News   Dec 05, 2023
 62     0 
News   Dec 05, 2023
 142     0 
News   Dec 04, 2023
 2.1K     1 

Transit City Plan

Which transit plan do you prefer?

  • Transit City

    Votes: 95 79.2%
  • Ford City

    Votes: 25 20.8%

  • Total voters
    120
eliminate the access point to the residential properties on the south side between Brentcliffe and Leslie
The only access point I recall to residential properties between Brentcliffe and Leslie is the temporary construction road that your not allowed to drive on unless you are a firetruck or construction vehicle. I don't believe that will remain ...
 
One potential future benefit of going fully grade-separate all the way to Don Mills, is the ability to use ATO and hence to sustain higher frequency. Just one traffic light at Leslie, though won't add much to the travel time of LRT, will render ATO operation unsafe.

Probably the cheapest way to achieve that full grade-separation is using the two southern-most lanes of Eglinton between Brentcliffe and the Don Mills portal. In that case, no new bridge is required. A station at Leslie will be certainly needed, and requires a pedestrian underpass if we aim at full grade separation.

Ford's hostility to any solution that takes away the general traffic lanes is another matter. It complicates things. One option to satisfy that requirement without tunneling all the way is a new LRT bridge over the valley, but this is certainly more expensive than using two lanes of the existing bridge. Or, perhaps someone from TTC Engineering can show Ford a traffic calculation that proves that those two lanes are not essential ...
 
A station at Leslie will be certainly needed, and requires a pedestrian underpass if we aim at full grade separation.
Ah, that's an interesting thought. Hmm, if we let pedestrians cross the tracks at some GO stations, should we worry at an LRT stop where all trains will stop?
 
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.

Could you guesstimate the benefit to being able to run ATC this little bit extra?

I see another poster has also brought up the need for the pedestrian underpass under Eglinton for the Leslie stop. Aside from the cost, I'd suggest there is a personal safety issue with such a tunnel in that relatively secluded location.

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.

Again, I don't know the current use or the structural status of that access ramp.

For what it's worth, the driveway to the residential area south of Eglinton is for regular users, provided they are coming from the west or heading to the east. There is a median preventing west-to-south and north-to-west motions.

Looks like the current LRT plans would have a full three-way intersection there (signaled?) prior to the portal.
 
Ah, that's an interesting thought. Hmm, if we let pedestrians cross the tracks at some GO stations, should we worry at an LRT stop where all trains will stop?

I don't really know that much about how ATO works but if you can't have ATO interacting with traffic then how could you possibly have it interacting with pedestrians? Wouldn't that be really unsafe?
 
Ah, that's an interesting thought. Hmm, if we let pedestrians cross the tracks at some GO stations, should we worry at an LRT stop where all trains will stop?

I think we shouldn't do that. GO is trying to eliminate all those at-grade crossings, and for good reason. They really only exist because the stations they were initially at were, when they were first built, a strip of asphalt in the middle of a field (or rail yard, or whathaveyou). You don't really need to build an underpass, you can build an overpass (just like at Rosedale) for a lot less. Especially because of the slope of the valley there, you can put the station the equivalent of 1 floor below the road grade, that way the overpass is really just a walkway extending from the street. Put in a centre platform station, with a retaining wall on the north side of the north tracks.
 
When you think about it, it would actually be a pretty cool looking station. You would have a wall on 1 side, and a valley on the other. It would be a lot like standing at the east end of the Old Mill platform, with it overlooking the Humber Valley.
 
Could you guesstimate the benefit to being able to run ATC this little bit extra?.
Probably a minute on travel times. And increased reliability. I'd assume many of the 3-car trains will short-turn at Don Mills. Can you guestimate the cost to eliminating.

I see another poster has also brought up the need for the pedestrian underpass under Eglinton for the Leslie stop. Aside from the cost, I'd suggest there is a personal safety issue with such a tunnel in that relatively secluded location.
More than the unstaffed underground stations at locations such as Don Mills and Eglinton? I doubt you'd tunnel. Presumably you'd put a signaled pedestrian crossing based on train location.

For what it's worth, the driveway to the residential area south of Eglinton is for regular users, provided they are coming from the west or heading to the east. There is a median preventing west-to-south and north-to-west motions.
I used to drive past it quite regularly, and it was clearly marked to stop people using it. Though I haven't been driving past as much lately, and when I do, I'm normally more focused on merging than the scenery. I can't recall ever seeing much traffic on there. I'd think that you could simply close it and have people use Brentcliffe instead.
 
You don't really need to build an underpass, you can build an overpass (just like at Rosedale) for a lot less. Especially because of the slope of the valley there, you can put the station the equivalent of 1 floor below the road grade, that way the overpass is really just a walkway extending from the street. Put in a centre platform station, with a retaining wall on the north side of the north tracks.

And now we're back to a whole lot fancier/expensive construction for a stop at Leslie, which otherwise would have been a straightforward surface stop.

For what quantifiable gain? (ie what is the actual benefit of being able to run ATC the next little bit to Don Mills?)
 
