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

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Performing full grade separation isn't a waste of money - it essentially doubles ridership and significantly improves travel times (9 minutes faster from Renforth to Mount Dennis).

Toronto's commute times are already ridiculous - we need solutions that are actually fast and time competitive to driving. The surface LRT would have taken 25 minute from Renforth to Mount Dennis - that is not fast in any way and will never produce reasonable commute times. By grade separating the line it can become a "trunk" line that people will actually bother to transfer to from intersecting bus lines, instead of primarily servicing local walk on customers only.


I hate to say it as I despise the man himself, but Ford's transit plan isn't too bad, minus the Sheppard subway. They have to add the Waterfront LRT, and I'd argue it's a great plan. I'm a little doubtful of the aggressive timelines.. but The new DRL is a huge improvement over the old one, as is this line.

Remember as well that council was increasingly pushing for grade separated here. They requested further study and city staff basically spit back at them with these ridiculous schemes that just bury everything and claim "look it's too expensive!". Council was really interested in full grade separation and staff tailored their study purposefully to make those options look as bad as possible instead of realistically looking how they can cost effectively achieve that.

Both sides have fair points. The city obviously prefers the on street option, but the underground option works for a lot of reasons. Depends if you want more stops for communities or a faster travel time to Pearson.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Why not grade separate the Eglinton east section as well then.

 

[crs1026]

Why not grade separate the Eglinton east section as well then.

Well, there’s the baby, and there’s the bathwater.... the conflicts with traffic are far more manageable east of Royal York. No point spending money where you don’t have to.

What bothered me most when I talked to TTC staffers at the recent open house was their indifference to the added travel time of Option 1. They seemed content with ‘good is good enough’... a streetcar mentality.. I lean more to the view that Toronto is watering down the LRT concept in many ways .... LRT ought to be seen as an opportunity to really shave travel times, and that is a fundamental element to getting people out of their automobiles. That time saving is worth added investment.

IMHO the Ford option is better than either 1 or 4, and worth the money because it will protect the maximum benefit in travel time while burying the line to the least possible degree. I could live with above ground to Islington, in fact.

What I’m interested in seeing is the comparison between elevated over the Humber flats and at grade. Elevated presumably costs more, but addresses the steep descent into the floor of the valley, and maybe traffic issues at Jane also.

- Paul

 

[Leo_Chan]

Well, there’s the baby, and there’s the bathwater.... the conflicts with traffic are far more manageable east of Royal York. No point spending money where you don’t have to.

What bothered me most when I talked to TTC staffers at the recent open house was their indifference to the added travel time of Option 1. They seemed content with ‘good is good enough’... a streetcar mentality.. I lean more to the view that Toronto is watering down the LRT concept in many ways .... LRT ought to be seen as an opportunity to really shave travel times, and that is a fundamental element to getting people out of their automobiles. That time saving is worth added investment.

IMHO the Ford option is better than either 1 or 4, and worth the money because it will protect the maximum benefit in travel time while burying the line to the least possible degree. I could live with above ground to Islington, in fact.

What I’m interested in seeing is the comparison between elevated over the Humber flats and at grade. Elevated presumably costs more, but addresses the steep descent into the floor of the valley, and maybe traffic issues at Jane also.

- Paul

I think by East section they mean Laird to Science Centre, Science Centre to Kennedy, Kennedy to Lawrence, and Lawrence to Malvern.

 

[salsa]

Performing full grade separation isn't a waste of money - it essentially doubles ridership and significantly improves travel times (9 minutes faster from Renforth to Mount Dennis).

Toronto's commute times are already ridiculous - we need solutions that are actually fast and time competitive to driving. The surface LRT would have taken 25 minute from Renforth to Mount Dennis - that is not fast in any way and will never produce reasonable commute times. By grade separating the line it can become a "trunk" line that people will actually bother to transfer to from intersecting bus lines, instead of primarily servicing local walk on customers only.

I don't consider full grade separation to be a waste of money. However I feel that putting it underground is a waste... unless all other alternatives (elevated or trenched) have been properly considered and ruled out for legit reasons despite all the land that's available until around Islington. If that's the case and underground is necessary, then build it close to the surface with cut-and-cover construction. Avoid the ridiculously deep and oversized stations with their multiple concourses and endless stairs & escalators. Because the amount of money this city is spending on underground transit in the suburbs is completely out of line with most other cities around the world. We need to do better.

