News   Feb 23, 2024
 1.3K     2 
News   Feb 23, 2024
 630     0 
News   Feb 23, 2024
 940     0 

Transit City Plan

Which transit plan do you prefer?

  • Transit City

    Votes: 95 79.2%
  • Ford City

    Votes: 25 20.8%

  • Total voters
    120
Or you could do what one normally does, and do a traffic count. Personally I've driven past it many times on the way to work, and I've really not seen much traffic on it.

Quite possible, especially since the parking lots served by the ramp are a long way off (and I'd be really curious to see who would take it coming from the east instead of the driveway closer to Don Mills).

The problem here, is that then the LRT has to interfere with the Leslie/Eglinton traffic. The only place where it would interfere with traffic on Eglinton between Don Mills Road and Weston.

That's is you subscribe to the thought of only limiting the Eglinton line to the underground portion through to Don Mills.

I know the new mayor is all hot for everything being underground (or at least not coming close to interfering with cars, or maybe just not built at all), but I'm just not sold on the expense required to fully grade-separate the line. Building two lanes of LRT down the middle of the street, eliminating left turns (yes, war on cars and all that) and properly functioning signal priority I believe would give close to the speeds capable with the line trenched or otherwise isolated to one side of the road. Of course not everyone believes that.

With respect to putting the lines on the southern lanes of Eglinton, while the lane loss would be the same, I can only think that as a driver, I would be unnerved driving east while seeing a westbound LRT coming towards me on my right. Just like the weird setup with Fleet St and Lakeshore west of Bathurst. In the grand scheme of things, dealing with a three-way intersection at Leslie I don't think has to have much, if any discernible impact on the operation of the LRT. Certainly no more than veering off to the south and then back north again in relatively short order to swerve around the south of the Celestica ramp.
 
I know the new mayor is all hot for everything being underground (or at least not coming close to interfering with cars, or maybe just not built at all), but I'm just not sold on the expense required to fully grade-separate the line.
I quite agree. But I also think we can make a few significant improvements for very little extra cost. And eliminating the Leslie intersection is an example of this.
 
I quite agree. But I also think we can make a few significant improvements for very little extra cost. And eliminating the Leslie intersection is an example of this.

I agree as well. I wonder if it would be worth it to push for a similar type of arrangement on the western end, so that it terminates in Eglinton Flats, for an easy connection to the Jane bus. It would also leave much more space for an LRT->Bus transfer location.
 
I'd think in the west end at Jane that an elevated structure might be in order, similar to an SRT station. I wonder how much that would add to the cost.
 
I quite agree. But I also think we can make a few significant improvements for very little extra cost. And eliminating the Leslie intersection is an example of this.

Fundamentally, how would eliminating Leslie be a 'significant improvement'?

Assuming proper signal priority can be used (an option far cheaper than other swerving alignments), what would be the real difference in operation of the line?

Signal priority shouldn't be that complex since:
a) there are not a whole slew of nearby signals on Eglinton or Leslie that need to be coordinated with so as to maintain any semblance of a 'green wave';
b) the only traffic impacted would be south-to-east and east-to-north. South-to-west, westbound and eastbound traffic would be unaffected.

Even now, there are two left turn lanes on Eglinton with their own lights (such that they could be facing red while other eastbound traffic has green). How different is this that what could be done for priority for a single three car LRV train passing every 3 - 5 minutes?

*Note for this argument I'm assuming the issue is between two existing centre lanes versus two existing southern lanes. Any suggestions of building two additional lanes to the south are simply silly, as covered here already.
 
Fundamentally, how would eliminating Leslie be a 'significant improvement'?
There would never be any interaction between streetcars and traffic. If it actually costs money to create this situation, then I agree. However if it costs little to nothing to completely separate, why wouldn't you do it?

*Note for this argument I'm assuming the issue is between two existing centre lanes versus two existing southern lanes. Any suggestions of building two additional lanes to the south are simply silly, as covered here already.
Agreed silly. Rather than put the 2 LRT lanes through centre of the existing rail bridge, you simply use the exising south part. No modifications to the bridge structure. And modify/remove the Celestica interchange so that there is little to no deviation of the LRT from the Eglinton alignment.
 
There would never be any interaction between streetcars and traffic. If it actually costs money to create this situation, then I agree. However if it costs little to nothing to completely separate, why wouldn't you do it?

This could be getting to nit-picky, but I thought we were looking at 'significant improvements' by this change?

As for cost, maybe it's negligibly different, maybe it's not, I can't say with much authority. Messing around with the Celestica interchange would be a non-zero cost that wouldn't be there with a centre median line.
 
I'd think in the west end at Jane that an elevated structure might be in order, similar to an SRT station. I wonder how much that would add to the cost.

