven them correct.

The last time there was any subway expansion downtown was over 50 years ago.

All subway expansion since has been in the suburbs. The TYSSE, Sheppard and now the SSE and EWLRT are all projects that could be well served (and arguably better served) by different forms of transit. Instead we're building full capacity subways (or in the case of the EWLRT, burying it).

Where has that led us?

Repeating the same mistakes of the past 50 years seems rather foolish to me.

 

[ARG1]

At the time the Sheppard Line was proposed and approved, transit experts were already pointing out it was a mistake to build a subway extension there. It didn't have the residential and commercial density necessary to justify it. Time has proven them correct.

The last time there was any subway expansion downtown was over 50 years ago.

All subway expansion since has been in the suburbs. The TYSSE, Sheppard and now the SSE and EWLRT are all projects that could be well served (and arguably better served) by different forms of transit. Instead we're building full capacity subways (or in the case of the EWLRT, burying it).

Where has that led us?

Repeating the same mistakes of the past 50 years seems rather foolish to me.

You're looking at this with a very closed-minded approach. While I could argue that TYSSE could've easily been built in a much cheaper fashion, to say that a full capacity subway to Vaughan wasn't justified isn't exactly correct. People here seem to not understand that one of the things that hurt rapid transit projects is when there is a need to do pointless transfers and mode changes. One of the worst examples of this was the Sheppard East LRT, where if you were travelling from Scarborough to North York, you would have to make a transfer onto the Sheppard Line, just because you wanted to spend a lot less money on an extension. If you needed to get to the Yonge Line, you would have to transfer twice for seemingly no reason. The same logic can be applied to TYSSE. Sure you could've found a much cheaper technology to build the extension, but all that means is if you want to get to someplace in Toronto (not necessarily just downtown), you'd have to ride the viva orange to VMC, then take this TYSSE line down to Sheppard West, and from there ride the University line to wherever. This is what kills rider enthusiasm. When you have to constantly leave the train to make connections, you're further discouraging the use of rapid transit, and are pushing people to take the car places. So what if the immediate density of TYSSE doesn't justify a full heavy rail subway? Not only will the subway help push new developments (which is happening tenfold since unlike the Sheppard Line, Vaughan is really pushing for a large amount of densification around the subway extension), but if it can be used to funnel riders directly into Toronto through Viva Rapidway connections as well as park and riders from Highway 407, in that sense its entirely justified. The same exact thing could be said about SSE. Why should the residents of Scarborough have to deal with a pointless (and rather long) transfer at Kennedy, instead of having a train service that runs directly through Kennedy? By offering more direct services to destinations, you're increasing transit accessibility tenfold. The less you have to leave the train to get to another, the better. A good example of proper design can be found in Paris where when designing the metro, they set a rule to have every destination be accessible from anywhere with 2 or fewer transfers.Having random transfers to different modes hurts this philosophy.

 

[Coolstar]

You're looking at this with a very closed-minded approach. While I could argue that TYSSE could've easily been built in a much cheaper fashion, to say that a full capacity subway to Vaughan wasn't justified isn't exactly correct. People here seem to not understand that one of the things that hurt rapid transit projects is when there is a need to do pointless transfers and mode changes. One of the worst examples of this was the Sheppard East LRT, where if you were travelling from Scarborough to North York, you would have to make a transfer onto the Sheppard Line, just because you wanted to spend a lot less money on an extension. If you needed to get to the Yonge Line, you would have to transfer twice for seemingly no reason. The same logic can be applied to TYSSE. Sure you could've found a much cheaper technology to build the extension, but all that means is if you want to get to someplace in Toronto (not necessarily just downtown), you'd have to ride the viva orange to VMC, then take this TYSSE line down to Sheppard West, and from there ride the University line to wherever. This is what kills rider enthusiasm. When you have to constantly leave the train to make connections, you're further discouraging the use of rapid transit, and are pushing people to take the car places. So what if the immediate density of TYSSE doesn't justify a full heavy rail subway? Not only will the subway help push new developments (which is happening tenfold since unlike the Sheppard Line, Vaughan is really pushing for a large amount of densification around the subway extension), but if it can be used to funnel riders directly into Toronto through Viva Rapidway connections as well as park and riders from Highway 407, in that sense its entirely justified. The same exact thing could be said about SSE. Why should the residents of Scarborough have to deal with a pointless (and rather long) transfer at Kennedy, instead of having a train service that runs directly through Kennedy? By offering more direct services to destinations, you're increasing transit accessibility tenfold. The less you have to leave the train to get to another, the better. A good example of proper design can be found in Paris where when designing the metro, they set a rule to have every destination be accessible from anywhere with 2 or fewer transfers.Having random transfers to different modes hurts this philosophy.

I agree with you but I honestly don't mind making an extra transfer if it means serving more areas with the SLRT and the EELRT in Scarborough. Though I actually do enjoy transfering lines more than other people.

 

[Rainforest]

I agree with you but I honestly don't mind making an extra transfer if it means serving more areas with the SLRT and the EELRT in Scarborough. Though I actually do enjoy transfering lines more than other people.

View attachment 272289

I agree that an extra transfer is not the end of the world, but I have an issue with those two pictures placed together; they are not apples-to-apples comparison.

First of all, the LRT network on the left would cost substantially more than the subway extension on the right. The reasonable comparison would be "the LRT-only network" versus "the combination of the subway extension and some LRT lines" for the same total cost.

And secondly, the pictures are made to look like there is no transit at all in the areas on the right where the subway does not reach. While in reality they have frequent bus routes and express buses. There is a benefit of upgrading from bus to LRT, but it is not as huge as the benefit of upgrading from nothing to LRT.

On the other hand, the subway extension shortens many bus rides because they switch to a new subway station located closer. In that sense, the subway extension serves quite a few areas that aren't within a walking distance from a subway station.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1308054819605745667

 

[Amare]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1308054819605745667

Stephen Holyday honestly strikes me as one of the biggest dummies i've ever seen in Toronto City Council history. His father is nowhere nearly as naive as this klutz. Of note, one his claims its laughably ridiculous:

The Eglinton line would create “bottlenecks” at major intersections because transit vehicles would require additional green light time.

I mean...what on the planet Earth is he talking about? So holding a green light for an extra ~20 seconds if even that, will cause traffic bottlenecks? Whatever pixie dust he's sniffing, it should stay with him exclusively.

 

[crs1026]

I mean...what on the planet Earth is he talking about? So holding a green light for an extra ~20 seconds if even that, will cause traffic bottlenecks? Whatever pixie dust he's sniffing, it should stay with him exclusively.

He is playing to a constituency who know even less about transit and don’t care to learn. To them, he has it all figured out.

I’m guessing he thinks that while the light turns green for a transit vehicle, left turns are delayed. Left turns are already the most annoying thing about driving, right? ;-)

The people who really deserve to be outraged about this travesty are the Davenport residents. They had to take one for the team because the Province was not willing to tunnel the Davenport crossing..That would have cost about the same as burying the EWLRT. The Davenport community doesn’t benefit from the Barrie RER line, but it has to cross their community to reach downtown. The Richview Gardens community won’t benefit from the LRT, but the line has to cross their turf to access the airport. A very unequal result !

- Paul