Toronto Eglinton Line 5 Crosstown West Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[Steve X]

They’ll have to figure out how buses will loop along these stations. Especially if there will be a significant ridership drop south off Eg.

 

[JasonParis]

I'm a little concerned about all the street crossing that will be required if your bus isn't stopping on the station's side. Hopefully, they are serious about some VisionZero improvements at these intersections.

 

[W. K. Lis]

They’ll have to figure out how buses will loop along these stations. Especially if there will be a significant ridership drop south off Eg.

Short turns facilities need to be included in the surrounding city blocks.

 

[dullturtle06]

Ya like a small bus terminal. I'm thinking like keelsdale or finch west station. Otherwise people will get hit while crossing and then metrolinx will be like oh, who would have known.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Underground passages should be included to serve the opposite corner away from the main entrance.

 

[drum118]

March 31
Will reshoot once the other camera is back from repairs again.

North-east corner at Martin Grove Horded up now

From what I was see, the east tunnel TBM is ready to go with the west tunnel TBM almost ready to go once the face is attach to the cab control section.

 

[Andrew Clarkson]

March 31
Will reshoot once the other camera is back from repairs again.

North-east corner at Martin Grove Horded up now

From what I was see, the east tunnel TBM is ready to go with the west tunnel TBM almost ready to go once the face is attach to the cab control section.

The corner of Martingrove and Eglinton was going to have hoarding anyway for the refurbishment of the reservoir that is just north of it. Residents were notified that hoarding would go up because materials for the refurbishment would be stored there. So it is not clear to me how the current use of the corner to store materials will intersect with the need to pour head walls for the new station before the tunnel boring machines get there. I suspect the work on the reservoir should be well along by the time work on the station head walls needs to happen.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Noticed that Eglinton & Kipling has 80 collisions, between 2014 and 2021, Other intersections along Eglinton West in Etobicoke are between 38 to 48 collisions. However, with redevelopment and the opening of the Eglinton West LRT in about 10 years, I would expect those numbers to increase.

The intersections need to be improved for the safety of pedestrians who would need to cross the intersections to get to and from the station.

From link. Go to the link to use the interactive map.

Toronto’s most dangerous roads all look the same: they’re big, they’re broad, and they’re not downtown.

A Star analysis of a huge new database of Toronto traffic collisions is shining a bright spotlight on a distinctly suburban problem. The new data set, much larger and more complete than any previously available records, offers a comprehensive account of nearly 500,000 collisions reported to Toronto police between 2014 and 2021, most mapped to the nearest intersection.

The takeaway is stark: nearly all of Toronto’s worst locations for reported fatal or injury-causing traffic collisions are suburban arterial intersections. The worst 100 spots, excluding municipal highways, are nearly exclusively found on arterial roads in North York, Etobicoke and especially Scarborough. These are long, wide avenues like Finch (20 locations in the worst 100), Sheppard (14), Steeles (12), Eglinton (11), Lawrence (10) and Ellesmere Road (10).

When mapped, those 100 spots fall almost entirely within the broad arc of the city’s suburban neighbourhoods built after the Second World War, outside the limits of the old cities of Toronto, York and East York. Just two spots in the worst 100 — Lake Shore Boulevard East at Carlaw Avenue, tied for 89th on the list, and Davenport Road at Bathurst Street, 94th — are in old Toronto.

In the eight years of police data, those 100 locations alone account for nearly 9,000 reported injury collisions, with 43 deaths.

Standing on the northwest corner of Markham and Ellesmere roads, watching the people of Scarborough navigate afternoon rush hour at one of the city’s worst hot spots, with 148 collisions causing injury, Keenan Mosdell says the problem is obvious.

The decades-old design of this major intersection, like many others in suburban Toronto, puts road users at risk, he says.

The big, wide arterial intersection lets drivers make fast, “dangerous” turns; cyclists throw themselves into traffic lanes to cross; a loud motorcycle driver guns it to beat a red light; and scores of pedestrians rush to barely make it across to catch their bus, the 102 northbound — all typical sights in Toronto’s post-Second World War suburbs, where collisions and injuries are commonplace

“How can anyone feel safe here?” asks Mosdell, an avid cyclist and project co-ordinator for The Centre for Active Transportation.

