innsertnamehere
Superstar
Sorry about the confusion, but I started writing the post before denfromoakville posted, and it was aimed at ramako.
|
|
|
Jaye101
Active Member
The more I think about Eglinton East and it's built form the more I actually prefer the on street option. At least from an urban design perspective.
Remember that the corridor is wide. The line doesn't have to operate in the median, and it can still have simple yet effective stations with a roof and walls that could simply be integrated into a widened pedestrian environment. There would have to be no barriers as it's crossings would simply be part of the intersections on Eglinton.
Elevated guideways are effective, however an at grade LRT would offer better service to those actually living on Eglinton and the potential of development on Eglinton from what it currently is, I think we should look at this from a regional AND local perspective. Thinking about what kind of Eglinton we want for the future. We could even add bike lanes to the mix.
I think that sounds better than any elevated guideway running beside such a wide corridor cutting off the line of sight and increasing maintenance costs. Just because Eglinton is at grade doesn't necessarily mean it won't be fast. It's all in how they do it.
We also have to think about Eglinton's place in the network. On this portion, complete grade separation wouldn't really do much. People aren't going to take Eglinton for very long distances in the future so the capacity of the line will be high regardless. After the downtown relief line is built people will transfer there to go downtown and Eglinton will become a primarily a feeder route. And even if one were to take it Crosstown the times can still be relatively comparable to the Bloor Danforth line.
While for regional purposes I would like to say I want Eglinton elevated, but the truth is, I think Eglinton itself will benefit far more from at grade transit. I think we should look for an option that satisfies both needs without incurring such a significant rise in the cost, both immediate and future.. or without creating an unwelcoming space at street level through the imposing nature of the structure and the reduced amount of stops.
(ps. I still think it should be grade separated through very busy sections such as at the DVP, or where there isn't enough space along the corridor.)
Remember that the corridor is wide. The line doesn't have to operate in the median, and it can still have simple yet effective stations with a roof and walls that could simply be integrated into a widened pedestrian environment. There would have to be no barriers as it's crossings would simply be part of the intersections on Eglinton.
Elevated guideways are effective, however an at grade LRT would offer better service to those actually living on Eglinton and the potential of development on Eglinton from what it currently is, I think we should look at this from a regional AND local perspective. Thinking about what kind of Eglinton we want for the future. We could even add bike lanes to the mix.
I think that sounds better than any elevated guideway running beside such a wide corridor cutting off the line of sight and increasing maintenance costs. Just because Eglinton is at grade doesn't necessarily mean it won't be fast. It's all in how they do it.
We also have to think about Eglinton's place in the network. On this portion, complete grade separation wouldn't really do much. People aren't going to take Eglinton for very long distances in the future so the capacity of the line will be high regardless. After the downtown relief line is built people will transfer there to go downtown and Eglinton will become a primarily a feeder route. And even if one were to take it Crosstown the times can still be relatively comparable to the Bloor Danforth line.
While for regional purposes I would like to say I want Eglinton elevated, but the truth is, I think Eglinton itself will benefit far more from at grade transit. I think we should look for an option that satisfies both needs without incurring such a significant rise in the cost, both immediate and future.. or without creating an unwelcoming space at street level through the imposing nature of the structure and the reduced amount of stops.
(ps. I still think it should be grade separated through very busy sections such as at the DVP, or where there isn't enough space along the corridor.)
Last edited:
andrewpmk
Senior Member
Grade separation means higher capacity to accommodate future redevelopment (suppose the crappy big-box stores in Golden Mile are replaced with high rise condos 20 years from now, and also at the western end to accommodate the huge number of people who work in Mississauga), to interline the Scarborough RT with the Eglinton line, and allows full automation.
Bike lanes on a 60km/h road where most drivers drive 70-80 = ridiculously dangerous. Not a good idea at all.
leopetr
Active Member
People bike there whether you put in bike lanes or not. Biking with several feet of bike lane separating you from traffic is safer than biking in the gutter.
Context: I bike to work via Warden or Birchmount in similar traffic speeds, and I'd love to see some bikelanes on suburban arterials. The right-of-ways in the suburbs are certainly wide enough for them.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Preferably with a curb between you and the cars as well.
BurlOak
Senior Member
If I was one of the 100's of people living on this stretch of Eglinton, I would probably want surface LRT as well. If I was one of the half million living in the rest of Scarborough, I would strongly prefer the grade-separated (elevated) option. Are the few NIMBY's on Eglinton so important that their wants should not be compromised, while the needs of the rest of Scarborough are ignored. Also will elevated transit have any real detrimental effect on already sprawling landscape of the area.
Jaye101
Active Member
^^ Nimby is an overused term on this website to dismiss the opinion of others. We all live in Toronto, we all want the best thing for our city. I do not live on Eglinton in Scarborough.
Do you really think the area is going to be sprawling forever? The question we all need to ask ourselves is what kind of Eglinton we want for the future. A well managed surface LRT with signal priority can handle loads on this line well into the future, especially after the DRL is built. Elevation is not required for capacity, and does not hamper the "needs of the rest of Scarborough," where most would transfer from the line at Don Mills. It's the way we design the line that will determine it's effectiveness and speed, and that's not restricted to simply grade separation.
Do you really think the area is going to be sprawling forever? The question we all need to ask ourselves is what kind of Eglinton we want for the future. A well managed surface LRT with signal priority can handle loads on this line well into the future, especially after the DRL is built. Elevation is not required for capacity, and does not hamper the "needs of the rest of Scarborough," where most would transfer from the line at Don Mills. It's the way we design the line that will determine it's effectiveness and speed, and that's not restricted to simply grade separation.
