Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
The same reason that Jane would be a better terminal than Black Creek or even Keele. The Jane bus has a higher ridership than the Keele bus so would also supply more riders.
|
|
|
The same reason that Jane would be a better terminal than Black Creek or even Keele. The Jane bus has a higher ridership than the Keele bus so would also supply more riders.
sixrings
Senior Member
Good point WK... Its why I wanted at least Jane all along.
HOw about ...
In Median stops - Pearson, Martin Grove, Kipling, Islington, Royal York, Scarlette, Jane
Underground stops - Weston, Keele, Caledonia, Dufferin, Oakwood, Eglinton West, Bathurst, Chaplain, Avenue, Yonge, Mount pleasent, Bayview, Laird, Leslie,
Elevated - Don mills, wynford, bermondsey, victoria park, warden, birchmount, kennedy
BurlOak
Senior Member
1. Why would the West end be in the median. The whole idea is that there is room in the ROW on the north for at grade or trenched. You may need an elevated portion to cross 401 and get to the airport.
2. Jane may be elevated since it is partially in the valley. Some connection/station to Jane bus/LRT also needed.
3. I think Leslie elevated (maybe only partially) on the South side of road alignment is preferred to underground. Tunneling through the CPR embankment may also be possible.
4. Don Mills could be underground - in the Science Center parking lot. This would also have to support a DRL terminal station and Don Mills bus or LRT connection.
5. Can the Kennedy RT station be re-used for the Eglinton Crosstown?
ShonTron
Moderator
Weston Road would be perfect. There is absolutely nothing, nor will there ever be anything, in the Eglinton Flats besides sports fields.
What you need to do is re-imagine the 35 Jane Bus. A short diversion via Eglinton, Weston and back to route would not be a big deal, and would connect to a Mount Dennis GO Station. Perhaps Route 35 could be split into two: 35 Jane North and 155 Jane South. The remainder of Route 32 could become 32 Eglinton West and 152 Emmett (or replaced an extension of the 73B). Weston/Black Creek would be a terminal for 32, 35, 71, 161, the 152/73B, as well as serving route 89 (and 35 if it runs as is) from the street.
What you need to do is re-imagine the 35 Jane Bus. A short diversion via Eglinton, Weston and back to route would not be a big deal, and would connect to a Mount Dennis GO Station. Perhaps Route 35 could be split into two: 35 Jane North and 155 Jane South. The remainder of Route 32 could become 32 Eglinton West and 152 Emmett (or replaced an extension of the 73B). Weston/Black Creek would be a terminal for 32, 35, 71, 161, the 152/73B, as well as serving route 89 (and 35 if it runs as is) from the street.
k10ery
Senior Member
Once again - the ROW on the north side of Eglinton will soon be 4 m wide - Mr Ford is selling the city land west of Islington. I think for this and all the other reasons we need to forget about a west extension of the LRT. Ever.
smallspy
Senior Member
You're absolutely right, Don Mills would be a far more logical turn-back point. The planners hadn't decided on whether it was going to be possible under the original EA however, as the line was going to have to pass through the intersection of Leslie and Eglinton, and there was some concern about whether the traffic levels would allow all it to work.
I will however disagree with your contention that trains turning back at Brentcliffe will run "almost empty" until Yonge. Considering how many people take the bus now, it would not be a stretch to see every train filled by Yonge in the mornings.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
Paleo
Active Member
No and we shouldn't. IIRC there will be a new LRT platform constructed at the mezzanine level with a junction joining it to the SRT.
I think it's time to start contacting councilors again.
Rainforest
Senior Member
Come on. There is no reason to permanently keep a totally artificial linear transfer at Weston or Jane, if the chosen technology (LRT) can operate in the street median. Using the Richview corridor on the north side of Eglinton may be a preferred option; but if it is gone, let's continue in the street median and get direct service to Etobicoke and the airport.
Rainforest
Senior Member
Passing through that intersection is a nontrivial tasks, but several options are available. Unfortunately, the original EA did not consider any of them; it selected a one-size-fits-all median solution for all surface sections.
They really should consider the following alternatives:
1) A separate bridge over West Don, just south of the existing bridge. That completely avoids any conflict with general traffic; will cost more than the original EA but certainly less than tunneling.
