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

So, you're looking at the Marlborough station and saying, yes, this is the type of public realm I want around my transit system? Boom gates, highway width roadway, no bike lanes, parking lots everywhere, 2-3 lanes of through traffic + 2-3 lanes of turning lanes, roadway prioritized over the pedestrians. Your picture of the Eglinton line looks so much nicer and walkable and friendly than the street view of Marlborough station.

Would TPS make the Eglinton line a lot better in this area? Yes, for sure. But it's still miles ahead of what we currently have on Eglinton. Buses have an average speed of 10-15 km/h in mixed use traffic, and the LRT is expected to have 20-25 km/h in this section, making it almost twice as fast as the buses. For reference, right now driving between Kennedy to Don Mills is 16 minutes, making the average speed of a car 22 km/h.

You don't need boom gates and grade separated station entrances to implement TPS.

On top of this we are getting the following:
  • Accessible, walkable LRT stops
  • Comfortable, smooth ride on the LRT when compared to buses
  • Stops spaced 500m apart from one another to improve speed between stops
  • Bike lanes along Eglinton to improve the overall modes of transport possible in that segment
  • Development of the area from suburbia to medium-high density neighborhood
It's a complete failure as a cross-town line, though. Light metro can get to average speeds of 40 kph which would be very compelling vs car. You could retain bus service for more local, short trips. The capacity of LRT would not be needed as longer trips would be absorbed by metro. Operating cost could be better as the metro would be fully automated. Being more attractive for average speed would also draw more ridership and get people out of their cars.
 
Last edited:
It takes 0.35 hours to travel 7 km at 20 km/h. It takes 0.23 hours to travel 7 km at 30 km/h. The difference of 0.12 hours works out to 7.2 minutes and not "just over a minute".
Sorry, did my math wrong. Lol

Still, most riders aren't doing that full stretch and if you subtract a minute for the overhead of elevation. The gain becomes 2-3 minutes for the majority of riders. It doesn't sound like that's worth spending double the price for.
 
Last edited:
It's a complete failure as a cross-town line, though. Light metro can get to average speeds of 40 kph which would be very compelling vs car. You could retain bus service for more local, short trips. The capacity of LRT would not be needed as longer trips would be absorbed by metro. Operating cost could be better as the metro would be fully automated. Being more attractive for average speed would also draw more ridership and get people out of their cars.
Why would the light metro get 40 when Bloor Danforth does an average of 32? It wouldn't apply to those conditions.
 
It's a complete failure as a cross-town line, though. Light metro can get to average speeds of 40 kph which would be very compelling vs car. You could retain bus service for more local, short trips. The capacity of LRT would not be needed as longer trips would be absorbed by metro. Operating cost could be better as the metro would be fully automated. Being more attractive for average speed would also draw more ridership and get people out of their cars.

It's a bit contradictory though because you're saying it should have a supplementary bus service for in-between stops, but also that a metro line will carry more. This was modeled for Crosstown West. The in-median line with more stops beats the grade-separated line with fewer stops in terms of ridership. It's surprising, since obviously a metro-like service is more attractive for many metrics. Yet in this instance it somehow isn't. I think it's a testament to Toronto's suburban density levels even in the 'in between' areas. This is why comparisons to Portland or Edmonton don't work here.

. Sure the station is on street level and quicker to access, but A) since you have to cross Eglinton, you are at the mercy of the current pedestrian crossing signal, which means you might have to wait up to a minute before you can cross the street (this is an aspect people seem to conveniently forget), and even if we assume that you can always cross Eglinton freely, climbing up to an elevated station only takes a minute max, so the time savings of easier access to stations isn't even that much to begin with.

This one's interesting and I actually hadn't thought about it. But more poignantly the safety aspect. Downtown see a streetcar and it's a quick jaunt through traffic to an island stop. Eglinton not so much. Yet people will still hustle even on a Don't Walk and away from the ped crossing, likely leading to an uptick in impacts.
 
