Eglinton Transit: Alignment between Don Mills and Kennedy.

[Standard]

The Lawrence E bus #54 meets Eglinton at Leslie as well as the Leslie bus. At this point in time, sunday PM, the #54 route has more vehicles in service than Eglinton E and Leslie combined, a ratio that probably exists in Peak periods as well.

I have seen opinions that Leslie Street doesn't warrant a stop because there is nothing there but a car dealership. I guess they didn't notice the park and a lot of bus traffic turning west bound for the Yonge Street subway.

Have all the other bus routes that pound along Eglinton to the Subway been ignored as a planning inconvenience too, if so what is the point of this exercise?

What routes are you worried about? The 54 can end at Don Mills and Eglinton, the 100 will probably do the same. The 56 Leaside bus will probably loop at Laird and Eglinton.

A bus bay at Eglinton will still be needed, but it won't be as large as it is now. Many routes will probably still use it, Avenue Road and Mt. Pleasant. These routes could be interlined with the existing southern routes though.

 

[Rainforest]

I voted at-grade, although elevated can be considered if it is not way more expensive than at grade.

 

[Johnny Au]

The 56 Leaside bus should loop at Sunnybrook, but have the bus continue along Laird, then go along Glenvale to Rumsey, then go along Kilgour Road, then go on Bayview north to Sunnybrook. This way, the 56 Leaside bus can serve CAMH, the Toronto Rehab Institute, and the Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital, as well as providing an alternate route to Sunnybrook.

 

[drum118]

If you are building either underground or elevated, station cost are going to be very close depending where they are built. You still need elevators, stairs and possibility, escalators regardless if they are underground or elevated.

We know elevators and escalators breakdown from time to time as well needing overhaul. When these things take place, what happens to the accessibility riders?

I can sure you now, once 2026 roll around, there will be all kinds of Human Rights Issues file against any transit system or business that has only one elevator in place now and denied access to a station or place when its out of service.

The only way to get around the failure of this single elevator, is to have a 2nd one. You are looking at about $500,000 per elevator depending on location. You are currently looking at about $150m to put 2 elevators in the existing station today.

Unless you plan for 2 elevators for all new stations now, which is not going to happen, big bucks are going to be needed down the road.

Unless you are going from end to end, that extra 5 minute ride on the surface is far cheaper all around.

Building an elevated line is far cheaper and faster in service than underground line. A precast elevated line that is 10 miles in length, can be install in a year, after the sections are cast.

You are looking at $75-$100m per mile for elevated compare to the $250-$400m for underground. Elevated stations are about $25m vs the $50-$100m underground if there are concourses. Elevated lines are subject to more exposure for everything including riders. Snow can play a big part for having the line up and running, but most of all where do you put the snow to keep the tracks open?

I am going with LRT on the surface.

As for bus terminals, do we really need them and if so, why so big?

I don't think we need most of them at all, and they need to be smaller.

 

[BurlOak]

The only way to get around the failure of this single elevator, is to have a 2nd one. You are looking at about $500,000 per elevator depending on location. You are currently looking at about $150m to put 2 elevators in the existing station today.

Unless you plan for 2 elevators for all new stations now, which is not going to happen, big bucks are going to be needed down the road.

Thanks for the info and estimates.

I won't say that elevators are cheap, but compare this to the $6B that is being invested on the Eglinton and SRT lines. The cost of a dozen or so extra elevators is not a large percentage increase in cost.

If the line is elevated, then Kennedy Station could be elevated as well (similar elevation to current one) and run through to SRT. The savings from this could offset the costs of extra elevators and an elevated line farther east.

 

[BMO]

If you are building either underground or elevated, station cost are going to be very close depending where they are built. You still need elevators, stairs and possibility, escalators regardless if they are underground or elevated.

We know elevators and escalators breakdown from time to time as well needing overhaul. When these things take place, what happens to the accessibility riders?

I can sure you now, once 2026 roll around, there will be all kinds of Human Rights Issues file against any transit system or business that has only one elevator in place now and denied access to a station or place when its out of service.

The only way to get around the failure of this single elevator, is to have a 2nd one. You are looking at about $500,000 per elevator depending on location. You are currently looking at about $150m to put 2 elevators in the existing station today.

