News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.9K     0 

BurlOak said:
I think it had to be a separate line otherwise too many people would ride through from Kennedy to Don Mills and it would be overwhelmed - none of the locals would have space.

The only way the Kennedy to Don Mills portion of Eglinton works as in-median is if all (most) passengers coming from SRT, and all (most) passengers coming from Scarborough-Malvern, are transferred to the B-D subway.
Click to expand...
And then they would have said "Hey, this area should be a subway!" :rolleyes: The LRT should have been one line.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
The underground was more expensive, I think that's why everyone wanted a subway. Even now, I think either LRT or HRT Phase 1 should have been Pearson Kennedy. But the with LRT is like Tiger said, we can extend it up ground much easier and choose any alingment we see fit. I have mentioned a couple times the SMLRT was seperate, can anyone tell me why that was? Was it because Morningside/Kingston to Pearson too long to operate.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the problem was that the SMLRT would be at capacity by time it reached Kennedy Station. The line would terminate at Kennedy to encourage riders to switch to the Danforth Subway rather than continuing along Eglinton. This is why I think it's an enormous mistake to not have elevated Eglinton East. The choice not to do so basically means that any eastward extension is DOA. We'll come to regret it a few years after we open it (or whenever we build Malvern)
 
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster said:
IIRC, the problem was that the SMLRT would be at capacity by time it reached Kennedy Station. The line would terminate at Kennedy to encourage riders to switch to the Danforth Subway rather than continuing along Eglinton. This is why I think it's an enormous mistake to not have elevated Eglinton East. The choice not to do so basically means that any eastward extension is DOA. We'll come to regret it a few years after we open it (or whenever we build Malvern)
Click to expand...

Ok.

Now here's the question. If the transfer at kennedy is kept, we can build a Malvern LRT at grade without fear of overcrowding? Or does Kingston Road fall back into BRT projections without a straight connection to Pearson. Because let's be honest, overflow on a straight LRT line will mean subway time to some.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
People don't like transfers for some ridiculous reason. Do you think the Malvern LRT would have high ridership?
Click to expand...

It's hard for me to say. The Malvern LRT would run through some relatively high density areas especially along Eglinton. In fact, in a perfect world the Danforth Subway would have been extended eastward along Eglinton, where there is more density and priority neighbourhoods than the SRT alignment. The planners back in the day were wise enough to build a longitudinal tail track at Kennedy so that the subway could continue along Eglinton. But alas, politics

Anyways ridership on Morningside would be abysmal. Most of Morningside is lined by parks and the areas that aren't have low density residential and commercial. The only reason for the Morningside segment would be to connect to SELRT. There'd be more riders along Kingston but it wont be anything impressive.

My major concern with Malvern is how the subway extension will affect ridership patterns. Back in the TC days, Malvern was proposed with the assumption that there would be the SRT. That means that Malvern would have more riders because less people would be inclined to take the SRT because of the Kennedy transfer. The Scab Subway will probably steal some riders. It is yet to be seen how many riders will be stolen by the subway. The difference in ridership between the SRT and Subway was rather small. We'll need proper modelling to know for sure.

Pending a proper study, I can only wholly support a Malvern LRT to Eglinton @ Kingston Road. I'd support extending it northeast (even if ridership projections were low) if the operational costs would be similar or less than that of operating busses. IIRC operating the Eglinton LRT was actually cheaper than busses on Eglinton (east of Don Mills) and Finch West, so there's a chance this could be the case. And obviouly I'd support extending it northeast from Eglinton @ Kingston Road if modelling showed decent usage.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
It's hard for me to say. The Malvern LRT would run through some relatively high density areas especially along Eglinton. In fact, in a perfect world the Danforth Subway would have been extended eastward along Eglinton, where there is more density and priority neighbourhoods than the SRT alignment. The planners back in the day were wise enough to build a longitudinal tail track at Kennedy so that the subway could continue along Eglinton. But alas, politics

Anyways ridership on Morningside would be abysmal. Most of Morningside is lined by parks and the areas that aren't have low density residential and commercial. The only reason for the Morningside segment would be to connect to SELRT. There'd be more riders along Kingston but it wont be anything impressive.

My major concern with Malvern is how the subway extension will affect ridership patterns. Back in the TC days, Malvern was proposed with the assumption that there would be the SRT. That means that Malvern would have more riders because less people would be inclined to take the SRT because of the Kennedy transfer. The Scab Subway will probably steal some riders. It is yet to be seen how many riders will be stolen by the subway. The difference in ridership between the SRT and Subway was rather small. We'll need proper modelling to know for sure.

Pending a proper study, I can only wholly support a Malvern LRT to Eglinton @ Kingston Road. I'd support extending it northeast (even if ridership projections were low) if the operational costs would be similar or less than that of operating busses. IIRC operating the Eglinton LRT was actually cheaper than busses on Eglinton (east of Don Mills) and Finch West, so there's a chance this could be the case. And obviouly I'd support extending it northeast from Eglinton @ Kingston Road if modelling showed decent usage.
Click to expand...

