Thanks for the links!
Finally I got time to read the report. I wasn't impressed; it looks like the authors cannot make a strong case for LRT on Eglinton East:
1. They want smaller LRVs, to reduce the footprint and minimize the impact on the Highland Creek valley.
Fair enough. However, this negates one of the key advantages of LRT over buses: higher capacity. Will the capacity of those smaller LRVs be any bigger than the capacity of artic buses? If not, then they should consider “Option 3”: median BRT lanes.
I think that you're too focused on the "smaller LRVs" without the context involved in the whole operation.
The Crosstown is designed to eventually use 3-car Flexity trains at approximately 300 feet in length. And under Metrolinx's original plans, it was projected that those same trains would continue east to the Eglinton East line. That's a big part of the reason why they were looking at grade separating the stretch around Lawrence/Kingston/Morningside was the affect that these larger trains would have on the smaller blocks through there.
By operating smaller trains - be it 1- or 2-car Flexitys @ 100 feet/car or 1-car Citadis Spirits @ 140-ish feet/car - there isn't a requirement to grade separate through this area.
And yet these vehicles are also way, way bigger than the standard 40-foot transit bus that operates in that corridor today, so capacity will be increased by a very large amount.
2. The loss of the direct connection to ECLRT, due to the SSE tunnel being in the way. Again, fair enough. And, one can blame the SSE design team, that was certainly aware of the EE LRT plans and could accommodate the LRT tunnel from the east, but chose to neglect that element.
The benefits of ECLRT connection wouldn’t be limited to avoiding the transfer for those who want to continue along Eglinton. There would be operational benefits, too.
Currently, the MSF for ECLRT is placed on the west side, near Mt Dennis. In the morning there is more demand towards the centre than towards the suburbs. But the LRVs that serve the demand from Kennedy towards Yonge, will first have to travel from Mt Dennis all the way to Kennedy. If there was at least a non-revenue connection between ECLRT and EELRT, then some of the ECLRT vehicles could be stored in the EELRT’s MSF overnight, and they could get to Kennedy faster in the morning.
Plus, additional opportunities would exist to deal with planned repairs, as well as accidental blockages. If all those operational benefits are out, then one point is subtracted from the LRT option’s score.
I would argue that there were very few operational benefits to be had by through-routing the line.
The reality is that there are very, very few people riding from east of Kennedy to west of Kennedy and vice versa, in the grand scheme of people using the station.
Through-routing trains would require the use of larger trains, lower headways, and improved infrastructure that would be unnecessary if the the line was operated independently.
Yes, there would be some operational benefits to allowing trains to be stored at the extreme east end of the line, but those are not insurmountable within the current infrastructure.
3. They are dropping the tunnel at Kennedy for a good reason, but that doesn’t explain why they are dropping the underground station at Lawrence / Morningside as well. There are no constructability issues with that station. If they are doing that to cut the costs, they should say so. However, the cost reduction will not be that big, and won’t improve the chances of this project getting funded.
They do explain it, and it's quite clear. The smaller trains won't occupy the intersections as long, and so won't have as negative an influence on the traffic of the surrounding roads.
4. The authors do not expect the LRT travel times to improve compared to the existing RedTO bus lanes (Table 5 on Page 27).
Moreover, the transit ridership impact from the LRT is stated as negative (-4,700, continuation of Table 5 on Page 28). This could be a modeling mistake: they only counted riders boarding in the LRT corridor for the LRT’s total count, while the Bus RedTO’s total count includes the boardings on Guildwood, Meadowvale, Morningside north of Sheppard, etc. The actual count for the LRT option might be better than their estimate.
But even then, if they do not forecast a growth in ridership, then how can they expect a positive "city building" impact of the LRT (Page 18)? If residents and businesses settle next to higher-order transit, they aren’t doing so because the rails are cool, or because they can shout "Bingo!" when an LRV is coming. If they settle next to higher-order transit, then they want to use that higher-order transit. And then, the forecast ridership counts have to go up. If they don't go up, then there is no "city building" impact.
This shouldn't surprise anyone who understands how the lines work today, and how they will work in the future.
The RedTO lanes (and busways in general) work very well when you have a number of different routes from various locations all funneling into one corridor - which is exactly what you see on Eglinton East. People are coming from all of those different locations, and with a single vehicle are ending up at Kennedy Station. With the LRT, those buses will have to be routed to connect with the LRT.
So yes, many-to-most people's travel times are not going to improve drastically with the LRT, as they will now have another transfer. But what will happen is that their trips become more reliable as the bus routes may (should?) become shorter and thus more reliable, and will be transferring to a more reliable mode with the LRT.
Dan
