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

[fanoftoronto]

This is a very outdated view of how Toronto's transit system should be viewed as. We shouldn't be constraining ourselves to these hard municipal borders when looking at how a regional network should be played out. While the local-regional dynamic works at a very high level - it is still much more valuable view to look at each corridor individually and see what's important there.

Travel to STC and MCC is important. These are going to be extremely important developmental nodes, and having a rapid link between the two would be extremely useful - especially if the goal is to reduce car dependancy.

Eglinton is a massive arterial, and end to end transit could be extremely valuable. Valuable enough for a go line? Probably not. Viable enough for 20k pphpd? Quite possibly. We should honestly forget that municipal borders exist when thinking about how to plan for a regional transit network.

Where is your source on 20k pphpd?

Here is my source of 6,000 pphpd along Eglinton: Eglinton Crosstown LRT Demand Forecasting Report

From going through the document in more detail, it furthers my support of removing the Hakimi-Lebovic stop as well as the Aga Khan stop because of the low patronage.

The Eglinton Crosstown is meant to service the folks along Eglinton Ave or transferring onto Eglinton. Regional GO trains and buses are supposed to service demand between city centres. To mix the 2 would create a hybrid that would do a half assed job at both.

For a perfect example, the Eglinton West portion, the ridership dropped from 42,500 to 37,000 when it went from at-grade LRT with 9 stops to underground LRT with 6 stations. If there is major requirement for a fast connection across Eglinton, then ridership should've gone up when comparing at-grade LRT vs underground with fewer stops. The same might've been the case for Eglinton East as well. You can read more about this here: Eglinton Crosstown West Extension Initial Business Case

 

[afransen]

That's the point of the Regional GO trains. Moving people between city centres fast. The subway and LRT network primarily supports the City of Toronto as it should.

MCC to Line 1 - Milton Go line to Union station
STC to Line 1 - Stouffville Go line from Kennedy to Union station
STC to Ontario Line - Eglinton Crosstown - No other option there
STC to Airport - Stouffville Go line to Union station and Union-Pearson Link to the airport
MCC to STC - Milton Go line to Union station, subway from there
MCC to Ontario Line - Milton GO to Union, subway to Queen
MCC to Airport - GO bus 40 from MCC to Pearson

Where is the source on the "lots of people"? Anecdotal information from a few personal situation is not a study or confirmation of demand. GO is being expanded in places where there is demand as it should be.

Time estimates? How many of these average 20kph? It's not enough for transit to technically exist. If all we wanted was an LRT line on Eglinton it should have been built largely on the surface. If we wanted rapid transit it should have been grade separated, high floor and automated. A hybrid of both is wrongheaded. We are spending astronomical sums for mediocre service.

 

[afransen]

Where is your source on 20k pphpd?

Here is my source of 6,000 pphpd along Eglinton: Eglinton Crosstown LRT Demand Forecasting Report
View attachment 388394

From going through the document in more detail, it furthers my support of removing the Hakimi-Lebovic stop as well as the Aga Khan stop because of the low patronage.

The Eglinton Crosstown is meant to service the folks along Eglinton Ave or transferring onto Eglinton. Regional GO trains and buses are supposed to service demand between city centres. To mix the 2 would create a hybrid that would do a half assed job at both.

For a perfect example, the Eglinton West portion, the ridership dropped from 42,500 to 37,000 when it went from at-grade LRT with 9 stops to underground LRT with 6 stations. If there is major requirement for a fast connection across Eglinton, then ridership should've gone up when comparing at-grade LRT vs underground with fewer stops. The same might've been the case for Eglinton East as well. You can read more about this here: Eglinton Crosstown West Extension Initial Business Case

View attachment 388407

Why are we bothering to extend line 5 to the airport if line 5 is only for local service?

 

[ARG1]

Where is your source on 20k pphpd?

Here is my source of 6,000 pphpd along Eglinton: Eglinton Crosstown LRT Demand Forecasting Report
View attachment 388394

From going through the document in more detail, it furthers my support of removing the Hakimi-Lebovic stop as well as the Aga Khan stop because of the low patronage.

The Eglinton Crosstown is meant to service the folks along Eglinton Ave or transferring onto Eglinton. Regional GO trains and buses are supposed to service demand between city centres. To mix the 2 would create a hybrid that would do a half assed job at both.

For a perfect example, the Eglinton West portion, the ridership dropped from 42,500 to 37,000 when it went from at-grade LRT with 9 stops to underground LRT with 6 stations. If there is major requirement for a fast connection across Eglinton, then ridership should've gone up when comparing at-grade LRT vs underground with fewer stops. The same might've been the case for Eglinton East as well. You can read more about this here: Eglinton Crosstown West Extension Initial Business Case

View attachment 388407

First, I am always highly suspicious of any given boarding numbers. Not only do they rarely show how they reach those numbers - what assumptions were made to reach those numbers, what they did or did not consider - North American transit agencies INCLUDING Metrolinx and the TTC ROUTINELY underestimate ridership numbers and statistics.

