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

[fanoftoronto]

Don’t assume that the line beyond that end wall is perfectly flat straight and level. Or that it is easily minable without hitting utilities or foundations.
All it takes is for one station to be constrained to its existing length.
My understanding ( probably take me forever to find the citation, but I remember this clearly as I argued loudly back when the EA and early consultation was done) is that the stations cannot be lengthened after opening. What they give us is all we will get.

- Paul

I mean with a theoretical maximum of 3 LRVs per train, and a capacity of 250 per LRV (Bombardier Flexity Freedom capacity), we're looking at 750 passengers per train. Running on a 3 minute headway, we're looking at a 15,000 hourly capacity for the line per direction (pphpd).

Technically, plenty for the estimated demand for the line. We could, theoretically increase headway to 1.5 minute headways, essentially doubling the capacity to 30,000 pphpd. This will need the rest of the line to be grade-separated to implement full ATC across the entire line. Difficult, yet not impossible. It would've been nice to have 150m long roughed-in stations, but this isn't the end of the world.

 

[EnviroTO]

LRT in Edmonton seems to be efficient. Edmonton has crossing gates that block the intersection when it makes sense, they dive under the intersections that are problematic. The same seems true in parts of the Kitchener-Waterloo LTR (ion) where there are intersections with crossing gates in places, and decent signal prioritization in others. I often think that the hate of LRTs that seems to exist here is likely more due to Toronto having streetcars/trams which people base their opinion on (which are not LRT) and on the routes where Toronto has placed streetcars in a private ROW the signal prioritization and stop spacing (often 150-400m) is a complete joke.

 

[ARG1]

LRT in Edmonton seems to be efficient. Edmonton has crossing gates that block the intersection when it makes sense, they dive under the intersections that are problematic.

Yes, Edmonton is actually a perfect example of, well maybe not what Eglinton should've been, but definitely what it could've been that would've made it far better than what we're getting today.

The same seems true in parts of the Kitchener-Waterloo LTR (ion) where there are intersections with crossing gates in places, and decent signal prioritization in others.

... the same compliment cannot be extended to iON where the route is so windy, indirect, and filled with so many silly design decisions that seems to trample over themselves. The most egregious example is the area near Block Line station where despite having boom gates and full priority, the train still absolutely CRAWLS at like 15-20km/h, especially at many of the sharp curves around. Once you get downtown, you get all of the hallmarks of poorly designed LRT:

• Route splitting
• Random lane changes
• Randomly turning onto different streets because "reasons"

amongst many others.

I often think that the hate of LRTs that seems to exist here is likely more due to Toronto having streetcars/trams which people base their opinion on (which are not LRT) and on the routes where Toronto has placed streetcars in a private ROW the signal prioritization and stop spacing (often 150-400m) is a complete joke.

The problem comes down to how vague and meaningless the term "LRT" is. You want to know what Edmonton's LRT, the O-Train, and Line 6 have in common as services? Uh, they're all trains? Other than these superficial elements, basically nothing. Maybe you can argue that the O-Train and Edmonton are similar because they're more suburban style rail with an underground downtown segment, but even then - Edmonton's system is a small scale S-Bahn, and the O-Train is the light metro your mom said you have at home. At their cores they're vastly different, and such are difficult to meaningfully compare.

Nobody here is crapping on Toronto's LRTs because we have an unfound hatred for Light Rail, and have no idea what LRT done right looks like, most of us crap on it on its own merits. What Edmonton did with its Light Rail 30 years ago doesn't really matter because its not representative of what Toronto did, or the options we had available on these corridors.

 

[Steve X]

Finch West is really urbanized streetcars with limited transit priority. On the other extreme, Edmonton is a poor man's subway only able to afford a central tunnel. Calgary can be explained as a poor man's subway with a streetcar transit mall. Ottawa is a subway unfortunately built with streetcars. ION is built properly??? I don't know how much improvement it has from opening when it ran slower than the 501 Queen. Since there isn't a public term to distinguish them, let's call them all LRT.

Each have their pros and cons. Personally I think Finch West is built with the right design. Higher capacity line for localized travels. Railway gates and bells would be annoying as it increases congestion on side streets and annoying as hell for the immediate residents to cope with at night.

 

[EnviroTO]

Nobody here is crapping on Toronto's LRTs because we have an unfound hatred for Light Rail, and have no idea what LRT done right looks like, most of us crap on it on its own merits.

