[Rainforest]

^^^ I don't understand. Wasn't Kennedy station designed with an eastern LRT in mind so it would just be a straight line under Eglinton to merge to street level once it goes thru the station? Wasn't the location of the Scar subway also built with this in mind?

Unfortunately, the exact opposite happened. Metrolinx has been fully aware that the eastern LRT project is in design phase and waiting for the funding, and that interlining between ECLRT and the eastern LRT would be beneficial. And yet, they managed to design the Line 2 tunnel in a manner that makes connecting LRT tracks west of Kennedy to LRT tracks east of Kennedy extremely difficult.

I can't wrap my head around that. But, that's the situation on the ground.

 

[KhalilHeron]

^^^ I don't understand. Wasn't Kennedy station designed with an eastern LRT in mind so it would just be a straight line under Eglinton to merge to street level once it goes thru the station? Wasn't the location of the Scar subway also built with this in mind?

You'd think so, but no. Metrolinx claims the tunnel wont be able to bear the weight of an LRT portal above it and has refused to redesign it even though tunneling has not yet reached that location. That's the main reason the EELRT is currently being planned as its own separate line.

 

[Rainforest]

Personal Opinion: I personally believe it sounds a bit far fetched and that extending 5 could totally be done, if with added complexity. I have no proof or evidence to back that up. I think a non-connecting LRT from Eglinton GO to Kennedy GO would be a massive lost opportunity and cause too many linear transfers; I sincerely think that extra cost is warranted to get line 5 through-running with grade-separation to Eglinton GO.

I see the point, but. Extending Line 5 to Eglinton GO might introduce another linear transfer. Riders who board a bus east or north-east of Eglinton GO, have a direct ride to Kennedy Stn today. Once the LRT is extended, TTC will be very tempted to terminate those bus routes at Eglionton GO, rather than run to Kennedy in parallel with the LRT.

 

[KhalilHeron]

I (and as far as I am aware, nobody here) has access to any engineering documents that would show this to be true or false.

this is the best drawing this is the best i know of, from: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2022/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-226596.pdf

I see the point, but. Extending Line 5 to Eglinton GO might introduce another linear transfer. Riders who board a bus east or north-east of Eglinton GO, have a direct ride to Kennedy Stn today. Once the LRT is extended, TTC will be very tempted to terminate those bus routes at Eglionton GO, rather than run to Kennedy in parallel with the LRT.

Same problem with the full LRT plan but at least terminating routes at Eglinton would provide a useful transfer downtown.

 

[lastcommodore]

View attachment 730351this is the best drawing this is the best i know of, from: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2022/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-226596.pdf

Thank you! I did not know about this document.
Read through it, unfortunately if this document is right, it's not feasible for 5 to be drawn under the SSE, and not feasible to be above, so the only possible option without rebuilding the whole SSE tunnel under it would be to go surface or above ground where it could not interline with 5... Deeply unfortunate.

Perhaps an alternative would be to rebuild the eastern terminus of line 5 to instead go elevated and meet EELRT in an elevated terminal, but I can already see how ridiculous it sounds that we'd have to rebuild part of a line we just opened. Plus it seems that the document strongly supports the surface alignment for EELRT.

As you said, a dumb decision by MX. Somehow nobody thought to futureproof.

 

[Bojaxs]

Thank you! I did not know about this document.
Read through it, unfortunately if this document is right, it's not feasible for 5 to be drawn under the SSE, and not feasible to be above, so the only possible option without rebuilding the whole SSE tunnel under it would be to go surface or above ground where it could not interline with 5... Deeply unfortunate.

Perhaps an alternative would be to rebuild the eastern terminus of line 5 to instead go elevated and meet EELRT in an elevated terminal, but I can already see how ridiculous it sounds that we'd have to rebuild part of a line we just opened. Plus it seems that the document strongly supports the surface alignment for EELRT.

As you said, a dumb decision by MX. Somehow nobody thought to futureproof.

Another transit "L" for the Toronto area.

I absolutely hate these at-grade LRT's.

Rip 'em up and replace them all with bus lanes! Completely "re-do" Line 5 so it tunnels all the way to Jonesville Crescent, and then elevate from Victoria Park Ave all the way to Eglinton GO station. Make the line completely grade separated. As it should have been from the very beginning.

 

[NY99]

Another transit "L" for the Toronto area.

I absolutely hate these at-grade LRT's.

Rip 'em up and replace them all with bus lanes!

If we had to do it again, should the Finch LRT have been built as BRT? I think there's a very good case for yes, given the drastically lower capital costs, shorter construction timelines, etc. But objectively, what we have is an upgrade over BRT in capacity, speed, etc. Downgrading for bus lanes is a preposterous idea.

Completely "re-do" Line 5 so it tunnels all the way to Jonesville Crescent, and then elevate from Victoria Park Ave all the way to Eglinton GO station. Make the line completely grade separated. As it should have been from the very beginning.

In the long term, I think a full or near-full grade separation of Line 5 is very doable. No extra tunnelling needed. My back-of-the-napkin plan:

1) The in-median section at Sunnybrook can be grade-separated by shifting eastbound traffic north of the LRT ROW (a new bridge span over the West Don and tunnel under the CPKC rail line would be needed, which wouldn't be cheap. Perhaps this could be packaged along with the station for GO 2.0 if/when that happens).

2) The in-median section between Don Valley Station and the East Don can stay. It can be separated from vehicle movements relatively easily. Get rid of Aga Khan station, redo the intersection with the DVP to eliminate left turns (some kind of modified cloverleaf, perhaps?), and create a grade-separated connection to Wynford station, cutting out the at-grade crossing.

