Eglinton-Crosstown Corridor Debate

[Dan416]

It's time for another poll!

So what's everyone think about what should be done on Eglinton?


Results from Polls #1:
68% voted to replace the SRT with subway to STC
18% voted to replace the SRT with LRT
12% voted to refurbish and extend to Malvern (i.e. the current plan)

Results from Poll #2:
87% voted to finish the Sheppard Subway to STC
8% voted to downgrade Sheppard to LRT and extend to Malvern
4% voted to keep the Sheppard Subway and build LRT to Malvern (i.e. the current plan)

Personally I find it interesting that the route that the TTC has chosen is the least popular option on this forum (excluding Do Nothing).

 

[andomano]

Personally I find it interesting that the route that the TTC has chosen is the least popular option on this forum (excluding Do Nothing).

But is it no surprise that the most expensive option has been selected as the most popular each time?

 

[Dan416]

But is it no surprise that the most expensive option has been selected as the most popular each time?

Or maybe people know more about transit than the TTC?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

But is it no surprise that the most expensive option has been selected as the most popular each time?

That's not true. The subway to STC and the reno/extension to Malvern were both estimated at about $1.2B. Anyway, sometimes you have to spend a bit more to help several times as many people.

edit - Sorry, the reno/extension was actually estimated at $1.3 billion.

 

[Hypnotoad]

Other: Revive the Eglinton Subway but include stops east from Allen station to the Science Centre. The west-end would link up with the Airport People Mover.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

There's no public vote results this time...I wonder if that'll have any effect on the outcome.

I voted for the LRT but I probably should have voted for 'other' and qualified it by saying build LRT but *not* as per Transfer City because the Eglinton LRT should be treated as a rapid transit line, not a local transit line.

I'm dying to see what they have planned for the tunneled portion. Will there be stations every 400m? How on earth will they keep the cost below $4-5 billion? There may come a point where the projected cost is so high that spending, say, one or two billion more will enable the entire ~30km to be built as a full-fledged subway line...if that point is reached, I think we should take it (even though an Eglinton subway is not near the top of my list of priority projects).

 

[CityPlaceN1]

Subway all the way.

 

[Tuscani01]

I voted LRT in the hopes that it is done right.

Thats right... I still have hope that the TTC will get this right.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Heavy rail would be too expensive per kilometer and will be short. Light rail, with the center portion in a tunnel , would cheaper to build and be longer, therefore be of better service. Stations on a subway would have to be far apart, like on the upper Yonge, which is a negative.

 

[Dan416]

There's no public vote results this time...I wonder if that'll have any effect on the outcome.

That was an accident. I just forgot to check the box for public results this time.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Heavy rail would be too expensive per kilometer and will be short. Light rail, with the center portion in a tunnel , would cheaper to build and be longer, therefore be of better service. Stations on a subway would have to be far apart, like on the upper Yonge, which is a negative.

Where to start...

"Heavy rail would be too expensive" is a baseless statement since no one has ever costed a full Eglinton subway and since we don't know what the Eglinton LRT will cost - Transit City's estimate has already inflated to $9 billion. Longer *only* means better service if it results in faster travel times, and we've been given no assurances that Transit City will offer improvements over streetcars like Spadina or St. Clair. Greater stop spacing is a very positive thing on a rapid transit line because it moves more people quicker.

If the (likely) 10km Eglinton tunnel has stops every 500m, about 20 underground stations will be needed. A 10km/20 station stretch of tunneled LRT would cost just as much or maybe more than a 10km/10 station stretch of regular subway. Perhaps the Transit City stations will be cheaper because they're shallower, with smaller mezzanines, cut'n'covered, etc., but then these savings measures could be applied to a subway line, too.

 

[MisterF]

Eglinton LRT coupled with a downtown relief line.

 

[marcus_a_j]

I voted for the LRT but I probably should have voted for 'other' and qualified it by saying build LRT but *not* as per Transfer City because the Eglinton LRT should be treated as a rapid transit line, not a local transit line.

I agree with this statement. I voted for the LRT option with hopes that it would be as a rapid transit line. I would have stop spacing around 600m-800m in the above ground sections, and 1000m-1200m in the underground portion. The underground stations can be spaced at a fair distance apart since a few other routes could serve the local stops such as Lawrence East and Flemingdon Park.

 

[Hypnotoad]

But this poll is misleading because the Eglinton subway line (as envisioned in the past) is only the Western side of the street from the Allen. That is why I voted for Other, which is the subway but includes a line the crosses Yonge and terminates at the DVP.

 

[Dan416]

But this poll is misleading because the Eglinton subway line (as envisioned in the past) is only the Western side of the street from the Allen. That is why I voted for Other, which is the subway but includes a line the crosses Yonge and terminates at the DVP.

I suppose "revive" could be interpreted that way, but I wasn't dwelling on the specifics on the length of the line when I wrote that. My own fault for not being clear, but I don't want to get boggled down in details about how long this or that is and the stop spacing and a multitude of other factors.