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

[Rainforest]

Apologies, I didn't know the systems were so different that they were incompatible. It's stupid that 2 nearly identical LRT systems being built concurrently in the same city by the same governing body would be fine to choose 2 incompatible systems.

Well, the tracks are compatible, the tunnel sizes are probably compatible as well. Full revenue interoperability may not be possible right now because of the rolling stocks, signal systems etc; but the lines are not going to be connected soon anyway. By the time they are connected, new rolling stocks will be needed, and new service contracts signed. If desired, it should be possible to include interoperability at that time.

 

[Rainforest]

So I guess that line could dive underground and T into the tunnel for ECLRT W just west of the Martin Grove station.

But if it's surface coming up from Kipling along the corridor, do you run it above-ground under the 427, give Rangoon a surface stop, and join Crosstown once it comes above ground. As much as the corridor would be the path of least resistance, part of my thinks the better move would be up West or East Mall, across Rathburn and then up Renforth, to better capture the doorstep of all that density. Whether the traffic on the East or West Mall bus routes (plus the airport Rocket) justifies higher order transit is another question entirely.

I don't know the exact routing, but would guess they will not connect to the underground section of EWLRT. That would require rather complicated construction, and the underground T-interchange would pose a safety risk.

There is an appeal in the route you suggest, up West or East Mall, then up Renforth and connecting to the Renforth Gateway on surface. Then it can either run to the airport terminus, or up Hwy 7 to Humber College. Maybe, two branches serving both routes.

 

[robmausser]

Apologies, I didn't know the systems were so different that they were incompatible. It's stupid that 2 nearly identical LRT systems being built concurrently in the same city by the same governing body would be fine to choose 2 incompatible systems.

I would rather see the Crosstown eventually extended along the Mississauga Transitway anyways in the future, with the Finch West LRT terminating at Pearson along with the planned branch of Crosstown.

 

[smallspy]

Is there proof that the Bombardier CityFlo on the crosstown would work with Thales SelTrac on Finch West?

The two signal systems are not inherently compatible, no.

But it is possible - in theory - to fit both sets of hardware to the vehicles to allow them to run on both.

Dan

 

[Jimvee]

I would rather see the Crosstown eventually extended along the Mississauga Transitway anyways in the future, with the Finch West LRT terminating at Pearson along with the planned branch of Crosstown.

I was thinking very similarly but having the crosstown going through to a Square One terminal and Finch extending through Pearson to the Renforth gateway.

 

[Steve X]

I was thinking very similarly but having the crosstown going through to a Square One terminal and Finch extending through Pearson to the Renforth gateway.

If the Union Station West plan falls though. Renforth could take its place but this distance from the airport to Renforth isn’t exactly close.

 

[KhalilHeron]

I was thinking very similarly but having the crosstown going through to a Square One terminal and Finch extending through Pearson to the Renforth gateway.

I would rather see the Crosstown eventually extended along the Mississauga Transitway anyways in the future, with the Finch West LRT terminating at Pearson along with the planned branch of Crosstown.

Not quite an extension of the crosstown but I've been working on a not too serious idea of a metro-regional rail hybrid line (similar to REM in tech and rolling stock) that runs along/under/over the Mississauga transitway, as well as Lawrence, the Milton line, the Stouffville line, the Kitchener line, the rt row, Kingston road and more

the transitway was designed so it could be turned into lrt in the future, though I don't see why with some slight modifications to the alignment it can't be turned into a full-on metro line.
its very much a wip but I think a second crosstown line could be better to use the transitway row, letting all trains on eglinton to head to pearson

 

[W. K. Lis]

Currently, because of the construction on Eglinton Avenue West (from Weston Road eastward), most riders either continue south to Line 1, or detour around Eglinton Avenue West entirely.

The present M-F rush hours schedule at Renforth Station (from link) is as follows:

The present Sunday schedule, after 10 pm is as follows:

We have been told to expect a 5 minute daytime headway on Line 5, maybe 2± minutes during rush hours. Likely the ridership will come from transfers from the bus routes that currently cross Eglinton Avenue West. We could get short turns either at Mt, Dennis Station, or Jane Station. Depending if they include crossovers at Jane Station and an union track provision for a Jane LRT. Haven't seen up-to-date information on where the crossovers and pocket tracks will be located, as yet.

For some comparison, some U.S. cities have headways on their rapid transit, equal to or worse than the current bus service on the 32A Eglinton West bus.

 

[Rainforest]

Currently, because of the construction on Eglinton Avenue West (from Weston Road eastward), most riders either continue south to Line 1, or detour around Eglinton Avenue West entirely.