When people say "we are stuck with LRT technology" that is a hate of LRT not based on what actually influences the service. A roads department that won't give LRT full priority is not a technology issue. Dedicated ROW, full prioritization at intersections, stop spacing, and straight tracks are all not technology related... they are implementation related.

 

[ARG1]

When people say "we are stuck with LRT technology" that is a hate of LRT not based on what actually influences the service. A roads department that won't give LRT full priority is not a technology issue. Dedicated ROW, full prioritization at intersections, stop spacing, and straight tracks are all not technology related... they are implementation related.

No its a matter of fact: we are stuck with LRT technology. We are stuck with a mode that isn't suited with the service type that Eglinton needs, and is a decision that is going to bite us for decades to come. Saying that isn't a condemnation of LRT as a technology as a whole, the fundamental issue here is that North America just absolutely sucks at building LRT where it belongs, as we try to mold the technology into scenarios it has no business folding into. Full prioritization can help offer us a band-aid, but a band-aid is just that - a band-aid. There are still massive limitations to frequencies, and the choice of vehicle is a massive detriment to how the line was built.

 

[fanoftoronto]

No its a matter of fact: we are stuck with LRT technology. We are stuck with a mode that isn't suited with the service type that Eglinton needs, and is a decision that is going to bite us for decades to come. Saying that isn't a condemnation of LRT as a technology as a whole, the fundamental issue here is that North America just absolutely sucks at building LRT where it belongs, as we try to mold the technology into scenarios it has no business folding into. Full prioritization can help offer us a band-aid, but a band-aid is just that - a band-aid. There are still massive limitations to frequencies, and the choice of vehicle is a massive detriment to how the line was built.

I'm trying to understand what you view as an ideal implementation of an LRT system is. If you say full prioritization is just a band-aid, what more are you expecting? What more are the European countries building that is so vastly different than the LRT on Eglinton?

What type of service does Eglinton need if the LRT is not suited for this line?

 

[EnviroTO]

No its a matter of fact: we are stuck with LRT technology. We are stuck with a mode that isn't suited with the service type that Eglinton needs, and is a decision that is going to bite us for decades to come. Saying that isn't a condemnation of LRT as a technology as a whole, the fundamental issue here is that North America just absolutely sucks at building LRT where it belongs, as we try to mold the technology into scenarios it has no business folding into. Full prioritization can help offer us a band-aid, but a band-aid is just that - a band-aid. There are still massive limitations to frequencies, and the choice of vehicle is a massive detriment to how the line was built.

What is LRT technology? LRT technology is lighter than heavy rail... that is it. Vehicles that are not high speed nor able to run on tracks carrying heavy rail. There are low floor heavy rail trains, there are high floor LRTs. LRT is a weight of vehicle and the vehicles are the easiest thing to replace.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Instead of referring to the weight of the vehicle light could instead refer to lighter service than you'd expect from a subway.

 

[afransen]

I mean with a theoretical maximum of 3 LRVs per train, and a capacity of 250 per LRV (Bombardier Flexity Freedom capacity), we're looking at 750 passengers per train. Running on a 3 minute headway, we're looking at a 15,000 hourly capacity for the line per direction (pphpd).

Technically, plenty for the estimated demand for the line. We could, theoretically increase headway to 1.5 minute headways, essentially doubling the capacity to 30,000 pphpd. This will need the rest of the line to be grade-separated to implement full ATC across the entire line. Difficult, yet not impossible. It would've been nice to have 150m long roughed-in stations, but this isn't the end of the world.

For that kind of spend (150m underground stations) we should have done light Metro.

 

[ARG1]

I'm trying to understand what you view as an ideal implementation of an LRT system is. If you say full prioritization is just a band-aid, what more are you expecting? What more are the European countries building that is so vastly different than the LRT on Eglinton?

What type of service does Eglinton need if the LRT is not suited for this line?

