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

[BurlOak]

Which is not even a bad plan. It just raises the question of grade-separation between Laird and Kennedy.

The refusal to grade-separate has really hurt transit in this city.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

It is quite obvious from the picture that it is going to be an extension of the Eglinton Crosstown.

Which is not even a bad plan. It just raises the question of grade-separation between Laird and Kennedy.

Well, not that it might be just a conceptual plan. The usage might not have even been modelled yet.

 

[nfitz]

It just raises the question of grade-separation between Laird and Kennedy.

How - it's not going to be grade separated west of Kennedy. The peak point 2031 ridership is only 5,000 - and the ridership on the Eglinton line westbound at Kennedy is only forecast as 2,700 n 2031, assuming the Scarborough-Malvern LRT is built with an interchange at Kennedy. Even at Leslie, the Crosstown only hits 4,200.

So it's the piece of the new Scarborough-Malvern LRT heading west towards Kennedy that will have the highest ridership!

The refusal to grade-separate has really hurt transit in this city.

That comment makes no sense; to date we have grade-separated - and the high cost of this has reduced the amount of transit we can build.

While it might be necessary for most of the existing subway, it's certainly not necessary for places where the ridership is never forecast to exceed 10,000 - such as the 5,000 on the Sheppard line, Eglinton line, or the Scarborough-Malvern line.

 

[Voltz]

It is quite obvious from the picture that it is going to be an extension of the Eglinton Crosstown.

Which is not even a bad plan. It just raises the question of grade-separation between Laird and Kennedy.

There is no funding here to grade separate several kilometres of the line, nor is there any time left to make changes anywhere near that substantial.

This map does not mean that anything is set in stone about future line operations, the previous design for Kennedy station easily allowed for interlined or separate operation with minor changes.

 

[Hopkins123]

The refusal to grade-separate has really hurt transit in this city.

Thanks a whole bunch city councillors, like former councillor John Parker who was adamant that the Crosstown route on the surface through his Ward, despite the Wynford/Eglinton intersection already existing at different grades. No wonder the voters threw him out.

 

[Hopkins123]

So, I am fairly sure the original plan for the SMLRT was for it to not be interlined with the ECLRT, and now the plan will be for interlining. Would this not require a new EA?

Anyway, on the map I spot stations at:

Midland, Falmouth, Brimley-Danforth, McCowan, Eglinton-GO, Mason, Markham Rd, Eglinton-Kingston Rd, Scarborough Golf Club, Guildwood Pkwy, Guildwood GO, Galloway, Lawrence, Morningside, Beath, Ellesmere, UTSC, Toronto Pan-AM Sports Centre

So that is what $1 billion of cost savings from the Scarborough Subway one-stop extension gets us. Presumably leaving the option for future extension to Malvern one day.

I really wish they'd move away from the trend of including minor stops everywhere they can. It's really unnecessary, increases costs and prolongs commutes. The Eglinton-Kingston-Morningside extension should not stop more frequently than the 198 U of T Scarborough Rocket, ideally even less.

This places the stops at Brimley-Danforth, Bellamy/Eglinton GO, Markham, Scarborough Golf Club, Guildwood GO, Galloway, Morningside/Kingston, UTSC and Ellesmere/Centennial College.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

How - it's not going to be grade separated west of Kennedy. The peak point 2031 ridership is only 5,000 - and the ridership on the Eglinton line westbound at Kennedy is only forecast as 2,700 n 2031, assuming the Scarborough-Malvern LRT is built with an interchange at Kennedy. Even at Leslie, the Crosstown only hits 4,200.

So it's the piece of the new Scarborough-Malvern LRT heading west towards Kennedy that will have the highest ridership!

Scarborough is in fact commuter-heavy, this is not a surprise.

The Crosstown numbers does not include the Scarborough-Malvern LRT ridership. When these LRTs were studied 8 years ago, the SMLRT was its own line that terminated at Kennedy, forcing a transfer at Line 2. If the SMLRT is indeed an extension of the ECLRT, then you have to add the majority of those riders to the total Crosstown ridership as people prefer to stay in their seats rather than transferring. I believe from Kennedy, the ECLRT is actually a quicker trip to Line 1 than Line 2 is in any case, especially if you invoke a transfer.

We won't know for certain how many will transfer at Kennedy until new studies emerge of course, but explain to me why my line of thinking is false.