 

[sixrings]

What I am really happy about is I just got a framed Ttc map for my birthday from ttcshop.com for my birthday and other than eglinton line the map will be completely relevant for the next 25 years.

 

[BurlOak]

I don't consider full grade separation to be a waste of money. However I feel that putting it underground is a waste... unless all other alternatives (elevated or trenched) have been properly considered and ruled out for legit reasons despite all the land that's available until around Islington. If that's the case and underground is necessary, then build it close to the surface with cut-and-cover construction. Avoid the ridiculously deep and oversized stations with their multiple concourses and endless stairs & escalators. Because the amount of money this city is spending on underground transit in the suburbs is completely out of line with most other cities around the world. We need to do better.

The only thing I question is trenched. If at-grade, in this Eglinton stretch, it will need protective walls to prevent people walking onto the tracks. If trenched a few metres down, may as well go a bit deeper, cover it over, and add a layer of sod.
Cut-and-cover is the answer. Dig as shallow as possible. Do this either under the grass on the side of the road so minimal disruption during traffic. Where there is a cross street, put in a modular bridge (Bailey Bridge) to allow vehicles to drive over this (yet to be covered) trench. At stations, you have to shift traffic a bit to complete the work - but with shallow construction it can be done reasonably fast.

 

[TransitBart]

I t

Performing full grade separation isn't a waste of money - it essentially doubles ridership and significantly improves travel times (9 minutes faster from Renforth to Mount Dennis).

Toronto's commute times are already ridiculous - we need solutions that are actually fast and time competitive to driving. The surface LRT would have taken 25 minute from Renforth to Mount Dennis - that is not fast in any way and will never produce reasonable commute times. By grade separating the line it can become a "trunk" line that people will actually bother to transfer to from intersecting bus lines, instead of primarily servicing local walk on customers only.


I hate to say it as I despise the man himself, but Ford's transit plan isn't too bad, minus the Sheppard subway. They have to add the Waterfront LRT, and I'd argue it's a great plan. I'm a little doubtful of the aggressive timelines.. but The new DRL is a huge improvement over the old one, as is this line.

Remember as well that council was increasingly pushing for grade separated here. They requested further study and city staff basically spit back at them with these ridiculous schemes that just bury everything and claim "look it's too expensive!". Council was really interested in full grade separation and staff tailored their study purposefully to make those options look as bad as possible instead of realistically looking how they can cost effectively achieve that.

I think that @innsertnamehere has said something that is obvious and yet under emphasized until now. Transit is great. But not any old transit. Like Transit City of which I was not a fan.

Commute times are ridiculous and public transit must reduce and improve them, not only substitute for cars.

 

[TransitBart]

What I am really happy about is I just got a framed Ttc map for my birthday from ttcshop.com for my birthday and other than eglinton line the map will be completely relevant for the next 25 years.

What a stupid thing to say. Someone is sceptical.

 

[Amare]

The thing I find comical about all of this, is that Doug Ford has literally come full circle around the Eglinton West project and he's paying a big premium for what he did to the corridor. Remember, years ago both him and his brother sold off the Richview corridor to get some quick cash so they could claim "oh look, we saved the city billions".

Fast forward today, and now the man wants to tunnel along the whole corridor and as a result he will spend billions more unnecessarily compared to if the corridor was still wide open (ie: the line could have been trenched).

If only voters actually knew what was really going on, and how much money was really being wasted by Ford. Unfortunately, half of them have been brainwashed to think that he's "saving" the province money.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Well, there’s the baby, and there’s the bathwater.... the conflicts with traffic are far more manageable east of Royal York. No point spending money where you don’t have to.

What bothered me most when I talked to TTC staffers at the recent open house was their indifference to the added travel time of Option 1. They seemed content with ‘good is good enough’... a streetcar mentality.. I lean more to the view that Toronto is watering down the LRT concept in many ways .... LRT ought to be seen as an opportunity to really shave travel times, and that is a fundamental element to getting people out of their automobiles. That time saving is worth added investment.

IMHO the Ford option is better than either 1 or 4, and worth the money because it will protect the maximum benefit in travel time while burying the line to the least possible degree. I could live with above ground to Islington, in fact.

What I’m interested in seeing is the comparison between elevated over the Humber flats and at grade. Elevated presumably costs more, but addresses the steep descent into the floor of the valley, and maybe traffic issues at Jane also.