It is to the point where whenever I see a report with ridership especially in Canada, I just add an additional 15% to that number. The Confederation Line in Ottawa exceeded ridership expectations almost immediately, the Canada Line in Vancouver exceeded ridership expectations almost immediately. The Trillium Line in Ottawa exceeded ridership expectations. The weekend excursion trains to Barrie and Niagara both exceeded expectations when they were launched, so did the extension to Kitchener. I sometimes wonder if these agencies underestimate how willing people are to ditch their cars when you offer a faster alternative.

 

[fanoftoronto]

Time estimates? How many of these average 20kph? It's not enough for transit to technically exist. If all we wanted was an LRT line on Eglinton it should have been built largely on the surface. If we wanted rapid transit it should have been grade separated, high floor and automated. A hybrid of both is wrongheaded. We are spending astronomical sums for mediocre service.

Most of the items I listed were GO Trains with much higher average speeds than 20 km/h.

You conveniently didn't answer my question. Where is your source that "lots of people" would want to use a "fast connection" between these city centres?

 

[ARG1]

Most of the items I listed were GO Trains with much higher average speeds than 20 km/h.

All of which go through Union Station. For instance, taking the Barrie Line + Stouffville Line (these trains throughrun) from Downsview Park to Agincourt takes 1h12m. Taking a bus + subway + 2nd bus takes 1h2m. There is no crosstown GO line. Some form of Rapid Transit on Eglinton could've been a perfect place to have a decent compromise - allowing people to travel quickly across the city. Put stations every km - and you have a line that works fairly well within the city of Toronto - whilst also serving more regional users as well.

You conveniently didn't answer my question. Where is your source that "lots of people" would want to use a "fast connection" between these city centres?

The congestion on the 401

 

[fanoftoronto]

First, I am always highly suspicious of any given boarding numbers. Not only do they rarely show how they reach those numbers - what assumptions were made to reach those numbers, what they did or did not consider - North American transit agencies INCLUDING Metrolinx and the TTC ROUTINELY underestimate ridership numbers and statistics.

It is to the point where whenever I see a report with ridership especially in Canada, I just add an additional 15% to that number. The Confederation Line in Ottawa exceeded ridership expectations almost immediately, the Canada Line in Vancouver exceeded ridership expectations almost immediately. The Trillium Line in Ottawa exceeded ridership expectations. The weekend excursion trains to Barrie and Niagara both exceeded expectations when they were launched, so did the extension to Kitchener. I sometimes wonder if these agencies underestimate how willing people are to ditch their cars when you offer a faster alternative.

Ok, if you're going to doubt the ridership numbers from official documents then there's no point in me arguing this. I'm doing the best I can providing sources and references to what I am stating in my posts.

We will know soon enough what the ridership numbers are when the line opens, I guess.

But by the same token, you are suggesting using Canada Line style trains and 50 metre long stations for the Eglinton to save money and elevate the eastern section. Eglinton is expecting 6,000 pphpd at its busiest according to these numbers. I've already demonstrated that the Canada Line trains have a capacity limit of 13,000 pphpd (at 1.5 minute headways) before needing to shut down to expand the stations. Say the estimates are grossly low and we see 9,000 pphpd, we will reach the limit of the Canada Line much faster. The Crosstown LRT right now can sustain 10,000 pphpd with 2 car trains and 3 minute headways. Increase the headway to 1.5 minutes and you get 20,000 pphpd. Plenty for the near future even if the forecasts are grossly low.

Knock down the walls and finish the stations at 90 m to allow for the 3-car trains and you can theoretically get to 30,000 pphpd with 1.5 minute headways. The expensive retrofit is much farter away than if we used Canada Line style station design.

 

[ARG1]

Knock down the walls and finish the stations at 90 m to allow for the 3-car trains and you can theoretically get to 30,000 pphpd with 1.5 minute headways. The expensive retrofit is much farter away than if we used Canada Line style station design.

And exactly how do you expect to reach that?

As long as the surface section exists, you ain't reaching anywhere close to 1.5 minute headways sunshine.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Ok, if you're going to doubt the ridership numbers from official documents then there's no point in me arguing this. I'm doing the best I can providing sources and references to what I am stating in my posts.

We will know soon enough what the ridership numbers are when the line opens, I guess.

