W. K. Lis
Superstar
If the GTAA does not contribute to the construction north of the Renforth Gateway to Pearson Airport, they'll need to build more parking garages (plural) for workers, passengers, visitors, etc..
|
|
|
Steve X
Senior Member
Parking lots are way cheaper! Just not a good solution for long term development.
The final cost of this extension won't be finalized till they figure out how many grade separations to build. Overall it's a good thing they won't take out the mid block stops so the 32 Eglinton West can be eliminated from the system for good.
WislaHD
Superstar
I question the claim that eliminating Widdicombe, Wincott and Mulham stations would make it any more 'subway-like' than with it. How much benefit would that provide compared to the cost of running bus service on Eglinton West to serve those stops?
I'd like to keep Widdicombe at the very least, seeing as there is significant development potential surrounding it. Mulham as well is getting a half dozen dense towers in the Plant World location.
Amare
Senior Member
Wincott is currently the most useless stop out of the revised plan. In fact it was still the most useless stop even before they revised the plan. Widdicombe is just barely justifiable due to potential future development that may occur.
Steve X
Senior Member
You know there is a plan to build a 10 story retirement home right there.
Cobra
Senior Member
Are they having the same approach for the eastern at grade segment?
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
A 10 storey residential development won't generate very much transit usage. Especially not a retirement home. Residential developments are poor at generating transit usage.
Adjei
Senior Member
The contracts have already been signed for that section. I doubt anything is getting changed anytime soon. The time to make any changes was years ago.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Not as far as we are aware. City Planning has never indicated so. I suspect the physical characteristics of Eglinton East would make grade separations of Crosstown East challenging.
Steve X
Senior Member
It's better to leave them with some sort of transit access if the LRT is grade separated. Residential areas in a upper middle class neighbourhood doesn't generate much usage regardless of what's built unless it's a large commercial building. With signalized at-grade crossings, LRVs won't be able to zoom past these midblock intersections. The 32 Eglinton West is very unreliable so eliminating it and removing buses on Eglinton is the right choice.
The report (http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-97898.pdf) mention something about making the Russell/Eden Valley stop request-stop based if possible.
I wonder if they can make all the mid-stops along the surface stop-request based if TTC could have stop-request buttons installed on the Metrolinx LRVs. Of course this would just increase bunching if there are too many requested based stops. They'll need some sort of interlocking signals to keep schedule or it'll just turn into a streetcar line.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
How much of the Richview corridor is currently built over (after being sold by BuildTO)? Someone should work out the math to see how much it'd cost to expropriate it all back.
AoD
AoD
DonValleyRainbow
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2014
- Messages
- 2,867
- Reaction score
- 1,926
- Location
- Kay Gardner Beltline Trail
West of it? You mean north to the airport, right? I'd be surprised if there 'wasn't much ridership', how many people take the Airport Rocket? You could certainly build upon that with a new light rail connection for the same fare, plus accounting for population and air traffic growth.
Didn't they essentially do that for SmartTrack, back when a heavy rail corridor was still being explored?
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Don't recall a specific figure being thrown around for that portion of the cost. In any case, just how many townhouses are there along the corridor now between Islington and Martin Grove?
AoD
crs1026
Superstar
We've begun to muddle two separate issues - the spacing of stops versus the need for grade separation.
The data in the City report shows the usage for intermediate stops for the current 32 bus. The usage at the main cross streets dwarfs usage at the smaller local stops. It will take a lot of development to turn that around. I don't expect the nice folks in those un-dense, upper class back streets to give up their autos.... "cold dead hands" applies here. Only the development right on Eglinton will matter. It's a question of acceptable walking distance for those in whatever new condo's or townhomes are built.
A ten-story retirement home may not generate residential ridership, but it is an employment facility. And, there will be an accessibility argument for a stop, and ten stories is a fairly large facility. Most of the ridership will be employees (low-income jobs, and late night use will be an issue) and possibly visitors (many visitors at seniors homes are from out of town, or fellow seniors who don't find transit all that mobility friendly).
Grade separation is a separate issue. The City report indicates that staff intend to evaluate the cost-benefit of each potential grade separation location by monetising the delay caused by at-grade. The key criterion is time delayed....if you figure that a single duckunder will cost $50-100 million or more, it will take a lot of projected delay before grade separation reaches break-even . There is also a criterion termed "reduction in development potential". I suspect this translates to "extra roadway width needed for grade separation" which in turn translates to "cost of land not available to developers if the road gets wider". If you put a high price on even a meter-wide concrete abutment (which will be needed for an underground grade separation portal), it gets pricey pretty quick.
All told, I'm suspicious that the evaluation criteria will tend to price grade separation out of reach, and the argument will be "the travel time isn't *that* much greater". Which is unfortunate, because (as I have ranted before) "Low speed LRT" equates to "Street Car" and we are not doing anyone any favours if we compromise on a subway-like "quick stop/hard accelerate/good long full speed run/ hard decelerate/quick stop/ repeat" format for our planned LRT's. Adding intermediate stops likewise compromises LRT, and increases the case for BRT.
With Council clearly headed for sticker shock thanks to the current report - BRT might actually end up as a good compromise for Eglinton West. I bet even Mr Tory would land on that one, and spin it as his being fiscally prudent.
- Paul
The data in the City report shows the usage for intermediate stops for the current 32 bus. The usage at the main cross streets dwarfs usage at the smaller local stops. It will take a lot of development to turn that around. I don't expect the nice folks in those un-dense, upper class back streets to give up their autos.... "cold dead hands" applies here. Only the development right on Eglinton will matter. It's a question of acceptable walking distance for those in whatever new condo's or townhomes are built.
A ten-story retirement home may not generate residential ridership, but it is an employment facility. And, there will be an accessibility argument for a stop, and ten stories is a fairly large facility. Most of the ridership will be employees (low-income jobs, and late night use will be an issue) and possibly visitors (many visitors at seniors homes are from out of town, or fellow seniors who don't find transit all that mobility friendly).
Grade separation is a separate issue. The City report indicates that staff intend to evaluate the cost-benefit of each potential grade separation location by monetising the delay caused by at-grade. The key criterion is time delayed....if you figure that a single duckunder will cost $50-100 million or more, it will take a lot of projected delay before grade separation reaches break-even . There is also a criterion termed "reduction in development potential". I suspect this translates to "extra roadway width needed for grade separation" which in turn translates to "cost of land not available to developers if the road gets wider". If you put a high price on even a meter-wide concrete abutment (which will be needed for an underground grade separation portal), it gets pricey pretty quick.
All told, I'm suspicious that the evaluation criteria will tend to price grade separation out of reach, and the argument will be "the travel time isn't *that* much greater". Which is unfortunate, because (as I have ranted before) "Low speed LRT" equates to "Street Car" and we are not doing anyone any favours if we compromise on a subway-like "quick stop/hard accelerate/good long full speed run/ hard decelerate/quick stop/ repeat" format for our planned LRT's. Adding intermediate stops likewise compromises LRT, and increases the case for BRT.
With Council clearly headed for sticker shock thanks to the current report - BRT might actually end up as a good compromise for Eglinton West. I bet even Mr Tory would land on that one, and spin it as his being fiscally prudent.
- Paul
Last edited:
Hopkins123
Senior Member
At the very least Bellamy/Eglinton GO, the transition from Eglinton Ave E to Kingston Road, Guildwood GO and the entry onto UTSC campus from the Morningside Park bridge should all be grade separated. They could also trim down the number of stops required from 17 to 10 and use the cost savings from that towards grade-separation.