Why would the light metro get 40 when Bloor Danforth does an average of 32? It wouldn't apply to those conditions.
Line 2 has too close stop spacing, no ATC, no platform screen doors. Vancouver SkyTrain achieves 40 kph average speed. The same laws of physics apply here.
 
It's a bit contradictory though because you're saying it should have a supplementary bus service for in-between stops, but also that a metro line will carry more. This was modeled for Crosstown West. The in-median line with more stops beats the grade-separated line with fewer stops in terms of ridership. It's surprising, since obviously a metro-like service is more attractive for many metrics. Yet in this instance it somehow isn't. I think it's a testament to Toronto's suburban density levels even in the 'in between' areas. This is why comparisons to Portland or Edmonton don't work here.
I think some thumbs are on the scale with some of these studies. Did they even predict the level of development even a mediocre LRT line has attracted before the line has even opened?
 
I'm saying that the two types are uncomparable. What Marlborough Station represents is what LRT looks like when you prioritize getting around quickly. I'm sorry but Public Realm should NEVER be an absolute priority. Function over form any day of the week. Also I'm not arguing we should replicate Marlborough Station, I'm not even saying we should have the C-Train. My point of comparison of the C-Train is that that is LRT done right. My argument for Eglinton is that it shouldn't be LRT AT ALL - but a light metro.

Okay? And we could've had something even better for cheaper

You need it if you want EFFECTIVE TSP, and you want trains to run at efficient speeds.

Nobody is arguing that the status quo should've been maintained.

500m is WAY TOO LITTLE. They should be every km or so.


However the option to travel that distance should always be there. When we design a regional network, we shouldn't design it for "the biggest use case", we should design it with as many use cases in mind. We should design it to allow people to commute, but also to allow people to travel from one end to another as quickly as possible.

There will also likely be many people using it commute from Scarborough to say Pearson Airport. Maybe they need to visit someone who lives in Mississauga. The use cases you're arguing for makes it seem like you want to build transit for commuters. That's great and all, but that means that people still need cars to effectively do anything other than commuting.

And the reason for this is because Line 2 has extremely tight stop spacing - too tight. On average, there's a station every 600m on Line 2 which significantly increases end to end travel time. Eglinton on the other hand has a subway section with reasonable station spacing - around every km, and an extremely packed surface section. If the underground section of Line 5 had the same stop spacing as Line 2, the average speed would've been like 25km/h or even lower. This statistic doesn't reflect Line 5 well, as much as it poorly reflects on Line 2's design.


Don't forget though that Scarborough is MASSIVE, and trips within Scarborough are extremely large in their own right - with many trips and commutes exceeding 10km.

If you build the line as a fully grade separate light metro with smaller trains, you already get massive time saving on accounts that the train will arrive much more frequently. Being generous, let's say a train would arrive every 3 mins, that's a theoretical time save of 4 mins right off the bat.

If you're getting on at Warden, well we can do that math. Let's be generous and say we have somewhat functioning TSP and you spend an average of 10s per traffic light. We'll remove Hakimi-Lebovic and Aga Khan Stations because those stations are too close to other stations (and honestly have no reason to exist), and we'll remove 5s per station since High Floor trains typically result. We'll consider the average station dwell time at around 45s for the light metro, and 50s for LRT.

Excluding Warden I counted 9 surface crossings.

that's 10*9s + 8*5s + 2*45s, or 90s+40s+90s which gives us 220s of travel time improvement or 3m 40s, and this is generous. In reality, we won't have TSP that is this good, and a fully elevated Light Metro will have trains that operate at much higher speeds than the LRT, and of course this doesn't factor in how much time you will likely save not waiting for a train. Sure the station is on street level and quicker to access, but A) since you have to cross Eglinton, you are at the mercy of the current pedestrian crossing signal, which means you might have to wait up to a minute before you can cross the street (this is an aspect people seem to conveniently forget), and even if we assume that you can always cross Eglinton freely, climbing up to an elevated station only takes a minute max, so the time savings of easier access to stations isn't even that much to begin with. Not enough to compensate for everything else.
A roadway is built for everyone. Cars, LRT, bikes, pedestrians. Public realm is of utmost importance. The Calgary LRT that you're speaking so highly of does not have boom gates in the high density downtown section. Why is that? Because it would alienate the walkers and the bikers from that area. Because they prioritized public realm in that area.