But by the same token, you are suggesting using Canada Line style trains and 50 metre long stations for the Eglinton to save money and elevate the eastern section. Eglinton is expecting 6,000 pphpd at its busiest according to these numbers. I've already demonstrated that the Canada Line trains have a capacity limit of 13,000 pphpd (at 1.5 minute headways) before needing to shut down to expand the stations. Say the estimates are grossly low and we see 9,000 pphpd, we will reach the limit of the Canada Line much faster. The Crosstown LRT right now can sustain 10,000 pphpd with 2 car trains and 3 minute headways. Increase the headway to 1.5 minutes and you get 20,000 pphpd.

You can't do that, because of the eastern section. Besides, 50 meter stations or 90 meter stations, it's clear which one is cheaper.

Knock down the walls and finish the stations at 90 m to allow for the 3-car trains and you can theoretically get to 30,000 pphpd with 1.5 minute headways. The expensive retrofit is much farter away than if we used Canada Line style station design.

If you used Canada-Line style design, but with 60 meter trains, you would get 20,000 PPHD without any retrofits at all.

 

[afransen]

Ok, if you're going to doubt the ridership numbers from official documents then there's no point in me arguing this. I'm doing the best I can providing sources and references to what I am stating in my posts.

We will know soon enough what the ridership numbers are when the line opens, I guess.

But by the same token, you are suggesting using Canada Line style trains and 50 metre long stations for the Eglinton to save money and elevate the eastern section. Eglinton is expecting 6,000 pphpd at its busiest according to these numbers. I've already demonstrated that the Canada Line trains have a capacity limit of 13,000 pphpd (at 1.5 minute headways) before needing to shut down to expand the stations. Say the estimates are grossly low and we see 9,000 pphpd, we will reach the limit of the Canada Line much faster. The Crosstown LRT right now can sustain 10,000 pphpd with 2 car trains and 3 minute headways. Increase the headway to 1.5 minutes and you get 20,000 pphpd. Plenty for the near future even if the forecasts are grossly low.

Knock down the walls and finish the stations at 90 m to allow for the 3-car trains and you can theoretically get to 30,000 pphpd with 1.5 minute headways. The expensive retrofit is much farter away than if we used Canada Line style station design.u

90 second headways are impossible on line 5 due to the lack of grade separation. The western section could have also been elevated, and the central section around Yonge underground with expandable platforms.

 

[fanoftoronto]

All of which go through Union Station. For instance, taking the Barrie Line + Stouffville Line (these trains throughrun) from Downsview Park to Agincourt takes 1h12m. Taking a bus + subway + 2nd bus takes 1h2m. There is no crosstown GO line. Some form of Rapid Transit on Eglinton could've been a perfect place to have a decent compromise - allowing people to travel quickly across the city. Put stations every km - and you have a line that works fairly well within the city of Toronto - whilst also serving more regional users as well.

The congestion on the 401

Already given you information that the time difference is 4 minutes between at-grade vs grade separated. 14 minutes for grade separated vs 18 minutes for at-grade. 32 km/h is the speed you are going to get on a line with 1 km station spacing along Eglinton. The entire 30 km length with 30 stations grade separated at 32 km/h would take almost 1 hour. Not exactly "allowing people to travel quickly across the city".

Already provided information that an at-grade proposal on the western side had higher demand and ridership than a fully grade separated line. 42,500 for at-grade vs 37,000 for grade separated.

And exactly how do you expect to reach that?

As long as the surface section exists, you ain't reaching anywhere close to 1.5 minute headways sunshine.

Why not? On the surface section you could have trains back to back with no problem. There's no limit to how many LRT trains can be there.

The 1.5 minute headways is for ATC in underground sections where you don't have visibility and are also travelling at higher speeds. This is why you can have streetcars on King street at 30 second intervals but can't increase headway on the Yonge line until ATC is installed. Signaling is completely different in the underground section.

You can't do that, because of the eastern section. Besides, 50 meter stations or 90 meter stations, it's clear which one is cheaper.

If you used Canada-Line style design, but with 60 meter trains, you would get 20,000 PPHD without any retrofits at all.

Pick one option. 50 m or 60 m. Also, we're currently building the LRT with 60 m with 20,000 pphpd theoretical maximum without any retrofit anyhow. The knockdown walls with 90 m are for when demand exceeds this theoretical maximum, which is a smart choice given that transit lines are for decades.

The eastern section is on the surface and does not have a headway limit. You can have 5 LRT trains back to back if needed. Once they get into the underground they need the 1.5 minute headways due to the signaling requirements for grade separated transit. The underground section is supposed to be ATC with 4 minute headways with the current proposal. Can be increased as ridership increases.

 

[ARG1]

Already given you information that the time difference is 4 minutes between at-grade vs grade separated. 14 minutes for grade separated vs 18 minutes for at-grade. 32 km/h is the speed you are going to get on a line with 1 km station spacing along Eglinton. The entire 30 km length with 30 stations grade separated at 32 km/h would take almost 1 hour. Not exactly "allowing people to travel quickly across the city".

