News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

What do you believe should be done on the Eglinton Corridor?

  • Do Nothing

    Votes: 5 1.3%
  • Build the Eglinton Crosstown LRT as per Transit City

    Votes: 140 36.9%
  • Revive the Eglinton Subway

    Votes: 226 59.6%
  • Other (Explain in post)

    Votes: 8 2.1%

  • Total voters
    379
You post a cryptic comment about a spelling flame? Which is clearly a typo, as I've spelled the same word other ways in the past ... heck I spelled it correctly in the post itself once ...

Why not just PM me and I will fix it!
 
Last edited:
All that matters on Eglinton is that the tunneled section be built to subway standards. They can operate LRT at first, traditional streetcars, or even underground buses for all I care. However, if the tunnels are unable to accommodate a future switch to subway, it will probably go down in history as one of the biggest planning mistakes that Toronto has ever made.

The only certainty is that the two biggest obstacles to public transit in the GTA right now are David Miller and Adam Giambrone. If it wasn't for these two, the latest funding announcement by the province would have likely included funding for the Eglinton Subway that Toronto would have otherwise included in their long term transit plans. And as for the DRL, the only reason why that's even on the table is because York Region pushed so hard for the Yonge extension. In fact, the only reason why any subway construction is on the table right now is thanks to York Region's efforts!
 
we got what we asked for. we should have asked for more.
 
All that matters on Eglinton is that the tunneled section be built to subway standards. They can operate LRT at first, traditional streetcars, or even underground buses for all I care. However, if the tunnels are unable to accommodate a future switch to subway, it will probably go down in history as one of the biggest planning mistakes that Toronto has ever made.

The only certainty is that the two biggest obstacles to public transit in the GTA right now are David Miller and Adam Giambrone. If it wasn't for these two, the latest funding announcement by the province would have likely included funding for the Eglinton Subway that Toronto would have otherwise included in their long term transit plans. And as for the DRL, the only reason why that's even on the table is because York Region pushed so hard for the Yonge extension. In fact, the only reason why any subway construction is on the table right now is thanks to York Region's efforts!
You make me proud to be a citizen of york region :)

EDIT: On a (more) serious note I wonder if the City/TTC would actually have more subway in their plans if we had a different Mayor and/or TTC Chair. That seems like the case right now, but just remember we could've gotten somebody much worse than Miller.
 
Last edited:
This essay by Lawrence Solomon was in The Post today.

Sprawl in Toronto just got its biggest boost in 50 years, thanks to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty’s decision this week to stimulate the economy through a $9-billion spending spree on transportation infrastructure. Look for Toronto to bust out all over — North, East and West — in line with the major routes he promises to fund. And look for low-density sprawl to spread to Toronto’s detriment, just as occurred with the uneconomic transportation infrastructure built in the past.

Fifty years ago, the big impetus to sprawl was the creation of Metropolitan Toronto, a melding of a viable Toronto with its struggling suburbs. Among the legacies of Metro was the financial destruction of the Toronto Transportation Commission, then the premier transit system in North America. Before Metro’s creation, all of Toronto’s public transit routes were robust and profitable. Upon Metro’s creation, the TTC’s profitable routes were bled in an attempt to provide transit service to the unprofitable low-density suburbs. Soon, virtually all of the TTC’s routes, in both city and suburb, became unprofitable, and the city, too, fell on hard times.

Metro’s ruinous expansion of transportation infrastructure included an expressway network that was abruptly halted with one major component, the Spadina Expressway, half built. Another major component in an even earlier state of construction — the Crosstown Expressway — was likewise halted (Toronto residents will recognize the only part that was built as what now appears to be a seemingly endless interchange connecting the Don Valley Parkway to Bayview Avenue and Bloor Street).

Now the Crosstown is back, a few miles north of the original Crosstown route and recast as a light-rail road, rather than as an automobile expressway. Like the original, this express route, now called the Eglinton Crosstown Rapid Transit line, is divorced from the needs of riders — the minimal traffic to be carried can justify perhaps one-tenth of its estimated $4.6-billion expense. The rest is waste.

McGuinty’s justification for the line is neither need nor profitability, but “shovel-ready projects†and “economic stimulus.†In this he is not alone: Governments throughout the continent are shovelling money as fast as they can, largely into low- or no-value infrastructure projects that have never had either the financing or the customer demand to proceed. With wasteful government spending now seen as a virtue, all restraints are off, particularly since much of the spending is also justified on environmental grounds. Along with unneeded transit and roads, we’re seeing unneeded windmills and other green power plants, and the unneeded power grids to support them.

