Eglinton-Crosstown Corridor Debate

[dowlingm]

The advantage of building Eglinton as LRT is that at the moment St Clair West is an orphan line with no interconnection to the rest of the network.

I would convert it to a Transit City line and connect it to the Eglinton on-street LRT in the Weston area so that in the short term while the tunnel section is being built and commissioned, the on-street Eglinton LRT could serve St Clair West Station and St Clair Station, and in the long run have two diversion options once the Jane LRT and St Clair West LRT extensions were done. An alternative would be just to do the Jane/St Clair extensions sooner but there seems to be some concern over how to deal with the Jane gradients in a "quick win" scenario.

St Clair West cars could be serviced from Eglinton LRT's yard with Hillcrest becoming an alternate when the Eglinton yard is unreachable as opposed to the forthcoming situation where St Clair cars are going to be left in the open while Hillcrest's approach tracks are rebuilt.

 

[Undying42]

Eglinton should've been a subway from day one. The combined numbers from Pearson-bound travellers, 32/34/86 commuters and the untapped prime real estate surrounding the corridor along the Richview Expressway lands and the Golden Mile, would see 250-300 hundred thousand passengers daily.

The tunneled section of the LRT proposal should be a subway immediately from the moment it becomes operational, even if that means transferring onto the streetcar east-west of the line thereafter. Eventually everywhere from Markham and Martin Grove Roads with at-grade/elevated right-of-way beyond. I hope ideas such as this one are seriously being considered.

 

[doady]

Eglinton LRT could be good if the above-ground sections make use of available ROW's at the side of Eglinton instead being just on the street.

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.

No, actually the Eglinton line originally was for the entire length of Eglinton West...

 

[Panzerfaust]

No, actually the Eglinton line originally was for the entire length of Eglinton West...

Uh... no. Phase one of the subway was only supposed to go from Eglinton West to "York Centre" aka Black Creek Drive. A future extension was supposed to take it all the way to the airport, with an extension to Yonge even further in the future (far enough that it wasn't even on the books in any official sense).

 

[Dan416]

Ah doady, Panzerfaust is correct on this count, as that is what I had heard as well.

 

[doady]

Uh... no. Phase one of the subway was only supposed to go from Eglinton West to "York Centre" aka Black Creek Drive. A future extension was supposed to take it all the way to the airport, with an extension to Yonge even further in the future (far enough that it wasn't even on the books in any official sense).

That is what I used to think as well. But in truth the subway was originally supposed to built all the way from Yonge to the Airport all at once and connect with the Mississauga Transitway. This was the whole point of the Mississauga Transitway after all. However, the provincial NDP which were in power scaled back the project at the last minute to just the Allen-York Centre section because of budget issues.

 

[Voltz]

Eglinton should've been a subway from day one. The combined numbers from Pearson-bound travellers, 32/34/86 commuters and the untapped prime real estate surrounding the corridor along the Richview Expressway lands and the Golden Mile, would see 250-300 hundred thousand passengers daily.

The tunneled section of the LRT proposal should be a subway immediately from the moment it becomes operational, even if that means transferring onto the streetcar east-west of the line thereafter. Eventually everywhere from Markham and Martin Grove Roads with at-grade/elevated right-of-way beyond. I hope ideas such as this one are seriously being considered.

How is the undergrond section of the Eglinton LRT not a subway?, just because it would not use "subway" cars does not mean anything.

If longer LRT trains short turned between Jane and Don Mills can serve the demand then there is no need to go with a more expensive option and create needless transfers at the end.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

How is the undergrond section of the Eglinton LRT not a subway?, just because it would not use "subway" cars does not mean anything.

It's not a subway as we define "subway" in this city just because it's underground. If so, Yorkdale would not be a subway station. LRT in a tunnel is not the same thing as the YUS or BD subway lines and when people say "Eglinton should be a subway line" they mean taking the Yonge or Bloor line and copying and pasting it along (or under or beside) Eglinton.

 

[nfitz]

How is the undergrond section of the Eglinton LRT not a subway?, just because it would not use "subway" cars does not mean anything.

It is a subway by definition, in accordance with the traditional Toronto definition of subway. The uncompleted "Queen Subway" was also just for streetcars - but it was still called a subway.

 

[Dan416]

You people are playing with semantics. The Eglinton LRT is NOT, I repeat NOT a subway. Sometimes people use words to confuse people. This is one of those cases.

 

[RedRocket191]

The traditional definition of "subway" in Toronto is the three existing subway lines.

Similarly, the traditional definition of streetcar is what runs on the surface at Queen Street.

If you're talking about building a line in Toronto, you have to keep in mind what the average Toronto resident thinks.

 

[ShonTron]

 

[scarberiankhatru]

If you're talking about building a line in Toronto, you have to keep in mind what the average Toronto resident thinks.

There's probably about 200 people in the entire city that are functionally aware of anything other than the traditional definitions - which are based on the vehicles - and half of them post on this forum.

I find that virtually everyone says they take "the subway" if even a small part of their trip is on a subway line, and any streetcar/bus/SRT connections get lumped into "taking the subway." But what would people call a tunnelled Eglinton streetcar, especially if they take a trip on just it? If it's fast and not overcrowded and whatnot, people won't care that they're riding on some nebulously defined subway-streetcar hybrid. A largely underground Eglinton streetcar could easily be marketed as a subway, especially because of the new model of vehicles, but this hasn't been done yet...maybe it should be. Perhaps they'll wait until stop spacing, station renderings, etc., are more final.

 

[Undying42]

You people are playing with semantics. The Eglinton LRT is NOT, I repeat NOT a subway. Sometimes people use words to confuse people. This is one of those cases.

Yes word usage plays a valuable role in confusing the average citizen. Remember Spadina and St Clair Light Rail Transit lines? Mere streetcars. The'subway' moniker is more applicable to Eglinton Crosstown than any other line though, in spite of all seven TC lines having tunneled portions. I'd be pleased to see a subway along Eglinton from conception, instead of the eventual convert-to-subway Giambrone said would occur once the line reaches capacity. I'd also like for spacing in the tunnel to reflect BD proximity, over regular bus stop frequency. Namely:

Trethewey, Caledonia, Dufferin, Oakwood, Eglinton West, Bathurst, Chaplin, Avenue, Yonge, Mt. Pleasant, Bayview, Laird, Brentcliffe.

I seriously doubt anyone would object to that spacing. Abridged 32 and 34 buses could meet the subway on both ends until the rest of the corridor gets cut-and-cover treatment from Martin Grove to Markham whereby the line runs at-grade or elevated to Pearson and West Hill.

 

[doady]

Subway is just another name for metro, and streetcar is just another name for tram. Would an underground tram be called metro in Europe? No, instead it would be called premetro.