Well there's a natural hill leading down into Eglinton Flats, is there not? I would imagine that hill would be a good location for a portal. But yes, elevated would also be good, as it would leave the possibility open for a grade-separated Eglinton West line in the future.
 
This could be getting to nit-picky, but I thought we were looking at 'significant improvements' by this change?

As for cost, maybe it's negligibly different, maybe it's not, I can't say with much authority. Messing around with the Celestica interchange would be a non-zero cost that wouldn't be there with a centre median line.

God forbid we spend an extra million dollars to modify a private underpass... For the extra little bit it would cost, I think having a completely grade-separated line is worth it. Then there's no limitations on train length, and the entire line can use ATC (which it couldn't if it had to cross traffic at-grade without crossing arms).
 
So the idea is to build a surface level station on the south side of Eglinton at Leslie, remove two lanes from the street, eliminate the access point to the residential properties on the south side between Brentcliffe and Leslie, remove the ramp to Celestica, and install fencing to keep people off the line? That sounds cheaper than an underground alignment at that point but doesn't seem car nor pedestrian friendly and sounds to still be more expensive than the original plan.
 
So the idea is to build a surface level station on the south side of Eglinton at Leslie,

No station required.

remove two lanes from the street,

Only on the bridge, which would have happened under the current plan anyway. Only with this version, you run the LRT along the south side of the bridge, so you have 4 lanes of traffic to the north, and 2 lanes of LRT to the south (instead of 2 lanes of traffic, 2 lanes of LRT, 2 lanes of traffic).

eliminate the access point to the residential properties on the south side between Brentcliffe and Leslie

Huh? No, the portal would be further east than that. No properties would be cut off.

, remove the ramp to Celestica,

Or modify it. Either or.

and install fencing to keep people off the line?

At certain points, yes.

That sounds cheaper than an underground alignment at that point but doesn't seem car nor pedestrian friendly and sounds to still be more expensive than the original plan.

Pedestrian-friendly? Really? How is running it down the middle of an arterial with no station there any more pedestrian friendly than running it beside an arterial with a fence to stop people from going on the tracks. In fact, if you put trees or some sort of planting between the tracks and the sidewalk, I'd think it would be MORE pedestrian friendly. And it would be marginally more expensive, mainly because you don't have to rip up the middle of the roadway, and rebuild the entire Eglinton-Leslie intersection.
 
God forbid we spend an extra million dollars to modify a private underpass...

I thought the mandate was to cut waste and find efficiencies?

For the extra little bit it would cost, I think having a completely grade-separated line is worth it. Then there's no limitations on train length, and the entire line can use ATC (which it couldn't if it had to cross traffic at-grade without crossing arms).

This sounds like you are only looking at the line being the current underground portion, plus the bit to Don Mills. Personally, I'd prefer the entire planned line is built as that would be providing better transit to thousands more people. Grade separating through much of those areas would add significant cost to the line.

As it is, they could still use ATC through the tunnel from Leslie to west of Keele and train length is limited by the stations (there is no forecast for demand to require longer trains for the foreseeable future). But I don't see why having a centre median crossing at Leslie limits the train length.
 
No station required.

Why? Leslie seems to be developing as primarily high-rise residential and a bus route terminates here.

Only on the bridge, which would have happened under the current plan anyway. Only with this version, you run the LRT along the south side of the bridge, so you have 4 lanes of traffic to the north, and 2 lanes of LRT to the south (instead of 2 lanes of traffic, 2 lanes of LRT, 2 lanes of traffic).

Not just on the bridge but in the underpass as well. There would be a lot of fill required outside those two locations as well due to the river valley. The current plan cannot be used as a baseline of acceptability because it has been thrown out as unacceptable for its impact on cars. The Sheppard East LRT didn't even remove lanes for almost its entire route so that argument holds more weight here.

Huh? No, the portal would be further east than that. No properties would be cut off.

Oops. You are correct. It comes out in the middle of the street just east of the intersection.

Or modify it. Either or.

How either or? A ramp over the street for another $5-10M?

At certain points, yes.

All points where it is at the surface.

Pedestrian-friendly? Really? How is running it down the middle of an arterial with no station there any more pedestrian friendly than running it beside an arterial with a fence to stop people from going on the tracks.

There is a station at Leslie in the original plan (Plate 70). Pedestrians have no fences impeding their way or blocking their view.
 
This could be getting to nit-picky, but I thought we were looking at 'significant improvements' by this change?
Surely eliminating the only road crossing between Don Mills and Jane IS a significant improvement. It would allow one to run ATC for 2 further stations.

Messing around with the Celestica interchange would be a non-zero cost that wouldn't be there with a centre median line
You'd still have to play with that structure to run LRT on it. And the structure looks ancient, there must be some major rehab costs coming, which would be eliminate if the bridge was eliminated.
 
Last edited:

Top