In the government’s thinking, the immense cost of this stimulus spending, and the decades of indebtedness it brings, is justified by an immediate benefit to the economy and a long-term benefit to the environment. But the consequences to the environment are often negative, not positive, even with seemingly praiseworthy projects such as public transit.

This was the case with Metropolitan government 50 years ago, when subsidized public transit and other infrastructure fuelled the growth of the modern suburb, and this was also the case almost 100 years ago, when public transit played a dominant role in the creation of Toronto’s older suburbs.

Until the 1920s, Toronto’s suburbs were viable — small, self-supporting communities that had developed on the basis of local agriculture or some other local industry. Transit to the suburbs — at the time provided by a profit-oriented private sector — was minimal, in keeping with the minimal demand. Then Toronto’s municipal government asked the private sector to operate unprofitable routes to the suburbs and, when it refused, took over the private company and bent transit services to its will. The suburbs soon over-expanded, became financially insolvent and, when tough economic times came in the 1920s and 1930s, they became derelict and most became bankrupt, leading the province to take over their financial affairs.

Dereliction is also a consequence for Toronto of sprawling suburbs. City taxes must rise to provide services for those in the suburbs who use city roads and other city services; city taxes must then rise again as businesses and residents flee the tax burden in the city, leaving those behind with higher tax burdens. City governors, meanwhile, cut back on services to fend off a tax revolt. It is this vicious cycle that leads to the hollowing out of cities.

Preceding every hollowing out, we hear hollow words. This week, we heard Premier McGuinty announcing “the most ambitious project of its kind in Canadian history†and promising that more money would come.

In a way I am sort of prone to agree. Insofar as governments interfere in transit planning it usually leads to a subsidy of sprawl. Free roads, subways to nowhere, distorting land use policy and such. On the other hand though, claiming the Eglinton Crosstown will lead to sprawl sort of stretches credulity. Isn't part of "sprawl" greenfield development? I don't quite see how the Crosstown will lead to that.
 
When tunneling for the subway future, you better build stations to support them as well having passing tracks, otherwise it will be a mess building stations extension at a later date.

Just rough in the extensions for now.

Need room to put in a ramp systems doing away with elevators, stairs and that broken down escalator.
 
do away with elevators? what kinda ramps are you talking about?
 
All that matters on Eglinton is that the tunneled section be built to subway standards. They can operate LRT at first, traditional streetcars, or even underground buses for all I care. However, if the tunnels are unable to accommodate a future switch to subway, it will probably go down in history as one of the biggest planning mistakes that Toronto has ever made.

The only certainty is that the two biggest obstacles to public transit in the GTA right now are David Miller and Adam Giambrone. If it wasn't for these two, the latest funding announcement by the province would have likely included funding for the Eglinton Subway that Toronto would have otherwise included in their long term transit plans. And as for the DRL, the only reason why that's even on the table is because York Region pushed so hard for the Yonge extension. In fact, the only reason why any subway construction is on the table right now is thanks to York Region's efforts!

Its interesting you say that, because its ironic that York would be requesting subway service and Toronto not.

I do think one thing is valid for the Transit City argument, it would be nearly impossible to fund a subway all the way from Pearson to Kennedy. York's projects are small by comparison. The funding for a Pearson-Kennedy subway would suck up money from any other potential project and its taken me a while to really understand and realize it. You could spend years arguing over Eglinton Subway, get only a 5 or 10km starter line - a la Sheppard - and it never get completed because another Tory government settles in Queens Park someday.

Instead, there is enough money to dig a 10km tunnel, complete it from the airport to Kennedy, and still have room for other projects with the Transit City LRT.

On the LRT tunnel, I am almost sure the LRT tunnel is not going to be subway standards. There is no need to build underground platforms that could service 8-16 traincar subways, and that's part of the cost-savings with the LRT service vs subway. Its simply less advanced with less capacity (speaking about LRT). There's no reason to spend the money on 16 car platforms if you're building an LRT, because there are no cost savings.

I do worry somewhat going into the future what the LRT will be like. I question whether the density along Eglinton will grow to such a level that LRT will be overcrowded within 10 years. But considering Portland's system services 120k people per day, and having lived in Portland and extensively used the MAX service, I think its going to be hard to overload the LRT if they just buy more cars.

Here in Pittsburgh the T only gets 30k riders a day and it feels way overloaded during rush hours, but I do have to remember they don't run nearly as many trains and during off-peak hours its dead as a doornail.

I could see Eglinton LRT being travelled all day, everyday with moderate to heavy loads, but as long as they keep the trains coming and they are 2-4 car trains it should be sufficient.

