Eglinton-Crosstown Corridor Debate

[Dan416]

How is a trench any better?

Cost is LRT's main anti-subway argument. Grade-separation is a great way to improve reliability, which the TTC claims to espouse.

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

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.

Allen Road is at-grade or above-grade from what I remember. It's definitely above ground SkyTrain style at Yorkdale. Rosedale I remember the station being outside, I don't remember it being a trench. Although I can't say I remember Davisville. Like I said, at-grade and above-grade doesn't really count as a trench.

And I don't see a problem with a trench having grass or parking on top?

 

[EnviroTO]

And I don't see a problem with a trench having grass or parking on top?

It is an argument that the development potential on the top of a trench is unlikely to be realized in the Eglinton corridor considering it hasn't reached this potential elsewhere in places much closer to the core some 50 years after the Yonge line was first built.

 

[Dan416]

It is an argument that the development potential on the top of a trench is unlikely to be realized in the Eglinton corridor considering it hasn't reached this potential elsewhere in places much closer to the core some 50 years after the Yonge line was first built.

Even 50 years after Yonge was built, suburban sprawl was still in full swing. If Toronto is relying on its "avenues" plan, your line of reasoning doesn't apply. Same goes for "Places to Grow".

 

[Fresh Start]

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".

+1

People just can't seem to grasp what we're losing out on here potentially. A trenched or, my preferrence, elevated guideway for the Eglinton Line through Richview can be built in an aestethically pleasing manner as not to disencourage future development. Much of that corridor already has high-rise developments closeby which could be seamlessly innerconnected (the reserved pedestrian bridge crossing the from the apartments west of Victoria Park Stn straight into the station, come to mind).

 

[Tuscani01]

Cost is LRT's main anti-subway argument. Grade-separation is a great way to improve reliability, which the TTC claims to espouse.



Allen Road is at-grade or above-grade from what I remember. It's definitely above ground SkyTrain style at Yorkdale. Rosedale I remember the station being outside, I don't remember it being a trench. Although I can't say I remember Davisville. Like I said, at-grade and above-grade doesn't really count as a trench.

And I don't see a problem with a trench having grass or parking on top?

Actually, the subway along Allen Rd. is all trenched. That is why you have to go down stairs to get to the platform levels. The houses along Allen Rd. are all above the level of the subway and represent the "at grade" level.

As for the Yonge line around Rosedale, the entire thing was put in a trench. Part of the trench has since been covered by buildings or just covered and left as empty land. If you walk along cross streets, you can still see the railings from bridges that once went over the tracks, and are no longer bridges since the tracks have been decked.

 

[Dan416]

Actually, the subway along Allen Rd. is all trenched. That is why you have to go down stairs to get to the platform levels. The houses along Allen Rd. are all above the level of the subway and represent the "at grade" level.

As for the Yonge line around Rosedale, the entire thing was put in a trench. Part of the trench has since been covered by buildings or just covered and left as empty land. If you walk along cross streets, you can still see the railings from bridges that once went over the tracks, and are no longer bridges since the tracks have been decked.

My only experience with the Spadina line is at Yorkdale, and it's above-ground there, so I'm just speaking to what I know. I believe you that some of it is trenched.

As for Yonge, that sounds like the ideal: the trenched portion being built over with time, which will only accelerate given the current population boom in the GTA.

 

[unimaginative2]

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.

Yeah. It just killed property values in Rosedale.

What community? Have you seen Eglinton West? It's at least 100 metres to the nearest building.

The big problem with Eglinton West that we're going to face regardless of the technology choice is that it's an expressway corridor. If you were going to try and build an Avenues neighbourhood (and the city isn't planning that), you'll really have to do it from scratch. The entire street would have to be shifted north into the transportation corridor to create buildable lots on the south side. Even then, I don't know of any walkable retail street in the world with intersections every kilometre or more.

 

[Tuscani01]

Yeah. It just killed property values in Rosedale.

What community? Have you seen Eglinton West? It's at least 100 metres to the nearest building.

The big problem with Eglinton West that we're going to face regardless of the technology choice is that it's an expressway corridor. If you were going to try and build an Avenues neighbourhood (and the city isn't planning that), you'll really have to do it from scratch. The entire street would have to be shifted north into the transportation corridor to create buildable lots on the south side. Even then, I don't know of any walkable retail street in the world with intersections every kilometre or more.