At Marlborough station, what they have is essentially a mini GO train running in the centre of the roadway. Completely unsightly and doesn't spur urban development around that area. Notice the acres of parking lots where people drive to the station to park. That's how that station gets its patronage. Not from locals walking or biking or working around that area. They can't walk or bike or work in that area, there's only parking lots everywhere!

Compare that with Eglinton where even before the line is completed you have billions in redevelopments happening all along the corridor. These new redevelopments will have shops, restaurants, retail, schools, libraries, and parks creating an entirely new neighborhood that will be walkable and bikable compared to the hellscape parking lot mania around Marlborough station.

Are you also suggesting that the BD subway is a massive failure then? Stop spacing is too close, no platform screen doors, and not automatic train control. By your logic then BD should be crippled and inefficient and disliked by everyone. But that's not the case. BD east is more used than BD west where stops are farther spaced out. BD east is a major people mover all times of the day, key link between Scarborough and downtown and beyond. Eglinton east will be the same.

I drove through Eglinton from Kennedy to Don Mills last night around midnight. It took me 15 minutes, solid. That's an average of 25km/h through the entire stretch with no traffic. LRT beats that at 28km/h. LRT is going to be faster than driving in that area. During peak time, driving will be even slower than 25km/h, making LRT a much better option of traversing that area.

You're advocating for grade separated access being just a minute of walking to get to the station, but you're ignoring that you've also removed stops from your scenario causing the average walk to a station much more than if the stops were retained. Also, for at grade stops, you'd maybe wait for 1 minute if your light is red, but you won't be waiting at at if the light is green which is 50% of the time. For an elevated line or going up and down a walkway, then you always have to add 1 minute to your walking added on top of the fact you're walking more to begin with to get to the stop. Not to mention the added time for people in wheelchairs or strollers. The elevators used by the TTC are slow, making the travel from sidewalk to platform be 4 or 5 minutes. God forbid one of the elevators are down for maintenance, you'd be looping around to the other station entrance to get an accessible entrance to the station.
 
I think some thumbs are on the scale with some of these studies. Did they even predict the level of development even a mediocre LRT line has attracted before the line has even opened?

Thumb on the scale is something I'm sure we've seen before. But since it was a Metrolinx study in favour of Doug's subway, I don't think it's the case (unless the thumb boosted the subway numbers more than otherwise).

Recurring thought I've had, and it's a bit of a paradox, is this: The LRT numbers are higher because LRT has a worse affect on traffic - makes the roads slower so people leave the car at home to use LRT. The subway numbers are lower because it has no effect on traffic - people opt to use their car instead of the subway because of its competitive advantage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: syn
It's a complete failure as a cross-town line, though. Light metro can get to average speeds of 40 kph which would be very compelling vs car. You could retain bus service for more local, short trips. The capacity of LRT would not be needed as longer trips would be absorbed by metro. Operating cost could be better as the metro would be fully automated. Being more attractive for average speed would also draw more ridership and get people out of their cars.
Is the BD subway a failure as well?

32km/h average speed. Stations spaced 500m from one another, no ATC, no platform screen doors. BD subway should also be a failure as a crosstown line. But it's not, as those stations add to the total number of people using the BD subway. Just like the Eglinton LRT will be when it opens.
 