Additionally, this latest plan that has surfaced involves the removal of the Lawrence stop, which may end up adding to the ECLRT ridership numbers. (Unless the Relief Line is built to Sheppard with a Lawrence stop, in which case the 54 bus would be the superior option)

 

[Voltz]

I really wish they'd move away from the trend of including minor stops everywhere they can. It's really unnecessary, increases costs and prolongs commutes. The Eglinton-Kingston-Morningside extension should not stop more frequently than the 198 U of T Scarborough Rocket, ideally even less.

This places the stops at Brimley-Danforth, Bellamy/Eglinton GO, Markham, Scarborough Golf Club, Guildwood GO, Galloway, Morningside/Kingston, UTSC and Ellesmere/Centennial College.

But then they would still have to run buses. I think the planned stops for the SMLRT are fine overall, while still having some fairly large distances between stops.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I really wish they'd move away from the trend of including minor stops everywhere they can. It's really unnecessary, increases costs and prolongs commutes. The Eglinton-Kingston-Morningside extension should not stop more frequently than the 198 U of T Scarborough Rocket, ideally even less.

This places the stops at Brimley-Danforth, Bellamy/Eglinton GO, Markham, Scarborough Golf Club, Guildwood GO, Galloway, Morningside/Kingston, UTSC and Ellesmere/Centennial College.

I am not too aggrieved with the stop spacing on this line because it does serve as a 'collector' for local transit. But, I definitely think the Falmouth and Mason stops are unneeded on the Eglinton portion of the line. I am too unfamiliar with Kingston/Morningside to comment.

 

[nfitz]

Scarborough is in fact commuter-heavy, this is not a surprise.

The Crosstown numbers does not include the Scarborough-Malvern LRT ridership. When these LRTs were studied 8 years ago, the SMLRT was its own line that terminated at Kennedy, forcing a transfer at Line 2. If the SMLRT is indeed an extension of the ECLRT, then you have to add the majority of those riders to the total Crosstown ridership as people prefer to stay in their seats rather than transferring. I believe from Kennedy, the ECLRT is actually a quicker trip to Line 1 than Line 2 is in any case, especially if you invoke a transfer.

Well, if you want to make that point, then the fastest way to Line 1, is the every 5-minute SmartTrack from Kennedy - which also wasn't in the original study.

But even in the worst case. If you add the entire 5,000 to the 2.700 heading westbound, you are still well below 10,000 - so there isn't an issue. Though I suspect, many of those 5,000 will still change at Kennedy, because their destination isn't along the Eglinton corridor. Yes, there's be some ridership boost. But I still think there'll be more people heading westward on the LRT arriving at Kennedy than departing.

 

[Hopkins123]

But then they would still have to run buses. I think the planned stops for the SMLRT are fine overall, while still having some fairly large distances between stops.

I think that's unavoidable though. Even where the Crosstown is underground through Midtown they'll likely still need to operate a surface bus, just at reduced frequencies.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Well, if you want to make that point, then the fastest way to Line 1, is the every 5-minute SmartTrack from Kennedy - which also wasn't in the original study.

I'll believe SmartTrack when I see it.

But even in the worst case. If you add the entire 5,000 to the 2.700 heading westbound, you are still well below 10,000 - so there isn't an issue. Though I suspect, many of those 5,000 will still change at Kennedy, because their destination isn't along the Eglinton corridor. Yes, there's be some ridership boost. But I still think there'll be more people heading westward on the LRT arriving at Kennedy than departing.

In that worst case scenario, the ECLRT is at 77% of its capacity departing westward from Kennedy, and this is at Line 5's inception. That does not leave a lot of room for ridership growth.

Perhaps a Relief Line extension to Eglinton would be a better way to deal with this than grade separated the ECLRT west of Laird.

 

[nfitz]

I'll believe SmartTrack when I see it.

I'll believe anything in Scarborough when I see it!

In that worst case scenario, the ECLRT is at 77% of its capacity departing westward from Kennedy, and this is at Line 5's inception. That does not leave a lot of room for ridership growth.

If one day in the 2050s Eglinton really does get to 10,000 ... then you build an LRT along Lawrence East ... and another along St. Clair East/O'Connor (which could be really interesting, if it goes under the Don into St. Clair station).

 

[ehlow]

ECLRT is going to be sooooo long

 

[salsa]

I think that's unavoidable though. Even where the Crosstown is underground through Midtown they'll likely still need to operate a surface bus, just at reduced frequencies.

There is no bus service on Bloor-Danforth, so I don't expect one on Eglinton either since the stop spacing is similar.