Calgary's C-Train does service over 200k people every day, and the more I think about it, the less likely it is I think Eglinton LRT will be over 200k a day in the near future, and if it does the LRT should be sufficient.

I'm really starting to see the positives of the Transit City LRT system, especially since so much of it is underground like a subway. Doesn't make up for the grave mistakes and errors in planning like completing the Sheppard Subway as LRT, but its a step in the right direction for much needed projects.

At the end of the day, one thing you have to agree with Miller and Giambrone is that when they said they wanted to do something, it did get done. Of course they aren't dealing with a total idiot like Mike Harris...
 
Last edited:
My only concern for Eglinton is speed, red lights and left turns.

The Art Mark II on Eglinton would be the best since it goes very fast (RT is very fast)

If the trains can keep the light green longer when there ready to leave like VIVA, that would be a plus for this Line.

I was wondering if it was possible for to be connected with RT? (Sorry, never saw Kennedy Station from the outside)
 
Here are a few examples of things that have made me feel better about the Eglinton LRT.

I was in London in March 2000. I was very young, it was a high school tour and I was 17, but I still had a budding interest in urban development. Luckily one of our hotels during the two week tour was in Canary Wharf, and the best mode of transportation in the region was the Docklands Light Rail for some of the things we did.

The DLR system is 32 km in length (Eglinton Crosstown will be bigger), its in an established, dense urban environment and not a relatively car oriented north american city like Denver whose light rail is marketed as so fantastic.

The system manages to serve over 60 million riders per year and its comfortable. Yes, its busy during rush hours. But it does work great.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Rail

I think its a success story in a tested, urban environment. Eglinton won't be any more developed than Canary Wharf.

---

Another good reference for me is the Portland MAX.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_MAX

At 120k riders per day, its a system that has passed the test of busy ridership for a "light" rail system. Its not as busy as the Calgary C-Train, and it doesn't service 60 million people per year like the Docklands Light Rail, but its also the most successful of America's smaller city transit systems. Its over double the ridership of Denver's system, for example.

Plus I lived in Portland from 2007-2008 before moving here to Pittsburgh. I can tell you that Portland MAX has a lot in common with what they are doing in Transit City. All MAX trains run in traffic throughout key sections of the MAX system. Downtown Hillsboro, Downtown Portland, Downtown Gresham... It doesn't matter if its the center, the east end, or the west end MAX runs through intersections.

But it still manages to run a tight schedule, it manages to comfortably ride 120k people per day.

When I think back to it, the fact that MAX is slowed down in downtown Portland by running in the streets is a bigger problem than Toronto's idea of digging a huge 10km tunnel and then letting it fly through suburban intersections with traffic signaling priority.

Portland's MAX system has only one tunnel under the mountain beside downtown, its not like they prioritized and built a subway tunnel all the way through downtown. With Eglinton LRT they are tunnelling a third of the project almost. I'm pretty sure it'll work well now that I'm aware how much they are tunnelling and where.

The more I study this program, the more I think Eglinton LRT will definately be a success.

I'm the first to state that I wanted an Eglinton subway myself, but this isn't a bad deal. Its true progress for Toronto despite not being what we all wanted in the beginning.
 
Here are a few examples of things that have made me feel better about the Eglinton LRT.

I was in London in March 2000. I was very young, it was a high school tour and I was 17, but I still had a budding interest in urban development. Luckily one of our hotels during the two week tour was in Canary Wharf, and the best mode of transportation in the region was the Docklands Light Rail for some of the things we did.

The DLR system is 32 km in length (Eglinton Crosstown will be bigger), its in an established, dense urban environment and not a relatively car oriented north american city like Denver whose light rail is marketed as so fantastic.

The system manages to serve over 60 million riders per year and its comfortable. Yes, its busy during rush hours. But it does work great.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Rail

I think its a success story in a tested, urban environment. Eglinton won't be any more developed than Canary Wharf.

---

DLR works great, largely due to very high frequencies, speeds, and POP--the last being extremely uncharacteristic for London, but a source of great frustration when one has to, say, change from the Jubilee Line at Canary Wharf and pay a double fare.

That said, I would hesitate to compare it to the Eglinton plan. DLR is 100% grade-separated, mostly elevated, and much more like the Scarborough RT than what we are (probably) getting on Eglinton. DLR is only a "light railway" in comparison to the Tube.

It actually covers a huge swathe of East London, especially with the Stratford extension underway. But it could never do the job it does with even small on-street sections.
 
