[BurlOak]

Who's talking about the SRT conversion and extension? That's an entirely different project, with a different set of goals, and an different budget. It doesn't have anything to do with Eglinton, and would be built regardless of what happened with Eglinton.

Many people on this forum have suggested connecting Eglinton to SRT. It actually will be connected but not for revenue service. In terms of budget, it is all part of the +/- $8B that is part of Phase 1.

Except that the TTC and Metrolinx have done the studies, and you haven't. Now, if you go ahead and commission a study that would indicate that you aren't just pulling numbers out of thin air, it may be worth talking about.

Actually Metrolinx did the study when Ford proposed the connection of SRT with Eglinton as part of his Memorandum of understanding. I think the number was over 10,000 per hour, and that was without a DRL. And making the line elevated as opposed to underground will do nothing to reduce this number

And as for transfers, you have to transfer at some point. It isn't feasible for every single commuter to have a subway line from his office to his house. At some point you need to build in a transfer to a mode or series of modes that carry smaller loads more efficiently, be it LRT, streetcar, bus or jitney.

I am sure most SRT passengers are forced to transfer at Kennedy. The number of passengers approaching Kennedy from the SRT is probably well over half of all passengers getting on the B-D at Kennedy. I think the ridership on SRT was well above 5000 per hour. If we can get these people off of the B-D (where the majority invariably transfer at Yonge - and not Pape, since it will be difficult and expensive to convert Pape into a major interchange station) and onto the top of the DRL, it would well be worth it.
]
I am not suggesting the Eglinton line needs to head to the downtown to everyone's office, I am just suggesting that it not stop at a location where ridership is still very high. I thought about continuing the ECLRT along Eglinton to Kinsgston Road, but the ridership is so much higher on the SRT that it obviously must continue toward STC.

"Improve the performance" is a pretty vague target to aim for. How are they improving it, exactly? Shorter walks for customers? Reduce traffic congestion on the streets above? They are building underground stations at those two locations for a variety of reasons, but "improve the performance" was not one that came up.

To me, having high numbers of passengers (at DM and Kennedy) exiting the ECLRT at grade would cause disruptions to vehicle traffic, but it would also cause problems for passengers switching from the median to the underground line. I agree that performance is a vague term, but it is obvious what performance improvements are when you see them.

As for your numbers, considering the median cost of tunnelling a line seems to be in the region of $250mil/km including stations while the cost of an in-median line is around 1/5th of that, I'd like to know how you manage to think that they can build another 5km for only another $500mil.

Actually, I think the cost of the burred part of ECLRT is closer to $350M. Using your numbers, the in-median LRT is about $50M /km (although I think every single Transit City line is actually much more than that), The means an elevated line would have to come in at about $150M /km to add up to the $500M. Vancouver did this for a line that was 60% buried and 40% elevated.

I think you are still referring to the Ford plan. Even Ford, I believe, said that the line should be buried or elevated. The fully buried option was pursued just to prove that the "Ford" concept was prohibitively expensive.

Then, despite all this what-if-ing, there is the final, and most important question: where would you get this money to make it happen? And is the TTC going to be responsible for the additional maintenance costs of the line? Remember, that $8.4bil has to go to all of the projects - Sheppard East, Finch West, converting the SRT and the Eglinton Line, not to mention buying the equipment and building the maintenance facilities. There isn't an infinitely deep bucket of loonies at the end of a rainbow with which to keep adding and adding to the scope of projects.

If the extension of the tunnel from Laird to Don Mills going to be free. Presumably, Metrolinx will say that the extra expense was needed to make the line "perform better". Then the money will have to be found, either by simplifying the design of some stations, or utilizing the soon to be announced Metrolinx funding options, or deferring the highly controversial SELRT. Maybe the Province, or the City, can kick in this small amount. Although the maintenance costs of the elevated stations (note there would be no additional underground stations) would be a bit higher than the in-median stops, but ridership would also be significantly higher.

 

[Rainforest]

I believe that the extra cost of grade-separate line between Don Mills and Kennedy will be in the range of $500 million if elevated, or $1B if tunneled.

Either way, this is not a trivial amount.

But the travel time reduction will be fairly trivial. For the 5.5 km long street-median section (23 kph), travel time would be 14.3 min. In a tunnel or guideway (32 kph), travel time would be 10.3 min.

 

[nfitz]

But the travel time reduction will be fairly trivial. For the 5.5 km long street-median section (23 kph), travel time would be 14.3 min. In a tunnel or guideway (32 kph), travel time would be 10.3 min.

I think you've overestimated the street-median section. It might well be 5.5 km between the portals, however east of portal near Don Mills Road, there's no roadways crossing the LRT track until at least 1.4 km further east at Swift (Wynford is already grade-separated) ... and if they have any sense, they won't let traffic cross at Swift, and the first actual intersection is 1.8 km further east at Bermondsey. Though if they had any sense they'd eliminate the unnecessary Ferrand station, and Lebovic.