What’s causing the collisions on Toronto’s suburban arterial roads?

Asked about the new police data, traffic services Supt. Scott Baptist pointed especially to speed. While downtown may have busy roads with higher concentrations of pedestrians and cyclists, a combination of lower speed limits, speed bumps and one-way streets makes it more difficult for drivers to speed. In the suburbs, the roads are wider and feel more open, often have higher speed limits and are usually less congested.

“Higher speeds often mean that collisions result in more damage to cars and humans,” he added, noting that speed is one of four main causes of traffic collisions, along with aggression, distraction and impairment.

The reason the suburbs are this way is by design, said urban designer and city building expert Ken Greenberg.

After the Second World War, the big ideas that shaped city building all over the world were based on the premise that the automobile would be the primary mode of transportation, he said. From home to work, to school, to shopping, to recreational facilities and to public parks, cities grew on the assumption their residents would drive almost exclusively.

“We were really meant to be going from one parking lot to another,” Greenberg said.

From the inner suburbs of Toronto to the rest of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, city planners built big arterial roads of four to six lanes, often with added turning lanes, and intersections kilometres apart. Subdivisions and the streets serving them were largely designed for lower density than has actually developed, and even highrise residential buildings came with enough underground or above-ground parking spaces for everyone. No one was expected to walk, he said.

“It was a design for a different way of life that, ultimately, I just think was a failure in a bunch of ways,” Greenberg said.

The fix is to redesign these arterial roads, he said, noting that these busy suburban intersections may now be home to more people than spots in the older city, leading to more need to for infrastructure that keeps pedestrians and cyclists safe. The good news, Greenberg said, is that there’s enough space to undertake those redesign changes in the suburbs, unlike downtown, where it may be difficult to squeeze in something as simple as a new bike lane.

In the suburbs, you can take away lanes of traffic for dedicated bus routes, rapid transit or light rail. You can change the design of the intersections and the timing of the traffic signals. Examples of such redesigns are the Yonge Street North project in Willowdale, the Eglinton Connects project and, in Mississauga and Brampton, the Hurontario LRT.

Still, the scale of what needs to change requires real political will, Greenberg said, noting he’s seen this take place in Scandinavian cities like Helsinki, which also saw rapid suburbanization after the Second World War.

“Until we do that, people are going to be in jeopardy. They’re going to be in unsafe conditions. It’s all very well to say the drivers should slow down and pay more attention, but the designs don’t lend themselves to that.”

Added Mosdell: “These roads are doing what they were intended to do, which is to move cars fast … But we need to adjust and change, because Scarborough and other areas are now home to a lot of people with low income who can’t afford to drive. They need to be safe on the road, too.”

Through its Vision Zero plan, the city says it continues to make the elimination of traffic fatalities and injuries a priority, especially on high-speed suburban arterials, said spokesperson Hakeem Muhammad. Several data-driven interventions are underway across the city to protect vulnerable road users and increase safe mobility for all, he said.

Those changes include more than 750 pedestrian head-start signals at signalized intersections, letting people begin crossing before cars are allowed through; lower speed limits on 500 kilometres of suburban arterial roads; and speed reduction programs on local routes. Various other initiatives are underway to explore the installation of protected left-turn signal features, as well as protected mid-block crossings on suburban arterial roads with high traffic volumes.

 

[W. K. Lis]

All these stations have the same problem. Pedestrians will have to cross the intersections from bus stops, residences, or destinations opposite the stations. I would expect to see more "collisions" and "incidents" than currently shown in the article above.

One solution would be to include underground monitored passages from the opposite bus stops to the station entrances. I don't trust motorists obeying the traffic signals. (See article on Two pedestrians and a driver killed in Etobicoke collision at this link.)

According to reports, a white SUV travelling at very high speed apparently went through a red light and struck two pedestrians in the crosswalk area, police spokesperson David Hopkinson told reporters at the scene.