You are correct about the DLR being grade separated and more like the SRT; however, that is why I provided Portland as the polar opposite comparison. The Blue Line, which forms the backbone of the system, is in traffic significantly. Throughout Downtown Portland, through the the east side going toward the Hollywood district there is literally 10 km of the Portland MAX that basically is totally in-traffic and has to cross intense downtown intersections. Yet that system comfortably, and reliably transports 120k people per day FAR MORE QUICKLY than any bus system could dream of.

While I would PREFER an Eglinton subway, the LRT is beginning to grow on me because of the fact that its being funded with 10km of underground track in the busiest portion, and it is not flowing inside traffic in the suburban locations, it does have its own dedicated lanes. If its just crossing traffic signals that can be worked out.

Its certainly not a streetcar. I'm beginning to see the benefits of Transit City if its implemented properly. I still support building a DRL subway and building it fast, there needs to be less of a wait on it now that these other projects are a go.

One example I don't know much about is Calgary's C-Train, I've never been to Calgary and don't know if its runs through intersections at a certain point. It carries a lot of people and is busier than the DLR in London.

One thing I do have to say is that the light rail technology being used is far different from the old streetcar technology. I love the TTC streetcar, but its truly the glorified bus compared with LRT.

EVERYONE on here knows (if anyone has read my posts in the past) that I'm a pro-subway guy. I prefer the TTC subway over light rail, but I also have real world living experiences with successful LRT systems in America. I don't just live in a city with LRT, but when I was in Portland and now here in Pittsburgh I've used both systems to get to my job on a daily basis.

Take it from someone who has used LRT for two years to depend on it for getting to work and back every day... LRT is not a streetcar in the form they have created here. Its also not a subway, it is certainly slower with far less capacity.

But a Toronto streetcar won't get up to 50mph/80kph like an LRT car does between stops and it also doesn't have the ability to link 2-4 cars per stop.

Here in Pittsburgh, since the T isn't used as heavily as other systems, they use one train car during off-peak hours, and they link 2 car trains together for rush hour. It does very well...

Portland's MAX runs 2 car trains most of the day on the blue line, and its very comfortable.

I do think Portland has a problem with the MAX being slow downtown, but then again the Eglinton Crosstown isn't being built like that. Its going completely underground at key points.

This can be a success, and I'm a subway oriented person willing to admit that.

One thing that LRT brings together is the ease of turning cars around. If there is a choke point, you can easily take the smaller LRT cars and switch them over to the other track to avoid the double-car choke point if there was an emergency say on the east side of town. You could operate the LRT by having trains go from Pearson to Yonge, then switch over at a track-transfer point and come back, effectively operating Eglinton west of Yonge if it had to be done for a few hours while an emergency is dealt with.

Here in Pittsburgh they have transfer tracks every other stop... I think a lot of you could learn to enjoy LRT.

MY biggest worry is the fact that Toronto isn't a small town and its going to grow quickly around these stops. American cities, save for a few locations, just aren't urban oriented. And even our largest cities like New York and Chicago don't build large highrise districts outside Manhattan/already developed regions or far from the lakefront in Chicago's case, again where its already developed... For those of you who have never been to Chicago, its easy to see that there are almost no highrises beyond 10 blocks in from the lakefront anywhere in metro Chicago. And there is no Mississauga or North York like suburban area in Chicago or New York. All the new development in suburban Chicago or New Jersey is pretty darn suburban.

I could envision Canadian style development overloading the LRT eventually because Canadian cities always grow so organically different from American cities where LRT has been a success.

I worry how busy Eglinton Crosstown can get into the future. What if it needs to be more than 250k per day at a certain point? I don't know of any light rail system servicing more than Calgary's C-Train.

Calgary's example calms my worries though. 250k is a lot of traffic for LRT to handle, and it apparently does it very, very well.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't worry about Eglinton being undersized as LRT -- rumor has it that the line will be ICTS and operated by Bombardier, not the TTC. In fact, the TTC won't even own this line.

Metrolinx sees Eglinton as a regional corridor, and kicking Miller and Giambrone off the board was the first step to getting this line changed to ICTS. The experts have all weighed in that this line should be more than LRT, and I happen to agree with them. Eglinton could easily pull in about 300k passengers per day.
 
I wouldn't worry about Eglinton being undersized as LRT -- rumor has it that the line will be ICTS and operated by Bombardier, not the TTC. In fact, the TTC won't even own this line.
I'd think this would be a good thing - except that the ICTS doesn't work when there is snow; even the Mark II system had issues this winter in Vancouver - and it has no where near the winter weather we get.
 

Back
Top