So in this case I'm specifically referring to tramways. Tramways are best suited for situations where you need to move a lot of people very short distances - a sort of local service of sorts. LRTs typically suck when it comes to speed, due to having to operate in high traffic environments where they risk hitting vehicles and pedestrians (this is true even if you have your own dedicated lanes like Eglinton). As such, the best place for them is in dense urban cores, where people only have a need to travel a few blocks. If you want to build a tramway in the suburbs. Suburban Light Rail in contrast is typically best when its in its own completely dedicated corridor - something akin to the C-Train or ETS Light Rail. This isn't what Eglinton is however. Eglinton is a tramway - in an area where people need to travel longer distances. In corridors like Eglinton, the most important aspect of any transit infrastructure should be priority in terms of speed. What we get is a Tramway that pretends to be a subway, that has all of the costs associated with the subway, but still keeps the baggage associated with being a tramway.

If you want to see LRT done right, well just look at the Toronto Streetcar System actually. While yes we do have them operating in mixed traffic, and yes TSP is limited, they are operating in an environment that they are suited for. There is far too much traffic on Queen Street and King Street for busses to effectively run, however most trips are so short that servicing it by subway would be ineffective. In this case "LRT" is the perfect mode for the job.

What is LRT technology? LRT technology is lighter than heavy rail... that is it. Vehicles that are not high speed nor able to run on tracks carrying heavy rail. There are low floor heavy rail trains, there are high floor LRTs. LRT is a weight of vehicle and the vehicles are the easiest thing to replace.

Why are you being this pedantic over the details, and bringing up these "Uhm Akchually" objections? Yes, LRT is a versatile mode that can operate in many different situations with many different types of vehicles - and most people can recognize that, however it doesn't matter in this conversation. Eglinton is getting a subway, with a massive amputated leg called a tramway. The tramway doesn't fit the corridor. The use of Low Floor vehicles doesn't fit the line. The Line you're suggesting LRT could be is about as imaginary as a Heavy Rail Metro.

 

[fanoftoronto]

So in this case I'm specifically referring to tramways. Tramways are best suited for situations where you need to move a lot of people very short distances - a sort of local service of sorts. LRTs typically suck when it comes to speed, due to having to operate in high traffic environments where they risk hitting vehicles and pedestrians (this is true even if you have your own dedicated lanes like Eglinton). As such, the best place for them is in dense urban cores, where people only have a need to travel a few blocks. If you want to build a tramway in the suburbs. Suburban Light Rail in contrast is typically best when its in its own completely dedicated corridor - something akin to the C-Train or ETS Light Rail. This isn't what Eglinton is however. Eglinton is a tramway - in an area where people need to travel longer distances. In corridors like Eglinton, the most important aspect of any transit infrastructure should be priority in terms of speed. What we get is a Tramway that pretends to be a subway, that has all of the costs associated with the subway, but still keeps the baggage associated with being a tramway.

If you want to see LRT done right, well just look at the Toronto Streetcar System actually. While yes we do have them operating in mixed traffic, and yes TSP is limited, they are operating in an environment that they are suited for. There is far too much traffic on Queen Street and King Street for busses to effectively run, however most trips are so short that servicing it by subway would be ineffective. In this case "LRT" is the perfect mode for the job.

Why are you being this pedantic over the details, and bringing up these "Uhm Akchually" objections? Yes, LRT is a versatile mode that can operate in many different situations with many different types of vehicles - and most people can recognize that, however it doesn't matter in this conversation. Eglinton is getting a subway, with a massive amputated leg called a tramway. The tramway doesn't fit the corridor. The use of Low Floor vehicles doesn't fit the line. The Line you're suggesting LRT could be is about as imaginary as a Heavy Rail Metro.

I am more confused now than before!

You're suggesting that the Eglinton line is worse than the Toronto Streetcar System that travels in downtown in mixed use? In what way? Speed, comfort, passengers carried? All are better on the Eglinton line vs the downtown streetcar system.