3) Then transition to an elevated guideway for Bermondsey station onward to Kennedy.

Grade separation isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. In fact, I don't think you need a new ROW at all until Victoria Park or so. We could probably get away with crossing arms/pedestrian refuge islands at Leslie and Bermondsey, and remove the vehicle conflicts everywhere else, to reap the full benefits of a grade-separated line. This approach minimizes the amount of new hard infrastructure needed, cutting costs substantially.

 

[ssiguy2]

You'd think so, but no. Metrolinx claims the tunnel wont be able to bear the weight of an LRT portal above it and has refused to redesign it even though tunneling has not yet reached that location. That's the main reason the EELRT is currently being planned as its own separate line.

That is nothing short of bizarre. When supporting the LRT east to Eglinton GO, I just assumed that that Kennedy was designed to extend Eglinton further east. Could ML possibly screw up a transit system worse than it already has?

Also, where was the City when all this work was taking place? Both Eglinton portions were part of the original TransitCity which was a City plan not ML. In the 13 years it took to build this line, did no one in the City manage to mention that it should be designed to be extended further east? Thank God you didn't have the same morons running your city 75 years ago or the first section of Yonge to Eglinton would have required them to build a whole new station underneath it and transfer onto a different line to continue in the same direction to Lawrence running under the exact same street when that extension happened. You couldn't make this up.

It's a sad, sad state of affairs when you have to look back a decade and realize that your crack smoking Mayor was right........it should have been a subway.

 

[duffo]

That is nothing short of bizarre. When supporting the LRT east to Eglinton GO, I just assumed that that Kennedy was designed to extend Eglinton further east. Could ML possibly screw up a transit system worse than it already has?

Also, where was the City when all this work was taking place? Both Eglinton portions were part of the original TransitCity which was a City plan not ML. In the 13 years it took to build this line, did no one in the City manage to mention that it should be designed to be extended further east?

Metrolinx runs the show. I doubt this issue came out of nowhere, but rather Metrolinx realized it could reduce tunneling costs by not protecting for EELRT, and the City having no power to stop them.

 

[dougtoronto]

While I recognize it would be wasteful, what are the chances we could build a new elevated Kennedy station to bypass the whole mess, and continue along with through service with an eastern extension? Incredibly wild that we have to think of solutions like these when Metrolinx could have just designed the whole thing better.

 

[jcam]

I see the point, but. Extending Line 5 to Eglinton GO might introduce another linear transfer. Riders who board a bus east or north-east of Eglinton GO, have a direct ride to Kennedy Stn today. Once the LRT is extended, TTC will be very tempted to terminate those bus routes at Eglionton GO, rather than run to Kennedy in parallel with the LRT.

This may be a silly question, but could we not run a centerline service along Eglinton up to the crest of the Stouffville corridor bridge, and have a signalized crossing for eastbound traffic that allows the trains to cross off the bridge onto a new alignment into the existing platforms within Kennedy station that were previously used for Line 3? Obviously there would be significant renovations required, but why couldn't this be feasible?

You'd think so, but no. Metrolinx claims the tunnel wont be able to bear the weight of an LRT portal above it and has refused to redesign it even though tunneling has not yet reached that location. That's the main reason the EELRT is currently being planned as its own separate line.

If we could pass a tunnel within metres of the bottom of the Schulich building at York for TYSSE, why couldn’t the portal structure be supported around the tunnels? Alternatively, could you not potentially re-use the existing SRT platform structure (obviously with significant renovations) like below:

 

[Northern Light]

Still perplexing to me that an option to Sheppard and Morningside was presented but not to Centennial and UTSC. Feels like an attempt to sabotage any extension east of McCowan. Unless a new eastern alignment is chosen and funded for line 4 is funded UTSC may be stuck with BRT and LRT for good

Students and staff would love a direct subway connection to UTSC. But car-centrism is the status quo (and therefore should remain the status quo /s). People will say the density/demand is too low now, but I would argue that A. UTSC people would use transit at a higher rate than the typical population B. rapid transit would be the impetus for densification in the area.

I am not suggesting an approval of anything..................

But I will say, just because an option has not been spoken of publicly does not mean it has not been discussed

 

[Northern Light]

In the supplementary report on the EELRT to today's Council meeting.....

There's a tidbit for some of you to mull over

Also staff still using the old budget placeholder of ~4.5B for the project ....but that is with zero grade separation, and does not to my understanding account for the change in MSF location.

Report link: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2026/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-286353.pdf

 

[JSF-1]

In the supplementary report on the EELRT to today's Council meeting.....

There's a tidbit for some of you to mull over

View attachment 731287

Also staff still using the old budget placeholder of ~4.5B for the project ....but that is with zero grade separation, and does not to my understanding account for the change in MSF location.

Report link: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2026/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-286353.pdf

I wonder what "provincial priorities" prevent the use of the Conlins site. Redevelopment? Trying to cram a yard for the Sheppard Line in there? or are they just actively trying to sabotage the project?

 

[KhalilHeron]

I am not suggesting an approval of anything..................

But I will say, just because an option has not been spoken of publicly does not mean it has not been discussed

It's certainly been discussed, but that just makes me more worried that it hasn't been discussed publicly. There was a conscious decision made not to publicly present it as one of the options under consideration. Could be many reasons, and I'm not sure i like any of them

I wonder what "provincial priorities" prevent the use of the Conlins site. Redevelopment? Trying to cram a yard for the Sheppard Line in there? or are they just actively trying to sabotage the project?

I imagine its the former. If they take the southern alignement to stc and anwyehere further east theres not a ton of great spots for a yard