 

[Voltz]

I think you've overestimated the street-median section. It might well be 5.5 km between the portals, however east of portal near Don Mills Road, there's no roadways crossing the LRT track until at least 1.4 km further east at Swift (Wynford is already grade-separated) ... and if they have any sense, they won't let traffic cross at Swift, and the first actual intersection is 1.8 km further east at Bermondsey. Though if they had any sense they'd eliminate the unnecessary Ferrand station, and Lebovic.

There are the two ramps for the DVP, and the current plan is to de-grade separate Wynford, which I think is dumb.

But there are worse ways to spend money than to go under the busy intersections of Victoria Park and Eglinton Square

 

[leopetr]

... when Ford proposed the connection of SRT with Eglinton as part of his Memorandum of understanding.

Why do you keep saying Ford proposed this? The ability to run trains through has been part of the proposed Kennedy station design since the first Eglinton LRT study. Unless I missed an actual design change (as in, new station design drawing), what TTC keeps vacillating about is whether they'll use the connection for revenue service or not.

 

[nfitz]

There are the two ramps for the DVP, and the current plan is to de-grade separate Wynford, which I think is dumb.

Ah, I forgot about the north to west and south to east turns of the DVP. Shame they can't use ramps instead - though I guess that's a fairly limited part of the traffic light cycle.

Wynford ... that's unfortunate from a transit perspective ... though probably makes sense for the urban environment.

 

[Voltz]

I'd rather they just use a hybrid design and convert the ramps to Wynford into a regular intersection as planned but don't allow traffic to cross the tracks, leave the underpass open for traffic that needs to cross Eglinton or make a left hand turn to or from either street. No interference with the LRT would be caused and cars would have to wait to make left hand turns.

 

[sixrings]

Ah, I forgot about the north to west and south to east turns of the DVP. Shame they can't use ramps instead - though I guess that's a fairly limited part of the traffic light cycle.

Wynford ... that's unfortunate from a transit perspective ... though probably makes sense for the urban environment.

can someone post what the ramps will look like after the lrt is in? Im totally confused how the right turns will work with the train.. A rough Microsoft paint picture would do...

 

[Voltz]

can someone post what the ramps will look like after the lrt is in? Im totally confused how the right turns will work with the train.. A rough Microsoft paint picture would do...

It's on the second page of this PDF from the these Eglinton LRT
display panels
http://www.toronto.ca/involved/proj...n_lrt/pdf/2009-11-20_display_panels_part3.pdf

And here are the first two parts of those display panels if anyone is interested,

http://www.toronto.ca/involved/proj...n_lrt/pdf/2009-11-20_display_panels_part1.pdf
http://www.toronto.ca/involved/proj...n_lrt/pdf/2009-11-20_display_panels_part2.pdf

 

[sixrings]

sorry I was asking about how the LRT will effect right hand turns off the off ramps of the dvp... I looked but cant see what the solution is going to be...

 

[Voltz]

The ramps for the northbound lanes of the DVP were shown there as well on the same page.

 

[BurlOak]

sorry I was asking about how the LRT will effect right hand turns off the off ramps of the dvp... I looked but cant see what the solution is going to be...

Judging by the first link from Voltz (http://www.toronto.ca/involved/proje...nels_part3.pdf), as can be seen to the left of the Wynford stop, it appears that there will be no real change at DVP. The right on ramps look like they will be greatly shortened to essentially become 90 degree right turns.

 

[Eug]

Some of those U turns may prove interesting in rush hour, because those intersections often have heavy backups, sometimes to the preceding intersection.

P.S. BurlOak, your copied link doesn't work. (The link above was shortened for display by the forum software.)

 

[sixrings]

The ramps for the northbound lanes of the DVP were shown there as well on the same page.

SORRY let me be clear because I realize my posts weren't. If I am driving northbound on the DVP and want to make a left hand turn unto Eglinton avenue heading west, I have to cross through the middle of the street where presumably the LRT will be. Similary if I am heading south on the DVP and want to go east on eglinton I have to make a left through again where the lrt will be into the east bound lanes. When the LRT is complete what will the intersection look like? Will the LRT be having to deal with cars trying to turn through the intersection?

 

[BurlOak]

SORRY let me be clear because I realize my posts weren't. If I am driving northbound on the DVP and want to make a left hand turn unto Eglinton avenue heading west, I have to cross through the middle of the street where presumably the LRT will be. Similary if I am heading south on the DVP and want to go east on eglinton I have to make a left through again where the lrt will be into the east bound lanes. When the LRT is complete what will the intersection look like? Will the LRT be having to deal with cars trying to turn through the intersection?

I think the interchange will look virtually the same as it is now. There will be left turns crossing the LRT tracks both east and west of DVP for the traffic exiting the DVP.