The present M-F rush hours schedule at Renforth Station (from link) is as follows:
View attachment 335614
View attachment 335615

The present Sunday schedule, after 10 pm is as follows:
View attachment 335616

We have been told to expect a 5 minute daytime headway on Line 5, maybe 2± minutes during rush hours. Likely the ridership will come from transfers from the bus routes that currently cross Eglinton Avenue West. We could get short turns either at Mt, Dennis Station, or Jane Station. Depending if they include crossovers at Jane Station and an union track provision for a Jane LRT. Haven't seen up-to-date information on where the crossovers and pocket tracks will be located, as yet.

Fortunately the Jane station will be elevated, not in a tunnel. Which means, even if the crossover or the Jane LRT connection is not built originally, they can be added later at a reasonable cost.

For some comparison, some U.S. cities have headways on their rapid transit, equal to or worse than the current bus service on the 32A Eglinton West bus.

I've even seen that kind of infrequent headways in smaller European cities. One city in Germany (Ruhr region) that I visited, has a light rail line that rund in a tunnel under the city centre, and on-street outside the centre. Their headways are like once in 8-12 min on weekdays, and up to once in 30 min on Sundays.

That's not to say they have poor transit; they have a decent (for a small city) bus service, and an excellent rail network.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Register for the Eglinton Crosstown West Extension virtual live meeting held on August 19, 2021 at 6:30 PM. Submit questions for the Q&A now.

Go to link.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Currently, because of the construction on Eglinton Avenue West (from Weston Road eastward), most riders either continue south to Line 1, or detour around Eglinton Avenue West entirely.

The present M-F rush hours schedule at Renforth Station (from link) is as follows:
View attachment 335614
View attachment 335615

The present Sunday schedule, after 10 pm is as follows:
View attachment 335616

We have been told to expect a 5 minute daytime headway on Line 5, maybe 2± minutes during rush hours. Likely the ridership will come from transfers from the bus routes that currently cross Eglinton Avenue West. We could get short turns either at Mt, Dennis Station, or Jane Station. Depending if they include crossovers at Jane Station and an union track provision for a Jane LRT. Haven't seen up-to-date information on where the crossovers and pocket tracks will be located, as yet.

For some comparison, some U.S. cities have headways on their rapid transit, equal to or worse than the current bus service on the 32A Eglinton West bus.

It's worth noting the following:
1. Covid scheduling, you can basically double the bus frequencies because of this
2. Summer Scheduling
3. Realignment of bus service to other corridors (since Eglinton is a crapshow due to construction right now)

 

[turini2]

In all likelihood, there won't be (and probably never will be) track connections between Eglinton, Finch or a hypothetical Jane route. A nice to have, sure - but it isn't necessary.

Why would it be helpful? Dual road/rail maintenance vehicles can easily use the roadway/or tracks to get to the relevant spot, vehicles will be maintained at the relevant yard for each line, and interlining is extremely unlikely between any of the lines. Furthermore, different P3's (Crosslinx, Mobilinx etc) will not want to have "shared" infrastructure to look after - they're going to be parochial and look after their own interests.

If Mount Dennis MSF was a substantially larger area and would service Jane, Finch and the (overlapping) Eglinton lines - then yes, a connection would allow that to occur.
Instead, Jane LRT (if it ever happens) will have it's own MSF - just like Finch does. I suspect they'll build a storage yard in the East if/when Eglinton East gets built - if only to improve speed of trains into service every day!

 

[fanoftoronto]

In all likelihood, there won't be (and probably never will be) track connections between Eglinton, Finch or a hypothetical Jane route. A nice to have, sure - but it isn't necessary.

Why would it be helpful? Dual road/rail maintenance vehicles can easily use the roadway/or tracks to get to the relevant spot, vehicles will be maintained at the relevant yard for each line, and interlining is extremely unlikely between any of the lines. Furthermore, different P3's (Crosslinx, Mobilinx etc) will not want to have "shared" infrastructure to look after - they're going to be parochial and look after their own interests.

If Mount Dennis MSF was a substantially larger area and would service Jane, Finch and the (overlapping) Eglinton lines - then yes, a connection would allow that to occur.
Instead, Jane LRT (if it ever happens) will have it's own MSF - just like Finch does. I suspect they'll build a storage yard in the East if/when Eglinton East gets built - if only to improve speed of trains into service every day!

I'm looking at it on a higher level. With multiple rolling stock types, you'd need specialized technicians and operators for each type of signaling system. Both signaling systems will need their own management area and their own team dedicated to maintenance with very little opportunity to utilize the same team for both. Or, we'd need to train all the technicians twice for no added benefit. Any unforeseen increase in demand or maintenance issue on one line cannot be augmented with spare trains from a different line. Just because the trains won't interline between the different LRT lines doesn't mean it's ok that they have different signaling requirements.

