[TheTigerMaster]

Lets pretend you are somewhere on Kipling or Isslington. Typically in 2016 you take the bus to the bloor subway, which gets you to st george and then another transfer to downtown. Thats 1 Bus 2 Subway rides. If you made the LRT get to the airport the person could choose to take 1 Bus 1 LRT 1 Subway ride to get to the same location. Your set up would mean 1 Bus to Eglinton 1 Bus BRT to Weston, 1 LRT to Eglinton west, 1 Subway downtown. So in fact you have created one extra transfer. You could argue that the people could simply stay on their original route to the bloor line but shouldnt we be trying to divert some people off the bloor west line.

The problem with your assessment is that you treat BRT as if it operates exactly the same as rail, and act as if bus routes can't be reconfigured. The wonderful thing about BRT is that their busses don't have to stay on the BRT. The busses can leave the BRT and travel on other streets. This isn't possible with LRT.

With a typical downtown-bound trip from Kipling, this is what your trip would look like on the BRT: Board the Kipling bus at a stop near your home. The bus continues down Kipling until it reaches Eglinton, where it turns left (east) onto the new Eglinton BRT. The bus the continues on the BRT, protected from traffic and not having to weave in and out of traffic, until it reaches Mt. Dennis Station. You transfer at Mt. Dennis Station to the Eglinton LRT, and finally transfer at Eglinton West Station to downtown.
Total transfers: 2

With the LRT: Board the Kipling bus at a stop near your home. The bus continues down Kipling until it reaches Eglinton. Transfer from the bus to the ECLRT stop at Kipling and Eglinton. Continue to Eglinton West Station and transfer to Line 1.
Total transfers: 2

The BRT simply moves the transfer point to Mt. Dennis; it does not add a new transfer point.

What the Eglinton BRT means is that everyone it Etobicoke should have a single seat ride to Mt. Dennis Station.

And what happens if the person is trying to get to yonge and eglinton which is about to boom big time, again an additional transfer.

There will be an additional transfer here. But that should be offset by the higher frequencies (lower waiting tim) of the BRT. With the LRT, you'd see peak hour headways of 6 minutes, while the BRT will be much more frequent for reasons I described in my previous post.

Also "Thus, the only benefit I see LRT offering riders in the area (assuming BRT range ridership), is the more comfortable ride of rail." this is really a problem. Many people for whatever reason are adverse to taking buses. Some find it uncomfortable how it weaves in and out of traffic for stops.

Busses in a BRT do not weave in and out of traffic. They stay on a straight path, like a streetcar.

And like I mentioned before, the BRT would permit more comfortable transfer than the LRT especially in winter and at night. This is because the EBRT transfer point is a subway station, while the ECLRT transfer points are on street, exposed to the elements and with poor nighttime lighting.

 

[LNahid2000]

With a typical downtown-bound trip from Kipling, this is what your trip would look like on the BRT: Board the Kipling bus at a stop near your home. The bus continues down Kipling until it reaches Eglinton, where it turns left (east) onto the new Eglinton BRT. The bus the continues on the EBRT until it reaches Mt. Dennis Station. You transfer at Mt. Dennis Station to the Eglinton LRT, and finally transfer at Eglinton West Station to downtown.
Total transfers: 3

If your destination is near Union, with SmartTrack, you may be able to get downtown with only 1 transfer (your example actually only has 2 transfers). The Kipling bus would go to Mount Dennis, and then SmartTrack would take you to Union.

 

[sixrings]

The Jane bus I can believe maybe redirected to Weston. Perhaps the Scarlette but. Not so optimistic about Kipling and Islington. Redirecting bus routes just further complicated things but that is my opinion. I suppose you are anti Sheppard LRT as well since that is in the BRT number range as well. Continuous lines on a grid seams easy to navigate and not frustrating to use but I guess were back to stopping the gravy despite electing a federal government which did have a huge transit infrastructure component and a conservative mayor who agreed Eglinton should have a line and a former former mayor who thought it was a priority so planned it, as well as people who filled in a giant hole 20 years ago.

 

[BurlOak]

Transit will never be as comfortable as car. The key is speed, reliabilty and hassle.
Add too many stops and speed suffers.
Add traffic collision and tie-ups affecting anything not grade-separated and you don't have consistent reliability. Add too many transfers and it's a hassle.

If we want to get people out of their cars, it's one bus to a grade-separated transit line and one transfer to get to your destination (maybe a bus or streetcar on the final leg is acceptable).

 

[sixrings]

Transit will never be as comfortable as car. The key is speed, reliabilty and hassle.
Add too many stops and speed suffers.
Add traffic collision and tie-ups affecting anything not grade-separated and you don't have consistent reliability. Add too many transfers and it's a hassle.

If we want to get people out of their cars, it's one bus to a grade-separated transit line and one transfer to get to your destination (maybe a bus or streetcar on the final leg is acceptable).

