Transit City Plan

[M II A II R II K]

That could work if the emphasis is in it being a feeder route, and a long distance travel route for that part of Eglinton. Of course where the houses are it wouldn't be likely to demolish them and replace them with higher density buildings including the houses that are still close enough to the street even though not technically on Eglinton.

 

[gweed123]

That could work if the emphasis is in it being a feeder route, and a long distance travel route for that part of Eglinton. Of course where the houses are it wouldn't be likely to demolish them and replace them with higher density buildings including the houses that are still close enough to the street even though not technically on Eglinton.

That is of course assuming that the western portion is grade-separated. What I envision for Eglinton West is very similar to what exists on Ottawa's South Transitway, particularly the portion between Hurdman and Billings Bridge (only LRT instead of BRT). Basically, it runs with a combination of trenched and elevated through a corridor directly beside Riverside Dr.

Here are a couple images:

(This one is of the Queensway Station, on the Southwest Transitway)

And one of the Scott St trench.

The Queensway example is particularly relevant, because of the ease of interchange between the upper and lower levels. If placed directly beneath the cross-street, the shelters on the upper level would allow a direct transfer between the buses, and the LRT below. Northbound buses and 1 end of the platform, southbound at the other.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Yea as long as the whole thing is off the road. They could even have sections elevated directly above the road since no one lives on the street itself in some stretches to be bothered by it.

 

[TransitPolicyChanger]

I agree with gweed that this all depends on if this portion is grade separated. If the section west of rail corridor is either in median LRT or on the north side LRT but not grade separated then operating to the Airport becomes less desirable for the Eglinton Line (even if they have already have at least one plan for the route to operate this way).

With respect to trenching this section, I still think it would make more sense to tunnel the entire portion. We have the TBMs we may as well just continue along the line. I cannot comment to cost (maybe someone has some numbers) but i have a gut feeling the costs associated with tunneling vs trenching along this stretch may not be drastically different. We would gain the added benefit of keeping the weather out while also maintaining the existing Richview Corridor for potential development (be it residential, commercial, widening of Eglinton or parks and green space). A trench isn't the nicest thing to see either and maybe that open space could be put to some real use.

 

[gweed123]

Yea as long as the whole thing is off the road. They could even have sections elevated directly above the road since no one lives on the street itself in some stretches to be bothered by it.

If that's the case, I'd be tempted to run those stretches at-grade beside the roadway, dipping under it at intersections. Unfortunately though, west of Royal York that configuration would be difficult, because the cross-streets are too close together. It would be like riding a roller coaster. But east of there, it certainly can be done.

 

[gweed123]

I agree with gweed that this all depends on if this portion is grade separated. If the section west of rail corridor is either in median LRT or on the north side LRT but not grade separated then operating to the Airport becomes less desirable for the Eglinton Line (even if they have already have at least one plan for the route to operate this way).

With respect to trenching this section, I still think it would make more sense to tunnel the entire portion. We have the TBMs we may as well just continue along the line. I cannot comment to cost (maybe someone has some numbers) but i have a gut feeling the costs associated with tunneling vs trenching along this stretch may not be drastically different. We would gain the added benefit of keeping the weather out while also maintaining the existing Richview Corridor for potential development (be it residential, commercial, widening of Eglinton or parks and green space). A trench isn't the nicest thing to see either and maybe that open space could be put to some real use.

Tunneling would be much much more expensive. Why would you want to TBM under empty land? If you want it buried, it would be much wiser to do cut and cover, because a) the City owns the corridor, and b) it's vacant land (no demolition). Trenching would be much cheaper, and you could deck over key sections (look at the Yonge line between Summerhill and St. Clair) to maintain a bit of a park in that corridor. Much less expensive, nearly the same desired result. And it would be about half the cost to do it that way.

I guess you could say that TBMing under vacant land is like building an elevated expressway through a corn field.

 

[Dan416]

The more grade separation on the Eglinton LRT line the better! Although I think they ought to re-examine their chosen route to the airport which seems rather roundabout.

 

[TransitPolicyChanger]

The more grade separation on the Eglinton LRT line the better! Although I think they ought to re-examine their chosen route to the airport which seems rather roundabout.

My only concern with all of us pushing for full grade separation beyond the original portion from Jane to Leslie is the project demand for the line. Are we making a Sheppard Subway out of this now that the funds have (ironically) been freed up by Ford? While it would be better overall for the network, would a surface portion here fullfill our needs and we can go back to spending that funding elsewhere?

 

[Dan416]

My only concern with all of us pushing for full grade separation beyond the original portion from Jane to Leslie is the project demand for the line. Are we making a Sheppard Subway out of this now that the funds have (ironically) been freed up by Ford? While it would be better overall for the network, would a surface portion here fullfill our needs and we can go back to spending that funding elsewhere?

