Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[Rainforest]

There is no way that a LRT will bring high density, mixed use development to Eglinton west. It won't provide rapid transit to the airport, and might not even be able to support the weight of 5 feeder bus routes.

I believe that LRT will be quite adequate as a premium local route for Eglinton and surrounding areas. Note that many passengers will take it as a feeder service to Yonge or Spadina subway (or future DRL at Don Mills), and spend no more than 15 min on LRT. Even for a fair number of crosstown trips, Eglinton LRT would be faster than riding all the way south to Bloor subway and then back north.

It certainly can support higher density, especially around the tunneled portions of the line, like Oakwood to Keele. (In some areas, like Bathurst to Avenue Rd, which is north of Forest Hill, residents will try to prevent density growth - but they will do so regardless of the LRT / subway choice.)

Feeder bus routes would not be an issue, either: 3-car trains on 3' headways (20 trains per hour) means 3 x 175 x 20 = 10,500 pphpd, and the headways can be shortened further if needed. There are no feeder bus routes that can fill even 1/3 of that capacity. In the west: 52 Westway / Lawrence, or 58 Dixon? - certainly under 2,000 pphpd. In the east: 54 Lawrence west and 51 Leslie? - this is more serious, but only until DRL reaches Eglinton / Don Mills.

Regarding the transit to airport, you are right in principle, as subway would be more effective (not just due to being faster, but also for convenience - people don't want to carry luggage into a rush-time packed LRT train). However, the financial burden of such plan would be very high, and for sure would have negative impact on several other transit projects.

The smart thing to do would be to have a plan for Eglinton. Build a subway along the central stretch so that it immediately relieves the many bus routes that get totally bottlenecked along the central portion between about Keele and Laird. With the Don Mills LRT/DRL and Jane LRT though, extending it to Jane and Don Mills could have a lot of merit.
Once that gets done, start planning for Eglinton West. Get some developers who will commit to planning some areas at intersections like Eglinton and Islington, and then follow through with your plan. Once you get anchor points like that, the corridor's pretty well set.

Honestly, I don't like this plan. In the short term, it will result in less efficient transit along Eglinton than the existing LRT plan: too many transfers. The bus transit to airport from a subway terminus at Keele or Jane, likely in mixed traffic, will not be appealing at all (I'd rather take 192 Rocket from Kipling, or 401 GO bus from Yorkdale).

In the long term, if we keep investing in Eglinton subway, it will eventually create better transit in this particular corridor. However, the extra cost (over LRT) would be at least 3 or 4 billions, which can build a lot of other projects.

 

[doady]

With all the space available above ground along one half of the corridor, and with a mandatory underground section along the other half, the entirety of Eglinton West could easily have been an entirely grade-separated LRT, either underground or below-grade, and separate from the Eglinton East LRT. Although it would still technically be light rail, the Eglinton West LRT could still have been part of the subway/RT system, because it would have fare-paid boarding zones and bus terminals or loops at each station. It would essentially be a subway connection to the airport. But for some reason they opted for a ridiculous on-street solution instead, so it is more like a long streetcar connection to the airport, and not part of the subway/RT system.

 

[kEiThZ]

Just one driver having a mishap with a LRT will demonstrate the weakness of linking up the on-street and sub-surface portions of Eglinton. Or a LRT breaking down before the tunnel. Or problems with snow. Etc. There are a myriad of extra operational risks associated with running LRT on the surface. Linking the at-grade and below-grade portions merely imposes the at-grade risks on the below-grade portion risking reliability even further.

 

[kettal]

Are you kidding me? Of course it can be significant! Any sort of vehicle crash along the route will hamper a LRT. An intersection crash (remember, we're talking Eglinton and Martin Grove, Kipling, Islington, Don Mills and Warden here,) would prove fatal to the system. A subway, believe it or not, operates completely independently from the road. Ergo, no on road problems can slow it down.

