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

[Rainforest]

In any case, I think the biggest concern with Eglinton being elevated is road capacity... Would they still narrow the Scarborough and North York sections to 2 lanes in each direction? I feel it's important that they do.

I don't believe narrowing the roads is important, or even desirable, by itself. If there exists a pressing need for another use of road space, such as transit lanes, or landscaping in the residential areas, then it makes sense to reduce the general traffic lanes.

 

[Rainforest]

Whether the Don Mills-to-Kennedy section is surface or elevated, I oppose full interlining between SRT and Eglinton, as such interlining will surely create a capacity crunch in other sections of the network (Eglinton from Don Mills to Yonge, and Yonge from Eglinton to Bloor). Partial interlining is OK and even desirable, but not full interlining.

Every 2-nd train coming from Scarborough should turn back at Kennedy; every 2-nd train coming from Yonge should turn back at Don Mills or at Kennedy. Such arrangement will provide a one-seat ride from Scarborough to the Yonge-Eglinton area, but will not encourage too many riders heading downtown to use Eglinton LRT instead of the higher-capacity Danforth subway.

If full interlining is ruled out, then I am not sure that the cost of elevating the Don Mills-to-Kennedy section can be justified. It only saves about 4 min (for a 5-km section, and speed 36 kph vs 24 kph). If they can elevate for a modest extra cost and without extensive damage to other projects, then it's fine; but not at the price of cancelling both Finch and Sheppard.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Whether the Don Mills-to-Kennedy section is surface or elevated, I oppose full interlining between SRT and Eglinton, as such interlining will surely create a capacity crunch in other sections of the network (Eglinton from Don Mills to Yonge, and Yonge from Eglinton to Bloor). Partial interlining is OK and even desirable, but not full interlining.

Every 2-nd train coming from Scarborough should turn back at Kennedy; every 2-nd train coming from Yonge should turn back at Don Mills or at Kennedy. Such arrangement will provide a one-seat ride from Scarborough to the Yonge-Eglinton area, but will not encourage too many riders heading downtown to use Eglinton LRT instead of the higher-capacity Danforth subway.

If full interlining is ruled out, then I am not sure that the cost of elevating the Don Mills-to-Kennedy section can be justified. It only saves about 4 min (for a 5-km section, and speed 36 kph vs 24 kph). If they can elevate for a modest extra cost and without extensive damage to other projects, then it's fine; but not at the price of cancelling both Finch and Sheppard.

Why not? Then it will force the City, Province and Feds to get their ass moving on the DRL and Airport extension. Most of those people are going to those two places anyway.

 

[M II A II R II K]

You would need a DRL connection before making it a continuous line.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Why not? Then it will force the City, Province and Feds to get their ass moving on the DRL and Airport extension. Most of those people are going to those two places anyway.

I don't think I'm understanding. Why not do what? Have it elevated or make it interlined? And how would that force gov't to get their ass moving on the airport extension?

If they can elevate for a modest extra cost and without extensive damage to other projects, then it's fine; but not at the price of cancelling both Finch and Sheppard.

The ECLRT in the East end is eventually going to be elevated one way or another. Might as well do it now. But like you said, not at the cost of other lines. Hopefully those "back room discussions" at Metrolinx that Gweed mentioned will result in Metrolinx sneaking in an elevated portion.

 

[bleu]

Who cares what the definition is, does it move us around effectively!

agree but for most passengers, the key difference is whether the train has to stop for traffic lights or not. It makes all the difference.

 

[TOareaFan]

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...fight_to_put_leslie_stop_back_on_the_map.html

 

[gweed123]

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...fight_to_put_leslie_stop_back_on_the_map.html

Sure... If Metrolinx wants to impose a neighbourhood-specific tax in order to pay for it over the next 30 years, be my guest. I wonder if there would be a way to charge an extra fee to anyone to who taps on or off using these stations that were previously deleted? Haha. "Oh, you're one of the handful of people who actually use this station? Your trip just costed you an extra dollar". That would stop these 'neighbourhood fights' pretty quickly.

There is a common-sense solution here though: build it surface along the south side of Eglinton. That way the stop remains, but the line is still grade-separated. But I'm not going to push too much on this one, because even though south-side surface is the best option, the option they've gone with is a close 2nd, and is certainly miles ahead of the original design. Mustn't sacrifice the great for the perfect.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

gweed:

The surface option on the south side of Eglinton won't work given new TBM launch site at OSC parking lots.

