News   Oct 26, 2021
 778     3 
News   Oct 20, 2021
 87     0 
News   Oct 19, 2021
 735     0 

Eglinton West LRT | Metrolinx

Streety McCarface

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
2,087
Reaction score
2,170
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

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 20, 2020
Messages
273
Reaction score
1,038
Location
London, UK
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

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
388
Reaction score
1,054
Location
Everywhere and Nowhere
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

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
20,461
Reaction score
10,069
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
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.
405etobicoke_map.jpg

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.
CD_ConceptMasterSitePlan2019_Page.ashx

1627322862328.png
 

NoahB

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
418
Reaction score
1,271
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.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
20,461
Reaction score
10,069
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
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.
Both Egltinton LRT and Finch West LRT light rail vehicles will be compatible. Any components inside them should be interchangeable, plug-out and plug-in. Just like the drivers will be interchangeable, get off and get on.
 

Steve X

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Messages
2,159
Reaction score
1,641
Both Egltinton LRT and Finch West LRT light rail vehicles will be compatible. Any components inside them should be interchangeable, plug-out and plug-in. Just like the drivers will be interchangeable, get off and get on.
Only if it’s that easy. The freedom itself is a streetcar. BBD listed that installing ATO equipment is one of the challenges as it has to be interfaced to the driving computer.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
20,461
Reaction score
10,069
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
Only if it’s that easy. The freedom itself is a streetcar. BBD listed that installing ATO equipment is one of the challenges as it has to be interfaced to the driving computer.
Link to the reference, please?

The Flexity Outlook is a streetcar to be used in Toronto's legacy streetcar network.
The Flexity Freedom is a light rail vehicle to be used to Ontario's light rapid transit lines. It is too wide to be used in Toronto's downtown mixed traffic.

(Did you know that in Chicago, they converted their old PCC streetcars and used on their "L" lines.)

The old Gloucester train horns were installed on the CLRV streetcars, showing how interchangeable the components can be.
 
Last edited:

Rainforest

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,688
Reaction score
2,513
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!

First of all, the P3 contracts aren't signed for eternity. They are probably for 15, 20, maybe 30 years, then up for renewal. At the renewal time, the customer - Metrolinx or whichever agency inherits its functions - can easily add a clause for partial interoperability, and the vendor would be foolish to reject it and lose the contract.

Secondly, there is a good reason to interoperate the Eglinton and Jane lines, if Jane is built as a branch of Eglinton that runs from just north of Eglinton to Steeles. The density along Jane between Bloor and Eglinton is lower, and can be served by buses. At the same time, the street is very narrow south of Dundas, and tunneling would be the only practical way to get LRT running there.

In some ways, a continuous Jane LRT from Steeles to Bloor makes for a better network, but if having that LRT north of Eglinton only is a lot cheaper and easier to swallow, then it should be accepted.

Eglinton and Finch won't interoperate fully, but the short section leading to the Pearson terminals might be shared. It would be silly to install 4 tracks instead of 2 for those last 2 km, just because the control systems are incompatible. Should be noted that the Pearson section isn't signed off for either Eglinton or Finch at this time. So if MX isn't silly, they will include the interoperability clause if/when they contract out the Pearson section.

Finch and Jane: first of all, they can be very conveniently served from the same MFS. The Finch MSF is literally next to Jane. Furthermore, the segment of Jane between Finch and Steeles may be used for emergency diversions of the Finch service, if a blockage occurs on Finch between Jane and Keele. In that bsituation, the Finch LRT riders will be able to get to the subway at Pioneer Village instead of Finch West.
 

ARG1

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
3,357
Location
North Toronto
First of all, the P3 contracts aren't signed for eternity. They are probably for 15, 20, maybe 30 years, then up for renewal. At the renewal time, the customer - Metrolinx or whichever agency inherits its functions - can easily add a clause for partial interoperability, and the vendor would be foolish to reject it and lose the contract.

Secondly, there is a good reason to interoperate the Eglinton and Jane lines, if Jane is built as a branch of Eglinton that runs from just north of Eglinton to Steeles. The density along Jane between Bloor and Eglinton is lower, and can be served by buses. At the same time, the street is very narrow south of Dundas, and tunneling would be the only practical way to get LRT running there.