• Downtown streetcars running in mixed traffic use makes the streetcars slow and prone to being blocked by accidents, breakdowns, and general traffic. Heck, an illegally parked moving truck could block the entire line for 20-30 minutes. This is not going to be a much, much smaller issue for the Eglinton line as it is using dedicated lanes.
• There's no signal prioritization for the downtown section as well, and they have to deal with traffic lights every 100-200 metres - Much worse than the Eglinton line. In peak traffic time, I've walked faster than the Queen, Dundas streetcars in certain times. Traffic lights on Eglinton are also much, much further apart allowing the LRVs to achieve higher speeds between stops, thereby being inherently faster than the streetcars.
• Stop spacing is on average 500m for the Eglinton Line vs 150m for the downtown streetcars. The maximum speed that the streetcars reach is 30 km/h before they have to slow down again for the next stop or light. Again, making it much faster than the streetcars.
• The downtown sections can't have multiple LRV's coupled together as that would potentially block intersections while waiting for traffic to clear. That's not an issue for the Eglinton line as we already have 2-LRV trains already, with a potential for 3-car expansion in the future when demand requires it.
• The downtown streetcars in mixed-use traffic has a pphpd of 3,000. The pphpd for the Eglinton LRT can be 10,000 with 3 minute headways and 2 LRV trains, and as high as 15,000 with 3 minute headways and 3 LRV trains, which is miles ahead of the downtown streetcar system. Again, according to the estimates, we won't even need 15,000 pphpd for years to come.

I agree that the Eglinton LRT isn't going to be perfect, but to suggest that the downtown streetcar system is a well implemented LRT system is just plain incorrect. The downtown streetcar system is a tram that is slow, but good for that implementation. It is by no means an example of a well implemented LRT system. What we have on Eglinton is much, much better than the downtown network. It has its shortcomings, but it will be faster, more comfortable, carry more passengers, and be more efficient than the downtown streetcar network. Eglinton is getting a subway for a good portion of its length and a semi-bad implemented surface section. Could it be better? Sure, but then every single public works project could be better. From roads, to bridges, to highways, and transit lines.

The following is from the Metrolinx Relief Line Appendix for difference in transit technology. Notice the Streetcar at the bottom, just a littler higher than Bus/BRT. The 20,100 is the AM Peak on the Relief line.

 

[44 North]

So in this case I'm specifically referring to tramways. Tramways are best suited for situations where you need to move a lot of people very short distances - a sort of local service of sorts. LRTs typically suck when it comes to speed, due to having to operate in high traffic environments where they risk hitting vehicles and pedestrians (this is true even if you have your own dedicated lanes like Eglinton). As such, the best place for them is in dense urban cores, where people only have a need to travel a few blocks. If you want to build a tramway in the suburbs. Suburban Light Rail in contrast is typically best when its in its own completely dedicated corridor - something akin to the C-Train or ETS Light Rail. This isn't what Eglinton is however. Eglinton is a tramway - in an area where people need to travel longer distances. In corridors like Eglinton, the most important aspect of any transit infrastructure should be priority in terms of speed. What we get is a Tramway that pretends to be a subway, that has all of the costs associated with the subway, but still keeps the baggage associated with being a tramway.

If you want to see LRT done right, well just look at the Toronto Streetcar System actually. While yes we do have them operating in mixed traffic, and yes TSP is limited, they are operating in an environment that they are suited for. There is far too much traffic on Queen Street and King Street for busses to effectively run, however most trips are so short that servicing it by subway would be ineffective. In this case "LRT" is the perfect mode for the job.

Why are you being this pedantic over the details, and bringing up these "Uhm Akchually" objections? Yes, LRT is a versatile mode that can operate in many different situations with many different types of vehicles - and most people can recognize that, however it doesn't matter in this conversation. Eglinton is getting a subway, with a massive amputated leg called a tramway. The tramway doesn't fit the corridor. The use of Low Floor vehicles doesn't fit the line. The Line you're suggesting LRT could be is about as imaginary as a Heavy Rail Metro.

This is a bit out the window though because even as a suburban arterial, the densities along Eglinton are relatively comparable to the downtowns of Edmonton and Calgary. I was a hard advocate of building a light metro line across Eglinton, but doesn't mean I'm not afraid to face facts about the benefits of the tram-style LRT. There's a reason the western section will have higher ridership in the middle of the street with more stops than grade-separated. Because there's lots of people there wanting to use the stops.

Finch West is really urbanized streetcars with limited transit priority. On the other extreme, Edmonton is a poor man's subway only able to afford a central tunnel. Calgary can be explained as a poor man's subway with a streetcar transit mall. Ottawa is a subway unfortunately built with streetcars. ION is built properly??? I don't know how much improvement it has from opening when it ran slower than the 501 Queen. Since there isn't a public term to distinguish them, let's call them all LRT.

Each have their pros and cons. Personally I think Finch West is built with the right design. Higher capacity line for localized travels. Railway gates and bells would be annoying as it increases congestion on side streets and annoying as hell for the immediate residents to cope with at night.