Line 1 and Line 2 don't do any interlining, but it still makes it a simpler system in that they run the same rolling stock. In fact, when the Toronto Rocket trains were introduced to Line 1, the older T1 trains were all moved over to Line 2 and the older trains on Line 2 were retired. If we had different rolling stock/signaling systems, then the T1 trains would have needed to be scrapped as they were not ATC compatible (a requirement for Line 1's future-proofing). This also brings up an additional point for when we eventually replace all these LRVs, we'd have to place 2 orders - One for the ECLRT, and one for the Finch West, while placing a bulk order for both together will definitely work out cheaper per train. I believe the Finch West trains were ordered along with the Hurontario LRT vehicles to get a price break.

I'm not advocating that ALL rolling stock/signaling systems need to be compatible (Heavy Rail, Light Rail, Streetcar, etc), but if we're building 3 almost identical LRT lines, wouldn't it make sense that they were all running the same requirements on rolling stock and signaling?

Also, with P3's, the requirements are still flowed down by Metrolinx. If the stipulation was that they all run the same signaling system and compatible rolling stock, then the P3s will have to abide by that. For example, Eglinton West is definitely going to be compatible with ECLRT as that was the requirement for the P3 to abide by even though it's 2 different P3 contractors - Crosslinx vs West End Connectors.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Back in 2019, there were plans for a rerouting and extension to the 405 Etobicoke Community bus. See link.

The Etobicoke bus would be modified by:

• Adding one vehicle and improving service from every 90 minutes to every 75,
• Extending the route to serve the No Frills at Dixon & Islington as well the West Park Health Centre,
• Removing service on The Westway, and
• Improving dwell times at stops.

Of course, with COVID-19, those plans were put into storage.

With the likely opening of the Line 5 Eglinton Crosstown LRT, I can see them reconfiguring those plans to include a terminal stop at the Mt. Dennis Station by 2022 (whatever actual date that would be). That way riders could get transfers for the Line 5, GO Transit, and UPX services. Because of the missing intermediate stops between the currently planned stations, this community bus will need to be used and extended.

That Route 405 would likely stay until the Eglinton West LRT Extension (complete by 2030-31?). By which time, there should be another reconfiguration of Route 405, with stops at the Kipling/Eglinton, Islington/Eglinton, Royal York/Eglinton, Scarlett Road, Jane/Eglinton, and Mt. Dennis Stations.

That rerouting would greatly benefit the residents at West Park Healthcare Centre, where current construction is being done. See link.

 

[NoahB]

I'm looking at it on a higher level. With multiple rolling stock types, you'd need specialized technicians and operators for each type of signaling system. Both signaling systems will need their own management area and their own team dedicated to maintenance with very little opportunity to utilize the same team for both. Or, we'd need to train all the technicians twice for no added benefit. Any unforeseen increase in demand or maintenance issue on one line cannot be augmented with spare trains from a different line. Just because the trains won't interline between the different LRT lines doesn't mean it's ok that they have different signaling requirements.

Line 1 and Line 2 don't do any interlining, but it still makes it a simpler system in that they run the same rolling stock. In fact, when the Toronto Rocket trains were introduced to Line 1, the older T1 trains were all moved over to Line 2 and the older trains on Line 2 were retired. If we had different rolling stock/signaling systems, then the T1 trains would have needed to be scrapped as they were not ATC compatible (a requirement for Line 1's future-proofing). This also brings up an additional point for when we eventually replace all these LRVs, we'd have to place 2 orders - One for the ECLRT, and one for the Finch West, while placing a bulk order for both together will definitely work out cheaper per train. I believe the Finch West trains were ordered along with the Hurontario LRT vehicles to get a price break.

I'm not advocating that ALL rolling stock/signaling systems need to be compatible (Heavy Rail, Light Rail, Streetcar, etc), but if we're building 3 almost identical LRT lines, wouldn't it make sense that they were all running the same requirements on rolling stock and signaling?

Also, with P3's, the requirements are still flowed down by Metrolinx. If the stipulation was that they all run the same signaling system and compatible rolling stock, then the P3s will have to abide by that. For example, Eglinton West is definitely going to be compatible with ECLRT as that was the requirement for the P3 to abide by even though it's 2 different P3 contractors - Crosslinx vs West End Connectors.

Understable. And makes sense.

Unfortunately, Eglinton LRT and Finch LRT have separate consortiums, with different rolling stock, and different signalling systems. That makes them inherently incompatible unless the trains and signalling get retrofitted (which is possible on a technical level. But the chances of that happening are slim.