The only truly worthwhile thing that we can all agree on is the DRL, and that's still under study. So I'll settle for a completely grade-separated Eglinton line. I think the outer portions are easiest to grade separate anyway, at least in the west. It's times like these that I'd really like to be able to see the new plan.

 

[gweed123]

The only truly worthwhile thing that we can all agree on is the DRL, and that's still under study. So I'll settle for a completely grade-separated Eglinton line. I think the outer portions are easiest to grade separate anyway, at least in the west. It's times like these that I'd really like to be able to see the new plan.

Agreed. Hopefully Metrolinx has the same line of thinking. And yes, the western portion is probably the easiest grade-separated transit corridor this city is ever going to build, aside from maybe the Finch hydro corridor. It isn't very often when you're designing a rapid transit line, that you have an empty corridor of land available for use directly beside a major arterial. The Richview corridor is like the lower deck of the Prince Edward Viaduct: Under-appreciated, until it's needed, then it's an absolute God-sent.

 

[nfitz]

Agreed. Hopefully Metrolinx has the same line of thinking. And yes, the western portion is probably the easiest grade-separated transit corridor this city is ever going to build, aside from maybe the Finch hydro corridor. It isn't very often when you're designing a rapid transit line, that you have an empty corridor of land available for use directly beside a major arterial. The Richview corridor is like the lower deck of the Prince Edward Viaduct: Under-appreciated, until it's needed, then it's an absolute God-sent.

Once constructed, anyone crossing the viaduct is unaware that the subway even exists (at least if it wasn't for the occasional rumble). However, if a trench is constructed from Jane to the 427, it would forever be a scar on the landscape (or at least until it is slowly decked over).

 

[TransitPolicyChanger]

Once constructed, anyone crossing the viaduct is unaware that the subway even exists (at least if it wasn't for the occasional rumble). However, if a trench is constructed from Jane to the 427, it would forever be a scar on the landscape (or at least until it is slowly decked over).

Absolutely, this area is calling out for a thoughtful re-design. This could become a very nice stretch if well planned, or an ugly road with a trench beside it. If we want to make this an great transit corridor we need to use the development potential here (i.e. not Sheppard) as we have the width and I'm sure with the many high rise buildings to the north the zoning wouldn't be a huge of an issue.

I could see 2 situations working in along here:

1) Eglinton LRT built either in median or along the right of way and Eglinton developed much like Yonge or Queen's Quay with residential buildings and store front. Some form of street-scaping and street parking to make it business friendly.

2) Eglinton LRT buried and Eglinton converted as above with either a wide green median or some form of "collector-express setup" which would provide quick through traffic and a more pedestrian friendly section along with development.

A man can dream right.

 

[gweed123]

Once constructed, anyone crossing the viaduct is unaware that the subway even exists (at least if it wasn't for the occasional rumble). However, if a trench is constructed from Jane to the 427, it would forever be a scar on the landscape (or at least until it is slowly decked over).

I don't really consider the South Transitway section between Hurdman and Billings Bridge to be a scar on the landscape. Rather, they did an excellent job creating a bit of a hill between Riverside Dr and the Transitway, topped with some nice trees, etc. If it wasn't for the physical size of the stations, at a lot of sections you would never even know the corridor was there. The trench doesn't have to be ugly. I don't really consider the Yonge subway trench to be ugly. Yes, it is in some places, but some places it blends in quite well.

And I find it interesting that you consider a trench that can potentially be landscaped to have its visual impact minimized a 'scar', yet you advocate for a 6 lane roadway with two centre lanes being used for LRT. How is that not a 'scar'? To me, that's a much bigger obstacle to pedestrian friendliness than a trench with trees and a bike path buffering it from the road.

 

[Justin10000]

And I find it interesting that you consider a trench that can potentially be landscaped to have its visual impact minimized a 'scar', yet you advocate for a 6 lane roadway with two centre lanes being used for LRT. How is that not a 'scar'? To me, that's a much bigger obstacle to pedestrian friendliness than a trench with trees and a bike path buffering it from the road.

6 lane arterials are common in the GTA, and pedestrians are used to the arterials. Adding 2 tracks isn't really going make it more of an obstacle than we're already used to.

 

[leopetr]

And I find it interesting that you consider a trench that can potentially be landscaped to have its visual impact minimized a 'scar', yet you advocate for a 6 lane roadway with two centre lanes being used for LRT. How is that not a 'scar'? To me, that's a much bigger obstacle to pedestrian friendliness than a trench with trees and a bike path buffering it from the road.

Spadina is the easiest major avenue to cross midblock in Toronto because there's a huge, relatively safe island in the middle. An LRT median turns a 4 lane street into two 2 lane streets.

The same applies to the BRT medians in Curitiba, hallowed by BRT lovers. They make the streets much safer to jaywalk for pedestrians.

(St. Clair is trickier because it's narrow and so doesn't have sidewalk-like curbs along the median, but I'd expect suburban LRT to have curbs like on Spadina.)