Transit City Plan

[SlickFranky]

Your example works only if there exists another rapid link from Eglinton to DT west of Allen. That could be DRL West subway, or that could be a new GO station on the Weston sub with a very frequent (15-min or better) GO service, full fare integration, and a convenient passageway between the LRT station and the GO. Either possibility is not guaranteed at all.

Without that, the sole transfer point from the western leg of Eglinton to DT will be the Allen Rd station. This situation is not much different from Bloor.

Actually, my point was that most ECLRT riders will coming from points between Eglinton and Eglinton West stations. Without the improvements to service on Jane (which no longer seems to be on the table), most of the denser segments of that line would be better off heading directly to YUS. The new Finch West station will draw in a lot of southbound riders. The eastern at grade stretch doesn't concern me much either, though a case could certainly be made to extend the tunnel to Don Mills (future home of DRL ).

That brings me to your next good point. 30 years from now, when the line may have started to fill up, we should have some relief. Whether that's from the DRL (east, west, or hopefully both), or from better integrated GO service that actually works for Toronto residents. If the worst case happens, and none of those improvements are made, crowding on Eglinton would be the least of our problems.

Bonus:
For those not grasping the operation, I haven't seen any detailed plans, but I assume it will similar to the proposed Queen steetcar subway, using interlined West, East, and (if needed) longer Tunnel only LRVs. This provides a great deal of flexibility, allowing frequency to be tweaked exactly where it's needed. Not every LRV will travel the entire length (in fact none will in my example), but every LRV will get you to both major subway transfers. This type of arrangement is used in some form or another on almost every bus route in the city, and with ATO in the tunnel keeping things properly spaced, I'm confident TTC can make this work.

 

[nfitz]

If they were forecasting 12k you might have a case. They are forecasting 5k. Claiming that 12k is close to capacity doesn't mean anything when the forecast is only 5k!

I'd love to see what the justification here is to support the Sherway extension, when the last forecast was 0.7k!

 

[nfitz]

The point is if the ridership reaches 12k, it is not far from the capacity limit. And we are going to build LRT with 15k capacity limit for 303 million/km, which is only marginally cheaper than subway.

If they were forecasting 12k you might have a case. They are forecasting 5k. Claiming that 12k is close to capacity doesn't mean anything when the forecast is only 5k!

I'd love to see what the justification here is to support the Sherway extension, when the last forecast was 0.7k!

"An" LRT line can handle 20k; but for the implementation the TTC wants on Eglinton, this will be problematic.

4-car trains will be hard to use in street-median. Running them in the fully grade-separate section only, which is Keele to Laird according to the current plan, will not do enough to relief the long-haul branch. The problem is that the short-turn branch will miss many major transfer points, including Jane and Don Mills.

Sticking to 3-car trains (175 passengers max for 1 car, 525 for train), you will need almost 40 trains per hour to reach 20k, or 1.5-min headways. Such a short headway requires ATO, but ATO cannot work in the street-median section. So, we would see 1.5-min headways between Keele and Laird only (more likely, Keele and Yonge), which again does not do enough to relief the long-haul branch.

Excellent point! 15,000 is likely the maximum then. Still near 3 times the current forecast for the 2030s though ... that's a huge safety factor.

 

[SlickFranky]

Do me a favour and look up adequate and better in the dictionary. The two words have nothing in common.

Thanks for the comment! I never said they did. That's why they're separated by punctuation, and other words.

When I said

LRT is adequate, arguably better, for Eglinton.

I knew exactly what I was saying, and used the correct words to express my opinion.

I was saying that the LRT's capacity capabilities are greater than the projected demand. The goal will be met. That's what adequate means. If adequate has some negative connotation in your mind, that's on you.
Whether or not you agree, one could easily argue several benefits that LRT would have over subway (in this implementation). They've been explained dozens of times. 'A' offers more than 'B', without sacrificing anything, for less money. In English we would say 'A is better than B'.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Yes, but it's obvious that A does not offer more than B.

 

[SlickFranky]

Yes, but it's obvious that A does not offer more than B.

