Toronto Eglinton Line 5 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[BurlOak]

Wonder how 'late' it is for rethinking Crosstown between Laird and Kennedy. If it means that we keep Line 3, and subsequently interline this with Eglinton to SC, I think right and left would be on board. Even if it delayed Laird-Kennedy section by 5-10yrs.

We'd obviously drop SSE which many seem to want, and we'd offer a subway to SC (that actually has inline stations!). We're already rethinking Crosstown between Black Ck and Pearson by adding grade-separations, so it's not unprecedented to reconsider what kind of transit Line 5 is supposed to be. Net and political benefit could be somewhat positive. Also boosts business case for expanding RLS scope to Eglinton as a Phase 1 imo.

The onus would be on PCs to embrace affordable grade-separation (open air, cut/cover, elevated). Something I'm dubious about.

I don't know exactly what the state of construction is, but I guess that the Scenic Portal (east of Brentcliffe) and the Don Mills-Eglinton Station are already set.

• First, I imagine tearing up some of the tunnel and portal near Scenic (east of Brentcliffe) and rebuilding it so the portal would be on the south side.
• You could then elevate over West Don River, have a Leslie station elevated (or on an embankment).
• The line would go under the end span of the CPR bridge and avoid the Celestica Ramps (I think it should be converted to more of a diamond interchange).
• It would then have to be cut-and-cover to meet the station which is roughly in the centre of Eglinton.
• It also means the Don Mills station is too deep to allow for elevation over DVP.
• If farther means you can't elevate over East Don River.
• It would have to be cut-and-cover from Don Mills to I don't know where. You are chasing the hill, so it can't elevate until at lease Bermondsay.
• And beyond Bermondsay, there are so many entrances, I you couldn't elevate anywhere on the south side. In the median, it may be possible to elevate between Bermondsay and Vic Park - but even that's not easy since it is still a reasonable uphill segment.
• At best, you can get buy with a 4km underground portion and 3.5km elevated, but likely the full 7.5km would have to be underground.
• In terms of cost, this is likely about $1.5 to 3.0B extra.
• If done from the start, the Laird cross-over could have been at-grade near Celestica, instead of the underground mining they are doing now. The could have elevated about 6.5km of the line for much greater savings. They could have built the Scenic Portal properly from the start - eliminating the need for reconstructions. They could have achieved lower bid prices instead of negotiating as extras.

Could Ford pull this off - while suffering delay costs, additional construction costs, additional planning time wasted, and additional construction time. I could see tying it in to a DRL station at Don Mills and Eglinton (i.e. promising extending DRL to Eglinton and blaming previous for not properly planning the station), but since there are uncertainties as to what route the DRL would take - I don't see this happening.

If I think back to the 2014 Mayor campaign, I think Ford had already all but forgot about the ECLRT and was focusing more on the SSE. I could see a promise to review the SSE costs (I think everyone is leery of any costing and planning that has already been done, since there has likely been little thought to reduce costs) and use any savings to add additional stations at Lawrence and/or Sheppard. I do expect no firm promises though - just relying on the fact that people have no faith in what has been done until now and trusting Ford will find efficiencies.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Delay 5-10 years?! Then it will end up another studway that is never connected to other lines.

10 km through a central section isn't stubway status.

 

[hw621]

10 km through a central section isn't stubway status.

No, just a higher order transit

 

[M II A II R II K]

If it’s all grade separated should have made it a subway in the first place.

 

[Wrench]

Was in the Area Today just a few pics:
Metrolinx pow wow

 

[Leo_Chan]

I know this isn't the best thing to compare the Crosstown to, but the Viva Rapidway construction is/was much better than the Crosstown's surface construction in terms of organization, clarity, and ininconvenience.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

I know this isn't the best thing to compare the Crosstown to, but the Viva Rapidway construction is/was much better than the Crosstown's surface construction in terms of organization, clarity, and ininconvenience.

And how much of the Rapidway is underground in a narrow roadway?

