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

anb said:
How is it that this entire line is an LRT, Subway, Streetcar, BRT but on rails, and Metro all in one? I know our projects get a bad rep but who was in charge of even approving the thought process of all this?
Click to expand...
Well, for the ridership/dollar ratios, it had better be all things to all people. :)

In all seriousness, these station designs are big and expensive, yet send pedestrians and bus transfer pax crossing dangerous intersections to catch rides that might be in danger of pulling away, and so tempt them to disregard safety rules. The elevated side-platform concept that has been mocked by some here avoided the costs of a mezzanine by using simple passageways to both sides of the street on both sides of Eglinton. With both-side bus-stops, transfer pax had no crossings to make and pedestrians none or one. Cheap and simple.
 
Rainforest said:
That's a much more reasonable statement than the one you made originally.

I agree that low-rise townhouses are not the desirable built form for a prime transit-friendly location. However, that's never handled by expropriation, and never should be.

Instead, that should be handled by changing the zoning designation. Once the developers are allowed to build highrises there, they offer good money to the current owners, and the owners gradually sell and relocate.

In fact, this is not limited to the new Eg West stations. We have tons of low-rise areas right next to the old subway stations outside the downtown core, especially along Line 2. Changing the zoning designations there would add many thousands of transit friendly dwellings, with limited public opposition. Some people will still complain that they are used to their quiet neighborhood and do not want too many new residents; but no homeowner will be placed into a stressful situation where they have to leave the house by a set date. Instead, they will sell when they are ready.
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree that private property owners should capture substantially all the value created by new infrastructure.
 
afransen said:
Not sure I agree that private property owners should capture substantially all the value created by new infrastructure.
Click to expand...
If the area is only built to support x density, who is to pay for the upgrading infrastructure that is needed to support density that will be 3-10 plus times more than today? Depending on the age of the infrastructure, some cost could fall onto the existing density, but the developer needs to pay the lion share. At the same time, the city needs to look at what it will cost them down the road to maintain it as well replace it to see how much they may have to kick in. Then, what is the return on the dollar for property tax by having this extra density built that will be use city wide??

What is the cost on new infrastructure and what benefits will the private property owner going to see to say why cost should not be pass onto them regardless if they don't use it?? It maybe high today, but the benefits most likely will out weight the cost in the long run.
 
afransen said:
Not sure I agree that private property owners should capture substantially all the value created by new infrastructure.
Click to expand...

That's the definition of private property: you take all the risk, and capture all the windfall if the latter happens.

Furthermore, the owners of existing property will not capture all the new value, or even half of it. Developers will pay them more than the pre-construction market price, but the bulk of profit will remain in the hands of developers (and you can recapture some of it via development charges, and some via corporate taxes).
 
W. K. Lis said:
At the moment, developers are looking at sites with parking lots or single-story retail buildings that could be filled in with medium or high density buildings. Easier to do, than with buying single family houses, which would take a generation or two.
Click to expand...

That's reasonable, however some of the single family lots can be acquired much sooner than after a generation. Some owners will be happy to sell for a market+ price, and some will be convinced by the fact that the adjacent lots are being filled with highrises and the density around them is growing (and they can avoid that by moving out with a good cash take).

The biggest problem is the zoning by-law restrictions; the developers cannot build a highrise even if they acquire the land, therefore they are not even trying.
 
Rainforest said:
That's the definition of private property: you take all the risk, and capture all the windfall if the latter happens.
Click to expand...
This comment is interesting, and my response isn't specifically directed to this poster.

Risk is variance in outcome. There's no guarantee that outcome is positive, if there was, it wouldn't be risk, but negative outcomes are not conducive or healthy to an urban environment. Residential properties are a very long-term acquisition of wealth by people who usually have limited means to handle variance in outcomes, so we have created government systems to smooth that risk, and make changes in a slow and deliberate manner over the long term to diffuse it. Some people call that risk smoothing NIMBYism, which I think is lazy and childish, and more importantly covers up the fact they want to capture some return while taking no risk themselves.