I agree it will never be as comfortable but the proof is at the Kiss and Rides. People seem to have no problem taking rail but once they get close to home and the bus is the second part of the journey many people call their loved ones to pick them up. This isnt just a TTC problem as it is seen also at GO stops in Mississauga, which I hope the Hurontario LRT helps with a bit. It doesn't matter what the reasons are but plenty of people physiologically do not like and will not ride the bus. Beggars cant be choosers can be transit planners attitude or just accepting this truth and working with it is the other option.

 

[crs1026]

The street to consider in this is Dixon, rather than Eglinton.

Etobicoke close to Eglinton is not likely to lead to much new east-west ridership. It makes sense that EA ridership numbers were the low side, although it will be interesting to see if they have changed when the latest studies come out.

Dixon has density. The Dixon bus connects to employment areas around the Airport, including the airport hotels. Malton-Dixon-Scarlet-Mount Dennis has potential to be a heavily used bus route. Even Malton-Dixon-Weston RER/ST will likely be well used.

If Dixon had superior connectivity to Mount Dennis, many people would transfer there rather than carrying on down to Eglinton - the north-south routes in Etobicoke are long hauls.

I do hope that the new look at ST will extend ECLRT to Jane. The ridership is there. Otherwise, north-south travel on Jane will be made more difficult as the TTC intends to run both the north and south legs of the Jane bus over to the Mount Dennis Hub.

I'm secretly hoping that the ridership projections have gone up and the viability of LRT west from Mount Dennis isn't open to challenge. Otherwise, we haven't made any progress towards getting a transit line to the airport. This is a valid objective even if light on ridership - but we can't waste a billion dollars if the ridership isn't there.

- Paul

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I agree it will never be as comfortable but the proof is at the Kiss and Rides. People seem to have no problem taking rail but once they get close to home and the bus is the second part of the journey many people call their loved ones to pick them up. This isnt just a TTC problem as it is seen also at GO stops in Mississauga, which I hope the Hurontario LRT helps with a bit. It doesn't matter what the reasons are but plenty of people physiologically do not like and will not ride the bus. Beggars cant be choosers can be transit planners attitude or just accepting this truth and working with it is the other option.

Well those people need to find other way of getting around. Spending $1.5 Billion to make 2,000 people feel marginally better about themselves is ridiculous. Plus, if getting people out of busses is the goal of transit expansion, then there are far more worthy projects to invest in. The Relief Line to Sheppard will get 10x more people out of busses than the ECLRT extension would.

I do hope that the new look at ST will extend ECLRT to Jane. The ridership is there. Otherwise, north-south travel on Jane will be made more difficult as the TTC intends to run both the north and south legs of the Jane bus over to the Mount Dennis Hub.

That won't happen. Extending to Jane means that people on Jane bus needing to get to RER will have to transfer to LRT, travel 1 stop and then transfer to RER. It's better to split the Jane route in two, and perhaps have one branch travelling straight up Jane without going to Mt. Dennis.

I'm secretly hoping that the ridership projections have gone up and the viability of LRT west from Mount Dennis isn't open to challenge. Otherwise, we haven't made any progress towards getting a transit line to the airport. This is a valid objective even if light on ridership - but we can't waste a billion dollars if the ridership isn't there.

The ECLRT had 500 peak hour riders at Pearson Airport in the EA. The UPX probably lowered this number further. Spending $1.5 Billion to connect a few hundred people to the airport is ridiculous.

I know why people want a TTC rail connection to the airport, but it needs to be understood that the kind of travel that happens at airports are not congruent with mass transit systems. A subway/LRT connection to Pearson is more symbolism than it is sound planning.

 

[nfitz]

The ECLRT had 500 peak hour riders at Pearson Airport in the EA.

Though that was westbound (away from downtown). Generally towards downtown is what's important.

The peak AM demand in the EA was 0.

 

[sixrings]

I am not advocating spending the money here and not the DRL. All numbers are going to pale in comparison to the DRL. That doesnt mean that places like Eglinton west shouldnt get LRT. There is no reason why we cant afford both projects through new user fees, tolls, taxes. It should not be the either or situation some are making it out to be.

 

[LNahid2000]

I am not advocating spending the money here and not the DRL. All numbers are going to pale in comparison to the DRL. That doesnt mean that places like Eglinton west shouldnt get LRT. There is no reason why we cant afford both projects through new user fees, tolls, taxes. It should not be the either or situation some are making it out to be.

There is always an opportunity cost of spending $1.5 billion on Eglinton west of Mount Dennis, and there are other projects after the DRL that would provide greater benefit than this line.

 

[sixrings]

Well Im thankful its in the plans. Its going to be hard for Tory to go from heavy rail, to lrt, to BRT like some people here would like. If the DRL was completely planned right now I might agree but lets face facts the DRL isnt going to start construction until after 2020 and that is an optimistic time line. Things move so slow which is why I like LRT which can be constructed and funded much faster.

 

[BurlOak]

I won't say money is no object, but it is not a big concern. ECLRT elevated to the airport is $1.5B to 2B. ECLRT east elevated is $0.5B to$1B extra. SRT to Malvern is $2B. Sheppard Subway is $3.5B to STC and $1.5B to Downsview.

We get $0.3B from SELRT and $0.7B from Scarborough subway from the Feds. Plus another $1.5B from the province and $1B city money for Scarborough Subway and $2.5B from the Feds for SmartTrack.

