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

junctionist said:
It seems wasteful to put a subway under a road that prioritizes car traffic. People want to get off the subway and walk into a grocery store after work, to a nice cafe, restaurant or bar, or to a public space. They don't want to have to waste time taking a series of buses after taking the subway and then walking through a massive parking lot to get to a business so that it takes them twice or three times longer to get around. The people on the subway are "traffic" too.

To plan a subway under a street and then not encourage it to be pedestrian friendly with many businesses fronting onto it and residences in close proxity seems like clueless transit planning by people who always intend to drive for every task. Then, when people actually want subways in dense and pedestrian friendly areas, they're told there's no money or no one will ride it.

The money was already spent making driving cushy in the suburbs by taking transit off the street and placating the same NIMBYs who will also be opposing densification. The subway is more than just a tool to raise the property values of suburban homeowners with 3 cars in their driveways while keeping their private vehicle commutes as convenient as possible. It's a way of developing the city and discouraging car use. But it has to go hand-in-hand with the right land use, which means increased density and mixed-use zoning.
Click to expand...
The thing that reassures me is that density will come with the "subway", and slowly you might see Eglinton W urbanize...of course this is probably a 10 year plus reality.
 
junctionist said:
It seems wasteful to put a subway under a road that prioritizes car traffic. People want to get off the subway and walk into a grocery store after work, to a nice cafe, restaurant or bar, or to a public space. They don't want to have to waste time taking a series of buses after taking the subway and then walking through a massive parking lot to get to a business so that it takes them twice or three times longer to get around. The people on the subway are "traffic" too.

To plan a subway under a street and then not encourage it to be pedestrian friendly with many businesses fronting onto it and residences in close proxity seems like clueless transit planning by people who always intend to drive for every task. Then, when people actually want subways in dense and pedestrian friendly areas, they're told there's no money or no one will ride it.

The money was already spent making driving cushy in the suburbs by taking transit off the street and placating the same NIMBYs who will also be opposing densification. The subway is more than just a tool to raise the property values of suburban homeowners with 3 cars in their driveways while keeping their private vehicle commutes as convenient as possible. It's a way of developing the city and discouraging car use. But it has to go hand-in-hand with the right land use, which means increased density and mixed-use zoning.
Click to expand...
In the perfect world, the subway would be better off under Dixon Rd. It’s closer to the airport and have high transit usage while supporting the hotel strip near the airport.

It would been better if they just turn the crosstown north on Weston and west around Lawrence with a new crossing over Humber to get to Dixon. Much better ridership there.
 
W. K. Lis said:
If the Jane and Eglinton interchange were ALMOST like the Chicago "L", likely they'll need only a southbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound track switches.

tower18p.jpg


However, the Eglinton platforms would likely be WEST of the intersection and the future Jane platforms would likely be SOUTH of the intersection.

Unless they go with a northbound to eastbound and westbound to southbound set of switches, then the Jane platforms could be on the NORTH side of the intersection.
Click to expand...
The reason for getting aware of a future interchange station with the Jane LRT is to allow for a better flow of passengers from one line to another at Jane & Eglinton.

 
kamira51 said:
Looking at the Elevated section of Line 5 at the maintenance building really makes me wish they went elevated for this extention using the same design.
Click to expand...
Won't be able to convince Premier Doug Ford to go elevated, because it goes through his neighbourhood. He must not see the peasants in vehicles he does not use.
 
W. K. Lis said:
The reason for getting aware of a future interchange station with the Jane LRT is to allow for a better flow of passengers from one line to another at Jane & Eglinton.

Click to expand...
🙄 I think the drama of having to walk a few minutes to interchange stations is overblown. Of course quick and convenient interchanges are ideal, but Union station is a great example how a 10-15 min walk isn't a deterrent to taking transit.
 
asher__jo said:
🙄 I think the drama of having to walk a few minutes to interchange stations is overblown. Of course quick and convenient interchanges are ideal, but Union station is a great example how a 10-15 min walk isn't a deterrent to taking transit.
Click to expand...
Not so for the elderly, those with dementia, or the mobility challenged.

proper-height-cane-walker.jpg
From link.

Don't forget, some elderly will just give up on retaking their driver's test and will use transit more.

From link.

Ontario's senior driver programs aim to keep seniors driving for as long as they can safely do so.

Once drivers reach 80 years of age, every two years they must:
  • Take a vision test
  • Undergo a driver record review
  • Participate in a 45-minute Group Education Session (GES)
  • During the GES, complete two, brief, non-computerized in-class screening assignments
  • If necessary, take a road test
Click to expand...
 
asher__jo said:
🙄 I think the drama of having to walk a few minutes to interchange stations is overblown. Of course quick and convenient interchanges are ideal, but Union station is a great example how a 10-15 min walk isn't a deterrent to taking transit.
Click to expand...
Long interchanges definitely have an effect on the attractiveness of the transit system and can cost you in terms of transit riders, especially when the goal is to get people out of their cars. Now bending over backwards to make a station like Bloor-Yonge into a station like Lionel-Groulx, that's definitely a bit much. However trying to avoid building Spadina Stations or Queen Stations cough cough Ontario Line that's definitely something that should be a major priority.

Also Union isn't 10-15 mins, its like 3 to 5 mins with the new bay concourse. Not ideal, but makes sense for the traffic flow expected.
 
W. K. Lis said:
How would they connect a transfer station at Jane Street with a future Jane LRT? How will light rail vehicles transfer from one line to another to get to and from the Mt. Dennis Storage Facility?

View attachment 377916
From link.
Click to expand...
You wouldn't have the transfer and jane and eglinton. Its a flood zone. Thays why eglinton west is elevated there. Jane lrt or ontario line would vear off to Mount Dennis as it would be out of the flood zone and be a major transfer node.
 
dullturtle06 said:
You wouldn't have the transfer and jane and eglinton. Its a flood zone. Thays why eglinton west is elevated there. Jane lrt or ontario line would vear off to Mount Dennis as it would be out of the flood zone and be a major transfer node.
Click to expand...
Or it could be elevated just like Eglinton. Entirely possible.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top