Almost all "intersection crashes" involve a left-turning vehicle misjudging the gap he has to turn. The redeveloped intersections on Eglinton here will have Michigan style left turns, or at the very least advanced left turn signals.

What sections in particular would be so underutilized it's not even worth it? Considering that grade separation on the Richview corridor might only be an extra $100 million/km (double the cost,) I don't see how about the same ridership as the B-D past Keele isn't worth it. If you don't believe me, take a look at just how the line's going to work. There's already a slew of apartment blocks from Martin Grove to Jane that hold tens of thousands of people. Add in a substantial amount of the commuter ridership from Martin Grove, Kipling, Islinton, Royal York, Scarlett and Jane, there could easily be fifty thousand people per day coming from the section west of Jane alone (not counting Pearson.)

Who's going to provide the security and staffing for underground stations in places like Eglinton @ Russell road all into the night? All the costs of having a full-fledged station in areas where a sheltered surface stop can easily handle demand.

 

[nfitz]

Who's going to provide the security and staffing for underground stations in places like Eglinton @ Russell road all into the night? All the costs of having a full-fledged station in areas where a sheltered surface stop can easily handle demand.

Who provides it now for existing stations? You frequently go in late at night, and there is no one at the ticket booth, and no one in the tunnels or platforms.

 

[Second_in_pie]

^^ Yeah, I hate it when that happens

Who's going to provide the security and staffing for underground stations in places like Eglinton @ Russell road all into the night? All the costs of having a full-fledged station in areas where a sheltered surface stop can easily handle demand.

Why would there be a station at Eglinton and Russell anyways? Just the fact that I had to look it up shows that it would be insignificant. A subway would obviously not have all the stops that a LRT would. The stations would most likely be at Martin Grove, Kipling, Islinton, Royal York, and Scarlett, essentially a parallel to the way the B-D runs.

So I guess you're right, there would be no need for a station at Eglinton and Russell. That's why it wouldn't exist.

 

[kettal]

Why would there be a station at Eglinton and Russell anyways? Just the fact that I had to look it up shows that it would be insignificant. A subway would obviously not have all the stops that a LRT would. The stations would most likely be at Martin Grove, Kipling, Islinton, Royal York, and Scarlett, essentially a parallel to the way the B-D runs.

So I guess you're right, there would be no need for a station at Eglinton and Russell. That's why it wouldn't exist.

This is the difference between a real avenue anchored by LRT with stops that people can actually walk to, vs. subways with stops too far apart like Sheppard.

Nobody walks on Sheppard, it's a shitty sterile street, and the subway only serves those lucky enough to live on top of it. It's great if you want to live in a skyscraper condo, but a city needs more than condos on a highway.

Eglinton is to become an avenue with a real neighbourhood street, this can't be achieved when you start skipping stations. There are many included in the LRT plan which you'd "have to look up"...

 

[Dan416]

I would imagine the spacing would be more like B-D than Sheppard. This is what irks me about the Eglinton LRT, with all these stops so close together, it takes the "rapid" out of "rapid transit".

In my fantasy map, I've outlined some possible stations for the Eglinton subway. From Jane to Don Mills, I count 14 stations (consider that B-D from Jane to Pape is 19). Considering that B-D has stations really close together near the YUS loop, 14 is a pretty similar stop spacing.

I think the BD spacing on Eglinton is fine. I have no problem taking the Bloor line. Sure the spacing is closer than on Yonge, but it also gets you closer to where you want to be.

My problem with the Eglinton LRT isn't the stop spacing, it's the lack of grade separation.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

It's just unfortunate that Toronto is the only city in the universe, and there are no other cities who have any experience with this matter. Nothing that works in other cities can possibly ever work here!

The TTC can't get its existing lines to work...what will change?

This is the difference between a real avenue anchored by LRT with stops that people can actually walk to, vs. subways with stops too far apart like Sheppard.

Nobody walks on Sheppard, it's a shitty sterile street, and the subway only serves those lucky enough to live on top of it. It's great if you want to live in a skyscraper condo, but a city needs more than condos on a highway.

