Eglinton East LRT | Metrolinx

[JSF-1]

The Sheppard subways ridership may be low by Toronto standards but for the continent its pretty solid. That's even before any extensions.

Heres the Weekday Ridership per km for bunch of heavy rail systems
TTC Line 1 & 2 (2023-24) - 15.9k
Montreal Metro (2025) - 14.1k
MTA Subway (route length, 2025) - 9.4k
TTC Line 4 (2023-24) - 7.0k
Skytrain (2025) - 5.5k
MBTA RL, BL, & OL (2025) - 5.4k
Septa L & B (2023) - 4.6k
Chicago L (2025) - 2.5k
Washington Metro (2025) - 2.1k

line 4 does doesn't do too bad for itself...

I do think it is worth remembering that the TTC puts such a high emphasis on ridership because it is so reliant on fare box revenue. Since other jurisdictions receive far higher operational subsidies they can get away with operating routes that only pull half of our ridership, the TTC unfortunately doesn't have this luxury. Its almost forced to operate as a profit seeking business which is why they put a higher emphasis on potential ridership since they need to draw in the largest number of riders possible since riders = fare box revenue. If the province won't reinstate the transit subsidy then the TTC's preferred transit expansion projects will be the ones with the greatest return on investment since anything else just puts a further strain on the TTC's and city's finances.

 

[Thaboss]

The Sheppard Subway has never been supported by sufficient ridership level projections to justify its construction or expansion, and there continues to be no such projections.

It is only being pushed now for political reasons, just like it always has been. It has also been a drain on transit expansion for a long time, preventing other projects from moving forward, and the Scarborough Subway has also done that and waste many billions that could have built several other lines.

But Line 7 is being criticized on here as a waste by some who also think the Sheppard Subway out to Morningside is a good idea, an area of Sheppard that is lined with the backyards of single detached homes, make that make sense.

I don’t agree with the need for Line 7 on Sheppard, that was also only pushed to make up for the Scarborough LRT to Malvern being cancelled, but I’m fine with the rest of it.

Hmmm but don't you think that its a line with huge long term demand potential going west? Paticualrly with a conection to line 1 and eventually through the redevelopment of downsview park ? And with a connection yo line 2 in the east end ?

Personally I see those connection adding much more value than EELRT..

I say that as someone who stands to benifit from the EELRT LOL

 

[Aplus23]

Hmmm but don't you think that its a line with huge long term demand potential going west? Paticualrly with a conection to line 1 and eventually through the redevelopment of downsview park ? And with a connection yo line 2 in the east end ?

Personally I see those connection adding much more value than EELRT..

I say that as someone who stands to benifit from the EELRT LOL

why can't both be done as they should. This one or the other viewpoint doesn't make sense, and ino there's only a finite amount of capital available, but again that's another argument that should be had. We're a good 20yrs behind in transit infrastructure as whole around this city

 

[urbanclient]

why can't both be done as they should. This one or the other viewpoint doesn't make sense, and ino there's only a finite amount of capital available, but again that's another argument that should be had. We're a good 20yrs behind in transit infrastructure as whole around this city

Something needs to be done about Line 7, as in drastically changed. It's a lose-lose for virtually everyone but the hypothetical construction company. I won't restate everything wrong with the project as previous pages' discussions are extensive, just this:

Paraphrasing @Northern Light , the Oct 2023 updated business case actually predicts lower transit ridership (-5,000) after an Eglinton East LRT is built.

Epic fail.

 

[Thaboss]

why can't both be done as they should. This one or the other viewpoint doesn't make sense, and ino there's only a finite amount of capital available, but again that's another argument that should be had. We're a good 20yrs behind in transit infrastructure as whole around this city

The person I was responding to was making the Sheppard vs EELRT comparison, not me thats said..

We should absolutely provide better transit for the east end.

The question is does the EELRT as presently designed achieve the transformative impacts one would like to see in the region and at a cost that we're budgeting for?

I personally don't see it.

 

[Voltz]

Hmmm but don't you think that its a line with huge long term demand potential going west? Paticualrly with a conection to line 1 and eventually through the redevelopment of downsview park ? And with a connection yo line 2 in the east end ?

Personally I see those connection adding much more value than EELRT..

I say that as someone who stands to benifit from the EELRT LOL

Ridership projections take such ridership demand into consideration,

 

[urbanclient]

Ridership projections take such ridership demand into consideration,

They don't? Am I misunderstanding here? Which ridership projections for Line 4 are you talking about? And which Line 7 projections also analyze a subway extension alternative?

The mode of transit, the number of transfers, the average speeds, etc. all play a factor. One mode may not get people out of cars as much as another mode.

On the topic of ridership, please see the damning number above for Line 7.

 

[Thaboss]

Ridership projections take such ridership demand into consideration,

OK if that is the case than you'll agree EELRT is a bad project because ridership is projected to drop if it were built today.

End of conversation.

 

[Voltz]

OK if that is the case than you'll agree EELRT is a bad project because ridership is projected to drop if it were built today.

End of conversation.

I don’t take that claim at face value, buses don’t have unlimited capacity,

Also ridership doesn’t seem to matter for other modes so

 

[Voltz]

The Sheppard subways ridership may be low by Toronto standards but for the continent its pretty solid. That's even before any extensions.