Yea railway gates coming up and down every 2.5mins kinda sounds like a nightmare tbh.

 

[Voltz]

Why do you think they added service rooms and vent fans in the mezzaine level, (between the street level and the platform level)? Then there are possible unexcavated area beyond the station boxes, that could be dug out, if they become desperate. By "services", they could mean janitor rooms, which can be moved to the area under the steps and escalates in later years.

Those diagrams are from when it was a TTC project, not a Metrolinx P3. Many details could have changed since then.

 

[ARG1]

I am more confused now than before!

You're suggesting that the Eglinton line is worse than the Toronto Streetcar System that travels in downtown in mixed use? In what way? Speed, comfort, passengers carried? All are better on the Eglinton line vs the downtown streetcar system.

• Downtown streetcars running in mixed traffic use makes the streetcars slow and prone to being blocked by accidents, breakdowns, and general traffic. Heck, an illegally parked moving truck could block the entire line for 20-30 minutes. This is not going to be a much, much smaller issue for the Eglinton line as it is using dedicated lanes.
• There's no signal prioritization for the downtown section as well, and they have to deal with traffic lights every 100-200 metres - Much worse than the Eglinton line. In peak traffic time, I've walked faster than the Queen, Dundas streetcars in certain times. Traffic lights on Eglinton are also much, much further apart allowing the LRVs to achieve higher speeds between stops, thereby being inherently faster than the streetcars.
• Stop spacing is on average 500m for the Eglinton Line vs 150m for the downtown streetcars. The maximum speed that the streetcars reach is 30 km/h before they have to slow down again for the next stop or light. Again, making it much faster than the streetcars.
• The downtown sections can't have multiple LRV's coupled together as that would potentially block intersections while waiting for traffic to clear. That's not an issue for the Eglinton line as we already have 2-LRV trains already, with a potential for 3-car expansion in the future when demand requires it.
• The downtown streetcars in mixed-use traffic has a pphpd of 3,000. The pphpd for the Eglinton LRT can be 10,000 with 3 minute headways and 2 LRV trains, and as high as 15,000 with 3 minute headways and 3 LRV trains, which is miles ahead of the downtown streetcar system. Again, according to the estimates, we won't even need 15,000 pphpd for years to come.

I agree that the Eglinton LRT isn't going to be perfect, but to suggest that the downtown streetcar system is a well implemented LRT system is just plain incorrect. The downtown streetcar system is a tram that is slow, but good for that implementation. It is by no means an example of a well implemented LRT system. What we have on Eglinton is much, much better than the downtown network. It has its shortcomings, but it will be faster, more comfortable, carry more passengers, and be more efficient than the downtown streetcar network. Eglinton is getting a subway for a good portion of its length and a semi-bad implemented surface section. Could it be better? Sure, but then every single public works project could be better. From roads, to bridges, to highways, and transit lines.

The following is from the Metrolinx Relief Line Appendix for difference in transit technology. Notice the Streetcar at the bottom, just a littler higher than Bus/BRT. The 20,100 is the AM Peak on the Relief line.

View attachment 387562

You need to read what I said a bit more carefully.

I didn't say that it was unconditionally better. Yes if you compare the numbers and the on the ground facts, the crosstown is way better - there is no argument. I said that the streetcar it was better in the sense that it is better suited for the environment it runs in. Every mode has a situation that it suits best: For some corridors a subway makes the most sense, in some corridors a tramway, in some corridors a BRT. Tramways like Eglinton are best in extremely dense environments where people are travelling short local distances. That isn't the case on Eglinton: What was built on Eglinton does not suit the corridor it was built in. Eglinton is very suburban, with most people travelling large distances to reach their destination. Tramways do not work well in such environments - and the choice of mode on Eglinton makes no sense.

This is a bit out the window though because even as a suburban arterial, the densities along Eglinton are relatively comparable to the downtowns of Edmonton and Calgary. I was a hard advocate of building a light metro line across Eglinton, but doesn't mean I'm not afraid to face facts about the benefits of the tram-style LRT. There's a reason the western section will have higher ridership in the middle of the street with more stops than grade-separated. Because there's lots of people there wanting to use the stops.

Which part of Eglinton? Midtown? Well its underground in Midtown - unlike Calgary which is in a completely dedicated ROW only outside of downtown.