News   Aug 11, 2020
 233     0 
News   Aug 10, 2020
 362     0 
News   Aug 10, 2020
 1.2K     1 

Eglinton West LRT | Metrolinx

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
17,226
Reaction score
5,929
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
Just keep in mind, if you hear from any of the following individuals that the costs of building the Eglinton West extension is "too much" and the money can be "better spent", feel free to ask these same said individuals "then why did you vote to sell off the Richview lands".

Paul Ainslie, Maria Augimeri, Ana Bailão, Michelle Berardinetti, Shelley Carroll, Raymond Cho, Vincent Crisanti, Glenn De Baeremaeker, Mike Del Grande, Frank Di Giorgio, Sarah Doucette, Paula Fletcher, Rob Ford, Mark Grimes, Doug Holyday, Norman Kelly, Mike Layton, Chin Lee, Gloria Lindsay Luby, Josh Matlow, Pam McConnell, Mary-Margaret McMahon, Joe Mihevc, Peter Milczyn, Ron Moeser, Frances Nunziata (Chair), Cesar Palacio, Gord Perks, Jaye Robinson, David Shiner, Karen Stintz, Michael Thompson, Adam Vaughan, Kristyn Wong-Tam
I would like to find out if any of them or friends or relatives have a financial interest in any of the developments.
 

44 North

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
3,362
Reaction score
1,669
Location
Ward 28
Just keep in mind, if you hear from any of the following individuals that the costs of building the Eglinton West extension is "too much" and the money can be "better spent", feel free to ask these same said individuals "then why did you vote to sell off the Richview lands".

Paul Ainslie, Maria Augimeri, Ana Bailão, Michelle Berardinetti, Shelley Carroll, Raymond Cho, Vincent Crisanti, Glenn De Baeremaeker, Mike Del Grande, Frank Di Giorgio, Sarah Doucette, Paula Fletcher, Rob Ford, Mark Grimes, Doug Holyday, Norman Kelly, Mike Layton, Chin Lee, Gloria Lindsay Luby, Josh Matlow, Pam McConnell, Mary-Margaret McMahon, Joe Mihevc, Peter Milczyn, Ron Moeser, Frances Nunziata (Chair), Cesar Palacio, Gord Perks, Jaye Robinson, David Shiner, Karen Stintz, Michael Thompson, Adam Vaughan, Kristyn Wong-Tam
Look where all the underground stations are. It could still easily work as an elevated line. Seems like the sell-off did little in that regard.
 

Amare

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
2,903
Reaction score
2,705
Location
Toronto
Look where all the underground stations are. It could still easily work as an elevated line. Seems like the sell-off did little in that regard.
Good luck getting the local NIMBYs and local politicians to unite around that idea. It's either all underground, or nothing for them.

Which is exactly why if the Richview lands were used, it would've avoided any kind of controversy. In other words, it wouldn't have mattered if the line was trenched, or at-grade.
 

sixrings

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,598
Just keep in mind, if you hear from any of the following individuals that the costs of building the Eglinton West extension is "too much" and the money can be "better spent", feel free to ask these same said individuals "then why did you vote to sell off the Richview lands".

Paul Ainslie, Maria Augimeri, Ana Bailão, Michelle Berardinetti, Shelley Carroll, Raymond Cho, Vincent Crisanti, Glenn De Baeremaeker, Mike Del Grande, Frank Di Giorgio, Sarah Doucette, Paula Fletcher, Rob Ford, Mark Grimes, Doug Holyday, Norman Kelly, Mike Layton, Chin Lee, Gloria Lindsay Luby, Josh Matlow, Pam McConnell, Mary-Margaret McMahon, Joe Mihevc, Peter Milczyn, Ron Moeser, Frances Nunziata (Chair), Cesar Palacio, Gord Perks, Jaye Robinson, David Shiner, Karen Stintz, Michael Thompson, Adam Vaughan, Kristyn Wong-Tam
Maybe they thought a surface LRT was going to be good enough. As an Eglinton resident I would be perfectly happy and content with a surface LRT (it would make my transfers easier). However no one ever says NO to a subway.
 

Voltz

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
1,581
Reaction score
358
Maybe they thought a surface LRT was going to be good enough. As an Eglinton resident I would be perfectly happy and content with a surface LRT (it would make my transfers easier). However no one ever says NO to a subway.
Yeah there was no reason to think the space would be needed, enough room was left for the planned transit line, and what real reason was there to use it anyway? A surface route is still crossing the same streets, and ducking under those streets can still be done with a route in the middle of the road.
 

Amare

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
2,903
Reaction score
2,705
Location
Toronto
Maybe they thought a surface LRT was going to be good enough. As an Eglinton resident I would be perfectly happy and content with a surface LRT (it would make my transfers easier). However no one ever says NO to a subway.
So that's why the aforementioned individuals went ahead and voted to sell off the Richview lands, because an on-street surface LRT would've been "good enough"?

There's a reason why the lands were kept vacant for decades before 2011; apparently all 35 all those individuals failed to comprehend the deeper logic. At least Mississauga (the car-loving municipality) understood that and kept their corridor vacant/intact up until the construction of the Transitway.
 

sixrings

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,598
So that's why the aforementioned individuals went ahead and voted to sell off the Richview lands, because an on-street surface LRT would've been "good enough"?

