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

W. K. Lis said:
They heard from the auto people and will be putting in TWO left turn lanes from eastbound Eglinton to northbound Martin Grove Road.

From link.
8da4-vertical-Winterton-to-Eglinton-scaled-e1650556393850.jpg

They should be putting in refugee islands for the pedestrians for all the intersections. However, it looks like they will only be for the Eglinton lanes, nothing for the the Martin Grove lanes. Hopefully the Eglinton refugee island is 2+ m wide to allow for wheelchairs, but the image looks like the current "safety" islands of 1m width.

Eight (8) lanes for Eglinton, six (6) lanes for Martin Grove for the almighty automobile, while pedestrians get 1 m using the "safety" island.
Click to expand...
I don't know why you have to say things like "auto people"? It makes people take someone less seriously.

I think 2 left turn lanes is a good thing as it means that left turns will get their own light, which means pedestrians are much safer to cross at night.
 
turbanplanner said:
I don't know why you have to say things like "auto people"? It makes people take someone less seriously.

I think 2 left turn lanes is a good thing as it means that left turns will get their own light, which means pedestrians are much safer to cross at night.
Click to expand...
It might be better, but likely because they still prioritize the motor vehicle. If they were listening to pedestrians (and Vision Zero), they should have included provisions for the safety of pedestrians, like refugee islands, multi-stage crossing traffic signals, or best of all, entrances to the stations from each of the four corners of the intersections. However, they will say it's not in the budget to make it better for pedestrians, but it is in the budget if it is for the automobile.
 
W. K. Lis said:
It might be better, but likely because they still prioritize the motor vehicle. If they were listening to pedestrians (and Vision Zero), they should have included provisions for the safety of pedestrians, like refugee islands, multi-stage crossing traffic signals, or best of all, entrances to the stations from each of the four corners of the intersections. However, they will say it's not in the budget to make it better for pedestrians, but it is in the budget if it is for the automobile.
Click to expand...
Realistically what are the expected pedestrian numbers? I am disappointed about the lack of the mid crossing areas for people to stand.

The line will already cost $15 billion roughly, so I get why a lot of stuff is scaled back. Remember when the city estimated it would cost nearly $100k to add a few steps for a parking lot to a park? (Later revised to about ~$30k)

Imagine the cost for 4 corner entrances, vs painting a lane and adding 1 left turn light) I don't fully disagree with your takes. I just hate this us vs them mentality I see in the city that just pushes people to ignore whatever the other side says.
 
turbanplanner said:
Realistically what are the expected pedestrian numbers? I am disappointed about the lack of the mid crossing areas for people to stand.

The line will already cost $15 billion roughly, so I get why a lot of stuff is scaled back. Remember when the city estimated it would cost nearly $100k to add a few steps for a parking lot to a park? (Later revised to about ~$30k)

Imagine the cost for 4 corner entrances, vs painting a lane and adding 1 left turn light) I don't fully disagree with your takes. I just hate this us vs them mentality I see in the city that just pushes people to ignore whatever the other side says.
Click to expand...
There could also be a refugee island to separate the left turn lanes from the straight traffic lanes. Basically, a w-i-d-e refugee island instead paint used as "safety".
 
turbanplanner said:
Realistically what are the expected pedestrian numbers? I am disappointed about the lack of the mid crossing areas for people to stand.

The line will already cost $15 billion roughly, so I get why a lot of stuff is scaled back. Remember when the city estimated it would cost nearly $100k to add a few steps for a parking lot to a park? (Later revised to about ~$30k)

Imagine the cost for 4 corner entrances, vs painting a lane and adding 1 left turn light) I don't fully disagree with your takes. I just hate this us vs them mentality I see in the city that just pushes people to ignore whatever the other side says.
Click to expand...

Well, first of all, it isn’t the City that is designing this thing - it’s the Province. The “they” in this equation is these folks ignoring municipal level inputs and pushing through whatever they like. The “we” in this are the perspectives they ignore. The we-they dynamic is a Metrolinx way of being. And, a Ford way of looking at city government.

Secondly, nothing about this line has ever been cut back. If it had been cut back, it would be on the surface as an LRT. The context of suggesting four-corner entrances is suggesting better ways of spending the money that the Province is already willing to spend.

Lastly, constructing the stations will involve rather large excavations. In the context of digging (and then filling in) those enormous holes, the addition of pedestrian tunnels is a minor effort and expense.

I don’t understand the sense behind building an enhanced transit line and not including sensible amenities.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
Well, first of all, it isn’t the City that is designing this thing - it’s the Province. The “they” in this equation is these folks ignoring municipal level inputs and pushing through whatever they like. The “we” in this are the perspectives they ignore. The we-they dynamic is a Metrolinx way of being. And, a Ford way of looking at city government.

Secondly, nothing about this line has ever been cut back. If it had been cut back, it would be on the surface as an LRT. The context of suggesting four-corner entrances is suggesting better ways of spending the money that the Province is already willing to spend.

Lastly, constructing the stations will involve rather large excavations. In the context of digging (and then filling in) those enormous holes, the addition of pedestrian tunnels is a minor effort and expense.

