Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[gweed123]

I think the number one benefit of converting the Eglinton line to elevated and a interlined line to STC would be that it would force Toronto to not do the DRL on the cheap and stop it at bloor but instead force them to stop the DRL at Eglinton.

But then I fear that the western portion will never get completed because then it would need to be grade separated as well which would add financially to the cost and other things would then take priority..

I think elevated is actually the preferred choice for Eglinton West. It would allow the line to be built over the Richview corridor, while at the same time keeping the walking and cycling paths there in place. They also wouldn't need to do an extensive rebuild of Eglinton West, which would save a lot of money.

 

[drum118]

I think elevated is actually the preferred choice for Eglinton West. It would allow the line to be built over the Richview corridor, while at the same time keeping the walking and cycling paths there in place. They also wouldn't need to do an extensive rebuild of Eglinton West, which would save a lot of money.

I have stated in various EA reports as well at commissioners meetings that the Eglinton line should run along the north side elevated and doing a flyover of the roads. At the same time, a bike & pedestrians path can run along this elevated ROW. The roads slope now for making a flyover easier and cheaper to build.

The land on the north side of this ROW would be free up for development with walk-in access to the stations.

Traffic would be free to do their thing than this plan u-turn lane at cross road.

Other than the cost of beefing up the embankment for the ROW and path, is the cost of the flyover bridges. The bridges will cost about $10m each.

If you want to free up more of the Richview corridor land for development, you shift the current Eglinton Rd to the south along with the ROW. This would add more land to the north for development. Then you can bury it to allow development over it as a 4 lane road.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I have stated in various EA reports as well at commissioners meetings that the Eglinton line should run along the north side elevated and doing a flyover of the roads. At the same time, a bike & pedestrians path can run along this elevated ROW. The roads slope now for making a flyover easier and cheaper to build.

The land on the north side of this ROW would be free up for development with walk-in access to the stations.

Traffic would be free to do their thing than this plan u-turn lane at cross road.

Other than the cost of beefing up the embankment for the ROW and path, is the cost of the flyover bridges. The bridges will cost about $10m each.

If you want to free up more of the Richview corridor land for development, you shift the current Eglinton Rd to the south along with the ROW. This would add more land to the north for development. Then you can bury it to allow development over it as a 4 lane road.

Except that the folks who would be buying townhouses at Widdicombe & Eglinton (see this link) for between $299,990 to $1,600,990, may object to having their southern view being an elevated structure.

 

[Thoughtless Miscreant]

That makes sense, at least on some of the proposed LRT routes. If we do build Sheppard LRT, then perhaps it should have stops once per concession (every 800 m) with a parallel bus, rather than the proposed 400 m spacing. The eastern part of its service area is so remote from the rest of the city, it needs a faster connection.

Is the east end of Sheppard is the most logical corridor for that high speed connection, though? I feel like improved service on the Stouffville line and an SRT extension to Malvern would do the job much better.

 

[gweed123]

Except that the folks who would be buying townhouses at Widdicombe & Eglinton (see this link) for between $299,990 to $1,600,990, may object to having their southern view being an elevated structure.

They're fronting onto a major arterial anyway. It's not like it was a nice quiet street before. I say "Tough. Deal with it.".

 

[BurlOak]

Except that the folks who would be buying townhouses at Widdicombe & Eglinton (see this link) for between $299,990 to $1,600,990, may object to having their southern view being an elevated structure.

Are there any examples of a covered, elevated transit line. Maybe it has been used to reduce noise, or to have the train run in a controlled climate. I am thinking that a plexiglass cover would at least take away the noise excuse of residents. I have seen plexiglass noise barrier wall on the side of QEW in Grimsby and St. Catharines and probably elsewhere. The station is much more visually intrusive than just the track so maybe residents will not have that much of a complaint against just the elevated structure. I understand that the elevated structure is usually concrete or steel beams, or is a steel truss also used with is much more open, making a smaller shadow. Generally, trusses are more expensive in North America since there is much more labour required for fabrication.

It they do complain, then I agree with Gweed123:

They're fronting onto a major arterial anyway. It's not like it was a nice quiet street before. I say "Tough. Deal with it.".

 

[Rainforest]

Is the east end of Sheppard is the most logical corridor for that high speed connection, though?

Probably, not. A case can be made that going through STC and then along Ellesmere is a better route.

