Toronto Eglinton Line 5 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[andrewpmk]

If St. Clair is a "minor feeder" then so is Sheppard (both halves).

Is Highway 401 a minor feeder? Some sections of it (especially in Etobicoke) carry about 450000 cars/day, on weekdays it can exceed 500000.

The only reason the Sheppard subway only carries about 50000/day and acts like a feeder to the Yonge line right now is because it isn't long enough to be useful for suburb to suburb trips. Most people drive. Most drivers on the parallel 401 are not going downtown either, but rather from suburb to suburb.

St. Clair is a minor feeder because St. Clair Avenue ends just east of Mount Pleasant (and resumes just west of O'Connor) and ends at Scarlett in the west. It will never be a major route for getting across the city like the Bloor-Danforth or Eglinton lines 2km north and south. Sheppard might not be as important a route as Eglinton, but it connects North York Centre and Scarborough Centre directly, provides an alternative to 401 drivers coming from the east and runs parallel to a number of very busy bus routes (85/190 on Sheppard East and 39/199 on Finch East are some of the busiest bus routes in the city, and are the only two bus routes in the city with all day express service). I definitely think that Sheppard is a much more important route than St. Clair.

 

[mFaust]

I think the question is framed wrong, and I think this whole debate is wrong.

Eglinton underground all the way is wrong.

Eglinton as per Transit City is wrong.

Central portion underground is fine. But having it at-grade in the street on the east side is wrong. It should be either (a) in a ditch or (b) elevated or (c) duck under intersections.

It bothers me that the option that gives the best bang for the buck is ignored.



And that. Is why we fail.

Exactly right.

Central portion underground, East portion above ground, West portion below grade through Richview ROW. period. End of story.

 

[Rainforest]

I feel that light rail is a low-speed, low capacity technology that is not suitable for anything other than minor feeder lines like St. Clair. There needs to be at least one continuous, grade separated (can be elevated in parts) rail line running across the entire north side of the city to provide a real alternative to driving on Highway 401.

1) The average speed of the mixed surface-subway Eglinton line will be only slightly worse than that of a fully underground line.

2) Eglinton cannot be an alternative to 401 for a number of reasons, one of them is that it is located too far south of 401.

3) Capacity of Eglinton is a valid concern, but it won't be improved much if the line is placed fully underground but still uses same 3-car LRT trains. We would have to build a fully-fledged subway to maximize capacity, but such a change is too risky at this stage of the project. It is better to complete Eglinton LRT now, and extend the Sheppard subway in the long term (when much more E-W capacity is needed).

 

[M II A II R II K]

St. Clair has too many stops, and has to stop at red lights between stops, and is not in a suburban section. Referencing St. Clair or Spadina to scare people off is a fallacy.

 

[Johnny Au]

Forum Research is a joke. I bet that they have a hidden agenda, though claiming to be neutral. No wonder why so many people favour an all-underground Eglinton Crosstown LRT, based on that loaded wording. Based on the wording by Forum Research, I will favour the all-underground Eglinton Crosstown LRT. In reality, I can see through the bias and choose a partial underground Eglinton Crosstown LRT with a surface section east of Brentcliffe. No lanes will be taken away and it will not be like St. Clair. If it were worded to be more neutral, then it would provide a more accurate measure of what people want for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT, with more votes being in favour of a surface section east of Brentcliffe.

 

[andrewpmk]

1) The average speed of the mixed surface-subway Eglinton line will be only slightly worse than that of a fully underground line.

Due to the large number of minor stops under the Transit City proposal, and because traffic signal priority is not all that effective, and because a transfer at Kennedy/Eglinton will likely be needed, the Transit City proposal would probably add 10 minutes for travelling through the east section, and if extended to the airport 5 minutes in the western section.

2) Eglinton cannot be an alternative to 401 for a number of reasons, one of them is that it is located too far south of 401.

If the Eglinton line were to be extended to the airport it would meet Highway 401 twice, at 401/427 and at Scarborough Centre. Although Eglinton is some distance south of the 401 it will still act to some extent as a 401 reliever. Since St. Clair is very congested, Eglinton is very congested, Lawrence has a gap east of Bayview and York Mills/Wilson can be quite congested, drivers going long distances usually take the 401, even though the 401 is also heavily congested.

3) Capacity of Eglinton is a valid concern, but it won't be improved much if the line is placed fully underground but still uses same 3-car LRT trains. We would have to build a fully-fledged subway to maximize capacity, but such a change is too risky at this stage of the project. It is better to complete Eglinton LRT now, and extend the Sheppard subway in the long term (when much more E-W capacity is needed).

