News   May 29, 2020
 1.3K     5 
News   May 29, 2020
 228     0 
News   May 29, 2020
 321     0 

Eglinton West LRT | Metrolinx

robmausser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
2,588
Reaction score
2,738
I'm just pointing out that nothing is perfect and we have to make decisions in an imperfect world. We shouldn't let perfect become the enemy of good. Every report is susceptible to bias and Eglinton west is no different.
Yes this kind of ridiculousness is why we are lagging behind the rest of the world and nothing gets built here.
 

Transportfan

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
1,623
Reaction score
370
A quick Google search will easily answer your question of what natural surveillance is.

"Natural surveillance is a design strategy that is directed at keeping intruders under observation. Designing for natural surveillance involves providing ample opportunity for legitimate users, engaged in their normal activities to observe the space around them. Natural surveillance is the placement of physical features and/or activities, and people that maximizes natural
visibility or observation." (St Petersburg Police Department)
You actually dug that up?? The Yankees blind intrusion has no limits. Sheesh!
 

M II A II R II K

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,547
Reaction score
482
So the route from the Airport to the Science Centre would be grade separated only to have an eastern section that would be slower in the middle of the road.
 

M II A II R II K

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,547
Reaction score
482
They should split the line in two at Science Centre. The western portion can be an underground rapid transit subway type surface, and the eastern portion can be a streetcar in the middle of the road that's stop ridden along its route.

Best not have the eastern section slow down and disrupt the western section.
 

Streety McCarface

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,928
Reaction score
1,752
They should split the line in two at Science Centre. The western portion can be an underground rapid transit subway type surface, and the eastern portion can be a streetcar in the middle of the road that's stop ridden along its route.

Best not have the eastern section slow down and disrupt the western section.
If the OL or the Relief Line is actually built, this would honestly make the most sense, especially if you're trying to encourage people to take future Line 3 downtown.
 

BurlOak

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
1,641
They should split the line in two at Science Centre. The western portion can be an underground rapid transit subway type surface, and the eastern portion can be a streetcar in the middle of the road that's stop ridden along its route.

Best not have the eastern section slow down and disrupt the western section.
West portion from Pearson to Laird.
East portion from Kennedy to Mount Dennis.
 

CapitalSeven

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
810
Reaction score
257
West portion from Pearson to Laird.
East portion from Kennedy to Mount Dennis.
That would defeat the purpose of planning the line the way they did, a no transfer ride across the city. A transfer is an atrocity against the human rights of anyone west of Yonge.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
16,611
Reaction score
5,366
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
From link. In 1966...

For the first six months of operation, the subway was operated as a single system, with trains from Eglinton station running through to either Keele or Woodbine station, while other trains connected the latter two points. However, the manoeuvre made operation of both lines more difficult, and the practice was abandoned after the initial trial period, leaving Lower Bay station abandoned.
From link...



The scheme, known as interlining, meant riders could catch a train at, say, Greenwood and get downtown via Union without changing. The same system applied to eastbound trains. Riders could get on at Dundas West and get off at Eglinton without switching at St. George, Spadina or Yonge. Lower Bay enabled two separate routes to pass through the Yorkville station without having to share platform space. Despite presenting some advantages, the plan only lasted six months from the opening of the Bloor-Danforth line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: syn

north-of-anything

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
199
Reaction score
237
Location
Bradford
A primarily grade-separated section from Pearson to the Science Centre would make sense, and a primarily on-road section from the Science Centre east to Kennedy (and beyond). I think it would be more practical to have some trains short-turn at the Science Centre and return to Pearson, with some continuing into Scarborough, rather than dividing Eglinton into two separate lines.
 

Rainforest

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,084
Reaction score
1,467
They should split the line in two at Science Centre. The western portion can be an underground rapid transit subway type surface, and the eastern portion can be a streetcar in the middle of the road that's stop ridden along its route.

Best not have the eastern section slow down and disrupt the western section.
The Science Centre station is not designed to be the terminus of both the western and the eastern section. It is a through station, with a crossover for occasional turn backs, but isn't very suitable for double terminal operation.

They would have to use only one platform for each direction, and that would disrupt all operations to a greater extent than the surface section in the east could disrupt them.

West portion from Pearson to Laird.
East portion from Kennedy to Mount Dennis.
I like the notion of overlapping branches. However, I think it will only be necessary if / when Eglinton East is built, making the whole route quite long.

As long as the line runs from Pearson to Kennedy only, it will be simpler both for the riders and for the operation to have the main branch that runs from Pearson to Kennedy at all times. I don't expect the 6 km long surface section in the east, using dedicated lanes, to disrupt the service. During the rush hours, a short-turn branch could be added between say Mt Dennis and Laird, just to help manage the flows.

Once Eglinton East is added, the whole route may become too long for reliable operation. Overlapping branches could help in that case. Say, one branch from Pearson to Laird, and another from MtDennis to UTSC, running at all times. Plus, a rush-hours branch from Kennedy to UTSC, if necessary.
 
Last edited:

M II A II R II K

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,547
Reaction score
482
And Science Centre connection when the DRL connects there. Between a subway western service verses a streetcar service in the east. Separate them
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
1,894
Reaction score
1,126
They should split the line in two at Science Centre. The western portion can be an underground rapid transit subway type surface, and the eastern portion can be a streetcar in the middle of the road that's stop ridden along its route.

Best not have the eastern section slow down and disrupt the western section.
Why not make every interchange station a split where you have to switch trains to go further? Makes sense, doesn't it?
 

Steve X

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Messages
1,751
Reaction score
1,068
The Science Centre station is not designed to be the terminus of both the western and the eastern section. It is a through station, with a crossover for occasional turn backs, but isn't very suitable for double terminal operation.

They would have to use only one platform for each direction, and that would disrupt all operations to a greater extent than the surface section in the east could disrupt them.



I like the notion of overlapping branches. However, I think it will only be necessary if / when Eglinton East is built, making the whole route quite long.

As long as the line runs from Pearson to Kennedy only, it will be simpler both for the riders and for the operation to have the main branch that runs from Pearson to Kennedy at all times. I don't expect the 6 km long surface section in the east, using dedicated lanes, to disrupt the service. During the rush hours, a short-turn branch could be added between say Mt Dennis and Laird, just to help manage the flows.

Once Eglinton East is added, the whole route may become too long for reliable operation. Overlapping branches could help in that case. Say, one branch from Pearson to Laird, and another from MtDennis to UTSC, running at all times. Plus, a rush-hours branch from Kennedy to UTSC, if necessary.
We still don't know if a continuous Line 5 through Kennedy is happening. It's up to ML to decide. Majority of the riders won't ride through Kennedy. So why not just split at Kennedy as originally planned?

Given the fact that TTC line management sucks and that they decided to run all trains to Vaughan on Line 1 during PM rush, a short turn at Laird seems increasingly unlikely during most times of the day. The Spadina Line itself (north of St George) has significant less ridership than Yonge side and yet they don't short turn any trains at SCW. It is pretty easy to get a seat north of SCW in PM rush.

A short turn branch will happen if they need to run more frequency service that the surface section doesn't support but not in the foreseeable future. A switch to 3 car trains would be more ideal.

We also cannot predict ridership on Eglinton West. Unlike the east end where Lines 2 and 5 meets, Line 2 is 15-25 minutes (depending on bus route) south of Line 5 in Etobicoke. Significant riders could make the switch. If Eg West is built grade separated beyond Martin Grove, having a short turn branch between Martin Grove and Laird wouldn't be a bad idea. Plus TTC could reduce bus service between Lines 2 and 5 if people start using Eg West instead.
 

Top