 

[fanoftoronto]

All these stations have the same problem. Pedestrians will have to cross the intersections from bus stops, residences, or destinations opposite the stations. I would expect to see more "collisions" and "incidents" than currently shown in the article above.

One solution would be to include underground monitored passages from the opposite bus stops to the station entrances. I don't trust motorists obeying the traffic signals. (See article on Two pedestrians and a driver killed in Etobicoke collision at this link.)

Definitely agreed with your last 2 posts highlighting the need for a secondary entrance on the opposite side of the road. My suggestion would be to make the Entrance building and the "Emergency Exit" building straddle the road on both sides and change the Emergency Exit building to a secondary entrance building with automated fare gates to negate requirement for a manned fare booth. Something like below:

 

[11th]

Definitely agreed with your last 2 posts highlighting the need for a secondary entrance on the opposite side of the road. My suggestion would be to make the Entrance building and the "Emergency Exit" building straddle the road on both sides and change the Emergency Exit building to a secondary entrance building with automated fare gates to negate requirement for a manned fare booth. Something like below:

View attachment 389417

Doing that means pushing the construction site onto the road, which requires detours. From the looks of those satellite photos, it means more trees will be removed.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Doing that means pushing the construction site onto the road, which requires detours. From the looks of those satellite photos, it means more trees will be removed.

They could mine the underground passages under the roadway? Though the NIMBYs will be the ones complaining, looking for any excuse not to build anything to improve the city. Most of the secondary entrances could be on the east side, where there are no tree groves or little trees.

 

[fanoftoronto]

Doing that means pushing the construction site onto the road, which requires detours. From the looks of those satellite photos, it means more trees will be removed.

Yes, you're going to have to reduce lanes on the cross streets while you put decking to allow for construction below. But, according to the article posted by @W. K. Lis there is definitely safety benefits in doing this. Buses can stop stop right in front of the station entrance and not have to force passengers to cross 1 or 2 lights to get to the entrance.

Additionally, they're building an Emergency Exit right beside the main entrance. Put it to use on the opposite side of the road.

Fewer trees will need to be removed in this idea as a good portion of the station box will go under the road and not on the greenspace.

 

[Rainforest]

It goes far beyond them just being an eyesore (which they are). They're a totally inappropriate built-form for the location.

That's a much more reasonable statement than the one you made originally.

I agree that low-rise townhouses are not the desirable built form for a prime transit-friendly location. However, that's never handled by expropriation, and never should be.

Instead, that should be handled by changing the zoning designation. Once the developers are allowed to build highrises there, they offer good money to the current owners, and the owners gradually sell and relocate.

In fact, this is not limited to the new Eg West stations. We have tons of low-rise areas right next to the old subway stations outside the downtown core, especially along Line 2. Changing the zoning designations there would add many thousands of transit friendly dwellings, with limited public opposition. Some people will still complain that they are used to their quiet neighborhood and do not want too many new residents; but no homeowner will be placed into a stressful situation where they have to leave the house by a set date. Instead, they will sell when they are ready.

 

[W. K. Lis]

That's a much more reasonable statement than the one you made originally.

I agree that low-rise townhouses are not the desirable built form for a prime transit-friendly location. However, that's never handled by expropriation, and never should be.

Instead, that should be handled by changing the zoning designation. Once the developers are allowed to build highrises there, they offer good money to the current owners, and the owners gradually sell and relocate.

In fact, this is not limited to the new Eg West stations. We have tons of low-rise areas right next to the old subway stations outside the downtown core, especially along Line 2. Changing the zoning designations there would add many thousands of transit friendly dwellings, with limited public opposition. Some people will still complain that they are used to their quiet neighborhood and do not want too many new residents; but no homeowner will be placed into a stressful situation where they have to leave the house by a set date. Instead, they will sell when they are ready.

At the moment, developers are looking at sites with parking lots or single-story retail buildings that could be filled in with medium or high density buildings. Easier to do, than with buying single family houses, which would take a generation or two.