Not to mention a large area along Eglinton West is park land. You also have the amazing bike path along the South side of Eglinton West. I don't think development will fly in this area with or without the subway (unless residents in the area are willing to lose the parks and bike trails).

 

[gweed123]

It is an argument that the development potential on the top of a trench is unlikely to be realized in the Eglinton corridor considering it hasn't reached this potential elsewhere in places much closer to the core some 50 years after the Yonge line was first built.

The reason why it hasn't is because the sections of the Yonge line that are still exposed are either:
a) on a slope and thus difficult to build upon (ex: between Bloor and Rosedale, it is built on a pretty steep hill, and the only road frontage available is Rosedale Valley Rd, which is some 10m below track level, same with the section between St. Clair and Davisville)
b) is far too big to be covered over (ex: Davisville yards)

Everywhere that was reasonably feasible to be covered over has been (ex: between Summerhill and St. Clair). In fact, they were decked over nearly 30 years ago.

 

[gweed123]

+1

People just can't seem to grasp what we're losing out on here potentially. A trenched or, my preferrence, elevated guideway for the Eglinton Line through Richview can be built in an aestethically pleasing manner as not to disencourage future development. Much of that corridor already has high-rise developments closeby which could be seamlessly innerconnected (the reserved pedestrian bridge crossing the from the apartments west of Victoria Park Stn straight into the station, come to mind).

The Richview Corridor has practically unparallelled potential. Many people fail to recognize that one cannot design an effective transportation system without considering the transportation/land-use relationship.

Richview is in essence a clean slate, or as close to one as you're going to get in the 416. Why leave development over a trenched subway up to piecemeal development? Create a cohesive secondary plan that encorporates the subway into the design. Phase the construction of the condos with the construction of the tunnel (condo parking lots generally go to the same depths as subways do) so that they can be built at the same time, minimizing the impact (and cost) of digging. For condos overtop of stations, build the station while building the condo, so it can efficiently be encorporated into the design.

Think of how much cheaper building this subway can be if developers contribute to the construction because they know it will raise the land value of the condos they're planning to build. Or convince them to help excavate the tunnel while they're digging the parking lot for their condo. Or work out a monthly contribution to the TTC for allowing them to have direct access to the subway. There are many different levels and ways a partnership arrangement can be created.

The potential is there for this corridor to become a model of the transportation/land-use relationship, and how they can both use eachother to be mutually beneficial. A secondary plan for the corridor would create a cohesive vision for the area, and create a model TOD community.

 

[Second_in_pie]

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

No, I was indicating that I couldn't think of any Toronto examples of the trench still existing. There was originally a trench almost from Bloor all the way to St. Clair, but everywhere past Rosedale is now developed over with mixed use buildings and condos. The area between Rosedale and Bloor, however, is still open, and I honestly don't think it bothers Rosedale residents that much.

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.

I'd argue that Davisville is only a trench cause it has the Davisville yard.
Oh! You're thinking about those sections of the Bloor line that they cut 'n covered? Well, that was cut and cover, which ironically makes it a fair bit harder to develop over after the cut 'n covering is done than if they didn't cover back over it. I know there'd be a pretty big uproar if all the parking lots and parks in Bloor West suddenly disappeared to a trench, and I don't think neighbors or business owners would be too pleased to have even 5 or 6 story condos on that corridor.

EDIT: You're right, Allen Road is a trench. The whole expressway is, but the subway's at grade relative to the expressway. Not to mention I think there have actually been a few proposals to deck a bit of the Allen around stations like Lawrence West. Needless to say, building on a trenched subway would be many times easier than decking over a highway, subway and integrating the community into the station.

 

[Second_in_pie]

The Richview Corridor has practically unparallelled potential. Many people fail to recognize that one cannot design an effective transportation system without considering the transportation/land-use relationship.

Richview is in essence a clean slate, or as close to one as you're going to get in the 416. Why leave development over a trenched subway up to piecemeal development? Create a cohesive secondary plan that encorporates the subway into the design. Phase the construction of the condos with the construction of the tunnel (condo parking lots generally go to the same depths as subways do) so that they can be built at the same time, minimizing the impact (and cost) of digging. For condos overtop of stations, build the station while building the condo, so it can efficiently be encorporated into the design.

Think of how much cheaper building this subway can be if developers contribute to the construction because they know it will raise the land value of the condos they're planning to build. Or convince them to help excavate the tunnel while they're digging the parking lot for their condo. Or work out a monthly contribution to the TTC for allowing them to have direct access to the subway. There are many different levels and ways a partnership arrangement can be created.