In some ways, a continuous Jane LRT from Steeles to Bloor makes for a better network, but if having that LRT north of Eglinton only is a lot cheaper and easier to swallow, then it should be accepted.

Eglinton and Finch won't interoperate fully, but the short section leading to the Pearson terminals might be shared. It would be silly to install 4 tracks instead of 2 for those last 2 km, just because the control systems are incompatible. Should be noted that the Pearson section isn't signed off for either Eglinton or Finch at this time. So if MX isn't silly, they will include the interoperability clause if/when they contract out the Pearson section.

Finch and Jane: first of all, they can be very conveniently served from the same MFS. The Finch MSF is literally next to Jane. Furthermore, the segment of Jane between Finch and Steeles may be used for emergency diversions of the Finch service, if a blockage occurs on Finch between Jane and Keele. In that bsituation, the Finch LRT riders will be able to get to the subway at Pioneer Village instead of Finch West.
I feel like at this point any attempt branch off of the Eglinton Line won't really end up working out well, especially on the west end. The Eglinton West Subway is a project that carries a lot of weight on its shoulders. Not only will it be a major way for people from Etobicoke and Mississauga to get to Pearson Airport, but it will connect to a major transitway going to Mississauga (and that will eventually have a downtown subway under S1), and the entire corridor is planned to have a ton of density as part of the TOC initiative done by the province. Finally this is going to be the primary route linking Mississauga and Midtown Toronto. Some time ago, Reece Martin had an interview with Phil Verster, and during that interview Phil something very interesting, where he talked about the need to be commercially astute with transit projects, and seeing where to cut out the fat. Now a direct example he gave was the cancelling of the Scarborough Junction project and the realignment of the LSE corridor tracks, but he also brought up the lack of needing to build the Missing Link, and that Milton RER could be provided via other more fiscally conservative means. The way I personally interpreted this is that in some ways it seems like Metrolinx is seemingly looking at Eglinton West as a replacement for Milton RER, on top of all of its other responsibilities.

Now what is my point with all of this? In short, I really don't see a scenerio in which the Jane LRT interoperating with Eglinton ever happens. Eglinton is already going to suffer from serious capacity limitations due to the vehicle types, and has a limit to how frequently trains can arrive due to the existence of the at grade segment in Scarborough so its unlikely we're going to see trains arriving at headways sooner than every 4 mins. Maybe if Sunnybrooke Park gets some extremely strong signal priority or gets grade separated, we can have the core section of the Eglinton Line between Jane and Don Mills running at every 2 minutes, which would leave Jane and Eglinton West at 4 minute headways, but even then I'm not sure if this is enough to handle the demand for Eglinton West in 30 years time. In short, if we choose to build Jane as an LRT, I highly doubt we have any room to squeeze the trains onto Eglinton. Best case scenerio we might see Jane parallel the Eglinton Line until Mt. Dennis, either on Eglinton or along the Kitchener Line corridor with the line connecting to the Mt. Dennis MSF, and maybe we can install a connecting track between the two in case we need to move trains around for various operational needs, however this is by no means anywhere reaching a necessity, and at best you're redoing the signaling on a Line just in the off chance you need to move a train around.
 

duffo

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 17, 2020
Messages
117
Reaction score
301
Metrolinx is seemingly looking at Eglinton West as a replacement for Milton RER, on top of all of its other responsibilities.
I have no idea how this would work? A commuter heading downtown off-peak from Mississauga (let alone Milton) would need to take local transit to the Transitway, take the Transitway to Renforth, take the LRT to Mount Dennis (assuming the LRT airport extension hasn't yet been built), and then take the GO to Union. Hardly a simple replacement. What really needs to happen is an acknowledgement of the LW line as the express-to-downtown trunk, and strong BRT-style local transit feeder services.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
20,461
Reaction score
10,069
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
If another Ontario party, after the (Progressive) Conservatives), come in, hopefully they will implement a GO/UPX/TTC discount fare system. If so, expect to see increases in the use of UPX and GO at the Weston, Mt. Dennis, and Bloor Stations, from transfers from the TTC. If one needs to get downtown (baseball, hockey, etc.), they would offer a faster more express service than the Eglinton Crosswtown, in the west end of Toronto. Ditto for the other GO Transit train routes within Toronto.