Heres the Weekday Ridership per km for bunch of heavy rail systems
TTC Line 1 & 2 (2023-24) - 15.9k
Montreal Metro (2025) - 14.1k
MTA Subway (route length, 2025) - 9.4k
TTC Line 4 (2023-24) - 7.0k
Skytrain (2025) - 5.5k
MBTA RL, BL, & OL (2025) - 5.4k
Septa L & B (2023) - 4.6k
Chicago L (2025) - 2.5k
Washington Metro (2025) - 2.1k

line 4 does doesn't do too bad for itself...

Most of the lines it beats are surface or elevated in part at least, that’s much lest expensive to build, if there was an available surface corridor to build a metro line along Sheppard then go for it.

 

[urbanclient]

I don’t take that claim at face value, buses don’t have unlimited capacity,

You seem to misunderstand why exactly ridership was predicted to fall after a modal upgrade from bus to LRT. The opposite would be normally expected.

Most of the lines it beats are surface or elevated in part at least, that’s much lest expensive to build, if there was an available surface corridor to build a metro line along Sheppard then go for it.

Elevated is what much of the Line 4 eastern extension is likely to be.

 

[nfitz]

You seem to misunderstand why exactly ridership was predicted to fall after a modal upgrade from bus to LRT. The opposite would be normally expected.

I am perplexed why it would drop at peak, given its clear from the report that travel time is shorter and fares are unchanged.

I'm not sure what's left to cause it, except bus network changes.

Is the model sophisticated to account for increases in housing cost from uplift because of the LRT?

They should have discussed this more.

The report prefers LRT because bus capacity can't handle population growth, which presumably was also not in the base case.

 

[urbanclient]

I am perplexed why it would drop at peak, given its clear from the report that travel time is shorter and fares are unchanged.

I'm not sure what's left to cause it, except bus network changes.

Is the model sophisticated to account for increases in housing cost from uplift because of the LRT?

They should have discussed this more.

The report prefers LRT because bus capacity can't handle population growth, which presumably was also not in the base case.

There are posts on this thread that go more in-depth. To reiterate on bus network changes, they lead to more transfers being needed, and trips being effectively much longer in duration. Line 7 itself is predicted to be slower than the buses it would directly replace(/supplement?)

Normally, these consultant aided or consultant authored cases are post hoc rationalization, they're meant to support the government's position on the suitability of the project. The fact that they had every opportunity to cook the data to make Line 7 look good and yet somehow managed to make it look bad is shocking. Unless you think the city was against Line 7, prior to Olivia Chow.

As I understand it, it's not that ridership on the Line 7 corridor would be necessarily decreased. It's that ridership would decrease for the overall transit system.

Both Line 5 and 6 were projected to increase transit ridership. Even if Line 6 may not reach that projection immediately, it certainly wouldn't decrease ridership, all other factors being the same (covid, reduced Humber College attendance etc.)

 

[adys123]

There are posts on this thread that go more in-depth. To reiterate on bus network changes, they lead to more transfers being needed, and trips being effectively much longer in duration. Line 7 itself is predicted to be slower than the buses it would directly replace(/supplement?)

Normally, these consultant aided or consultant authored cases are post hoc rationalization, they're meant to support the government's position on the suitability of the project. The fact that they had every opportunity to cook the data to make Line 7 look good and yet somehow managed to make it look bad is shocking. Unless you think the city was against Line 7, prior to Olivia Chow.

As I understand it, it's not that ridership on the Line 7 corridor would be necessarily decreased. It's that ridership would decrease for the overall transit system.
View attachment 732393

Both Line 5 and 6 were projected to increase transit ridership. Even if Line 6 may not reach that projection immediately, it certainly wouldn't decrease ridership, all other factors being the same (covid, reduced Humber College attendance etc.)

Based on the presented results, I'm perplexed why the City would choose to use this number instead of an individual line forecast. As these network-wide models are challenging when there are multiple network changes at a time.

 

[nfitz]

There are posts on this thread that go more in-depth. To reiterate on bus network changes, they lead to more transfers being needed, and trips being effectively much longer in duration. Line 7 itself is predicted to be slower than the buses it would directly replace(/supplement?)

This is not true - at least not in the modelling assumptions. The report VERY CLEARLY makes it clear that the directly replaced buses were slower.

Increased transfers are problematic. Perhaps they need to model more LRT stops in an attempt to increase ridership.

Shame the model isn't open source. Or the report wasn't more granular, identifying the segment(s) where ridership is problematic.

The earlier iteration of this project that went from Kennedy and terminated at Sheppard and Morningside had pushing double the PPHPD ridership than the three bus routes it replaced (from according to the 2009 EPR. From 2,700 on the buses to 4,600-5,000 on the LRT.

Interestingly that study originally included a Malvern extension, which was dropped during the study. Is very poor ridership north of Sheppard an issue?

Is Sheppard East the issue? The 2008 Sheppard CEA only forecast a PPHPD demand for the LRT of 3,000 (presumably westbound approaching Don Mills) - presumably MUCH smaller east of McCowan. (the comparable bus ridership was 1,100 between Scarborough Centre and Don Mills). The 2008 CEA does note that east of Meadowvale (presumably westbound approaching Meadowvale) was 1,000 for the LRT.

Ridership on Sheppard East has always been surprisingly low - it certainly doesn't support subway east of Don MIlls, or perhaps Victoria Park. The only reason to go as far as McCowan is for network connectivity. How poor is the demand east of McCowan?

The projected ridership increase being so low compared to the shorter line does make one wonder about the branch on and north of Sheppard.