The main thing that decreases capacity is the lack of grade separation. Without grade separation one can only run 4-5 minute headways with full signal priority, otherwise signal priority severely interrupts traffic on north south cross streets, and needs to be turned off making the line slower. With full grade separation and automation one can run as low as 90 second headways, making up for the fact that the trains are slightly shorter than Bloor-Danforth.

 

[Rainforest]

Due to the large number of minor stops under the Transit City proposal, and because traffic signal priority is not all that effective, and because a transfer at Kennedy/Eglinton will likely be needed, the Transit City proposal would probably add 10 minutes for travelling through the east section, and if extended to the airport 5 minutes in the western section.

10 min diff for the eastern section may be a bit of overstatement. My assumption of speed is 34 kph for fully underground and 23 kph for at-grade. The disputed section is 8.5 km long (maybe even less dependent on the design of river and CP rail crossings). (8.5 / 34) x 60 = 15 min, (8.5 / 23) x 60 = 22 min, for the difference of about 7 min.

Regarding the transfer at Kennedy / Eglinton, I would consider partial interlining (of each 2 SRT trains, one continues on Eglinton and the other turns back). That eliminates a transfer for at least half of the trips.

If the Eglinton line were to be extended to the airport it would meet Highway 401 twice, at 401/427 and at Scarborough Centre. Although Eglinton is some distance south of the 401 it will still act to some extent as a 401 reliever. Since St. Clair is very congested, Eglinton is very congested, Lawrence has a gap east of Bayview and York Mills/Wilson can be quite congested, drivers going long distances usually take the 401, even though the 401 is also heavily congested.

Eglinton (or any new E-W line) will divert some trips off 401; I just don't think it will divert a lot of trips. The composition of origin - destination pairs of 401 trips is very complex, and Eglinton will not serve the majority of them.

The main thing that decreases capacity is the lack of grade separation. Without grade separation one can only run 4-5 minute headways with full signal priority, otherwise signal priority severely interrupts traffic on north south cross streets, and needs to be turned off making the line slower. With full grade separation and automation one can run as low as 90 second headways, making up for the fact that the trains are slightly shorter than Bloor-Danforth.

That's true. However, the SRT section will remain on its elevated guideway in any case, and the central part of Eglinton will be underground. That allows more frequent service and higher capacity for the selected sessions. In out case: Jane to Don Mills every 2 min, Don Mills to Kennedy every 4 min, Kennedy to STC every 2 min.

 

[GenerationW]

Central portion underground is fine. But having it at-grade in the street on the east side is wrong. It should be either (a) in a ditch or (b) elevated or (c) duck under intersections.

Giambrone definitely had no interest in that. I wonder if Ford would ever accept it as a compromise if he didn't have the votes.

 

[andrewpmk]

Giambrone definitely had no interest in that. I wonder if Ford would ever accept it as a compromise if he didn't have the votes.

Like this? (Paris Metro 1 just east of La Defense, runs fully grade separated and fenced in here. RER A simultaneously runs underground beneath here.)

For comparison on Eglinton this would probably mean ducking under intersections at Bermondsey, Victoria Park, Pharmacy, Warden, Birchmount and Kennedy, where stations would be located except at Kennedy.

 

[ssiguy2]

I noticed that Dougie today mentioned {I'm paraphrasing} that any rapid transit.......LRT or subway, must be underground when referring to Eglinton.
That is the first time I have heard either Ford mention "subway" when discussing Eglinton.
If nothing else it seems that standard subway, as opposed to underground LRT, may be under consideration for the line which only makes sense as between the 4 tech available, subway, monorail, SkyTrain, or LRT, LRT tunnel and SRT conversion will be the most expensive of the 4 and yet have the lowest capacity.

 

[jeffreym]

I wouldn't read much into that. I think in their world subway = below ground and streetcar = above ground.

 

[nfitz]

I wouldn't read much into that. I think in their world subway = below ground and streetcar = above ground.

Given the current plan is to put the Eglinton LRT in a subway tunnel under Eglinton, I'm not sure what the point here is.

 

[jeffreym]

Given the current plan is to put the Eglinton LRT in a subway tunnel under Eglinton, I'm not sure what the point here is.

ssiguy just said he thought Doug Ford was implying that the Eglinton line would use subway cars. I'm saying that I just think he doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[nfitz]

ssiguy just said he thought Doug Ford was implying that the Eglinton line would use subway cars. I'm saying that I just think he doesn't know what he's talking about.

If the entire tunnel is underground, and it's a subway ... then the cars built to run with them are subway cars. Not like the current subway cars ... and design-overkill ... but that's essentially what they are.

 

[Dan416]

If the entire tunnel is underground, and it's a subway ... then the cars built to run with them are subway cars. Not like the current subway cars ... and design-overkill ... but that's essentially what they are.

Maybe they've realized it makes no sense to use LRVs if the entire line is underground. Just get Bombardier to switch out the LRVs with TRs.