Already provided information that an at-grade proposal on the western side had higher demand and ridership than a fully grade separated line. 42,500 for at-grade vs 37,000 for grade separated.


Why not? On the surface section you could have trains back to back with no problem. There's no limit to how many LRT trains can be there.

The 1.5 minute headways is for ATC in underground sections where you don't have visibility and are also travelling at higher speeds. This is why you can have streetcars on King street at 30 second intervals but can't increase headway on the Yonge line until ATC is installed. Signaling is completely different in the underground section.

There is no limit - if you have no problem with bunching and inconsistent headways. If you want trams that are just constantly backed up and waiting for the tram in front of them to move on, you can run them as often as you want. No amount of TSP is going to help you here - you need to have a green light on cross traffic at some point, which means if you're running at such tight headways, you are guaranteed to feel the full blunt of some red lights. A quick rule of TSP is the less trains you run, the more room you have to have proper TSP that is likely to let trains through. The rule of thumb according to Sound Transit is that if you want consistent headways on an LRT, you can run a train at most, every 5 minutes.

Getting trains to run consistently every 90s isn't easy, you have to have very precise scheduling, and you have to minimize how many disruptions you have. For that you need to have a line that is basically fully automated. If you want to integrate a manual surface section into a 90s tunneled section, you have to find a way of guaranteeing that the train will enter the tunnel at every exact 90s interval - which is physically impossible. Worst case scenerio, you have a deluge of trains back to back to back, and you just have people waiting for up to 5 minutes until they get passed the first tunnel station.

So no, if you want to have an actually USABLE line, you simply cannot run 90s frequencies on the Eglinton Line. Period. End of Story. If we want to reach your theoretical 20 or 30k pphpd that we can reach with 1.5s headways, the only way to get that is to grade separate the entire line.

 

[fanoftoronto]

There is no limit - if you have no problem with bunching and inconsistent headways. If you want trams that are just constantly backed up and waiting for the tram in front of them to move on, you can run them as often as you want. No amount of TSP is going to help you here - you need to have a green light on cross traffic at some point, which means if you're running at such tight headways, you are guaranteed to feel the full blunt of some red lights. A quick rule of TSP is the less trains you run, the more room you have to have proper TSP that is likely to let trains through. The rule of thumb according to Sound Transit is that if you want consistent headways on an LRT, you can run a train at most, every 5 minutes.

Getting trains to run consistently every 90s isn't easy, you have to have very precise scheduling, and you have to minimize how many disruptions you have. For that you need to have a line that is basically fully automated. If you want to integrate a manual surface section into a 90s tunneled section, you have to find a way of guaranteeing that the train will enter the tunnel at every exact 90s interval - which is physically impossible. Worst case scenerio, you have a deluge of trains back to back to back, and you just have people waiting for up to 5 minutes until they get passed the first tunnel station.

So no, if you want to have an actually USABLE line, you simply cannot run 90s frequencies on the Eglinton Line. Period. End of Story. If we want to reach your theoretical 20 or 30k pphpd that we can reach with 1.5s headways, the only way to get that is to grade separate the entire line.

But my point is that we are not going to be at that state to require 1.5 minute headways until decades in the future. At the current state, at 6,000 pphpd for 2031 we will need an LRT train once every 5 minutes in the morning peak.

When we get to 3 minute or lower headways in 20-30 years, hopefully, we have more level-headed folks in charge who will allow the implementation of full TSP to allow for a much better at-grade section.

If you choose to ignore the published city documentation stating the expected ridership then I can't really help that. Nothing I say will change what you've decided in your mind.

If your reasoning for stating that the city's estimates for ridership is too low because other transit lines had the ridership exceed expectation, that is anecdotal evidence. I can bring up 100s of proposals from all over the world where they have to showcase ridership estimates 10x the actual just to get shovels in the ground. These numbers will only be met 20 years after the subway lines open. Again, anecdotal evidence does nothing here.
If you don't want to go far, then see what happened with the Union Pearson link, reducing price from $25/$19 to $12/$9 (I think, I haven't paid attention) in order to increase ridership.

 

[Voltz]

Time estimates? How many of these average 20kph? It's not enough for transit to technically exist. If all we wanted was an LRT line on Eglinton it should have been built largely on the surface. If we wanted rapid transit it should have been grade separated, high floor and automated. A hybrid of both is wrongheaded. We are spending astronomical sums for mediocre service.

There is no room on the surface for rail transit where the city decided to put it underground,

 

[smallspy]

And exactly how do you expect to reach that?

As long as the surface section exists, you ain't reaching anywhere close to 1.5 minute headways sunshine.

You realize that there exists a facility at Laird to turn back trains without them reaching the surface, right?

In fact, the original service plans call for every second train to be short-turned there. And all current messaging implies that as well.

Dan