There are two main reasons for choosing Sheppard: avoiding yet another mode change for trips along Sheppard East, and connection to the Conlins yard.

I am not excited about Sheppard East LRT; but if we are going to have it, perhaps it can be made more useful if it runs notably faster than parallel bus routes.

 

[Rainforest]

I agree that cost if the key factor. I really would like to know what the extra cost of elevation would be. If I assume elevation costs $50M/km, track and electric cost $50M/km, and stations cost $50M each and the in-median cost is just the $50M/km, then the extra cost would be about $550M ($50M x 5 stations - Wynford, Bermondsey, Warden, Birchmount, Ionview - plus $50M/km x 6km). How much could be saved by not forcing short-turns at Don Mills - without the need for the extra platform - maybe $50M to $75M. How much could be saved by not having a separate station for the SRT, and not having an undergournd loop, and not requiring a deeper than needed ECLRT station since the SRT station is above it, and by recuding the underground amount by about 250m for the ECLRT from starting West of Kennedy to starting East of Kennedy - maybe $75M to $100M. How much could be saved by not converting Wynford into an at-grade intersection - maybe $25M to $50M. So what is the extra cost of elevating the ECLRT - maybe $400M.

I don't think the extra platform at Don Mills will cost $50 million. Moreover, I don't even see why they need an extra platform; third track east of the station should suffice.

On the other hand, at least a crossover is needed at such a major station, even if normally you do not expect to short-turn any trains. The difference between a crossover and a third track is likely significantly less than $50 million.

Wynford grade separation is not mandated by the choice of at-grade vs elevated alignment of the LRT, and hence any saving from its cancellation should not be considered a saving for the elevated alignment.

One factor that will somewhat increase the operation costs for fully interlined Eglinton-SLRT is the train frequency. You will need to support higher frequency on the Kennedy - Don Mills section, without being able to reduce the frequency of Danforth subway.

It would be much better to balance the load between ECLRT and B-D )) so not all the transfers happen at Yonge/Bloor, but also at Yonge/Eglinton. When the DRL is built, the transfers would be at Yonge/Bloor, Yonge/Eglinton, DRL/Pape and DRL/ECLRT.

I agree that redirecting some of riders from Scarborough to transfer at Yonge/Eglinton can relieve Yonge/Bloor.

However, a much bigger problem is the capacity of Eglinton line itself (approaching Yonge from the east), as well as Yonge between Eglinton and Bloor. The latter section of Yonge is pretty busy already, and after adding a massive amount of riders from Scarborough and from both sides of Eglinton LRT, might start choking.

The DRL/ECLRT interchange won't exist for a long time. Eglinton is expected to be ready around 2020-2021; by that time, we will be lucky to have DRL Phase I (downtown to Danforth) under construction. DRL Phase II (to Eglinton) might not even be funded at that time, let alone designed.

 

[diminutive]

Are there any examples of a covered, elevated transit line. Maybe it has been used to reduce noise, or to have the train run in a controlled climate. I am thinking that a plexiglass cover would at least take away the noise excuse of residents. I have seen plexiglass noise barrier wall on the side of QEW in Grimsby and St. Catharines and probably elsewhere.

Not fully covered but WestRail in Hong Kong has noise barriers along a lot of the guideway. Also, trains can have skirts around their wheels, to muffle them a bit.

 

[diminutive]

However, a much bigger problem is the capacity of Eglinton line itself (approaching Yonge from the east), as well as Yonge between Eglinton and Bloor. The latter section of Yonge is pretty busy already, and after adding a massive amount of riders from Scarborough and from both sides of Eglinton LRT, might start choking.

The DRL/ECLRT interchange won't exist for a long time. Eglinton is expected to be ready around 2020-2021; by that time, we will be lucky to have DRL Phase I (downtown to Danforth) under construction. DRL Phase II (to Eglinton) might not even be funded at that time, let alone designed.

I'm not sure the demand on Eglinton would be so great. The EA puts 2031 peak demand at 5,400 pphpd, doesn't it? Even if the ridership doubled from elevation/interlining it'd still be on the low end for a kind of mini-metro.

Yonge's capacity is kind of a wash. The main pinch is south of Wellesley so riders getting on at Eglinton vs. Bloor wouldn't matter much. Unless a huge demographic of people existed who currently head eastbound to Bloor-Yonge and transfer northbound towards Rosedale/Summerhill/St.Clair/Davisville would now be crowding much busier AM southbound trains. But how big could that possibly be?

