News   Nov 19, 2019
 527     1 
News   Nov 19, 2019
 530     2 
News   Nov 19, 2019
 501     0 

Eglinton West LRT | Metrolinx

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
15,425
Reaction score
4,349
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
From www.eglintonwestlrt.ca project history at this link.

City Council approved ten (10) stop locations for the Eglinton West LRT to be carried forward, and if necessary, to update the previously approved EA through the Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP), as identified in EX29.1 Attachment 2, and previously identified in EX19.1 in November of 2017. Stops being carried forward are located at Commerce Blvd., Martin Grove, Widdicombe Hill/Lloyd Manor, Kipling, Wincott/Bemersyde, Islington, Royal York, Mulham, Scarlett and Jane. Wherever possible, allowances will be made in the design of the Eglinton West LRT for the protection of future stop platforms at stop locations not identified should they be deemed warranted in the future.



In addition, staff were directed to continue planning the Eglinton West LRT concept for the Toronto Segment between Mount Dennis Station and Renforth Station (at Commerce Blvd.), and to form a working group of community stakeholders in consultation with local councillors, to investigate further grade separation and/or tunnelling options, as well as to further develop traffic modelling and an enhanced framework that places additional consideration on local community interest.​
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
5,588
Reaction score
6,152
One nitpick to the title - this is a City of Toronto project, not ML. To be pedantic, it's actually part of Smarttrack. No good would come of moving this topic into that discussion, so this is a good place for the discussion, but the context is important.

- Paul
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
15,425
Reaction score
4,349
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
One nitpick to the title - this is a City of Toronto project, not ML. To be pedantic, it's actually part of Smarttrack. No good would come of moving this topic into that discussion, so this is a good place for the discussion, but the context is important.

- Paul
Not just a City of Toronto, Metrolinx is a partner. Along with the City of Mississauga, TTC, and the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA). See link.
 

salsa

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
8,113
Reaction score
7,309
Location
North York
This is a new rendering of the Humber College stop on the Finch LRT, which will be grade separated as an open trench on the side of the road.

I just want to know, why wasn't this solution considered for Eglinton West? How is it that the only grade-separated alternatives the city could come up with were either an overbuilt subway-style station with escalators and concourses, or this ridiculous 4 storey high elevated station at Islington?




Screen Shot 2017-12-16 at 3.58.14 PM.png



Screen Shot 2017-12-16 at 3.57.42 PM.png
 

Attachments

Rainforest

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
3,930
Reaction score
1,247
Islington elevated station may not be entirely ridiculous if you take into account the terrain (Islington is at the bottom and Eglinton going uphill on both sides of that intersection).

But generally, yes we should be more versatile in our design choices. As of today, we tend to pick either the most expensive solution or the most cheapskate one, and reject anything in between; not sure why.
 

robmausser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
2,363
Reaction score
2,351
This is a new rendering of the Humber College stop on the Finch LRT, which will be grade separated as an open trench on the side of the road.

I just want to know, why wasn't this solution considered for Eglinton West? How is it that the only grade-separated alternatives the city could come up with were either an overbuilt subway-style station with escalators and concourses, or this ridiculous 4 storey high elevated station at Islington?




View attachment 130360


View attachment 130361
Because its clear that someone on the planning of this line in some way is biased and doesn't like to be told what to do, and has a preference for on-street streetcars.

They got a mandate from city council to change this project in a way they don't agree with, so they refined the parameters to be studied in such a way so that it was guaranteed to fail.

I see it all the time in engineering world.
 

dowlingm

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
3,591
Reaction score
1,403
One approach to Islington could have been simply to build it on one side of the road, embanked. Instead there is a requirement to build four separate access structures? With platforms and shelter on the bridged section? Seems like looking for a way to make it fail.

EDIT: for clarity - what I mean is to shift the station either to the left or to the right along the alignment specified but remain in the middle of Eglinton.
 

TheTigerMaster

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
12,400
Reaction score
4,392
Location
Best Toronto
One approach to Islington could have been simply to build it on one side of the road, embanked. Instead there is a requirement to build four separate access structures? With platforms and shelter on the bridged section? Seems like looking for a way to make it fail.