- Paul

I don't consider full grade separation to be a waste of money. However I feel that putting it underground is a waste... unless all other alternatives (elevated or trenched) have been properly considered and ruled out for legit reasons despite all the land that's available until around Islington. If that's the case and underground is necessary, then build it close to the surface with cut-and-cover construction. Avoid the ridiculously deep and oversized stations with their multiple concourses and endless stairs & escalators. Because the amount of money this city is spending on underground transit in the suburbs is completely out of line with most other cities around the world. We need to do better.

The only thing I question is trenched. If at-grade, in this Eglinton stretch, it will need protective walls to prevent people walking onto the tracks. If trenched a few metres down, may as well go a bit deeper, cover it over, and add a layer of sod.
Cut-and-cover is the answer. Dig as shallow as possible. Do this either under the grass on the side of the road so minimal disruption during traffic. Where there is a cross street, put in a modular bridge (Bailey Bridge) to allow vehicles to drive over this (yet to be covered) trench. At stations, you have to shift traffic a bit to complete the work - but with shallow construction it can be done reasonably fast.

I t

I think that @innsertnamehere has said something that is obvious and yet under emphasized until now. Transit is great. But not any old transit. Like Transit City of which I was not a fan.

Commute times are ridiculous and public transit must reduce and improve them, not only substitute for cars.

The thing I find comical about all of this, is that Doug Ford has literally come full circle around the Eglinton West project and he's paying a big premium for what he did to the corridor. Remember, years ago both him and his brother sold off the Richview corridor to get some quick cash so they could claim "oh look, we saved the city billions".

Fast forward today, and now the man wants to tunnel along the whole corridor and as a result he will spend billions more unnecessarily compared to if the corridor was still wide open (ie: the line could have been trenched).

If only voters actually knew what was really going on, and how much money was really being wasted by Ford. Unfortunately, half of them have been brainwashed to think that he's "saving" the province money.

Ok, here's the thing: Why are we ok with debating grade seperation on Eglinton West on but not Finch? Finch is a busier bus route and covers a little more area. Surely on street LRT is fine for Eglinton West as it is for Finch? Just curious.

 

[TransitBart]

Ok, here's the thing: Why are we ok with debating grade seperation on Eglinton West on but not Finch? Finch is a busier bus route and covers a little more area. Surely on street LRT is fine for Eglinton West as it is for Finch? Just curious.

Because Finch is being built and this is still a proposal.

I would also suggest that until four days back, many were happy to build something, anything. A paradigm has been smashed here and if the blue party succeeds where the red party failed miserably for fifteen years then maybe the red party are not the transit champs we all thought they were.

Someone actually said, “we plan to spend the money.” And surprisingly, it was the blue party and its new and untested leader.

 

[BurlOak]

Ok, here's the thing: Why are we ok with debating grade seperation on Eglinton West on but not Finch? Finch is a busier bus route and covers a little more area. Surely on street LRT is fine for Eglinton West as it is for Finch? Just curious.

I campaigned for Finch to be grade-separated, mostly elevated.
I figured that Eglinton LRT would be fully grade-separated (mostly elevated from Don River West Branch to Kennedy) and then connected to the SRT. It would be upgraded to new Mark III technology.
No point having Finch as an orphan LRT technology, so it too would be SkyTrain - but somewhat short trains than Eglinton-Scarborough. Finch would have 2 cars x 150 passengers per car x 20 trains per hour = 6k ppdph, while Eglinton would have 4 cars x 150 passengers x 24 trains per hour = 14k ppdph. This is a 33m platform vs. a 66m one. If needed, both could have 30 trains per hour (i.e. every 2 minutes), so Finch's capacity could be increased by 50%, and Eglintons by 25%.
Like my thoughts on other lines, the busiest stations would have Spanish solution (to reduce the dwell time on the busiest interchange stations), and these stations would also be built to accommodate 1 extra car per train. The trains would be longer than above (1 car longer for Finch, for 3, & 2 cars longer for Eglinton for 6). The typical station would be regular length (2 car or 4 car) to reduce costs (when underground) and to reduce visual intrusion (when elevated). The way it works is that 1 car typically doesn't line up with the station and it's doors don't open. Basically, for stations East of Yonge, the first car doesn't open, while for West of Yonge its the last car that doesn't open. This would add 50% to the above 2 capacities.