Eglinton is to become an avenue with a real neighbourhood street, this can't be achieved when you start skipping stations. There are many included in the LRT plan which you'd "have to look up"...

What do you think Eglinton is going to look like? The Richview area will look like Sheppard...assuming any development ever actually occurs. If we're lucky, it'll look like Sheppard West.

Sheppard would have gotten a station at Willowdale but 6 NIMBYs are louder than 6000 supporters.

There's only a few hundred people that live closer to Russell than Islington or Royal York, and most of them are literally less than two minutes closer. This doesn't count as skipping a station...it would be superfluous if added. Lawrence and Eglinton are over 2km apart...thats twice as far as 1km (1km filled with absolutely nothing but houses, and there's even fewer houses at Wincott).

Is Eglinton East still a real avenue with large gaps like Mount Pleasant-Bayview-Brentcliffe?

 

[Dan416]

I wish there was some way to convince the TTC to completely grade-separate Eglinton. If it were completely grade-separated, had fare-paid areas and functioned like part of the subway, I'd be happier, even if it was using LRVs. Assuming its built with subway conversion in mind, it'd be as easy as switching to subway vehicles when the time came.

Has anyone attended the Eglinton EAs and brought this up? I don't care about LRTs supposed capability of "avenuing" streets (which is complete bollocks anyway), rapid transit should be RAPID. And it doesn't mean sacrificing accessibility to aforementioned transit if we're following B-D spacing.

 

[CodeMonkey]

Tunnel boring machines no doubt. It'd be an absolute nightmare to cut 'n cover that section.

Unless they want to make it a nightmare. Isn't cut and cover cheaper than tunnel boring? I can see them using that when the construction comes to the point of digging. Also with tunnel boring they have to dig a big hole somewhere so they can drop it down to drill and bring it back up at the other end.

 

[W. K. Lis]

... The TTC built what it claimed was the Transit City pilot project on St. Clair and it's not different or better. How many more are we going to have to build before they accept that maybe their way isn't the best way?...

St. Clair is not a pilot project for Transit City. And it never was or will be. Same with Spadina. They are both streetcars on a right-of-way. Even the Queensway portion of Queen and Queens Quay are still streetcars on a right-of-way.

You may even think an bicycle and a motorcycle are the same because they both ride on two wheels.

 

[Dan416]

St. Clair is not a pilot project for Transit City. And it never was or will be. Same with Spadina. They are both streetcars on a right-of-way. Even the Queensway portion of Queen and Queens Quay are still streetcars on a right-of-way.

You may even think an bicycle and a motorcycle are the same because they both ride on two wheels.

Yet I've seen many references to the Harbourfront LRT and St. Clair LRT.

 

[CodeMonkey]

I wish there was some way to convince the TTC to completely grade-separate Eglinton. If it were completely grade-separated, had fare-paid areas and functioned like part of the subway, I'd be happier, even if it was using LRVs. Assuming its built with subway conversion in mind, it'd be as easy as switching to subway vehicles when the time came.

Has anyone attended the Eglinton EAs and brought this up? I don't care about LRTs supposed capability of "avenuing" streets (which is complete bollocks anyway), rapid transit should be RAPID. And it doesn't mean sacrificing accessibility to aforementioned transit if we're following B-D spacing.

I had a idea on this. Really the only time the LRT will be subject to traffic is at intersections. Why not have the LRT dive under the intersection and then dive back up on the other side. Just really a small tunnel to bypass traffic at intersections and keep it on its own ROW

 

[W. K. Lis]

I had a idea on this. Really the only time the LRT will be subject to traffic is at intersections. Why not have the LRT dive under the intersection and then dive back up on the other side. Just really a small tunnel to bypass traffic at intersections and keep it on its own ROW

I guess we could take the opposite view and follow Chicago Transit Authority example and have subway (or L) trains cross roads at grade.