EDIT: for clarity - what I mean is to shift the station either to the left or to the right along the alignment specified but remain in the middle of Eglinton.
Notice that the elevated guideway descends immediately after the station. Shifting the station would reduce the space the LRT has to return to an at-grade configuration, since the grades must be flat within the station structure. That said, I don't see why shifting the station would even be necessary to achieve what you're proposing. They could just delete three or four of the entrances to reduce costs
 

Attachments

dowlingm

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
3,591
Reaction score
1,403
Notice that the elevated guideway descends immediately after the station. Shifting the station would reduce the space the LRT has to return to an at-grade configuration, since the grades must be flat within the station structure. That said, I don't see why shifting the station would even be necessary to achieve what you're proposing. They could just delete three or four of the entrances to reduce costs
I see what you mean.

However, the top right is Richview Collegiate. TDSB might be induced to consider a redevelopment where the corner becomes a building (either residential, part of the school, or both) which includes an access to the LRT platform.

The return-to-grade issue could be dealt with by moving the rear accessway from the school further along Eglinton or else mandate right-in, right-out.

upload_2017-12-18_14-36-34.png
 

Attachments

BMO

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 17, 2008
Messages
1,587
Reaction score
314
Because its clear that someone on the planning of this line in some way is biased and doesn't like to be told what to do, and has a preference for on-street streetcars.

They got a mandate from city council to change this project in a way they don't agree with, so they refined the parameters to be studied in such a way so that it was guaranteed to fail.

I see it all the time in engineering world.
Bingo, somebody somewhere at the City or Metrolinx want this to be at-grade the whole way. Probably for noble reasons like saving money, but it's apparent that this project is using a bunch of subjective parameters to skew the results toward at-grade. Like I said in the crosstown thread, the fact that Urban Strategies is the main proponent of the study with HDR as a subconsultant speaks volumes. We're getting an urban design study not a transportation planning study.
 

TheTigerMaster

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
12,400
Reaction score
4,392
Location
Best Toronto
Like I said in the crosstown thread, the fact that Urban Strategies is the main proponent of the study with HDR as a subconsultant speaks volumes. We're getting an urban design study not a transportation planning study.
This isn’t a new revelation. Toronto’s City Planning has made it quite clear that they’re looking at both urban planning and transportation planning benefits across all projects they’re delivering. They’d argue that you don’t build a great city with transportation benefits overriding all other concerns. Land use planning drives transportation planning, not the other way around.

For example, it’s why the bus terminal in Scarborough Centre is so far from the subway station. That move was intended to allow development and intensification to happen closer to the station site. From TCP’s POV, it’s adding a minutes or two onto transfer time in order to build a great urban centre is a worthwhile trade off.
 

BMO

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 17, 2008
Messages
1,587
Reaction score
314
This isn’t a new revelation. Toronto’s City Planning has made it quite clear that they’re looking at both urban planning and transportation planning benefits across all projects they’re delivering. They’d argue that you don’t build a great city with transportation benefits overriding all other concerns. Land use planning drives transportation planning, not the other way around.

For example, it’s why the bus terminal in Scarborough Centre is so far from the subway station. That move was intended to allow development and intensification to happen closer to the station site. From TCP’s POV, it’s adding a minutes or two onto transfer time in order to build a great urban centre is a worthwhile trade off.
Well when you adjust the transportation modelling assumptions to say that at-grade is more pedestrian friendly because you only have to provide enough walking time for pedestrians to make it to the platform and not the other side of the street, then I'd say they're failing on both accounts. You test the transportation, appropriately, and then you determine what city you want to build and what trade-offs you're willing to agree with (slower travel time for better urban design as an example.). You don't just toss a bunch of subjective criteria and then say "well no point in testing travel time for grade-separation at one key intersection, it's not as good for pedestrians or urban in-fill and it costs $100m more". On King Street a 2 minute time-savings for transit is touted as a revolution in transportation planning and efficiency, we need to see if x amount of time saved from grade separation could save x amount of economic time loss, etc. Planning is about balancing the pros and cons to provide the best overall net benefit to the community. I don't believe what we've been shown is comprehensive enough to clearly show at-grade as representing the best net benefit to the community. And neither do I believe it adequately represents the existing conditions along the corridor and the improvements the at-grade solution would provide (urban design, planning, or transportation-wise).
 

Top