[TheTigerMaster]

There really has been no report update since 2016. What was last discussed was possible grade separations, but nothing was updated or even decided. See link.

Likely will have to be incorporated with the Pearson Transit Hub. See link.

Has it really been since June 2016 since we last had an update? Is anyone even working on this project anymore?

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Has it really been since June 2016 since we last had an update? Is anyone even working on this project anymore?

Here's the "official" website for the Eglinton West LRT, see link.

Still waiting.

 

[Amare]

For all the same dumb reasons that we've been hearing since the Ford era:


Tunneling the LRT makes sense for many reasons

• Tunnelling the LRT is better for drivers. Eglinton Avenue is already gridlocked. It's a major artery in Etobicoke. An at-grade, (meaning on the surface of the road) LRT would make traffic worse.
• Tunnelling the LRT is better for transit riders. We need to get Toronto moving. The right LRT plan will get people where they need to go when they need to be there. A tunneled LRT would not be slowed by traffic or stop lights and move more quickly.
• Tunneling the LRT is better for taxpayers. To keep Etobicoke’s economy growing, we need to keep Eglinton moving. Tunneling the LRT would keep people, goods, and services flowing between Toronto, Pearson Airport, Mississauga and the entire region. Tunneling would also reduce long-term maintenance and upkeep costs.
• Tunneling the LRT is safer for Etobicoke. Eglinton Avenue is gridlocked. The traffic spills over on local residential streets used by commuters as a shortcut. A tunneled LRT would reduce safety concerns.

Another politician pretending he knows about transit. When's the last time he was even in his ward, because if he was there he would know all 4 of his statements are blatant lies.

The problem is that his constituents will eat it up since the residents where the LRT would travel through drive and dont take public transit.

 

[sixrings]

Subways subways subways one city for mayor

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

There is a mention of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT extension in this Pearson Transit Hub report, at this link.

 

[Johnny Au]

Tunnels don't reduce maintenance nor reduce upkeep costs.

The New York City subway system, especially in Manhattan, isn't exactly squeaky clean, aside from it having numerous rodents that squeak. Even the Second Avenue subway would get filthy one decade after opening.

 

[Rainforest]

Tunneling under Eglinton West in Etobicoke would be dumb indeed. The corridor is wide and can easily accommodate surface / elevated LRT with enough room left for the traffic lanes.

The reason Eglinton West in Etobicoke is congested isn't that it has too few traffic lanes. The reason is that the areas those cars are going to do not have capacity to let them in.

It makes sense to build the Eglinton West LRT section to higher standard than a no-frills light rail line. This line will connect to the Pearson terminals and the Airport employment area; a large percentage of riders will travel end-to-end rather than to minor stops in between, and will benefit from a good speed.

However, that doesn't need to cost as much as a full tunnel would. Some sections will be perfectly fine with a street level LRT, and some can be elevated over intersections. Wider stop spacing with parallel local bus service is appropriate, and the same bus route can continue east of Mt Dennis all the way to Yonge.

 

[Allandale25]

There really has been no report update since 2016. What was last discussed was possible grade separations, but nothing was updated or even decided. See link.

Any sense of what it would cost to tunnel this portion? Did previous studies or reports estimate costs?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Any sense of what it would cost to tunnel this portion? Did previous studies or reports estimate costs?

$expensive.

 

[crs1026]

I'm told that the all tunnel option is coming up again because the traffic studies which were commissioned in the last Council transit debate are looking like they will justify duckunders/duckovers at several intersections along the extension. The debate is, is it better to have the transit line continually changing elevation, or just be built all at one elevation.
This reality has always been there. If you go back to the old traffic studies in the original ECLRT EA, they painted a negative impact for left turns especially at several intersections. Those findings were kind of swept under the carpet when the EA was written up, and with McGuinty cutting the line back to Mt Dennis the issue became moot.
The interesting thing is that I have recently heard people who are involved in residents' associations out that way debating about an elevated alternative. These folks arent transit geeks per se and would only be commenting on that idea if somebody they were talking to proposed it. Anyways, the next reportback to Council will happen once the Waterfront report has been dealt with. We may have data to look at before too long.