AoD

 

[TOareaFan]

Sure... If Metrolinx wants to impose a neighbourhood-specific tax in order to pay for it over the next 30 years, be my guest. I wonder if there would be a way to charge an extra fee to anyone to who taps on or off using these stations that were previously deleted? Haha. "Oh, you're one of the handful of people who actually use this station? Your trip just costed you an extra dollar". That would stop these 'neighbourhood fights' pretty quickly.

There is a common-sense solution here though: build it surface along the south side of Eglinton. That way the stop remains, but the line is still grade-separated. But I'm not going to push too much on this one, because even though south-side surface is the best option, the option they've gone with is a close 2nd, and is certainly miles ahead of the original design. Mustn't sacrifice the great for the perfect.

I guess what I don't understand (admittedly not following this all that closely) is why that stop would have the lowest ridership on the line? The immediate intersection is a bit sparse, yes, but would this not be a logical spot for the end of the TTC's Leslie (51?) bus? Is that not a fairly well used route? I would have thought that it would deliver decent ridership to this station (not suggesting it would be the "most" used station but I guess I am a bit surprised by the statement “It would be the lowest ridership and most expensive station on the line,” said Jamie Robinson of community relations and communications for the Toronto Transit Project at Metrolinx.).

Are there operational savings/efficiencies in having the 51 end at Eglinton and Leslie rather than continue along Eglinton (duplicating the route of the LRT) to the Eglinton station on the Yonge subway line? If so, are those enough to offset the cost/ridership figures?

 

[ShonTron]

I guess what I don't understand (admittedly not following this all that closely) is why that stop would have the lowest ridership on the line? The immediate intersection is a bit sparse, yes, but would this not be a logical spot for the end of the TTC's Leslie (51?) bus? Is that not a fairly well used route? I would have thought that it would deliver decent ridership to this station (not suggesting it would be the "most" used station but I guess I am a bit surprised by the statement “It would be the lowest ridership and most expensive station on the line,” said Jamie Robinson of community relations and communications for the Toronto Transit Project at Metrolinx.).

Are there operational savings/efficiencies in having the 51 end at Eglinton and Leslie rather than continue along Eglinton (duplicating the route of the LRT) to the Eglinton station on the Yonge subway line? If so, are those enough to offset the cost/ridership figures?

The 51 is not a very busy route, with minimal service levels (30 minutes, except rush hours) and no late evening service Sundays. The TTC's plan is to combine the 56 Leaside with the 51, which will connect to the LRT at Laird. The Leaside bus has only somewhat better headways weekdays, but limited evening service.

The 51 and 56 are the amongst the lowest ridership routes intersecting the Eglinton LRT corridor. (The others are 5 Avenue Road, 14 Chaplin, 33 Forest Hill, 74/103 Mt. Pleasant).

 

[TOareaFan]

The 51 is not a very busy route, with minimal service levels (30 minutes, except rush hours) and no late evening service Sundays. The TTC's plan is to combine the 56 Leaside with the 51, which will connect to the LRT at Laird. The Leaside bus has only somewhat better headways weekdays, but limited evening service.

The 51 and 56 are the amongst the lowest ridership routes intersecting the Eglinton LRT corridor. (The others are 5 Avenue Road, 14 Chaplin, 33 Forest Hill, 74/103 Mt. Pleasant).

Thanks.

 

[gweed123]

gweed:

The surface option on the south side of Eglinton won't work given new TBM launch site at OSC parking lots.

AoD

But wasn't that a case of the launch site being changed in response to the burying of the Leslie section? It was my understanding that the launch site was dictated by the desired tunnel stretch, not the tunnel stretch being dictated by the launch site.

If the south side option is chosen, theoretically they can revert back to the original launch site, no?

 

[nfitz]

There is a common-sense solution here though: build it surface along the south side of Eglinton. That way the stop remains, but the line is still grade-separated.

How does that solve the problem with it not being a suitable place to build the TBM launch area, which is what re-opened the plan?

But wasn't that a case of the launch site being changed in response to the burying of the Leslie section? It was my understanding that the launch site was dictated by the desired tunnel stretch, not the tunnel stretch being dictated by the launch site.

If the south side option is chosen, theoretically they can revert back to the original launch site, no?

No. It was the unsuitability of the launch site that was the primary issue. And then they realised the cost wouldn't change significantly if they moved the launch site 1.5 km further east to near Don Mills, given the cheaper cost of the launch site, and the lack of structural work on the West Don crossing and the railway underpass, as long as they sacrificed Leslie station.

 

[gweed123]

How does that solve the problem with it not being a suitable place to build the TBM launch area, which is what re-opened the plan?

I thought the plan was re-opened because Metrolinx wanted to eliminate a potential pinch point and have complete grade-separation between Mt. Dennis and Don Mills?