More than the unstaffed underground stations at locations such as Don Mills and Eglinton? I doubt you'd tunnel. Presumably you'd put a signaled pedestrian crossing based on train location.

Wait a minute, if you can put a signaled pedestrian crossing across an ATO line and still keep the increased reliability and speed then why can't you do the same with a traffic crossing?
 
Probably a minute on travel times. And increased reliability. I'd assume many of the 3-car trains will short-turn at Don Mills. Can you guestimate the cost to eliminating.

Where would that minute come from? If they have decent signal priority, the train would come out of the portal and carry right through to the stop. Once it has unloaded/loaded, it would be straight, no interference sailing to the Don Mills portal. Total running time from portal to portal, including stop, probably wouldn't be more than three minutes without ATC. Is there any slack there?

Eliminating what? Short turning 3 car trains? What is the connection with ATC?

More than the unstaffed underground stations at locations such as Don Mills and Eglinton? I doubt you'd tunnel. Presumably you'd put a signaled pedestrian crossing based on train location.

Would a "signaled pedestrian crossing" be significantly different from a signaled left turn crossing for east-to-north or south-to-east motions?

I used to drive past it quite regularly, and it was clearly marked to stop people using it. Though I haven't been driving past as much lately, and when I do, I'm normally more focused on merging than the scenery. I can't recall ever seeing much traffic on there. I'd think that you could simply close it and have people use Brentcliffe instead.

It may have been limited to construction vehicles only at one time, but it is or has been designated for regular public use. Of course that doesn't mean it gets a lot of use, but if they are expanding the residential development or adding other commercial development to the eastern end of the old industrial park, it would make convenient access to eastbound Eglinton versus heading back to Brentcliffe (which can be a heavy intersection in rush hour).
 
And now we're back to a whole lot fancier/expensive construction for a stop at Leslie, which otherwise would have been a straightforward surface stop.

For what quantifiable gain? (ie what is the actual benefit of being able to run ATC the next little bit to Don Mills?)

1) Because then Rob Ford may actually support it. Would you rather spend the extra $30-50 million, or save $4.6 billion by having the whole project scrapped? Your choice.

2) Because a subway running 3-car trainsets, ATO, and running at high frequencies should not grind to a halt because a car decided to run the light and gets T-boned by a train. Especially when that accident occurs at the only intersection on the entire line.

3) This really isn't that big of a deal. The cost of the Eglinton line has nearly doubled since it was first proposed. Why aren't you crying foul about that? When you've already tacked on an extra $1 billion to the intial pricetag, what's another $50 million to make sure that it's operationally independent, and will actually get built? To me, an extra $50 million on a $4.6 billion project is a ROUNDING ERROR. In fact, when you look at that $4.6 billion figure, the extra $50 million doesn't even cause that $4.6 to round up to $4.7.
 
2) Because a subway running 3-car trainsets, ATO, and running at high frequencies should not grind to a halt because a car decided to run the light and gets T-boned by a train. Especially when that accident occurs at the only intersection on the entire line.

Couldn't you solve this with something as cheap as a railway crossing arm?
 
1) Because then Rob Ford may actually support it. Would you rather spend the extra $30-50 million, or save $4.6 billion by having the whole project scrapped? Your choice.

2) Because a subway running 3-car trainsets, ATO, and running at high frequencies should not grind to a halt because a car decided to run the light and gets T-boned by a train. Especially when that accident occurs at the only intersection on the entire line.

3) This really isn't that big of a deal. The cost of the Eglinton line has nearly doubled since it was first proposed. Why aren't you crying foul about that? When you've already tacked on an extra $1 billion to the intial pricetag, what's another $50 million to make sure that it's operationally independent, and will actually get built? To me, an extra $50 million on a $4.6 billion project is a ROUNDING ERROR. In fact, when you look at that $4.6 billion figure, the extra $50 million doesn't even cause that $4.6 to round up to $4.7.

What is the vision of Eglinton that you are applying these points to?

Point one seems to refer to the entire length of currently planned line, including the approximately 10 or more km of surface running (without fancy stuff like trenching, elevating, etc) - basic surface running - based on the price tag you quote.

Point two seems to refer to an Eglinton line only running in the tunneled portion, plus the bit to Don Mills, since you talk about 'the only intersection' on the line.

I still believe the entire line is justified pretty much as-is and should proceed as such. Yes, I know the new mayor spouted off prior to any consultations or briefings about no surface running and threatening the precious car, but I'm not yet willing to pack in the hope that the line can actually get built ('cause I think we all know if they start going back to the drawing board now it'll be many years before shovels go in the ground).

As for all that extra construction to pretty much exclusively deal with the threat posed by t-boning a red light runner, how often is this an occurrence at that intersection at present?

Why couldn't the cross-over tracks at the Laird station and the Don Mills station be used, just like various cross-over tracks are used when parts of the existing subway lines have to be closed due to one reason or another?
 
Couldn't you solve this with something as cheap as a railway crossing arm?

Doesn't seem to stop people and cars from getting hit by on-coming trains... Also, if you have trains running every 2-3 minutes, that's a lot of time chewed up in an intersection cycle by the arms going up and down.
 

Top