Toronto Eglinton Line 5 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[innsertnamehere]

If the TPA wants to build parking along the route they should be trying to replicate Bloor by constructing it behind the mixed use commercial properties - they should be buying up houses immediately off the corridor and building there. Wasting prime Eglinton frontage for a small amount of parking is a folly.

 

[thettctransitfanatic]

Your suburban automobile-addicted Councillors at work.

Well in this area of the city, everyone drives, so it's not just the councillors

 

[thettctransitfanatic]

If the TRCA wants to build parking along the route they should be trying to replicate Bloor by constructing it behind the mixed use commercial properties - they should be buying up houses immediately off the corridor and building there. Wasting prime Eglinton frontage for a small amount of parking is a folly.

That sounds like a way better idea. In Bloor West Village, the parking is done in the way you described where's it's almost hidden behind the business fronting Bloor. Had they chose to do the same thing here, the automobile gods and transit users both would have won

 

[Amare]

If the TPA wants to build parking along the route they should be trying to replicate Bloor by constructing it behind the mixed use commercial properties - they should be buying up houses immediately off the corridor and building there. Wasting prime Eglinton frontage for a small amount of parking is a folly.

This is EXACTLY what the city should be doing as a whole. They should, where possible, take all on-street parking and place it at the immediate rear of businesses. This would allow them to clear the streets of parking and allow for wider sidewalks, bike lanes, etc..

As you've mentioned already, this has already been done on part of Bloor St; however it can also be seen on parts of Queen St, and Lake Shore Blvd W. Obviously this would be a very expensive undertaking and bold undertaking, which is exactly why it will never be done. If our city was forward-thinking then i'd be optimistic.

 

[Aplus23]

To me, the best solution would just be to finance a parking lot while a developer builds something overtop. Not sure why they have to waste the air rights.

This sounds like the best solution to me. 2birds with one stone and money coming into the city from both sides.

 

[TransitBart]

Why are we (Toronto Parking Authority) building a new parking lot right at Caledonia and Eglinton?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1143852174105042945

What about driving and then catching Line 5 or Barrie?

 

[Steve X]

What about driving and then catching Line 5 or Barrie?

It's all $$$. Parking = $$$ for the government. When the land rises in price, they can sell it for more $$$. It's a pretty good deal for them while pissing off everyone.

If they make $500 a day, they'll make over a million a year. Property tax doesn't even come close. Cost of maintaining a parking lot is pretty low.

 

[Streety McCarface]

It's all $$$. Parking = $$$ for the government. When the land rises in price, they can sell it for more $$$. It's a pretty good deal for them while pissing off everyone.

If they make $500 a day, they'll make over a million a year. Property tax doesn't even come close. Cost of maintaining a parking lot is pretty low.

Acquisition of old properties, parking maintenance (it's a lot higher than you think), cost of construction, etc would probably require that the parking lot be open for 30-50 years before it's ever paid off.

 

[KevinT]

If they make $500 a day, they'll make over a million a year.

Or $182,500.

 

[Steve X]

Or $182,500.

I missed a zero. LOL

 

[smallspy]

Acquisition of old properties, parking maintenance (it's a lot higher than you think), cost of construction, etc would probably require that the parking lot be open for 30-50 years before it's ever paid off.

Or, the more likely scenario is that the parking lot is simply a temporary usage of the land until such as point as the City decides to sell it.

Dan

 

[BB ON]

This was a quick snapshot taken through a dirty window of a moving bus, but Science Centre now has an escalator to nowhere installed

 

[Hopkins123]

This was a quick snapshot taken through a dirty window of a moving bus, but Science Centre now has an escalator to nowhere installed

View attachment 192387

Is that escalator not meant to be underground? I wasn't aware of any above grade components to OSC Station.

 

[Steve X]

Relevant Crosspost from the Ottawa Thread.



Yes Yes and Yes

I am very worried about how Eglinton is going to perform that being said a big part of it is actually the particular vehicle design heres why:

As mentioned the vehicles really only have the equivalent of 3 double doors for a 30 m vehicle. Even worse is that they are quite widely spaced, for comparison while the Freedoms have one double door per 10 meters the subway trains have one (wider) double door every 6 meters. While the wider spacing would be ok on a more commuter-oriented service or a lower traffic service, given the fact that much of the Crosstown will operate like a subway people will constantly be getting on an off and this could have a very negative dwell and therefore travel time impact. The strangest part of it for me is that there is an obvious solution to this problem which would have been to have a Freedom Variant with 2 double doors at each of the middle door modules and double doors at the front and back (see the example in Sydney below) it confuses me to no end why we didn't choose that, given its not significantly larger and would have given us a double door roughly every 5 meters which is similar to what the subway has when you factor in the different widths.

The Flexity model is designed to be a tram/streetcar. The Freedom isn't that much different than the Outlooks It's just a marketing name for a LRT system. They aren't designed for mass transit. I agree that the circulation is pretty bad in the Flexitys.

Excessive dwell time will occur whenever the vehicles are over 80% full. The Yonge Line has excessive dwell time at all stations south of Bloor. It's high floor and subway. It makes no difference. The Calgary C-Trains have excessive dwell times in peak hours because they are all packed full. Same goes for any Asian metro system. If they manage to keep adequate standing space and not operating close or at capacity (e.g. the ION during the current free period), dwell time should be kept in a minimum. All LRVs, low floor or high floor won't be as good as the standard subway cars as their width is half a metre shorter. The ride quality is lower on the low floors (as one can feel the jerk on the streetcars on a turn) what would lead to more people trying to hold on something.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

The Flexity model is designed to be a tram/streetcar. The Freedom isn't that much different than the Outlooks It's just a marketing name for a LRT system. They aren't designed for mass transit. I agree that the circulation is pretty bad in the Flexitys.

...

Sounds like an option rather one based on fact or a source.