News   Dec 05, 2025
Renowned Toronto-Born Architect Frank Gehry, Dead at 96
 1.2K     5 
News   Dec 05, 2025
Finch West Line 6 Opens Sunday: It Could Use Some Improvements
 4K     12 
News   Dec 05, 2025
First Phase Advances at Multi-Tower Proposal on Steeles in Brampton
 766     0 

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

The enormous advantage of LRT is that it can also be run on the surface. That's where the big savings are. If we want the Eglinton line to connect to the airport, the cheapest way is to run it along the street. If we build a full subway, we either need to change modes at Jane or overbuild to extend a subway west. More money would be saved if we had stuck to the original plan and ran the LRT above ground through the Golden Mile, where there's plenty of capacity.
 
SimonP said:
The enormous advantage of LRT is that it can also be run on the surface. That's where the big savings are. If we want the Eglinton line to connect to the airport, the cheapest way is to run it along the street. If we build a full subway, we either need to change modes at Jane or overbuild to extend a subway west. More money would be saved if we had stuck to the original plan and ran the LRT above ground through the Golden Mile, where there's plenty of capacity.
Click to expand...

I wonder if building the western portion above ground to LRT specs would lead to more savings as opposed to building an elevated ROW built to subway specs? This could be a reason for the stick to LRT technology?

The more I think about LRT, the more I'm starting to lean to it. You can build an at-grade LRT line, then when you want to upgrade you can use the same vehicles and just put the line underground and voila, a subway system without having to purchase new vehicles!
 
Last edited:
SimonP said:
The enormous advantage of LRT is that it can also be run on the surface. That's where the big savings are. If we want the Eglinton line to connect to the airport, the cheapest way is to run it along the street. If we build a full subway, we either need to change modes at Jane or overbuild to extend a subway west. More money would be saved if we had stuck to the original plan and ran the LRT above ground through the Golden Mile, where there's plenty of capacity.
Click to expand...

It's about building for the future. Eglinton is going underground (as it should have from the getgo) so now we should be looking at what best delivers capacity, underground. Spending more for less capacity is hilarious, in a few decades when Eglinton is a complete mess and conversion to subway will cost heaps of money and headaches, we will wish we hadn't spent more for less. Then again, this is the TTC and I wouldn't hold anything past them.
 
Remember the peak ridership per hour is estimated to hit 5,400 by 2030, compared to about 40,000 on the Yonge line today. LRTs will be able to serve Eglinton well for many decades. Capacity is great, but building it where it's not needed is a waste.
 
SimonP said:
Remember the peak ridership per hour is estimated to hit 5,400 by 2030, compared to about 40,000 on the Yonge line today. LRTs will be able to serve Eglinton well for many decades. Capacity is great, but building it where it's not needed is a waste.
Click to expand...

I think the updated ridership from the recent powerpoint released is at 12, 000 ppdp if I'm not mistaken.
 
SimonP said:
Remember the peak ridership per hour is estimated to hit 5,400 by 2030, compared to about 40,000 on the Yonge line today. LRTs will be able to serve Eglinton well for many decades. Capacity is great, but building it where it's not needed is a waste.
Click to expand...

Actually if you had bothered to read the recent Metrolinx document on the underground Eglinton line, ridership was revised to over 12,000 ppdp.

That is revised by over double the TTC's, now if we're to believe that they lowball these things (which they do) who knows what the ridership will be. Sure capacity where it's not needed is a waste, but spending MORE for LESS capacity seems like an even more colossal waste. We have one shot at doing the right thing with Eglinton, let's not screw it up. Too bad we're going to be riding the ever-so-expensive streetcar tunnel under Eglinton for the foreseeable future.

Instead of building our subway network, we're introducing a new orphan technology into the TTC's mix. Say hello to your $8.6 billion SRT boondoggle for the 2010s, Toronto.
 
With the SRT replacement now being part of the project, you could argue Eglinton should be a full subway, but if the Bombardier LRT contract wasn't a factor, it's very possible Ford would have mothballed Eglinton and concentrated fully on Sheppard (and he would have had the money to do so).

All things considered, I think the current situation is the better deal for Toronto.
 
GenerationW said:
With the SRT replacement now being part of the project, you could argue Eglinton should be a full subway, but if the Bombardier LRT contract wasn't a factor, it's very possible Ford would have mothballed Eglinton and concentrated fully on Sheppard.

All things considered, I think the current situation is the better deal for Toronto.
Click to expand...
Yes, the only reason we're getting an underground LRT is because of the Bombardier contract. Had Metrolinx been a bit more pragmatic, they would have delayed the contract to after the municipal elections (only a few months away at the time), but they didn't, so now we're stuck with another orphan technology. The 1980s had the Mark 1 trains, the 2010s have the grossly overpriced low-floor LRTs.
 
Filip said:
Had Metrolinx been a bit more pragmatic, they would have delayed the contract to after the municipal elections (only a few months away at the time), but they didn't
Click to expand...
Was it that, or Miller & Giambrone pushing and prodding Metrolinx to finalize the deal? One side cared a lot more about a municipal election deadline than the other.
 
BMO said:
I think the updated ridership from the recent powerpoint released is at 12, 000 ppdp if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...

You're right, I just looked those up. 12,000 is much closer to subway numbers, and wouldn't have to increase that much to be at a capacity that requires a full subway.

Of course, most of that increase comes from merging the RT with the Eglinton line, and the case for that merger is that an LRT can reuse some of the RT infrastructure and alignment. If we're upgrading things to subway, then it makes more sense to go back to the original plan of merging the RT with the Bloor line. If we do that, then all of a sudden the Eglinton Line is back at clear LRT ridership levels. It's a bit of a Catch-22
 
Last edited:
SimonP said:
You're right, I just looked those up. 12,000 is much closer to subway numbers, and wouldn't have to increase that much to be at a capacity that requires a full subway.

Of course, most of that increase comes from merging the RT with the Eglinton line, and the case for that merger is that an LRT can reuse some of the RT infrastructure and alignment. If we're upgrading things to subway, then it makes more sense to go back to the original plan of merging the RT with the Bloor line. If we do that, then all of a sudden the Eglinton Line is back at clear LRT ridership levels. It's a bit of a Catch-22
Click to expand...

It is a tricky situation, I'll agree with that. Personally I think they should have gone with Mark II ICTS. It would have reduced the amount of upgrade needed to the SRT, and would have been a good compromise on capacity between LRT and HRT. Not to mention the fact that ICTS is Bombardier, which would have meant only a modification of the contract, not a cancellation.
 
Filip said:
Haha! David Gunn totally hit the nail on the head with what I think of the Eglinton streetcar-subway.

"EGLINTON: “Low-floor streetcars in a tunnel will cost you more than a subway while delivering less. I can’t for the life of me figure out how this decision was made.â€

Cost is a big selling point for light rail, but Mr. Gunn said to put it underground requires tunnels bigger than for subways, while low-floor light-rail vehicles cost twice as much as subway cars and have less capacity. “It’s just crazy, it’s insane.â€

Metrolinx says that the smaller underground stations and reusing the Scarborough RT’s right of way make light rail the more cost-effective option. Mr. Gunn responds, “That’s such nonsense, but I guess if you can defend mixing the track gauges, you can defend anything."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...cision-ever-former-head-warns/article2086415/
Click to expand...

This is really the result of Ford's hatchet job on the Eglinton LRT and the effects of the upcoming election.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top