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

My understanding is that Metrolinx is essentially planning Option 4, so yes, it's not 100% underground. Just fully grade separated with an ~3.5km tunnel through the central portion of Eglinton.
 
innsertnamehere said:
My understanding is that Metrolinx is essentially planning Option 4, so yes, it's not 100% underground. Just fully grade separated with an ~3.5km tunnel through the central portion of Eglinton.
Click to expand...

Thats not option 4 btw that I posted, its a heavily modified version I did to mockup what the province is now planning.
 
innsertnamehere said:
My understanding is that Metrolinx is essentially planning Option 4, so yes, it's not 100% underground. Just fully grade separated with an ~3.5km tunnel through the central portion of Eglinton.
Click to expand...
And I would assume that the section from Renforth to Pearson is elevated.
 
From 2017, the EGLINTON WEST LRT EXTENSION TECHNICAL & PLANNING UPDATE from this link.

210968


210969


Notice the "Not Preferred"s in the images from the PDF.
 
W. K. Lis said:
From 2017, the EGLINTON WEST LRT EXTENSION TECHNICAL & PLANNING UPDATE from this link.





Notice the "Not Preferred"s in the images from the PDF.
Click to expand...

Note the reasons for it though. "introduces vertical transfers", "reduced intuitive wayfinding", "impacts natural surveillance".

First of all, what the heck is "natural surveillance"? Second of all, do you honestly think that people would rather have their commute be 10 minutes longer to avoid a set of stairs? what?

The weighing of the pros and cons in the City's analysis was rigged to make the at grade alignment the "preferred option".

Elevated had double the ridership, half the travel time, and was generally a much more effective transit system. The City was cheaping out because they didn't want to foot the bill for it.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Note the reasons for it though. "introduces vertical transfers", "reduced intuitive wayfinding", "impacts natural surveillance".

First of all, what the heck is "natural surveillance"? Second of all, do you honestly think that people would rather have their commute be 10 minutes longer to avoid a set of stairs? what?

The weighing of the pros and cons in the City's analysis was rigged to make the at grade alignment the "preferred option".

Elevated had double the ridership, half the travel time, and was generally a much more effective transit system. The City was cheaping out because they didn't want to foot the bill for it.
Click to expand...

For "accessibility" they'll need elevators for grade separated stations. That's plural, because of the possibility that if a singular elevator is out-of-service, some people will need to get the nearest other station, and hope that elevator is in-service. Hence the "10 minute longer".
 
cplchanb said:
how come it feels like these so called reports already had a pre determined conclusion from the beginning and they are just dumping 20000 wds in an eloquent way to justified an
already shaped opinion?
Click to expand...
It really does, especially when you consider things such as that they designed the Scarlett station to not have redundant elevators and then complained about a lack of redundant elevators. That's a design decision, not some intrinsic failure of elevated transit stations. Hurdman Station in Ottawa is elevated with side platforms (like their mockup of Scarlett Station) and has redundant elevators for each platform.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Note the reasons for it though. "introduces vertical transfers", "reduced intuitive wayfinding", "impacts natural surveillance".

First of all, what the heck is "natural surveillance"? Second of all, do you honestly think that people would rather have their commute be 10 minutes longer to avoid a set of stairs? what?

The weighing of the pros and cons in the City's analysis was rigged to make the at grade alignment the "preferred option".

Elevated had double the ridership, half the travel time, and was generally a much more effective transit system. The City was cheaping out because they didn't want to foot the bill for it.
Click to expand...

Yeah this report was absolutely absurd. They completely overbuilt the hell out of every station just to make absolutely sure the cost was outside the scope. Not only that, but at the grade separations they elevated the stations like crazy, without any other type of separation? Perhaps creating a small underpass by trenching the road so the stations dont have to be so high? Or trenching the LRT line? etc. There are multiple ways to create a grade separation at an intersection other than elevating, you know how I know? BECAUSE WE DID IT AT DON MILLS FOR SCIENCE CENTRE STATION!

You could make up just as many metrics for having the LRT in the middle of the road:

-Difficult accessibility: users have to cross street to get to LRT station, incurring risk of vehicle strike. LRT station in the middle of street poses danger as well
-Ineffective climate protection: users would be exposed to the elements and could suffer frostbite, other ailments from winter cold.
-slow as $%* transit method is a pain in the ass to use, stopping at every intersection. Transit Priority is a buzzword that barely helps travel times.
etc.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top