Thus this plan costs $9B to $10B minus the $6B that no longer needs to be spent. Thus we need 3.5B, which is less than the City and Province would have had to spend on SmartTrack.

or put another way, the province has said they would fund DRL to Danforth and the $1.5B that the above was less than SmartTrack could be used to extend it to Eglinton.

It is obvious that for SmartTrack money, we could have had a complete transit solution.

 

[Rainforest]

Ehh... This extension will probably cost between a billion and $1.5 Billion. That's a lot of money. I couldn't support that if it'd move something low like 2,000 ppphpd.

What I could stand behind, if there is low usage, is an Eglinton West BRT. The wonderful thing about this is that it would be cheaper than the LRT and should be just as fast. This is because, for the most part, people using the Eglinton West corridor would be transferring from bus routes. With the BRT these bus routes could now run along the BRT straight to Mt. Dennis Station, where riders could transfer to the ECLRT.

Regardless of if a BRT or LRT is selected, commuters would have the same amount of transfers. The difference in downtown-bound commute times between BRT and LRT should be negligible. In fact, the BRT might be faster because shorter headways would be needed to accommodate lower capacity vehicles moving the same amount of people. This means that the wait time would be shorter for the bus than an LRT.

So we'd get just as fast commute times, while saving maybe billion dollars that could be used for something more impactful like DRL

The airport is not a big trip generator, as seen in the ECLRT Environmental Assessment.

I hear what you are saying. But still have a number of concerns with this approach:

1) I doubt that Jane is the boundary after which the usage can drop dramatically. In fact, Mt Dennis is a mostly low-rise area today (perhaps will add density once the LRT opens), and the Jane & Eglinton intersection is located in the flats and surrounded by parks and golf courses; it doesn't have any density and never will. In contrast, you can find some highrises in the Eglinton / Kipling, Eglinton / Lloyd Manor, and Eglinton / Royal York areas.

Most likely, the ridership does not drop dramatically at Jane, but rather goes down slowly.

2) Re-routing the Kipling, Islington etc buses to Mt Dennis will complicate the route structure. You still need some buses to provide service south of Eglinton.

3) If our plan is to make the transfer at Mt Dennis permanent, then we could as well build subway under Eglinton. The tunneled section would be no more expensive than the LRT tunnel.

Part of the appeal of LRT is that they are cheaper to extend and thus there is no need to terminate the line before it reaches the municipal border.

 

[nfitz]

There is always an opportunity cost of spending $1.5 billion on Eglinton west of Mount Dennis, and there are other projects after the DRL that would provide greater benefit than this line.

When Metrolinx deferred the connection from Mount Dennis to Pearson to an unfunded Phase 2, back in 2010, the priced the connection to Renforth at $467 million. Hard to see why it need be $1.5 billion now.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

1) I doubt that Jane is the boundary after which the usage can drop dramatically. In fact, Mt Dennis is a mostly low-rise area today (perhaps will add density once the LRT opens), and the Jane & Eglinton intersection is located in the flats and surrounded by parks and golf courses; it doesn't have any density and never will. In contrast, you can find some highrises in the Eglinton / Kipling, Eglinton / Lloyd Manor, and Eglinton / Royal York areas.

Most likely, the ridership does not drop dramatically at Jane, but rather goes down slowly.

This isn't something we have to guess about.

Eastbound at peak hour, ridership at jane is 2,900 pphpd. This section between Mt. Dennis and Jane, less than 1 km, is the only section of the line that is solidly in LRT technology.

Moving west to Scarlett Rd, 2 km from Mt. Dennis, ridership drops to 2,100, which is the approaching the lowest I personally would support building an LRT, and is the lowest the TTC recommends.

So in a 2 km stretch, this LRT loses nearly 1/3 of it's ridership.

Continuing on to Royal York, 3 km from Mt. Dennis, ridership drops to 1,700 pphpd, well below acceptable demand for an LRT. It's lost 41% of it's ridership in a 3 km stretch, only 23% of the proposed extension length.

Moving on to Widdecombe, 6 km from Mt. Dennis and well below half the distance of the proposed extension, ridership plummets to 900 pphpd, which isn't anywhere near LRT territory.

Now I know someone will probably mention that transit lines always lose ridership the further you are from peak point; we can't expect everywhere to be above the threshold. That's true, but that makes ECLRT unique is how rapidly the ridership drops. Of the proposed 13 km extension, only 2 km (14%) of the line is in an acceptable range for LRT ridership (about 2,000 pphpd). This isn't like other lines that might have a significant part of the line is within acceptable demand ranges.

Typically I'd support extending the LRT to Jane or Scarlett, but the issue with that is that it would add an additional transfer for commuters going to RER at Mt Dennis. It's better to terminate at Mt. Dennis and have the busses go straight to that station, eliminating a transfer.

2) Re-routing the Kipling, Islington etc buses to Mt Dennis will complicate the route structure. You still need some buses to provide service south of Eglinton.

Of course. I figure a third to a half of those busses might terminate at Mt. Dennis