[golodhendil]

I'm kind of learning about this kind of transportation, but couldn't they make the streetcar go UNDER the intersection. But I guess that would defeat the purpose of even having an LRT on the surface route.

They certainly could, and many of us think they should. Also, it's common for many surface-running LRT systems in the world to grade-separate busy intersections to minimize the rail and road's impact on each other, without necessarily needing to build more expensive full tunnels or viaducts.

 

[GenerationW]

They certainly could, and many of us think they should.

I agree. It's one of the proposals for the Don Mills stop, so why not do it for every major intersection?

 

[Dan416]

I agree. It's one of the proposals for the Don Mills stop, so why not do it for every major intersection?

If you're gonna do that, just cut-and-cover the whole thing. Otherwise the thing will be a rollercoaster.

 

[Second_in_pie]

If you're gonna do that, just cut-and-cover the whole thing. Otherwise the thing will be a rollercoaster.

And then if you're gonna cut and cover the whole thing, might as well build a subway since it's grade separated.

 

[nfitz]

And then if you're gonna cut and cover the whole thing, might as well build a subway since it's grade separated.

If your going to cut and cover the whole thing, then you have built a subway!

 

[Second_in_pie]

If your going to cut and cover the whole thing, then you have built a subway!

This is true. So we've got tunneling in the middle, trenching in the west, and raised and some cut and cover in the east? That doesn't seem too unreasonable to me.

 

[Eug]

Is Brentcliffe all that much worse than Laird for a stop?

Yeah, Laird is a bigger street, but I note that Brentcliffe has much more apt. housing, and may have more space for a stop too.

The main problem is the bus routing, but would it be easy to reroute the buses to compensate?

 

[nfitz]

Is Brentcliffe all that much worse than Laird for a stop?

Yeah, Laird is a bigger street, but I note that Brentcliffe has much more apt. housing, and may have more space for a stop too.

The problem with Brentcliffe, is that there is virtually nothing further east. So while those who are right at Brentcliffe might be inconvencienced to walk to Laird, there is virtually no one who isn't at Brentcliffe, and is further east, who would be inconvencienced. Though between the apartments along Eglinton from the NW corner of Laird, and the big building on the south side of Eglinton east of Laird, I thought there were more apartments closer to Laird than Brentcliffe.

 

[unimaginative2]

Exactly, nfitz. I'm willing to support the Eglinton LRT because I don't believe we necessarily need a full subway in this corridor. That said, the TTC's own travel time figures for the surface section are terrible. And they haven't even started construction, so they can only get worse. I just can't fathom why (Well, I can but I don't like it) the TTC steadfastly refuses to look at any other cities as a model of how to run proper light rail. I'm not even talking about Europe here. Calgary is a perfectly good model of how to run light rail in a suburban corridor like Eglinton. With the travel times the TTC has shown us, any and all travel time savings on the surface section compared to the existing bus are coming from less frequent stops. That means this thing is going to be stopping at every traffic light. This just makes absolutely no sense. Run a bus with less frequent stops and you've accomplished exactly the same thing for 1/1,000 the cost.

 

[nfitz]

I'm not disagreeing with you ... merely discussing the location of an underground station.

 

[unimaginative2]

I was agreeing with you about cutting-and-covering and then having a subway.

 

[Dan416]

I really don't see a problem with cut-and-cover. Eglinton has lots of room.

 

[drum118]

I really don't see a problem with cut-and-cover. Eglinton has lots of room.

Really???

Other than the centre section that has to be tunnel, there is room to do a cut and cover for the rest. But then, most of it will be on the surface in the first place.

 

[GenerationW]

If you're gonna do that, just cut-and-cover the whole thing. Otherwise the thing will be a rollercoaster.

Who doesn't love rollercoasters? We can turn Eglinton East into San Francisco lite.

 

[Eug]

The problem with Brentcliffe, is that there is virtually nothing further east. So while those who are right at Brentcliffe might be inconvencienced to walk to Laird, there is virtually no one who isn't at Brentcliffe, and is further east, who would be inconvencienced. Though between the apartments along Eglinton from the NW corner of Laird, and the big building on the south side of Eglinton east of Laird, I thought there were more apartments closer to Laird than Brentcliffe.

There is a fair amount of stuff east of Brentcliffe (apt. buildings and houses on the north side and townhouses on the south). However, it's not at street level and much of it is hidden by trees.