If people could afford to use taxis or ride-sharing, they can afford to use a GO/UPX/TTC discount fare.
 

Rainforest

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,688
Reaction score
2,513
If another Ontario party, after the (Progressive) Conservatives), come in, hopefully they will implement a GO/UPX/TTC discount fare system. If so, expect to see increases in the use of UPX and GO at the Weston, Mt. Dennis, and Bloor Stations, from transfers from the TTC. If one needs to get downtown (baseball, hockey, etc.), they would offer a faster more express service than the Eglinton Crosswtown, in the west end of Toronto. Ditto for the other GO Transit train routes within Toronto.

If people could afford to use taxis or ride-sharing, they can afford to use a GO/UPX/TTC discount fare.

To some degree, yes, but then with the increased GO demand we might hit the capacity limits.

Hopefully, GO can add enough capacity on the segment between Union and Bramalea station, where the tracks are fully owned by Metrolinx.
 

Rainforest

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,688
Reaction score
2,513
I feel like at this point any attempt branch off of the Eglinton Line won't really end up working out well, especially on the west end. The Eglinton West Subway is a project that carries a lot of weight on its shoulders. Not only will it be a major way for people from Etobicoke and Mississauga to get to Pearson Airport, but it will connect to a major transitway going to Mississauga (and that will eventually have a downtown subway under S1), and the entire corridor is planned to have a ton of density as part of the TOC initiative done by the province. Finally this is going to be the primary route linking Mississauga and Midtown Toronto. Some time ago, Reece Martin had an interview with Phil Verster, and during that interview Phil something very interesting, where he talked about the need to be commercially astute with transit projects, and seeing where to cut out the fat. Now a direct example he gave was the cancelling of the Scarborough Junction project and the realignment of the LSE corridor tracks, but he also brought up the lack of needing to build the Missing Link, and that Milton RER could be provided via other more fiscally conservative means. The way I personally interpreted this is that in some ways it seems like Metrolinx is seemingly looking at Eglinton West as a replacement for Milton RER, on top of all of its other responsibilities.

Now what is my point with all of this? In short, I really don't see a scenerio in which the Jane LRT interoperating with Eglinton ever happens. Eglinton is already going to suffer from serious capacity limitations due to the vehicle types, and has a limit to how frequently trains can arrive due to the existence of the at grade segment in Scarborough so its unlikely we're going to see trains arriving at headways sooner than every 4 mins. Maybe if Sunnybrooke Park gets some extremely strong signal priority or gets grade separated, we can have the core section of the Eglinton Line between Jane and Don Mills running at every 2 minutes, which would leave Jane and Eglinton West at 4 minute headways, but even then I'm not sure if this is enough to handle the demand for Eglinton West in 30 years time. In short, if we choose to build Jane as an LRT, I highly doubt we have any room to squeeze the trains onto Eglinton. Best case scenerio we might see Jane parallel the Eglinton Line until Mt. Dennis, either on Eglinton or along the Kitchener Line corridor with the line connecting to the Mt. Dennis MSF, and maybe we can install a connecting track between the two in case we need to move trains around for various operational needs, however this is by no means anywhere reaching a necessity, and at best you're redoing the signaling on a Line just in the off chance you need to move a train around.

Indeed, the demand for Eglinton West originating from Mississauga is a big wild card.

The scale of that demand is hard to predict, because the pattern is virtually nonexistent today. There is no usable transit connection between Mississauga and Toronto Midtown. Only people in really desperate circumstances would consider using the Eg West or Lawrence West buses for that purpose. Everyone else either drives or chooses their residence or employment to avoid such a commute altogether.

Once EWLRT connects to Mississauga Transitway at Renforth, a somewhat decent transit option for such trips will be created, and surely some people will use it. But how many, remains to be seen. This is still not a perfect option, with a transfer at Renforth and potentially two more transfers to/from local routes in the beginning and at the end of the trip.

With that in mind, I can think of Jane LRT being a branch of Eglinton temporarily, before the Eglinton West demand reaches its full level. And later, Jane LRT gets de-branched from Eglinton and extended to Bloor instead.
 

Top