On the other hand, I can see there's people who have earned their fair risk-adjusted return and now are treating their neighbourhoods like bricks of gold bullion, locked away in a vault, never tarnishing, but rising in value over time with no further risk, and that needs to stop too. Outside of some heritage neighbourhoods that provide cultural value (which is a whole other tangled ball of yarn not for this comment,) you can't let that happen either.

The problem is most of the rhetoric around this discussion seems to focus on the rare extreme ends of this risk-return on property, when most of this city lies in the space between, and it should be exposed to the slow and deliberate redevelopment.
 
Last edited:
dullturtle06 said:
Does anyone know why there are no bus terminals at these stations. Seems like it would be a heavy transfer point and would be more beneficial to have a designated space for bus to lrt movement.
Click to expand...
Most of these buses are already terminating at the bus terminals on Bloor line stations. Stopping at another terminal midway will slow down the passengers that do not intend to get off at Eglinton.
 
Deadpool X said:
Most of these buses are already terminating at the bus terminals on Bloor line stations. Stopping at another terminal midway will slow down the passengers that do not intend to get off at Eglinton.
Click to expand...
Jane's planned to be split this year at Mount Dennis. I think we might see the same thing happening for some other bus routes along the extension.

Although it's too early to tell, I think Martin Grove could most benefit from a bus terminal because it is the most west station but east of the 427. Current ttc routes intercept the intersection and new routes can be made.
 
H4F33Z said:
Jane's planned to be split this year at Mount Dennis. I think we might see the same thing happening for some other bus routes along the extension.

Although it's too early to tell, I think Martin Grove could most benefit from a bus terminal because it is the most west station but east of the 427. Current ttc routes intercept the intersection and new routes can be made.
Click to expand...
The "local" Jane buses (35 and 27) will go to the Mount Dennis Station. The "express" Jane bus (935) will bypass the Mount Dennis Station. Subject to change.

With the Eglinton West LRT extension. Both "local" and "express" Jane buses could return to current routing, with on-street transfers to the Eglinton West LRT.

With the Jane LRT, they'll need a transfer platform between the two lines. Connection tracks would also be needed.
 
Last edited:
Too early for bus route plans. This is from the plans for the Line 5, dated 2022 02 10.
1649088784501.png

We could see the 170 EMMETT continue to Mount Dennis, to provide access to UPX and GO. (If we ever get a fare discount with the TTC.)
 
Deadpool X said:
Most of these buses are already terminating at the bus terminals on Bloor line stations. Stopping at another terminal midway will slow down the passengers that do not intend to get off at Eglinton.
Click to expand...
But wouldn't the lrt ridership be boosted if the bus had an actual bus loop. The bus can continue south. Kind of like the 54 stops at Lawrence east Station but continues on. The bus would be off loaded and could be refilled on its way to bloor. That would add a bunch of capacity on these bus routes. It would make the transfers safer, and with a canopy make it more weather protected. Plus there is so much room for small terminals.
 
dullturtle06 said:
But wouldn't the lrt ridership be boosted if the bus had an actual bus loop. The bus can continue south. Kind of like the 54 stops at Lawrence east Station but continues on. The bus would be off loaded and could be refilled on its way to bloor. That would add a bunch of capacity on these bus routes. It would make the transfers safer, and with a canopy make it more weather protected. Plus there is so much room for small terminals.
Click to expand...
Guess there isn't much rider transfers between Line 1 with the King, Queen, Dundas, or Carlton streetcars. There was congestion when they used paper transfers, not so much with the PRESTO cards.
 
I would actually worry about the land required for loops as well as the added traffic measures that would be needed for buses entering and leaving them. And, for through routes, typical TTC behaviour will be to add padding to schedules once buses have a place to lay over. Better to have simple pull offs and force the vehicles to keep moving.

Pedestrian tunnels are absolutely essential. Literally life saving.

- Paul
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top