Obviously it does, and those advantages have been explained repeatedly in this thread and several others. If you've chosen to ignore them, that's your problem.

But in some ways subway does offer more though too:
-more cost (both initial and ongoing)
-more unnecessary theoretical capacity
-more lines on our subway map
-more high-fives among subway fetishists and median ROW opponents

Am I missing anything?

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Thanks for the comment! I never said they did. That's why they're separated by punctuation, and other words.

When I said

I knew exactly what I was saying, and used the correct words to express my opinion.

I was saying that the LRT's capacity capabilities are greater than the projected demand. The goal will be met. That's what adequate means. If adequate has some negative connotation in your mind, that's on you.
Whether or not you agree, one could easily argue several benefits that LRT would have over subway (in this implementation). They've been explained dozens of times. 'A' offers more than 'B', without sacrificing anything, for less money. In English we would say 'A is better than B'.

An LRT cannot be merely "adequate" for Eglinton Ave W and "better" than a HRT (given that HRT is a BETTER service than LRT) option at the same time. Adequate implies that you are just meeting the requirements.

Considering we are spending the same amount on the LRT that an HRT would (roughly) cost what is the prudent choice?

 

[nfitz]

Considering we are spending the same amount on the LRT that an HRT would (roughly) cost what is the prudent choice?

If the line was strictly from Don Mills to Jane (or Weston) ... likely HRT. But it isn't; running LRT meets the required capacity for the tunnelled section, and also allows the vehicles to run without transfer both east and west.

 

[SlickFranky]

An LRT cannot be merely "adequate" for Eglinton Ave W and "better" than a HRT (given that HRT is a BETTER service than LRT) option at the same time. Adequate implies that you are just meeting the requirements.

Considering we are spending the same amount on the LRT that an HRT would (roughly) cost what is the prudent choice?

Adequate is a term to describe the ability to meet a target. "Merely adequate" is not the same as "adequate", because of the adverb. In the parlance of our times (as Maude Lebowski would say) you may have a point, but any dictionary would agree with me. In the future I'll try to use more hyperbole so my point is extra clear.
Better is a comparative term, and is entirely unrelated to adequacy. Saying that HRT service is empirically better than LRT is not productive, and that statement goes a long way toward explaining your objection to EC as LRT. Please explain how HRT is better.


Every estimate I've seen says HRT tunnel and stations would cost roughly 10-15% more. So yes, Keele to Laird is fairly comparable. HRT from Jane to Kennedy however would cost a lot more than that, and that money is not on offer.

Then there's the Pearson leg. Once Blue 22 is up and running it's going to be pretty hard to get billions of HRT dollars for a segment with that level of demand. LRT has been costed for that stretch and is fairly reasonable. I'm pretty sure we'll see the Finch LRT connect to Pearson in the not too distance future too, and the preexisting ECLRT infrastructure would go a long to accelerating that.

So if LRT will be able to manage the demand across the entire line, why not stick to one tech, provide more coverage, save some transfers, and pocket the extra billions?

 

[fanoftoronto]

If the line was strictly from Don Mills to Jane (or Weston) ... likely HRT. But it isn't; running LRT meets the required capacity for the tunnelled section, and also allows the vehicles to run without transfer both east and west.

Yes, but for how long? many on this forum and others have stated that as demand goes up, the LRV trainsets can be expanded to 4 or 5 in the tunnelled sections but these cannot operate on surface due to their lengths. At that point, the transfers will have to be implemented anyhow. And if even 50 to 60 years from now (as many of LRT advocates have stated) HRT level demand is there, imagine retrofitting these stations for HRT. It would mean the line would be closed for many months maybe even years. Back to buses then, huh??

The point is, it's better to spend the money to build HRT now. Metrolinx stated that they will run 3 car LRV's from day 1, which is kind of similar to a 4 car HRT trainset, which means the trains won't run empty. And the line doesn't need retrofitting in the future which saves a lot of money and the subway riders don't need to take replacement buses.