 

[Leo_Chan]

And how much of the Rapidway is underground in a narrow roadway?

As I said, it’s not a fair comparison as tha scales are different in terms of size and area to work with. The most comparable (so far) would probably be around Don Mills Road.

 

[Axf4ever]

Pretty interesting video showing how the tunnels will look

 

[maxt797]

Pretty interesting video showing how the tunnels will look

Exciting... freaky if you are claustrophobic though...

 

[Streety McCarface]

Have you opened an urban dictionary lately?

I just followed the Wikipedia definition, since, like all forms of transit, the terms that describe them are extremely loosely defined. View attachment 144406
Key words: "Cannot be accessed by pedestrians or other vehicles of any sort". All other dictionary definitions define them as subways. Yes, these aren't urban dictionaries, but again, everything has limits and is subject to an interpretation by the reader. An LRT line is not an MRT line, and I think it's fair to say that the surface LRT east of Don Mills cannot be classified as rapid transit. Also, we don't even know that the crosstown will reach speeds of 28km in this area. There are so many stops there and we don't know how the train will operate (whether it's with signal priority or not) so I have my doubts.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

I just followed the Wikipedia definition, since, like all forms of transit, the terms that describe them are extremely loosely defined. View attachment 144406
Key words: "Cannot be accessed by pedestrians or other vehicles of any sort". All other dictionary definitions define them as subways. Yes, these aren't urban dictionaries, but again, everything has limits and is subject to an interpretation by the reader. An LRT line is not an MRT line, and I think it's fair to say that the surface LRT east of Don Mills cannot be classified as rapid transit. Also, we don't even know that the crosstown will reach speeds of 28km in this area. There are so many stops there and we don't know how the train will operate (whether it's with signal priority or not) so I have my doubts.

That means Chicago's L trains are not rapid transit, by your definition.

 

[11th]

Key words: "Cannot be accessed by pedestrians or other vehicles of any sort". All other dictionary definitions define them as subways. Yes, these aren't urban dictionaries, but again, everything has limits and is subject to an interpretation by the reader. An LRT line is not an MRT line, and I think it's fair to say that the surface LRT east of Don Mills cannot be classified as rapid transit. Also, we don't even know that the crosstown will reach speeds of 28km in this area. There are so many stops there and we don't know how the train will operate (whether it's with signal priority or not) so I have my doubts.

That is badly worded, the distinction should probably be "fenced off right-of-way". Which brings up the question, will it make the line "rapid transit" if they install sound walls along the entire length of the LRT on-street right-of-way? (Yes it will be aesthetically unpleasing.)

 

[Streety McCarface]

That means Chicago's L trains are not rapid transit, by your definition.

One could argue that section of the Purple line is not rapid transit (Let's be fair, a lot of the L in this stage really isn't rapid transit). Like I said, no system is really defined. Nevertheless, this gets away from the argument against the crosstown, which will not have gates whatsoever. You can have a line that is considered rapid transit in one section while not "rapid transit" in the other. It can still be heavy rail transit or vice versa.

 

[Leo_Chan]

I'd say this conversation of whether or not the surface section of the Eglinton Crosstown is "Rapid Transit" doesn't really result in anything.

What I think does matter is how the TTC will market the Crosstown on the its subway maps.
There are a few ways they can show it:

• Named: Subway Map, Subway and LRT Map, Subway and RT Map, Rapid Transit Map
• Labeled: 5 Eglinton Line, 5 Eglinton LRT Line, N/A
• Displayed: Solid Orange Line, Solid and Dashed Orange Line, Not Displayed

I'd say the one I like the most is: "Rapid Transit Map, 5 Eglinton LRT Line, Solid Line". This makes it unambiguous as it clearly marks the Crosstown as a LRT, it doesn't distinguish between the tunneled and at-grade sections, it leaves the opportunity to add the GO lines, can label the subways as Subway Lines, and conveys that it is an option to take.