 

[Platform 27]

I'm not sure the demand on Eglinton would be so great. The EA puts 2031 peak demand at 5,400 pphpd, doesn't it? Even if the ridership doubled from elevation/interlining it'd still be on the low end for a kind of mini-metro.

Metrolinx-TTC ridership forecasting from spring 2011 had the interlined, undergrounded, Fordified option at 12,000 pphpd in 2031. That version was missing the northeastern extension up to Sheppard.

Switching from underground to elevated shouldn't alter the fundamentals in terms of ridership choice, and if they kept the northeastern tail the number would probably be a bit larger.

 

[sixrings]

A interlined eglinton line would make eglinton and yonge a prime spot for new office development as well.

 

[nfitz]

Metrolinx-TTC ridership forecasting from spring 2011 had the interlined, undergrounded, Fordified option at 12,000 pphpd in 2031. That version was missing the northeastern extension up to Sheppard.

Switching from underground to elevated shouldn't alter the fundamentals in terms of ridership choice, and if they kept the northeastern tail the number would probably be a bit larger.

And it was doing this by diverting riders from the Bloor-Danforth line to the Eglinton line. Which then dumps them on the Yonge line between Eglinton and Bloor. This doesn't really help much, just moves people around. The money putting Eglinton underground from Don Mills to Kennedy would be better spent extending the BD line to Scarborough Centre - then there wouldn't be the passenger demand to force Eglinton underground.

 

[gweed123]

Metrolinx-TTC ridership forecasting from spring 2011 had the interlined, undergrounded, Fordified option at 12,000 pphpd in 2031. That version was missing the northeastern extension up to Sheppard.

Switching from underground to elevated shouldn't alter the fundamentals in terms of ridership choice, and if they kept the northeastern tail the number would probably be a bit larger.

I believe they sacrificed the 'tail' part of the line in order to pay for the added cost of the tunnelled Eglinton East section.

I still think the best option at this point is to go elevated, and either have the City of Toronto fork over the extra cash to make it happen, or take the non-federal funds from Sheppard and put them towards Eglinton East. I'm sure for many Scarberians, they'd much rather see that money going towards creating a 1-seat ride from Scarborough to Yonge anyway.

That option would allow them to keep the SLRT tail at the same length, although it would mean the full cost of the Conlins Rd Yard is borne by the SLRT project and not shared between it and the SELRT. Of course, if it's being run as a single thru-line there may be an option of running everything out of Mt. Dennis, although I'm not sure if it has enough capacity for that.

This configuration will also reduce pressure on Bloor-Danforth, which may actually convince more people in East York to take that line, because the trains won't be too crowded with people who got on at Kennedy or Warden.

 

[gweed123]

Regarding the "replacing the SRT with a subway extension" scenario, I'm never certain what the favoured (or "popular") alignment is among Scarborough residents. Is it straight up McCowan Road (including those portions that Google Maps doesn't recognize as a roadway) to Scarborough Town Centre? Or is it up Danforth Road to the point where it converges with McCowan Road, and then northward?

Most Scarberians, and Rob Ford himself, seem to be under the impression that the existing SRT alignment can be converted to subway. Most people don't seem to know that the geometry simply doesn't work.

To me, the alignment that makes the most sense is Eglinton-Danforth-McCowan, because it allows for a gentle curve northwards. I also think it's worthwhile to extend the subway to Sheppard & McCowan, and not terminate it at STC.

Also, I have wondered on occasion if, rather than extending the Bloor-Danforth Subway Line, we could treat Victoria Park, Warden, and Kennedy subway stations as the first three existing stations of a Scarborough Subway Line, and build a new Main Street Station platform underneath the existing one to create a transfer station. In this way, Main Street would become a terminal station for two subway lines. The Eglinton Crosstown would interchange with the Scarborough Subway at Kennedy as it travelled northward to Scarborough Town Centre and Sheppard (and eventually, beyond). I have attached a graphic below.


View attachment 9940

I can't really see the utility of that. You'd be abolishing an existing thru-line in order to impose a linear transfer. For a lot of people, you'd be adding in an extra transfer for no reason.

Either extend Bloor-Danforth up to Sheppard, or interline the Eglinton and Scarborough LRTs. The goal should be to create fewer transfers, not more.