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

T3G said:
I ask again, why can we not build the tracks in the roadway, as in Scarborough? Why is every option for rapid transit in this damn city one megalomaniacal overbuilding option vs another?
Click to expand...
It would be insanity to split up the two grade separated portions (Crosstown tunneled and Crosstown West tunnel) with a short at-grade portion from an operations standpoint. You’d essentially be taking the very reliable, Subway-esque service and ramming it in the middle of a road and forcing it to interact with cars without TSP (the City doesn’t allow full TSP as we saw with phase 1). Making this small portion on-road would greatly reduce the reliability and ability to run high frequency service on the grade separated portion of the Crosstown West.

With phase 1 of the Crosstown, some trains will already turn back at Laird to avoid the surface section. I am not against at-grade LRT, but it makes zero sense to run an at-grade section between two major long-length tunnels.
 
Last edited:
W. K. Lis said:
The floodplain was originally farmland. The trees were planted as a buffer between the sports field and the future Richview Expressway (which was never built), now a berm.
Click to expand...

A small nitpick:

The area was not "originally farmland" - one has to go back another 10,000 years to say "originally".

And for that 10,000 years, it was an area for encampments, hunting, fishing, and perhaps farming, yes.

That distinction may not be important to transit planning, but from a heritage perspective - this area is kind of the Route 66 of pre-contact habitation and then Canada's early colonial exploration period. So perhaps a bit more sensitive than the average floodplain.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
A small nitpick:

The area was not "originally farmland" - one has to go back another 10,000 years to say "originally".

And for that 10,000 years, it was an area for encampments, hunting, fishing, and perhaps farming, yes.

That distinction may not be important to transit planning, but from a heritage perspective - this area is kind of the Route 66 of pre-contact habitation and then Canada's early colonial exploration period. So perhaps a bit more sensitive than the average floodplain.

- Paul
Click to expand...
Do some research.

From link.

160307023_5173507386052537_679475393732724593_n.jpg

View of Eglinton Flats (looking north) from Astoria Ave - Credit Wayne Harris - 1960. (Astoria is south of Eglinton & Jane.) Eglinton Avenue West ended as a dead end street west of Jane Street (both one lane in each direction back then.)

I remember my parent's buying fresh vegetables at the side of Eglinton Avenue West or the "local" road west of Jane Street. That was also why the 35 Jane bus did not go further north than Lambton Avenue, but went east of Weston Road to Gilbert Avenue (today's Caledonia Station).
ttc-handbook-35-jane-19540701.png
From link.

From 1950, before Hurricane Hazel.
1673198415864.png


From link.

Think of a 1960's version of Highway 413, clearing farmland for a possible Richview Expressway.
 
Last edited:
SaugeenJunction said:
It would be insanity to split up the two grade separated portions (Crosstown tunneled and Crowwtown West tunnel) with a short at-grade portion from an operations standpoint. You’d essentially be taking the very reliable, Subway-esque service and ramming it in the middle of a road and forcing it to interact with cars without TSP (the City doesn’t allow full TSP as we saw with phase 1). Making this small portion on-road would greatly reduce the reliability and ability to run high frequency service on the grade separated portion of the Crosstown West.
Click to expand...

And yet this is what will probably happen if the new group succeeds in blocking the elevated option.

Tunneling under the flood plain would be difficult even if planned from the beginning. It will be even harder now as the portals on both sides of the flood plain are being designed, as well as shallow tunnel sections leading to those portals. A fully underground plan will require a massive redesign, hiking the costs and extending the project timeline.

If not elevated, then the only other practical option will be using dedicated road lanes on the surface. Even that might require a portal redesign if they need to switch from side of the road to street median, but at least no change in the elevation of tunnels leading to the portals.

Btw that won't have much impact on the line's speed or reliability. That section of Eglinton has very few traffic intersections and long blocks between them, so the interaction with cars will be minimal.

But the top frequency that the line can sustain will be worsened, because of the traffic light cycles.
 
Rainforest said:
And yet this is what will probably happen if the new group succeeds in blocking the elevated option.

Tunneling under the flood plain would be difficult even if planned from the beginning. It will be even harder now as the portals on both sides of the flood plain are being designed, as well as shallow tunnel sections leading to those portals. A fully underground plan will require a massive redesign, hiking the costs and extending the project timeline.

If not elevated, then the only other practical option will be using dedicated road lanes on the surface. Even that might require a portal redesign if they need to switch from side of the road to street median, but at least no change in the elevation of tunnels leading to the portals.

Btw that won't have much impact on the line's speed or reliability. That section of Eglinton has very few traffic intersections and long blocks between them, so the interaction with cars will be minimal.

But the top frequency that the line can sustain will be worsened, because of the traffic light cycles.
Click to expand...
Any thought of the line going west of the Mount Dennis tunnel will require a flood gate to prevent water getting into the east section if the west section was on the surface. This was in either an EA report or with consultations on any west extension. Going underground was rule out due to cost to protect the tunnel from water as well been deep.

The elevated section is the best way to protect the line from any 100 year flooding issues. The anti elevation group will fail in the end and will remain as is. Metrolinx needs to rethink about protecting old tree areas or do less trees removal. At the end of the day, the anti elevation group should be going after Ford since its his plan to have the extension underground that will be over budget, years late opening by not having the line running on the surface as originally plan.
 
Another consideration. Eglinton Flats is in York South-Weston...
york-south-weston-850x1024.jpg
From link.

That's Michael Ford, York South-Weston MPP, on the left, and his uncle on the right. Do you really think they will listen to anyone except developers or their rich "folks".
michael-ford-doug-ford-bio.jpg
From link.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top