There's a reason why the lands were kept vacant for decades before 2011; apparently all 35 all those individuals failed to comprehend the deeper logic. At least Mississauga (the car-loving municipality) understood that and kept their corridor vacant/intact up until the construction of the Transitway.
That would be correct. Just like a LRT is good enough for finch.
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
6,160
Reaction score
7,466
^In the supporting documents to that Council decision, there is a statement that Build Toronto acknowledges the intent to build a transit line in the corridor, and will take steps to maintain such access as is needed for station entrances, emergency shafts, etc. In other words.... all the easements and accesses needed for an underground line.

The sale of lands coincided roughly with McGuinty’s decision to cut back the LRT to Mount Dennis. One wonders if somebody saw the opportunity to ensure that any eventual extension would go underground, by narrowing the roadway allotment and putting the underground premise into the land deal.

That corridor had been carefully preserved for close to forty years before Council sold those lands. That has to be one of the biggest sellouts this city has ever seen.

- Paul
 

Rainforest

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,586
Good enough is a relative term. One thing is to say that middle-of-road is good enough because we want to avoid higher costs of tunneling or elevating.

Another situation is when the corridor supporting a cheap fully-grade separated route existed, and has been preserved for decades, and all the sudden they decide to cell it off because middle-of-road is good enough. No excuse for that.
 

salsa

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
8,650
Reaction score
8,823
Location
North York
Even if the Eglinton corridor wasn't sold off to developers, I'm highly doubtful that we would actually see elevated transit here, or even in a trench. To do that would basically require demolishing the urban forest, replaced by a noisy and unsightly concrete structure that nobody wants. There is no way local residents here would let this fly. It's been hard enough to get the Davenport overpass started, but NIMBYism is especially strong in a wealthy area like central Etobicoke with strong political representation in both the city and province, and a population that generally doesn't care about public transit to begin with.


1591589940947.png




What this image also helps illustrate is that despite the selloffs, the vast majority of the Eglinton lands was still usable for transit. In the province's proposal, the elevated portion of the line could have easily continued past Islington at the very least, before being forced off-course by development. And yet this is not being contemplated by the province. Despite their willingness to save money on the relief line in a much more challenging built environment, they just won't do it in Etobicoke. And the city's planning department also came out against an elevated line in their ridiculous report, because they preferred a streetcar. So selloffs or not, this just shows that the idea of running trains above ground in this part of the city is just a pipe dream. It's just not going to happen.
 

Rainforest

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,586
Even if the Eglinton corridor wasn't sold off to developers, I'm highly doubtful that we would actually see elevated transit here, or even in a trench. To do that would basically require demolishing the urban forest, replaced by a noisy and unsightly concrete structure that nobody wants.
Fair enough. I would think that adding the middle-of-road LRT lanes would result is street widening and would have some impact on the urban forest, so it would be affected in any case. But, maybe two extra lanes have less impact than a trench.
 

Steve X

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Messages
1,833
Reaction score
1,151
I highly doubt anything would change even if the properties weren't sold off. ML seems to have a default building method. Either in the middle of the road as preferred by the city or their one go tunnel everything first then build the station approach. The Scarborough subway and likely Yonge extension will be build like this too
 

salsa

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
8,650
Reaction score
8,823
Location
North York
Fair enough. I would think that adding the middle-of-road LRT lanes would result is street widening and would have some impact on the urban forest, so it would be affected in any case. But, maybe two extra lanes have less impact than a trench.
There's be some impact for sure but not nearly as much. For widening the road, there's already a small shoulder lane along most of Eglinton, so just take a couple more metres from each side and we're good. Versus having to clear out most of forest on the north side to make room for the elevated guideway, construction equipment, and station buildings at each major intersection.
 

robmausser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
2,753
Reaction score
3,062
Fair enough. I would think that adding the middle-of-road LRT lanes would result is street widening and would have some impact on the urban forest, so it would be affected in any case. But, maybe two extra lanes have less impact than a trench.
That would be correct. Just like a LRT is good enough for finch.
Yeah there was no reason to think the space would be needed, enough room was left for the planned transit line, and what real reason was there to use it anyway? A surface route is still crossing the same streets, and ducking under those streets can still be done with a route in the middle of the road.
I disagree with a lot of this.

Eglinton West is not Finch and its not Eglinton East.

The real benefit of transit in this corridor is not about local stops, running an LRT like a streetcar essentially. There are large sections on this LRT route where there is essentially parkland, very low density or interchange highway noodles.

The advantage of this route has always been an express service to areas more than 1000m apart, and to link together Renforth/Missisauga Transitway to the rest of the TTC system, get rapid transit to the airport lands area, and the airport itself. The best type of line for this area is a completely grade separated line in some fashion.

A slow trolly that stops at every intersection and has multiple stops would always has crippled the intended purpose of this line, and I think that to be useful, some kind of trenched or elevated rail in the Richview corridor (or tunneled, which is much more expensive, and would have been unnecessary had the corridor been kept) were always a necessity to bring out the maximum benefit of this line.
 

robmausser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
2,753
Reaction score
3,062
Even if the Eglinton corridor wasn't sold off to developers, I'm highly doubtful that we would actually see elevated transit here, or even in a trench. To do that would basically require demolishing the urban forest, replaced by a noisy and unsightly concrete structure that nobody wants.
While I agree with the rest of your points, the Richview corridor was zoned for transit development from the get go, so any opposition would be pretty weak. Its one thing to rezone a parkland forest as a transit corridor, but this was already ready to go.
 

Top