- Paul

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Tunneling under Eglinton West in Etobicoke would be dumb indeed. The corridor is wide and can easily accommodate surface / elevated LRT with enough room left for the traffic lanes.

The reason Eglinton West in Etobicoke is congested isn't that it has too few traffic lanes. The reason is that the areas those cars are going to do not have capacity to let them in.

It makes sense to build the Eglinton West LRT section to higher standard than a no-frills light rail line. This line will connect to the Pearson terminals and the Airport employment area; a large percentage of riders will travel end-to-end rather than to minor stops in between, and will benefit from a good speed.

However, that doesn't need to cost as much as a full tunnel would. Some sections will be perfectly fine with a street level LRT, and some can be elevated over intersections. Wider stop spacing with parallel local bus service is appropriate, and the same bus route can continue east of Mt Dennis all the way to Yonge.

The major problem are the cul-de-sacs in Etobicoke that pedestrian have to add extra travel time and distance for. Instead of grid layouts for the streets, the roads (and any sidewalks they might have) go into loops and crescents. Taking away mid-block stops (IE. Wincott, Lloyd Manor, Eden Valley, and the others) will make for even longer walking distances.

See link.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I'm told that the all tunnel option is coming up again because the traffic studies which were commissioned in the last Council transit debate are looking like they will justify duckunders/duckovers at several intersections along the extension. The debate is, is it better to have the transit line continually changing elevation, or just be built all at one elevation.
This reality has always been there. If you go back to the old traffic studies in the original ECLRT EA, they painted a negative impact for left turns especially at several intersections. Those findings were kind of swept under the carpet when the EA was written up, and with McGuinty cutting the line back to Mt Dennis the issue became moot.
The interesting thing is that I have recently heard people who are involved in residents' associations out that way debating about an elevated alternative. These folks arent transit geeks per se and would only be commenting on that idea if somebody they were talking to proposed it. Anyways, the next reportback to Council will happen once the Waterfront report has been dealt with. We may have data to look at before too long.

- Paul

Obviously the problem with continuous tunnelling vs duck-unders is the the tunnelling would be far more expensive. However, I am very curious about how the cost of continues elevation compares to the duck-unders. And would this elevation even result in a significant improvement in traffic and/or transit flow? If duck-unders make traffic impact a non-factor at the most troublesome intersections, then the improvements to be had from elevation would be minimal. And as per @W.K. Lis's post, it would mean less potential for mid-block stops.

I'm told that the all tunnel option is coming up again

Who is bringing up the tunnel option? The community groups you mentioned in your post, or people working on the project?

 

[crs1026]

Who is bringing up the tunnel option? The community groups you mentioned in your post, or people working on the project?

This was related to me by someone who has knowledge of discussion between residents' groups and some unnamed interface to the project. The essence was the community troups were saying "well, in that case just bury the whole thing" (which, as you point out, is an expensive and extreme proposition). What I was pointing out is that they were saying this in response to what they were being told....ie they were being told that the likely design would have to be multiple duckunders or flyovers to solve traffic issues at multiple points.

- Paul

 

[Amare]

Here's an example where the city creates its own problems that they easily could've avoided or mitigated for very few public dollars in comparison had they kept enough right-of-way for lane expansion of Eglinton West when RoFo and DoFo decided to sell off the Eglinton lands.

Residents in the area didnt bother to complain about the lands being sold off, but the minute transit is being discussed they line up and whine about problems that never manifest. I can almost guarantee everyone here that this portion of the Crosstown will be some half baked LRT by the time it's constructed due to the stupidity from all sides.

 

[sixrings]

if they decide to make it under Ground then they should put in subway cars until laird where they can continue east with lrt. Scarborough would lose their minds