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

Interesting how the travel time plays out. I take Option 1’s travel time as an admission that transit priority signalling isn’t on, and a surface LRT is at the mercy of autos turning left, of which there are many on Eglinton. Even with the U-turn ramps that the original designs proposed, there would be long red lights for LRT’s to let all those left turning cars make their U turns.

I wonder how Tory and Council will react to Option 4’s 2.1x price tag. Remember, this project is Smarttrack.....ie City funded. I wonder if cost will push it into never-happening land.

- Paul
 
sixrings said:
Hard to imagine anyone building anything without a station at islington and Martin grove. I still wish we could just build the surface lrt with stops only at major intersections
Click to expand...

If Eglinton East LRT will have mostly surface stops at the major intersections, (from link)
aeral-eelrt-CS6.png


then so should the Eglinton West LRT.

If Eglinton West LRT will have only 3 stops, then Eglinton East LRT should have less as well. So which way should we go?
 
Even though my main objective is to get from cedervale to kipling in as short a time as possible... I still think building with less than minimum stops is a mistake.
 
W. K. Lis said:
If Eglinton East LRT will have mostly surface stops at the major intersections, (from link)
aeral-eelrt-CS6.png


then so should the Eglinton West LRT.

If Eglinton West LRT will have only 3 stops, then Eglinton East LRT should have less as well. So which way should we go?
Click to expand...
Eglinton East has already been ruined by the on street portion from Leslie to Kennedy. Because of this, the very East portion can't become rapid transit with healthy (800m) spacing.
 
I thought it was odd they have the same capacity too
- perhaps that's "initial capacity" with long headways, rather than "ultimate capacity" when shared rights of way etc. would start to limit shorter headways.
 
Thanks to W.K.Lis for the detailed post.

My preference is Option 4. That option would provide decent local coverage (7 stops), combined with a good travel time (16 min from Mt Dennis to Renforth). Transit will become a viable option for many of the Airport area employees, as long as there is a shuttle bus that connects the Renforth stop to other parts of the employment district. If you live west of Yonge and not too far from Eglinton, that will be 10-15 min on a local bus to Eglinton, plus 10-25 min on the LRT, plus 5-10 min on the shuttle bus. Kind of reasonable.

The cost of Option 4 isn't huge compared to Option 1. Times 2.1, not times 4 or 5.

Option 1 is good for local service, but too slow to make the trips very appealing for the airport area employees.

Options 2 and 3 are worse than 4 or 1. Option 3 has too few stops, the loss of local access will not be compensated by the slightly faster travel time. Option 2 is both more expensive and less rapid than option 4, then what's the point ..
 
BurlOak said:
Interesting that all option have the same capacity.
does this mean that the St. Clair LRT has the same capacity as Eglinton between Dufferin and Yonge?
why bother putting DRL underground?
Click to expand...

Indeed that's strange. Maybe the bottleneck in the model isn't the # of vehicles per hour, but something else? Size of the platforms for example?
 
Rainforest said:
Thanks to W.K.Lis for the detailed post.

My preference is Option 4. That option would provide decent local coverage (7 stops), combined with a good travel time (16 min from Mt Dennis to Renforth). Transit will become a viable option for many of the Airport area employees, as long as there is a shuttle bus that connects the Renforth stop to other parts of the employment district. If you live west of Yonge and not too far from Eglinton, that will be 10-15 min on a local bus to Eglinton, plus 10-25 min on the LRT, plus 5-10 min on the shuttle bus. Kind of reasonable.

The cost of Option 4 isn't huge compared to Option 1. Times 2.1, not times 4 or 5.

Option 1 is good for local service, but too slow to make the trips very appealing for the airport area employees.

Options 2 and 3 are worse than 4 or 1. Option 3 has too few stops, the loss of local access will not be compensated by the slightly faster travel time. Option 2 is both more expensive and less rapid than option 4, then what's the point ..
Click to expand...
I suspect that option 2 will be chosen.
  1. it has a few too many stops, but the city council does not mind slowing this line a bit to avoid taking a stop away from those who were already promises one.
  2. It avoids elevated, which city council does not seem to like. Although I suspect Jane would be elevated in this scenario because going under the Humber makes no sense. It also is likely elevated over 401 to yyz.
  3. It is not that much more than option 4. The city council seems to like going super cheap, or completely ignoring cost and building a Cadillac.
  4. by being a true subway, it may get provincial funding.
 
Rainforest said:
Option 1 is good for local service, but too slow to make the trips very appealing for the airport area employees.
Click to expand...

I'm quite uncertain why going to the airport is a requirement. There is a planned transfer point at Caledonia which is sufficient for anyone from east of that point and very few live within walking distance of Eglinton to the west. $1B might buy decent mainline GO integration which is a far more useful connection.

If both connections were on the table then great; but they're not; currently pledged Federal + provincial money is still around $30B short of funding all SOGR + expansion plans.

IMO, Eglinton needs to be done on the cheap. If ridership above 6000pphpd appears in a couple decades then drop another $1B into it to grade separate the pain points. I suspect if we go with a more expensive option, it simply will not get funded; the province is going to be hands-off on it either way.
 
Last edited:
I’m skeptical that Option 2 can be built for that little money considering the number of underground stations that are needed. Certainly, it’s amenable to low-depth, cut and cover construction, possibly offset from the roadway for good amounts to minimize construction impacts, so the benchmarks of recent projects may not apply. But underground requires building so many more things - lights, fire exits, whatever - that aren’t needed on the surface.
We have to remember that Eglinton is a primary arterial road... there is no prospect that automobile use of this particular thoroughfare will ever be reduced. Further, there is a strong case that it’s in the city’s best interest to preserve automotive flow on this road, as that keeps drivers from infiltrating sidestreets, or switching to other arterials. There is ample room to enhance pedestrian and cycling movement well away from the roadway. So underground may well be the best choice.... if the price is reasonable.
Having said that, Eglinton is such a wide open space with some nice natural zones....an underground ride would be a far less enjoyable rider experience.

- Paul
 
rbt said:
I'm quite uncertain why going to the airport is a requirement. There is a planned transfer point at Caledonia which is sufficient for anyone from east of that point and very few live within walking distance of Eglinton to the west. $1B might buy decent mainline GO integration which is a far more useful connection.

If both connections were on the table then great; but they're not; currently pledged Federal + provincial money is still around $30B short of funding all SOGR + expansion plans.

IMO, Eglinton needs to be done on the cheap. If ridership above 6000pphpd appears in a couple decades then drop another $1B into it to grade separate the pain points. I suspect if we go with a more expensive option, it simply will not get funded; the province is going to be hands-off on it either way.
Click to expand...
Because this will cost TTC fare and UPX will cost 9 dollars, that's why.
 
I'm actually ever more leery of going to the Airport myself. Maybe as part of the Finch extension... But for the moment I'm leaning toward thinking that a 427 Etobicoke BRT with a good transfer at Renforth and a push to hurry up with the 407 transitway will actually be more beneficial.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top