I don’t understand the sense behind building an enhanced transit line and not including sensible amenities.

- Paul
Click to expand...
The fact it's not a subway (and was before the tunnels were filled in) is proof it's cut back.

I think the reason they made all these choices is they had a final price they didn't want to exceed.
No one bit is a crazy expense (like tunnels for one stop) But if they did every suggestion people want it'd probably be another $5 billion.
 
turbanplanner said:
The fact it's not a subway (and was before the tunnels were filled in) is proof it's cut back.

I think the reason they made all these choices is they had a final price they didn't want to exceed.
No one bit is a crazy expense (like tunnels for one stop) But if they did every suggestion people want it'd probably be another $5 billion.
Click to expand...

And for comparison, most of Line 2 is built on the north side of Bloor Street and has only 1 entrance on the intersection. Granted the buses mostly have a loop that they use to directly drop passengers in the fare paid zone, but still.

I would definitely like a secondary entrance on at least the opposite corner of the primary entrance. One could hope at least that the designers have taken such a thing into account when designing the concourse area if ever they decide to make an entrance in the future.
 
LemonCondo said:
Yes, but the Scarborough Subway had an existing right-of-way to use, the RT right-of-way. The only difference is the position of Lawrence Station. (Is that alone worth billions?) You would still have to figure out a way to Sheppard Ave, but going that far north was not part of the RT in the first place. A tunnel may be required.
Click to expand...
Well the problem is the corner turn from Kennedy. It's too sharp for the subway, hence the long turn all the way to McCowan. It's not so much the stations that's costing billions, it's the underground tunneling. These areas are residentially built already with sewers and utilities, so these boring machines are forced to go much deeper then average just to fulfill the same length.
 
LemonCondo said:
Yes, but the Scarborough Subway had an existing right-of-way to use, the RT right-of-way. The only difference is the position of Lawrence Station. (Is that alone worth billions?) You would still have to figure out a way to Sheppard Ave, but going that far north was not part of the RT in the first place. A tunnel may be required.
Click to expand...
Trains wouldn’t be able to make the turn from Kennedy station to head north on the current SRT ROW. It’s been published and discussed numerous times. Either they’d have to move Kennedy station all together causing a 8 year closure of Kennedy or do a giant turn well east of the current station which the experts claim would actually cost more $$ vs going up McCowan
 
You could really start to see the effective use of those slide in tunnels being used on Hurontario LRT for example. Maybe a smaller pedestrian scale version to shove under Eglinton at station locations. Not sure if it's crazy expensive though. Lots of room for staging at Martin Grove and Kipling for sure. I'd bet the utilities locations were a problem though.
 
fanoftoronto said:
And for comparison, most of Line 2 is built on the north side of Bloor Street and has only 1 entrance on the intersection. Granted the buses mostly have a loop that they use to directly drop passengers in the fare paid zone, but still.

I would definitely like a secondary entrance on at least the opposite corner of the primary entrance. One could hope at least that the designers have taken such a thing into account when designing the concourse area if ever they decide to make an entrance in the future.
Click to expand...
The definition of 2nd entrance in fire regulations means a seperate path to the station platform without sharing the same concourse. Many stations don't have a seperate entrance in this regards but a seperate exit on the other side of the road or a bus terminal/loop with meant riders don't have to cross traffic. This crosstown extension requires riders to cross traffic at ALL underground stations meaning when a bus unloads or a train arrives, a large flock of people will have to cross.

Kipling - bus terminal
Islington - bus terminal + entrances at both sides of the road
Royal York - bus terminal
Old Mill - bus loop
Jane - bus terminal
Runnymede - bus terminal
High Park - bus terminal
Keele - bus terminal
Dundas West - bus terminal
Lansdowne - entrances at both sides of the road
Dufferin - entrances at both sides of the road
Ossington - bus terminal
Christle - single entrance but 126 Chirstle terminates there
Bathurst - bus terminal
Spadina - originally built in 1966 with entrances at both sides of the road, bus terminal added in 1978, streetcar loop in 1997
St George - bus terminal
Bay - entrances at both sides of the road
Yonge - crossing required to reach SB 97 Yonge
Sherborune - crossing required to reach SB 75 Sherbourne
Castle Frank - bus terminal
Broadview - bus terminal
Chester - no bus service
Pape - bus terminal
Donlands - bus terminal
Greenwood - bus terminal
Coxwell - bus terminal
Woodbine - bus terminal
Main Street - bus terminal
Victoria Park - bus terminal
Warden - bus terminal
Kennedy - bus terminal

In comparison to Line 5 extension
Renforth - crossing of bus ramp necessary if no direct connection to Renforth transitway station is built
Martin Grove - crossing required to reach SB 46 Martin Grove/111 East Mall
Kipling - crossing required to reach NB 45 Kipling/945 Kipling Express
Islington - crossing needed to reach NB 37 Islington/937 Islington Express
Royal York - crossing needed to reach NB 73 Royal York
Scarlett - entrances at both sides of the road
Jane - entrances at both sides of the road
Mount Dennis - bus terminal
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top