Eglinton-Crosstown Corridor Debate

[Second_in_pie]

The truth is that with current transit use, there's no way we'll break even. You look at cities like London, New York, Paris and Berlin, and they've all got a huge transit ridership (New York having something like 80% of people in Lower Manhattan not even owning a car,) much more than what goes on in Toronto (less than 10% of all weekday commutes by car, I believe.) I certainly think that we have the capacity to increase ridership dramatically (maybe even up to the 50% in the next couple decades,) but as things are, those LRT routes won't be any more "sustainable" than a subway would be.

But of course, if that is the current transit use, how clogged up will the B-D be once transit use doubles, or even reaches 50% of weekday commutes.

 

[kettal]

What does sustainable even mean? It seems to be one of the buzzwords that streetcar fans use to bash subways over the head and obtain approving nods, but sustainability is certainly in the eye of the beholder, unless you're talking about its ability to pay for itself. And if that's your criteria, you may as well tear up all the streetcar lines and take most of the buses off the road, too.

It's not an easy factor to measure. You have to take into account all the benefits it provides, beyond cash fare, multiplied by number of riders.

I can't say which stations come on which side of this line, but we can all agree this line exists. If there was a subway station at a suburban cul-de-sac, extremely low potential for any riders, I'm sure we would all agree it was not sustainable.

 

[waterloowarrior]

Doesn't have to be underground, doesn't even have to be subway... there's more to the transit continuum than median Transit City vs gold-plated subway.

 

[EnviroTO]

There's no reason Eglinton needs to run on the street. Oh wait, we're trying to be European. There is ONE reason.

Is saving money a European thing? Even a trench with all the extra bridges, shoring and slope stabilization, drainage, etc costs significantly more than using the existing ROW at grade. An open trench also means the city needs to own more property.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Doesn't the city already own the Richview Corridor..?

And saving money isn't necessarily a European thing, but it certainly seems that proper transit planning and understanding the need to pay more for something you need is solely a European thing, if that answers your question

 

[EnviroTO]

Doesn't the city already own the Richview Corridor..?

It doesn't matter. It is money by selling it. It is worth less if there is a trench on it.

And saving money isn't necessarily a European thing, but it certainly seems that proper transit planning and understanding the need to pay more for something you need is solely a European thing, if that answers your question

They are paying more for the underground section where the width of the street doesn't fit a transit ROW. That seems like paying more where there is a "need". They are planning a Downtown Relief Line where there is a "need". I think that the issue is that the "need" for a subway hasn't been proven by any predictive model that has been looked at.

 

[Second_in_pie]

It doesn't matter. It is money by selling it. It is worth less if there is a trench on it.

I'm pretty sure that developers could easily be enticed by the fact that they'd be building right on a subway line.

(In case you're going to attack the fact that I'm pretty sure but could be wrong, I'm absolutely positive that a spot at Islington and Eglinton on the Richview corridor would fetch a far higher price with a trenched richview subway than the LRT, and I'm sure many a developer, economist and normal person would agree.)

 

[EnviroTO]

Much of the subway ROW which was built as a trench is still underused as parking lots, grass spaces, or still a trench. If a significant amount of space downtown is still underused after all this time then space on Eglinton where cheap space is more available will likely remain undeveloped for a much longer time. Land which is unencumbered can be sold at a higher price than land which has restrictions or which can only be leased. The time to arrive at Eglinton and Islington via subway alone or via LRT underground to Weston and then in an at grade ROW in an area with hardly any intersections will not create a significantly different land value.

 

[unimaginative2]

It's an interesting approach. Build the subway in a trench and then offer all the land for sale to developers. They can build over top as long as they pay to deck over the tracks. The cost likely wouldn't be prohibitive. They could even sell the most valuable spots right on top of the stations to developers who would agree to include the station facilities in their development.

No doubt it will take a couple decades for the whole street to be developed, but maybe that's not such a bad thing. Few neighbourhoods that were built all at once are particularly successful.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Much of the subway ROW which was built as a trench is still underused as parking lots, grass spaces, or still a trench. If a significant amount of space downtown is still underused after all this time then space on Eglinton where cheap space is more available will likely remain undeveloped for a much longer time. Land which is unencumbered can be sold at a higher price than land which has restrictions or which can only be leased. The time to arrive at Eglinton and Islington via subway alone or via LRT underground to Weston and then in an at grade ROW in an area with hardly any intersections will not create a significantly different land value.