You know, its very difficult to argue with someone who doesn't read what he's trying to argue against. Virtually every single point you make in your post I literally addressed in what you're replying.
A roadway is built for everyone. Cars, LRT, bikes, pedestrians. Public realm is of utmost importance. The Calgary LRT that you're speaking so highly of does not have boom gates in the high density downtown section. Why is that? Because it would alienate the walkers and the bikers from that area. Because they prioritized public realm in that area.
Yes, and since its a downtown core and thus "the destination", its totally acceptable. Plus I do also think that the at grade section downtown is the weakest part of the C-Train, so I don't know why you're using it as a crutch.
At Marlborough station, what they have is essentially a mini GO train running in the centre of the roadway. Completely unsightly and doesn't spur urban development around that area. Notice the acres of parking lots where people drive to the station to park. That's how that station gets its patronage. Not from locals walking or biking or working around that area. They can't walk or bike or work in that area, there's only parking lots everywhere!
And?

Yes, they put an LRT line in the middle of the parkway. It allowed them to save money by not building massive elevated viaducts, while still providing extremely rapid service.
Compare that with Eglinton where even before the line is completed you have billions in redevelopments happening all along the corridor. These new redevelopments will have shops, restaurants, retail, schools, libraries, and parks creating an entirely new neighborhood that will be walkable and bikable compared to the hellscape parking lot mania around Marlborough station.
Let me uh... give you the opportunity to reread what I said... this time CAREFULLY. Let me bold the areas of importance
I'm saying that the two types are uncomparable. What Marlborough Station represents is what LRT looks like when you prioritize getting around quickly. I'm sorry but Public Realm should NEVER be an absolute priority. Function over form any day of the week. Also I'm not arguing we should replicate Marlborough Station, I'm not even saying we should have the C-Train. My point of comparison of the C-Train is that that is LRT done right. My argument for Eglinton is that it shouldn't be LRT AT ALL - but a light metro.
Are you also suggesting that the BD subway is a massive failure then? Stop spacing is too close, no platform screen doors, and not automatic train control. By your logic then BD should be crippled and inefficient and disliked by everyone. But that's not the case. BD east is more used than BD west where stops are farther spaced out. BD east is a major people mover all times of the day, key link between Scarborough and downtown and beyond. Eglinton east will be the same.
You know that there is a middle ground between good and bad right? Every project has some good elements to it, but also some bad elements. Line 2 overall is a great line with many good things going for it. However, one of its major drawbacks is that it has very tight stop spacing - and a lot of stations that probably shouldn't exist that overall decrease the speed of the line making it less efficient as transport.

In fact, same with the C-Train. It is by no means a perfect system - there are a lot of odd quirks with it that absolutely bring it down. When I brought up the C-Train, it was meant to be an example of how you do suburban LRT in a way that makes sense for its environment - it wasn't an endorsement that C-Train is the jesus of all LRTs and we should bow down to its might will.

Unfortunately with you it seems like something is either awful, or its fantastic. If someone praises something, that means that this person thinks that thing can do no wrong. Likewise if that person thinks something is flawed, then its an unsalvagable trash heap.
I drove through Eglinton from Kennedy to Don Mills last night around midnight. It took me 15 minutes, solid. That's an average of 25km/h through the entire stretch with no traffic. LRT beats that at 28km/h. LRT is going to be faster than driving in that area. During peak time, driving will be even slower than 25km/h, making LRT a much better option of traversing that area.
You do realize that 28km/h encompasses the entire stretch from Science Center to Kennedy right?

Its going to be something like 35-40km/h in the tunneled section, and something like 20km/h on the surface section. 28km/h is simply the average speed over the entire line.
You're advocating for grade separated access being just a minute of walking to get to the station, but you're ignoring that you've also removed stops from your scenario causing the average walk to a station much more than if the stops were retained.
Yes. Fun fact, most people in these suburban areas do not live next to the street - and have to walk like 10-15 minutes to reach the street. Adding an extra minute of travel time isn't going to do much. As for development, well that's why you focus development around where the stations are built.