2) Using 2 southern lanes of Eglinton between Laird and the Don Mills portal, instead of 2 middle lanes. The cost would be almost same as per the original EA, although provisions would have to be made for the pedestrian access at Leslie, and for the lightly used Celestica ramps just east of the CPR bridge.
3) At the very least, they can use 2 middle lanes, but split the through Eglinton eastbound lanes and the left-turn lanes before the portal. So, the Eglinton's layout just west of Leslie will look like this (starting from the north):
- Two westbound lanes
- One or two eastbound lanes for cars turning left to Leslie
- Two LRT lanes
- Two eastbound through lanes
The portal would have to be moved about 200 m east of Laird. With that layout, cars traveling eastbound and turning left to Leslie do not conflict with LRT; and obviously the through traffic does not conflict with LRT. The only flow that conflicts with LRT will be Leslie cars turning left to Eglinton eastbound; that's only 1 out of 3 phases and probably not a very long one.
Last edited:
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
The phase 1 terminal should be at Jane. Later, after Ford, then we will extending it to the airport. If it will be above ground it would be constructed faster than if constructed underground or in a trench, but again the decisions will be AF (after Ford).
sixrings
Senior Member
Although elevated trenched underground is of some importance on the eastern and western sections, the bigger issue to me is the stop spacing. My last post was simply advocating for larger stop spacing, especially in the west if its run in median.
pearson, martin groven kipling, islington, royal york, scarlett, jane, weston, keele, caledonia, dufferin. Oakwood, eglinton west, bathurst, chaplain, avenue, yonge, mount pleasent, bayview, laird, leslie, donmills, etc.
pearson, martin groven kipling, islington, royal york, scarlett, jane, weston, keele, caledonia, dufferin. Oakwood, eglinton west, bathurst, chaplain, avenue, yonge, mount pleasent, bayview, laird, leslie, donmills, etc.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Although I think the selling of the Richview Corridor is extremely short sighted, I can't see how it would make any difference.
Toronto is the only city on the planet that does not use nor even cosider using any of it's existing rail or hydro corridors for transit.
Why use existing infrastructure and corridors when you can tunnel so as not to disturb the urbanity of the Walmarts and gas stations along all those O so bohemian suburban roads?
Toronto is the only city on the planet that does not use nor even cosider using any of it's existing rail or hydro corridors for transit.
Why use existing infrastructure and corridors when you can tunnel so as not to disturb the urbanity of the Walmarts and gas stations along all those O so bohemian suburban roads?
BurlOak
Senior Member
I did not have time to review your earlier link in detail. On the Steve Munro blog (April 26, 2011), a letter from Councillor Mihevic states that The proposal to transfer the Richview lands to Build Toronto is meant to take place after the construction of the Eglinton LRT through this stretch of Eglinton.
Why would Ford allow (or want) this land to be sold. He could buy maybe a couple of hundred metres of Sheppard subway (at most). As for Eglinton West, it would lead to a much more expensive subway being required (which will never happen) or a street median LRT being built (what Ford does not want). Something smells fishy about this.
BurlOak
Senior Member
I think your stops spacing was bang on correct.
I did wonder if the NIMBYs along Eglinton near Kennedy (the only East portion with any residential) would oppose an elevated line and whether the addition of a stop at Ionview would help appease them. What every NIMBY would want is a stop in front of their own house and few stops elsewhere. Having this one extra stop would not affect speed that much, and even the added cost would make it much less expensive than a fully tunneled line.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Was this with the Ford plan or the original plan. My thought were if the line is elevated, it may be possible to re-use this for continuous operation with SRT. The original plan had much more transfers from SRT to B-D, so a better connection was needed between the two. However, with the Ford plan, this may not be nearly as important.
I must admit that part of my thinking was also related to making this line ICTS. When the people of North Scarborough comprehend a 3 or 4 year shut down of the SRT, I think there will be significant pressure to shorten it. Looking at the Kennedy curve of the SRT, it appears that a widening of the bridge in this area by 5 or so metres, plus removing about 10 metres of station from the East side, would allow a curve radius of 35-40m to be done. Much of this structural work could be done with the line in operation.