Unless you plan for 2 elevators for all new stations now, which is not going to happen, big bucks are going to be needed down the road.

Unless you are going from end to end, that extra 5 minute ride on the surface is far cheaper all around.

Building an elevated line is far cheaper and faster in service than underground line. A precast elevated line that is 10 miles in length, can be install in a year, after the sections are cast.

You are looking at $75-$100m per mile for elevated compare to the $250-$400m for underground. Elevated stations are about $25m vs the $50-$100m underground if there are concourses. Elevated lines are subject to more exposure for everything including riders. Snow can play a big part for having the line up and running, but most of all where do you put the snow to keep the tracks open?

I am going with LRT on the surface.

As for bus terminals, do we really need them and if so, why so big?

I don't think we need most of them at all, and they need to be smaller.

SO just because there's the potential for escalators and elevators to break down, means that we just just go for at-grade because it's more accessible? For that matter why don't we just rip up the yonge subway and put it at grade so that it's more accessible...

this is such a fluffy point. There are requirements to build anything that the province funds with accessibility measures (world class accessibility requirements). To even hint that new subway stations built today would have the same accessibility issues as existing subway stations, is ludicrous. People with disabilities and accessibility issues, still need to get around quickly, something that elevated or underground will provide much more efficiently and faster than at-grade.

 

[BurlOak]

You are looking at $75-$100m per mile for elevated compare to the $250-$400m for underground. Elevated stations are about $25m vs the $50-$100m underground if there are concourses. Elevated lines are subject to more exposure for everything including riders. Snow can play a big part for having the line up and running, but most of all where do you put the snow to keep the tracks open?

Converting to metric, I will use the following numbers.
Elevated = $50M / km
Tunneled = $200M / km
Elevated Station = $30M
Underground Station = $80M

Looking at Eglinton
- Elevate from Don Mills to Kennedy = 6km. $300M
- 5 elevated Stations (Wynford, Bermondsey, Vic Park, Warden, Birchmount) = $150M
- If Kennedy Station Elevated (not underground) = $30M extra, but $80 credit. Net credit $50M.
- Approach to Kennedy elevated instead of buried (approx. 220m) = elevated cost already includes in above estimate. Thus, credit $40M.

Net extra for elevated = $360M.

(note: I assumed the cost estimates are cost premiums to switch from at-grade to elevated or buried. If they are taken as absolute costs, then we could apply a credit for the at-grade that is not required).

I see this as a 30km long line from Jane to Sheppard/Markham, costing $6.0B, and the extra cost required to make it fully grade-separated is 6%.

 

[Dan416]

Voted Other.

Anything other than in the median as per Transit City. It could work if it was done properly, but Transit City's plan for Eglinton East was suboptimal.

 

[BurlOak]

Converting to metric, I will use the following numbers.
Elevated = $50M / km
Tunneled = $200M / km
Elevated Station = $30M
Underground Station = $80M

Looking at Eglinton
- Elevate from Don Mills to Kennedy = 6km. $300M
- 5 elevated Stations (Wynford, Bermondsey, Vic Park, Warden, Birchmount) = $150M
- If Kennedy Station Elevated (not underground) = $30M extra, but $80 credit. Net credit $50M.
- Approach to Kennedy elevated instead of buried (approx. 220m) = elevated cost already includes in above estimate. Thus, credit $40M.

Net extra for elevated = $360M.

(note: I assumed the cost estimates are cost premiums to switch from at-grade to elevated or buried. If they are taken as absolute costs, then we could apply a credit for the at-grade that is not required).

I see this as a 30km long line from Jane to Sheppard/Markham, costing $6.0B, and the extra cost required to make it fully grade-separated is 6%.

Another way of looking at this. If the DRL was built up to Eglinton, would you pay 6% extra to have a grade-separated line up to Steeles or Highway 7.

Eglinton provides roughly parallel service to B-D, just as Don Mills would to Yonge. The Crosstown extends beyond that last station of the B-D, just as Steele/7 is beyond the last station of the Yonge line. These parallel routes also provide capacity in case the complementary route is delayed for whatever reason.