Er... what sections would that be?

@ unimaginative: Yeah, that's basically the idea. I don't think it's a stretch to assume that developers will pay big bucks to develop on a subway, and they'd basically be paying to deck over the subway. I don't think that Eglinton would turn into a pretty street lined with cafes, coffee shops and high-end clothes stores like advertised in Transit City; there's a lot more to building proper avenues than that. You need to take a deep look into planning and how the area should be developed. There's not a zoning for "European avenue," but there's a way you can munipulate development and zoning to create relatively good, walkable, transit-based communities.

That's an interesting idea to give the land right above stations to developers, and make the one catch be that they have to integrate the station into their building. They'd be scrambling over eachother to get that position! Just build the station underneath the road, and you can still have one entrance open as the building goes up (while that side of the station gets integrated into the building) and then have that open if the other side gets developed as well.
I'd add on to that they need to leave at least the ground floor (if not the first two floors) open to casual retail; convenience stores, supermarkets, small clothes stores, restaurants, etc. That makes the buildings on top of the station (and on the intersection) the general centre of activity, and could easily focus people into these buildings rather than into their cars to the nearest Loblaws superstore. If people don't need to drive to get food, have a quick bite to eat or access a large portion of the city that's RT-served, they can live quite easily without a car, and very well might not buy one. This is Canada after all, and people can easily be swayed simply by the promise that you don't have to go outside at all in the middle of winter!

 

[kettal]

If you have ever attempted living within earshot of any exposed section of TTC subway, you will know why a trench will not be accepted by the community.

 

[gweed123]

That's an interesting idea to give the land right above stations to developers, and make the one catch be that they have to integrate the station into their building. They'd be scrambling over eachother to get that position! Just build the station underneath the road, and you can still have one entrance open as the building goes up (while that side of the station gets integrated into the building) and then have that open if the other side gets developed as well.
I'd add on to that they need to leave at least the ground floor (if not the first two floors) open to casual retail; convenience stores, supermarkets, small clothes stores, restaurants, etc. That makes the buildings on top of the station (and on the intersection) the general centre of activity, and could easily focus people into these buildings rather than into their cars to the nearest Loblaws superstore. If people don't need to drive to get food, have a quick bite to eat or access a large portion of the city that's RT-served, they can live quite easily without a car, and very well might not buy one. This is Canada after all, and people can easily be swayed simply by the promise that you don't have to go outside at all in the middle of winter!

That's an idea I had been toying with myself to help get subway costs down. Developers pay a premium for "direct subway access (ie don't have to walk outside, like they have done indirectly with the Residences of College Park, walking through the mall which is connected directly to the subway). You could even get really creative and have a string of condos all connected by underground walkway connected to the subway. And if the Richview corridor is already city-owned land, cut and covering that would bring in significant revenue for the project.

The amount of 'subway adjacent' land in this city is nearly all used, or zoned to its maximum (yes, we could fit more condos in along Bloor and Danforth, but zoning restricts it). A subway along Queen would also run into this issue, with 6-8 storeys being the max. A subway along Eglinton however would not have this issue, and putting in 20-30 storey towers around major intersections/subway stops would be a significant draw for people. Let's face it, "indoor direct subway access" has a much nicer ring for potential buyers than "LRT platform in the middle of the street".

 

[Dan416]

If you have ever attempted living within earshot of any exposed section of TTC subway, you will know why a trench will not be accepted by the community.

A trench isn't the same as some random "exposed subway". I can't even think of the subway in a trench anywhere in Toronto. Above-ground, yes, in a trench, um, where? Please enlighten me. I'm only familiar with YUS below Bloor and Bloor-Danforth from Kipling to Kennedy and the SRT and Sheppard. The only part of Yonge I haven't travelled is north of Sheppard, is it trenched there?

 

[kettal]

How is a trench any better?

 

[EnviroTO]

Er... what sections would that be?

Are you telling me that you support building subways in a trench but don't know where it was done before?

I can't even think of the subway in a trench anywhere in Toronto.

Rosedale area, north of Davisville, and Allen Road is in a trench. There were many more areas in the past but most now have a thin roof with either grass or parking on top.