JayBeeGooner
Active Member
Hear, hear. I find people are too obsessed with grade-separation and the idea that it's the only option that should be pursued. Surface LRT can handle large capacities quite well, as evident in other cities around the world.
Rainforest
Senior Member
My take:
1) "Needs of the rest of Scarborough" cannot be accommodated by Eglinton LRT, whether its eastern segment is on surface or elevated. The choke point is not there.
First choke point is Eglinton west of Don Mills. At Don Mills, multiple passenger flows will converge and use Eglinton LRT to get to Yonge subway. Those multiple flows are: riders coming from the east on Eglinton; riders from Lawrence East since that street is not continuous; Flemmingdon Park residents; and transfers from the #25 Don Mills bus. If the line designed / operated in such a way that all capacity is taken by riders coming from Scarborough, then other groups of riders will not be able to squeeze in.
Secondly, Yonge from Eglinton to Bloor might become a choke point. It is pretty busy already (though not as busy as south of Bloor). South of Bloor it can be relieved by DRL, but north of Bloor the demand will only keep increasing, and adding a massive flow from Scarborough will likely overwhelm it.
Some mentioned that the capacity crunch will force the governments to fund DRL extension to Eglinton. I think that this assumption is overly optimistic. Government types usually do not take public transit. Most of their constituents either do not take public transit, or do not use those sections of the network. The governments can tolerate that overcrowding just as easily as the tolerate overcrowding south of Bloor at present.
Because of that, elevated Eglinton LRT is not required between Don Mills and Kennedy, as full interlining is not possible anyway.
2) I doubt that side-of-the-road alignment is possible on that section, because of the conflicts with minor side streets and with driveways / access roads. Most likely, if it is at surface, it will be in the median.
3) Not sure that driving big-box stores away is a desirable task; they are part of the city's economy and must be located somewhere. Btw, they could use transit, too. Employees need to get to / from work, and customers can take small purchases on transit.
1) "Needs of the rest of Scarborough" cannot be accommodated by Eglinton LRT, whether its eastern segment is on surface or elevated. The choke point is not there.
First choke point is Eglinton west of Don Mills. At Don Mills, multiple passenger flows will converge and use Eglinton LRT to get to Yonge subway. Those multiple flows are: riders coming from the east on Eglinton; riders from Lawrence East since that street is not continuous; Flemmingdon Park residents; and transfers from the #25 Don Mills bus. If the line designed / operated in such a way that all capacity is taken by riders coming from Scarborough, then other groups of riders will not be able to squeeze in.
Secondly, Yonge from Eglinton to Bloor might become a choke point. It is pretty busy already (though not as busy as south of Bloor). South of Bloor it can be relieved by DRL, but north of Bloor the demand will only keep increasing, and adding a massive flow from Scarborough will likely overwhelm it.
Some mentioned that the capacity crunch will force the governments to fund DRL extension to Eglinton. I think that this assumption is overly optimistic. Government types usually do not take public transit. Most of their constituents either do not take public transit, or do not use those sections of the network. The governments can tolerate that overcrowding just as easily as the tolerate overcrowding south of Bloor at present.
Because of that, elevated Eglinton LRT is not required between Don Mills and Kennedy, as full interlining is not possible anyway.
2) I doubt that side-of-the-road alignment is possible on that section, because of the conflicts with minor side streets and with driveways / access roads. Most likely, if it is at surface, it will be in the median.
3) Not sure that driving big-box stores away is a desirable task; they are part of the city's economy and must be located somewhere. Btw, they could use transit, too. Employees need to get to / from work, and customers can take small purchases on transit.
Ramako
Moderator
I'd just like to point out that I totally disagree with this. I know a lot of people who openly and unabashedly support policies that serve their own personal self-interest over that of the greater welfare of the city, and vice versa. Such folk are most certainly out there.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Jaye101
Active Member
I'm not saying Nimbyism doesn't exist. Especially in the case of the above, the politician is speaking on a subject to which they clearly have no knowledge. It's hard to understand why people would be against things that would profit them through increases in land value. But I feel like many use the term on this website to simply dismiss other forumers, not necessarily in this instance but in general.
Nevertheless, there still remains more options than elevation. Even partial elevation over major intersections would be preferable.
Nevertheless, there still remains more options than elevation. Even partial elevation over major intersections would be preferable.
BurlOak
Senior Member
There are 15 intersections from Don Mills to Kennedy in about 5.5 or 6 km. If you go over DVP and Vic Park then you may barely be able to have an at grade stop at Bermondsey and then maybe 3 or 4 stops in the 2 km between Pharmacy (Lebovic) and Kennedy (Ionview). This option will be a bit more Roller Coaster like though, and the inclined track would be more of an eyesore and a barrier than track that is a constant height above the ground. Plus, I would guess that it would seem odd to have such a short stretch that prevents the line from running auto and driverless.
Jaye101
Active Member
I'm not proposing that all intersections be elevated rather some, and it's just a theoretical suggestion. Another suggestion would be to cut and cover under major intersections, however with true signal priority I doubt these features would even be needed. However, the unfortunate situation in Toronto is that we've never even seen true signal priority.
nfitz
Superstar
If you don't think it would be needed, then simply design true signal priority and save a lot of money.