 

[SlickFranky]

If 6 car HRT-level service was projected 10, 20, or even 30 from now I would totally agree with you. But overbuilding is not always the best idea, especially when you're talking about deficit spending for a potential issue that far in the future. Take the investment, add to that 50 years worth of increased operating cost, and the interest on the capital cost, and I think you'll find it doesn't make sense in this case.

Meanwhile that money could be put to use elsewhere, on say, a few kms of DRL, healthcare improvements, or any number of other worthwhile and economically productive causes. I think the just-in-case investments being made on this line are perfectly acceptable. For a marginal capital investment they are making sure conversion to HRT can be made as easily as possible.

50 years is just a really long time to make any sort of prediction. For all we know Warren Buffet's' will could stipulate providing every human with a free hoverboard, something that better damn well exist by then! They better make cool hover-y noises too!

 

[nfitz]

Yes, but for how long? many on this forum and others have stated that as demand goes up, the LRV trainsets can be expanded to 4 or 5 in the tunnelled sections but these cannot operate on surface due to their lengths.

The trained professionals who have studied the issue have said that the demand is only just over 5,000 at the peak hour in the 2030s. The current design can handle over 10,000. How long? Long enough.

 

[Rainforest]

If they were forecasting 12k you might have a case. They are forecasting 5k. Claiming that 12k is close to capacity doesn't mean anything when the forecast is only 5k!

Excellent point! 15,000 is likely the maximum then. Still near 3 times the current forecast for the 2030s though ... that's a huge safety factor.

If somebody shows me detailed passengers flows in those models, and the breakdown makes sense in explaining how Eglitnon stays at 5,400 max while only slightly faster Bloor makes 24,000 - then I will agree.

Until then, I can't reconcile those numbers.

I'd love to see what the justification here is to support the Sherway extension, when the last forecast was 0.7k!

I am not advocating Sherway extension, nor the portion of TYSSE north of Steeles ...

 

[Rainforest]

Actually, my point was that most ECLRT riders will coming from points between Eglinton and Eglinton West stations.

This is not correct. I don't know how familiar you are with the area; I used to live near Bathurst and Eglinton and have some observations.

The area between Eglinton and Eglinton West stations is mostly medium-density, except a few highrises at Bathurst and closer to Yonge. At the same time, there are highrises around Keele, and further west in Etobicoke. The highest passenger flow is seen just west of Eglinton West Stn, and there is a short-turn branch of 32 Eglinton bus that runs between Eglinton West and Jane.

If a subway or fast LRT is built along Eglinton, highest growth in ridership will occur west of Eglinton West station, with many riders switching from the N-S bus routes to get to subway faster.

Bonus:
For those not grasping the operation, I haven't seen any detailed plans, but I assume it will similar to the proposed Queen steetcar subway, using interlined West, East, and (if needed) longer Tunnel only LRVs. This provides a great deal of flexibility, allowing frequency to be tweaked exactly where it's needed. Not every LRV will travel the entire length (in fact none will in my example), but every LRV will get you to both major subway transfers. This type of arrangement is used in some form or another on almost every bus route in the city, and with ATO in the tunnel keeping things properly spaced, I'm confident TTC can make this work.

The Queen streetcar subway did not materialize, and I don't know how long the tunnel would be.

Regarding Eglinton, the scheme you are describing will not work fully with the current TTC's design. The fully grade-separate section does not reach many major transfer points, notably Jane and Don Mills. Running more frequent service in that section only will not do enough to relieve other sections. ATO won't help much because it can only work with full grade separation; the spacing will depend more on the reliability of street-median sections than on the tunnel.

If they extend the tunnel to Jane and Don Mills, then it can work (but would cost even more).

 

[nfitz]

If somebody shows me detailed passengers flows in those models, and the breakdown makes sense in explaining how Eglitnon stays at 5,400 max while only slightly faster Bloor makes 24,000 - then I will agree.

There are detailed passenger flows for each segment in the appendices of the Eglinton EA report. As for Bloor carrying more passengers - this has little to do with speed (I don't think Bloor/Danforth is faster from Jane to Coxwell) - and everything to do with the higher densities and the more transit-oriented communities (higher model split for transit) along this line.