IMO, why not this: Extend the ECLRT above ground to the Eglinton GO station? That would not cost that much at all. Or end the ECLRT at Eglinton/Markham. That would at least cover all of Eglinton East. You are right about the subway extension. The question is do you choose McCowan Road or the SRT corridor. I support the SRT corridor, with an end at STC.


My final question is, what makes you think ridership would increase if the ECLRT was one line from Terminal 1 to Morningside? That would still be over an hour on the road, and this assumes the subway would still get built.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Anyways ridership on Morningside would be abysmal. Most of Morningside is lined by parks and the areas that aren't have low density residential and commercial. The only reason for the Morningside segment would be to connect to SELRT. There'd be more riders along Kingston but it wont be anything impressive.
Click to expand...

The Morningside segment is also meant to serve the u of t campus which is a major trip generator.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
My final question is, what makes you think ridership would increase if the ECLRT was one line from Terminal 1 to Morningside? That would still be over an hour on the road, and this assumes the subway would still get built.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what exactly your asking. I'll take a few shots in the dark.

Regardless of if Malvern is an extension of ECLRT or an independent line, I'd expect ridership on Malvern LRT be more or the same.

However if Malvern was an extension of the ECLRT I'd expect ridership on ECLRT to increase massively because less Malvern riders will transfer at Kennedy. Consider this:
-Downtown bound passengers from Malvern would have to transfer twice (at Kennedy and Bloor-Yonge). Assuming a transfer takes 3 minutes each, thats 6 minutes added to travel time because of transfers.
-The ROW part of the ECLRT only adds a 4 minutes to travel times (compared to if it were a subway).
-A downtown bound passenger from Malvern only would need to transfer once. If we assume 3 minutes for this transfer and then factor in the 4 minute longer trip on the ECLRT ROW, that's only 7 minutes added because of those two things. Factor in human laziness (I don't wanna get up and transfer ;)) and you can see why most Malvern passengers would continue on ECLRT.

salsa said:
The Morningside segment is also meant to serve the u of t campus which is a major trip generator.
Click to expand...

Forgot about that. There are also some Centennial college facilities there IIRC.
 
Last edited:
IMO, they should through route the Eglinton Crosstown and Malvern LRT as one continuous service. Presently Eglinton East is such a busy corridor there are three overlapping bus routes serving it. If you're going to build the Malvern extension in phases, the first phase should go all the way to UTSC. That's the highest yielding trip generator along the whole route.

I don't even forsee that many people from Malvern proper using this line as Morningside-Sheppard lies on the southeastern periphery, meaning travel patterns will still orient towards Scarborough Centre. So maybe it'd be better to terminate it at UTSC or continue it through the Gatineau corridor to the Zoo via Dean Park/Sheppard.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
I'm not sure what exactly your asking. I'll take a few shots in the dark.

Regardless of if Malvern is an extension of ECLRT or an independent line, I'd expect ridership on Malvern LRT be more or the same.

However if Malvern was an extension of the ECLRT I'd expect ridership on ECLRT to increase massively because less Malvern riders will transfer at Kennedy. Consider this:
-Downtown bound passengers from Malvern would have to transfer twice (at Kennedy and Bloor-Yonge). Assuming a transfer takes 3 minutes each, thats 6 minutes added to travel time because of transfers.
-The ROW part of the ECLRT only adds a 4 minutes to travel times (compared to if it were a subway).
-A downtown bound passenger from Malvern only would need to transfer once. If we assume 3 minutes for this transfer and then factor in the 4 minute longer trip on the ECLRT ROW, that's only 7 minutes added because of those two things. Factor in human laziness (I don't wanna get up and transfer ;)) and you can see why most Malvern passengers would continue on ECLRT.



Forgot about that. There are also some Centennial college facilities there IIRC.
Click to expand...
Your second answer was what I was looking for.
I'll be more clear and simple just for reference, so I don't confuse anybody else: Why does it matter if Eglinton is split up into the ECLRT and SMLRT? What impact does that have on eglinton.

You answered this though. And pretty nicely too.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
That's the thing. Even after the Etobicoke Finch LRT and Sheppard, nothing is planned. I don't think Lawrence will ever get out of bus range. I think it will be a mix, demand will be there nut not subway level. Because as we can see suburban stations don't get as much ridership out Islington, Sheppard Yonge, etc. But I think Hudak will attempt to change Eglinton to subway and I don't want that because I'm tired of the delays.
Click to expand...

I don't expect that Lawrence West will get out of bud territory any time soon. It only has 23,000 riders per day. The situation is similar on Lawrence East, with 36,000. To but that in perspective, the Finch West LRT is replacing a bus with 44,000 riders. And that is still within BRT territory. We're going with LRT only becsuse its cheaper to operate.

A diamond lane are all that I see being necessary on Lawrence. Even full fledged BRT is a little much imo

Regarding Eglinton, Hudak has said that he won't be canceling any projects that have contracts signed. So any Eglinton subway is DOA.
 
Last edited:
I do hope Metrolinx and the TTC will actually look to Europe and do better research on how they handle de-icing on trolley wires over there. While its only a once per 40 years or so occurrence, lets be better prepared on a larger overhead network in the future.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top