And you can always run complementary bus service, like we currently do on Line 1, and like we are going to do for the entirety of Line 5 (newsflash, Line 5 won't be replacing busses anymore).
Also, for at grade stops, you'd maybe wait for 1 minute if your light is red, but you won't be waiting at at if the light is green which is 50% of the time. For an elevated line or going up and down a walkway, then you always have to add 1 minute to your walking added on top of the fact you're walking more to begin with to get to the stop. Not to mention the added time for people in wheelchairs or strollers. The elevators used by the TTC are slow, making the travel from sidewalk to platform be 4 or 5 minutes. God forbid one of the elevators are down for maintenance, you'd be looping around to the other station entrance to get an accessible entrance to the station.
Ok? Factoring all of that in, that gives you a travel time that is roughly the same as LRT given my generous estimates, although once again your points are very circumstantial. Fun fact, most of Line 1's ridership comes from transfers from busses and other modes, not from walk in traffic. So if you're going to ride Line 5 after transferring from say a Warden bus (like most people who will be riding the line), then most of the timesaves here that you pointed out are irrelevant. Second, the benefits of Light Metro are much more than speed, its reliability.

Look at downtown toronto, and tell me how often you see stories of cars crashing into streetcars, idiots running red lights, drivers driving into the Queens Quay tunnel, etc. Now imagine that instead of a small local streetcar route, you are now dealing with a 40+km line that stretches from the Airport, all the way to UTSC and beyond. What this means is you now have a line where because someone decided to have a nap in front of the streetcar tracks, or again there was a collision at an intersection, some guy waiting at Martin Grove station (a fully underground part of the line) will now have a massive delay. I can keep going.
 
Line 2 has too close stop spacing, no ATC, no platform screen doors. Vancouver SkyTrain achieves 40 kph average speed. The same laws of physics apply here.
It's really about # of stops and line 5 seems to have more than line 2 from Kennedy to Aga Khan. Vancouver sky train from what I remember had really wide stop spacing. It's apples and oranges.
 
Look at downtown toronto, and tell me how often you see stories of cars crashing into streetcars, idiots running red lights, drivers driving into the Queens Quay tunnel, etc.
Not even once a month. From my experience a few years ago, we had way more stoppages (it felt like daily at certain points) and slow downs on Line 1 then I experienced on the streetcar system.

I completely agree that a lighter metro is better, it's that I don't think we'd get the value from spending double the price which is likely well over a billion dollars for (referencing the analysis comparing different grades for Eglinton West). Transit should be built for the ridership and LRT easily does the job.
Both Finch East and Lawrence East riders will continue to be serviced by buses and their is higher ridership on both routes. If buses can continue there, LRT will do just fine here.
 
Not even once a month. From my experience a few years ago, we had way more stoppages (it felt like daily at certain points) and slow downs on Line 1 then I experienced on the streetcar system.

I completely agree that a lighter metro is better, it's that I don't think we'd get the value from spending double the price which is likely well over a billion dollars for (referencing the analysis comparing different grades for Eglinton West). Transit should be built for the ridership and LRT easily does the job.
Both Finch East and Lawrence East riders will continue to be serviced by buses and their is higher ridership on both routes. If buses can continue there, LRT will do just fine here.

Agreed.

I'd also add the King Streetcar program has really increased speed and reliability with a few simple (and relatively affordable) changes. I don't doubt that in the future there changes that can be made to increase the speed of the LRT that shouldn't be exorbitant in cost.
 
I completely agree that a lighter metro is better, it's that I don't think we'd get the value from spending double the price which is likely well over a billion dollars for (referencing the analysis comparing different grades for Eglinton West). Transit should be built for the ridership and LRT easily does the job.
Please read the previous pages, the whole argument started because it wouldn't cost 2x the price. Most of the Crosstown's big price tag comes from the fact that we're building 90m long platforms in all of the underground stations. A 40m long Canada Line style train would have the same capacity as the crosstown, and because of the significantly smaller stations, the extra cost that would've come from elevating the eastern portion would've been counterbalanced by having significantly cheaper stations. If future capacity is a concern, you could design the tunnels in a way that has them stay straight so that expansions could be built in the future if necessary.
 

Back
Top