The potential is there for this corridor to become a model of the transportation/land-use relationship, and how they can both use eachother to be mutually beneficial. A secondary plan for the corridor would create a cohesive vision for the area, and create a model TOD community.

Actually, I bet if they built the Eglinton subway first (i.e. right now from Jane to Don Mills,) they could figure out a plan with developers for a number of stations on the Richview corridor. They'd just have to arrange a deal that the developers basically build the subway station along with their building (while the line's in construction) which would mean seamless integration with the building, as well as cheaper subway costs. Actually I think that was said before, but just putting in my two cents

Totally agree that Eglinton will never be a beautiful avenue like Bloor, Yonge or Queen. But it could just get high density, nodal development around the stations. Towering condos to supplement the large apartment blocks that already exist, and carefully designed centres around the intersection at the subway station, where people can all walk to get groceries, do dry cleaning, etc.

Actually, when I think about it, I'd love to be in charge of such a project. I think it'd be amazing to engineer such a totally high density, transit based condo neighborhood.

 

[EnviroTO]

Everywhere that was reasonably feasible to be covered over has been (ex: between Summerhill and St. Clair). In fact, they were decked over nearly 30 years ago.

Decking over is not development. I already agreed that much had been decked over with grass or parking but if one looks at all the subway built originally as a trench, very little has actual development on top of it.

You're thinking about those sections of the Bloor line that they cut 'n covered? Well, that was cut and cover, which ironically makes it a fair bit harder to develop over after the cut 'n covering is done than if they didn't cover back over it.

No. Read your history books. Most of the Yonge line north of College was originally built as trench. The cut-and-cover sections are different and they shouldn't be any more difficult to develop either.

By keeping the subway under the ROW you maximize the development potential and reduce the land assets that need to be owned by the city.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Decking over is not development. I already agreed that much had been decked over with grass or parking but if one looks at all the subway built originally as a trench, very little has actual development on top of it.

What do you mean? Take a look at the huge swath of Yonge north of Rosedale that is totally developed; about 30 years ago, there was a big trench there with a subway.

And you're right, decking over is not the same as development. I've already said, part of the B-D was cut and covered, where they essentially dug a trench, then filled it over. They turned most of that into parks and parking lots, and I don't think the established community would be very happy to give up their parks or parking lots to mid rise condos.
Compare that to the portion of Yonge between Bloor and St. Clair, where they literally left it as a trench for developers to build over. Now, a large portion is developed over, with condos and pretty stores and everything. The area around Rosedale is not developed because it's in fact very hard to develop in that area, let alone doing it to give proper space to the subway underneath. There's only one road serving it (Rosedale Valley Road,) which wouldn't serve the corridor very well, and it's on a rather steep incline. Put on top of that what'd probably be a pretty bit of neighborhood opposition to development north of Rosedale station.

No. Read your history books. Most of the Yonge line north of College was originally built as trench. The cut-and-cover sections are different and they shouldn't be any more difficult to develop either.

If I'm not mistaken, the area south of Bloor was basically entirely cut and cover; they dug under the road and built the subway there, then paved back over. If I'm not mistaken, that's why there are all the vents on Yonge south of Bloor.
Frankly, that'd be too much of a hassle in a modern car-dependent world, and would be absolutely terrible for such a widely used road such as Eglinton.

By keeping the subway under the ROW you maximize the development potential and reduce the land assets that need to be owned by the city.

To be honest, I don't think having a trench to deal with would be much of a problem for potential developers. Especially since they could probably get away with only taking up half the ROW with such a trench, I don't think there's much of a difference. On the pro side, you don't have to worry about a) huge tunneling costs or b) disturbing traffic by cut and covering, as well as the costs associated by either building another traffic corridor and covering over the subway.

I think that with the corridor right there, already city-owned and ripe for development, a cost-saving trench is a great compromise/answer. Lets the corridor get covered over without any government funding (or at least most of it with little funding,) and really wouldn't have a huge impact on the community (the closed houses being well off the corridor and would get minimal if not any disturbances.)

 

[CodeMonkey]

Decking over is not development. I already agreed that much had been decked over with grass or parking but if one looks at all the subway built originally as a trench, very little has actual development on top of it.

Most sections of the Young line that have been deck over can't handle the weight of a car. This is why there isn't any major development on top of it. If we want to be able to deck over a Eglinton-crosstown trench than the TTC has to-do a better job on reinforcing the decking.