Might as well just shift the tunnel portal west to around Kipling or Islington. The real problem is the spacious corridor east of there, and conveniently that's already adjacent to the planned elevated portion.
 
99Messier said:
Of course its no. Here's an exercise for you. What are the costs of fully grade-separate LRT vs. what we were heading towards in 2018.

Fully Grade Separated.
EWLRT = $4.7B. (Renforth to Mount Dennis)
Eg-Xtown LRT = $7.2B. (Mount Dennis to STC).
SRT Ext. = $1.2B (STC to Malvern).
Total = $13.1B

2018.
EWLRT = $2.9B. (Renforth to Mount Dennis on-street).
Eg. LRT = $4.6B. (Mount Dennis to Brentcliffe then on-street to Kennedy).
SRT = $1.8B. (Kennedy to Malvern).
SSE = $5.5B.
Total = $14.8B.

So we would have paid $1.5B more to get slower transit that covers less area. Savings would have been even more if they didn't use LRT. Now they are just trying to somehow fix the errors they made previously - and of course its not cheap.
Click to expand...

I don't think you need both of those projects. It would've been one or the other.

The Scarborough LRT from Kennedy to Malvern and an Eglinton East LRT extension would've provided a lot more coverage than we're going to get with current plans.
 
syn said:
I don't think you need both of those projects. It would've been one or the other.

The Scarborough LRT from Kennedy to Malvern and an Eglinton East LRT extension would've provided a lot more coverage than we're going to get with current plans.
Click to expand...
As well as shittier service for everyone!
 
ARG1 said:
As well as shittier service for everyone!
Click to expand...

As opposed to no service on Eglinton?

It's great service, especially from a community building aspect. Far more access than we're getting with the direction they're going now.
 
syn said:
As opposed to no service on Eglinton?

It's great service, especially from a community building aspect. Far more access than we're getting with the direction they're going now.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about Eglinton West, which in this case would be slower and worse for the residents of Etobicoke, as well as anyone working in Pearson Airport who lives in Midtown.
 
ARG1 said:
I'm talking about Eglinton West, which in this case would be slower and worse for the residents of Etobicoke, as well as anyone working in Pearson Airport who lives in Midtown.
Click to expand...

There are cities all over the planet successfully implementing on-street LRTs that provide excellent service. No reason it can't be done here.
 
syn said:
There are cities all over the planet successfully implementing on-street LRTs that provide excellent service. No reason it can't be done here.
Click to expand...
Except the transportation department here just suck. Even when I rode on the ION, I wasn't please and felt like the 501 Queen streetcar moved faster with ALRVs.
 
syn said:
I don't think you need both of those projects. It would've been one or the other.

The Scarborough LRT from Kennedy to Malvern and an Eglinton East LRT extension would've provided a lot more coverage than we're going to get with current plans.
Click to expand...
Yes, you're right.
I should have deleted the $1.8B SRT in the 2nd case.

If I wanted to added service to UTSC, the options would be a 4km, $800M branch of the SRT elevated from Centennial to UTSC.
or, in an on-street world, a $2.0B Scarb-Malv LRT.
 
Steve X said:
There will be many hard to access construction spots making this a pretty expensive, difficult to manage traffic and would be prone to delays cause they can't get construction workers/materials on site easily between in the middle of the highway easily. The tunnel is a much easier option. On top of that, this would add more congestion on an already congested area.
Click to expand...

Funny, that's what they said when they justified putting the central portion of the LRT underground.

And that worked out so well over the past seven years.....

- Paul
 
syn said:
There are cities all over the planet successfully implementing on-street LRTs that provide excellent service. No reason it can't be done here.
Click to expand...
Yes, and they either A) Don't use it as a backbone to their transportation system, or B) are much much smaller cities like Portland or Sacramento. We're not Portland or Sacramento, we're the 4th largest city on the continent with a booming and vastly expanding population. LRT simply doesn't cut it for our major corridors.
 
Last edited:
W. K. Lis said:
Guessing they don't want the noise of the light rail obscuring the "pleasant" truck, automobile, etc. traffic noises around 427/401. Adding another elevated section, just for light rail, would also "spoil" the view of the stop-n-go traffic. There is "no real estate" available for a overhead light rail section around the intersection.

View attachment 274858
From link.
Click to expand...

The problem is a) the busy Eglinton / Martin Grove intersection, and b) the hydro line. Obviously, no concerns about the pleasant look in this area; just whether one more line can fit at grade or at elevation through this maze. If not, then a short tunnel may be an acceptable price for getting to the other side.
 
In my personal opinion, Line 5 should have been totally grade separated, and the whole line built from the getgo and should have been heavy rail or something like the ontario line.

I always questioned why they would have half of an lrt buried and half of it ground level. it should have been heavy rail if its underground.

It would be more expensive but I think it would be better.

People will disagree and I would love to hear what they think.
 
Steve X said:
Except the transportation department here just suck. Even when I rode on the ION, I wasn't please and felt like the 501 Queen streetcar moved faster with ALRVs.
Click to expand...

Have you ridden it recently? With PTC turned on apparently its faster now, at least in the off-street sections.

The on-street is still painfully slow. But thats because of our uber-safe at all costs north american culture.
 
CaskoChan said:
In my personal opinion, Line 5 should have been totally grade separated, and the whole line built from the getgo and should have been heavy rail or something like the ontario line.

I always questioned why they would have half of an lrt buried and half of it ground level. it should have been heavy rail if its underground.

It would be more expensive but I think it would be better.

People will disagree and I would love to hear what they think.
Click to expand...
No you're totally correct. Eglinton, at least until Kennedy should've been grade separated. Beyond that it depends, but an elevated metro easily could've worked well and be cost effective.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top