So overall, the ultimate capacities would be 13.5k and 27k.

As soon as Wynne got her majority in 2014, construction had progressed too far on Eglinton through Leslie and Don Mills, that it was too late to grade-separate this portion of Eglinton - or too costly and time consuming to rip up the existing contract and start this portion again. Same thing happened to Finch about a month (or less) before the election. The contract was signed and it just became cost prohibitive to rip it up and re-design the line.

For Eglinton West, it is still an open slate. Officially, the City has yet to decide whether this should be grade-separated or on-street. Both options (and a few others) are still in the discussions at the information sessions - so it is easy to just dictate that the grade-separated option will win.

 

[Steve X]

I campaigned for Finch to be grade-separated, mostly elevated.
I figured that Eglinton LRT would be fully grade-separated (mostly elevated from Don River West Branch to Kennedy) and then connected to the SRT. It would be upgraded to new Mark III technology.
No point having Finch as an orphan LRT technology, so it too would be SkyTrain - but somewhat short trains than Eglinton-Scarborough. Finch would have 2 cars x 150 passengers per car x 20 trains per hour = 6k ppdph, while Eglinton would have 4 cars x 150 passengers x 24 trains per hour = 14k ppdph. This is a 33m platform vs. a 66m one. If needed, both could have 30 trains per hour (i.e. every 2 minutes), so Finch's capacity could be increased by 50%, and Eglintons by 25%.
Like my thoughts on other lines, the busiest stations would have Spanish solution (to reduce the dwell time on the busiest interchange stations), and these stations would also be built to accommodate 1 extra car per train. The trains would be longer than above (1 car longer for Finch, for 3, & 2 cars longer for Eglinton for 6). The typical station would be regular length (2 car or 4 car) to reduce costs (when underground) and to reduce visual intrusion (when elevated). The way it works is that 1 car typically doesn't line up with the station and it's doors don't open. Basically, for stations East of Yonge, the first car doesn't open, while for West of Yonge its the last car that doesn't open. This would add 50% to the above 2 capacities.

So overall, the ultimate capacities would be 13.5k and 27k.

As soon as Wynne got her majority in 2014, construction had progressed too far on Eglinton through Leslie and Don Mills, that it was too late to grade-separate this portion of Eglinton - or too costly and time consuming to rip up the existing contract and start this portion again. Same thing happened to Finch about a month (or less) before the election. The contract was signed and it just became cost prohibitive to rip it up and re-design the line.

For Eglinton West, it is still an open slate. Officially, the City has yet to decide whether this should be grade-separated or on-street. Both options (and a few others) are still in the discussions at the information sessions - so it is easy to just dictate that the grade-separated option will win.

Those residences with their townhouse balconies facing Eglinton is going to be real happy with you proposing that they should stare at those ugly concrete elevated guideway everyday. If those Richview Expressway land wasn't sold off, they could have trenched it. It's too late now. Eglinton West would mostly go underground between Royal York and Martin Grove.

 

[robmausser]

Performing full grade separation isn't a waste of money - it essentially doubles ridership and significantly improves travel times (9 minutes faster from Renforth to Mount Dennis).

Toronto's commute times are already ridiculous - we need solutions that are actually fast and time competitive to driving. The surface LRT would have taken 25 minute from Renforth to Mount Dennis - that is not fast in any way and will never produce reasonable commute times. By grade separating the line it can become a "trunk" line that people will actually bother to transfer to from intersecting bus lines, instead of primarily servicing local walk on customers only.


I hate to say it as I despise the man himself, but Ford's transit plan isn't too bad, minus the Sheppard subway. They have to add the Waterfront LRT, and I'd argue it's a great plan. I'm a little doubtful of the aggressive timelines.. but The new DRL is a huge improvement over the old one, as is this line.

Remember as well that council was increasingly pushing for grade separated here. They requested further study and city staff basically spit back at them with these ridiculous schemes that just bury everything and claim "look it's too expensive!". Council was really interested in full grade separation and staff tailored their study purposefully to make those options look as bad as possible instead of realistically looking how they can cost effectively achieve that.

I agree but I was hopeful that only having Eglinton West underground between Martin Grove and Rpyal York, which is even less than option 4, would have brought significantly more savings.

I don't get how you shorten a tunneled segment and go from 3 billion to 4.7 billion.

Although maybe not a surprise given Doug Ford lol