[Solid Snake]

I would have preferred elevated. For some reason, looking at the surface route with all those arrows for pedestrians (and most likely cyclists as well) interacting with the traffic and the LRT makes me nervous in terms of efficiency of the line and it's reliability. Using the 512 all the time, that's one of the reason why most of the time, it always slows down. The driver must always lookout for cars, pedestrians and cyclist that might cross the intersection thus slowing them down.

I hope they will choose shelters like the VIVA exemple. I live at the corner of Bathurst and St.Clair. and when the weather gets bad, the streetcar is very unattractive for bus riders travelling north-south. St.Clair West Station is less than a 2 minute walk from Bathurst and the amount of people transferring to the streetcar is very marginal, and that's on a warm sunny day. They prefer to stay on the bus until Bloor which makes the service south of St.Clair (Bathurst buses are usually full by Eglinton) pretty bad.

I just don't trust the city in regards to priority traffic lights for the LRT...

 

[Rainforest]

The 305 will likely still operate, since its a night bus. The 34, I'm not so sure why its needed, but if it continues, it will likely be a minimal 30 minute service to make all stops that the LRT will miss.

I guess the final decision on whether to run a parallel bus depends on the final list of stations.

A case can be made for a surface bus between Mt Dennis and Don Mills, as some stations will be 1 km or more apart.

Also, the branch of Sheppard East bus between Yonge and Don Mills runs on 20 min headways; I think it is more reasonable then 30 min. If a bus comes every 20 min, it makes sense to wait for the next bus unless you just missed the previous.

 

[Rainforest]

Also, no consideration whatsoever to using high capacity light rail stations like Calgary and Edmonton, and bridges/tunnels across the road, which means reduced capacity due to delays from pedestrians crossing the street, and small far-side platforms with low passenger capacity. See this LRT station in Edmonton: <http://goo.gl/maps/Vm1Zz>. The design looks like the St. Clair streetcar with longer platforms, which is fine for a low-capacity tram line, but not for a light rail line that is 2/3 underground with 3 car light rail trains.

That massive station in Edmonton is connected to a bus terminal, and the structure would be a bit excessive for any location along that part of Eglinton East.

If Kennedy or Don Mills stations were above ground, the design you mentioned would be suitable for them. But they will be underground.

The capacity issue can be solved by short-turning 1/2 of trains at Don Mills, where the tunneled section ends.

Also the Ferrand station needs to be removed. It is too close to Don Mills.

Ferrand is close to Don Mills. But the next stop to the east (Wynford) is very far, 1.1 km from Don Mills, and is practically inaccessible for anyone living west of DVP. For people living in the residential area west of DVP and south of Eglinton, Ferrand stop will be quite handy.

I would support removing minor stops on a route that connects a remote part of the city (Sheppard East?), so that people living there can get to the rest of the city faster. Eglinton won't have such function, so why cut stops. Furthermore, Eglinton will be reasonably fast overall because of the tunneled section; it can afford a few closely spaced stops in the east.

 

[nhui06]

That massive station in Edmonton is connected to a bus terminal, and the structure would be a bit excessive for any location along that part of Eglinton East.

If Kennedy or Don Mills stations were above ground, the design you mentioned would be suitable for them. But they will be underground.

The capacity issue can be solved by short-turning 1/2 of trains at Don Mills, where the tunneled section ends.



Ferrand is close to Don Mills. But the next stop to the east (Wynford) is very far, 1.1 km from Don Mills, and is practically inaccessible for anyone living west of DVP. For people living in the residential area west of DVP and south of Eglinton, Ferrand stop will be quite handy.

I would support removing minor stops on a route that connects a remote part of the city (Sheppard East?), so that people living there can get to the rest of the city faster. Eglinton won't have such function, so why cut stops. Furthermore, Eglinton will be reasonably fast overall because of the tunneled section; it can afford a few closely spaced stops in the east.

The Eglinton surface stops (9 in total) actually makes sense. I hope they re-evaluate the Sheppard LRT soon too and remove some of the stops (especially those that are less than 300-400 m apart). Some of the spacing on the Sheppard line resemble streetcar stops rather than LRT stops. Eglinton surface stops look more like LRT stops.

 

[junctionist]

In terms of burying overhead wires, it might have looked expensive given the relatively small original budget for the ROW project on St. Clair, but it isn't that much on top of a multi-billion dollar project that is envisioned to have a transformational effect on the street with an overhauled public realm and a lot of new development. Like I said at the meeting, it was always done with subway construction projects, so why not now? We shouldn't step backwards, especially if we have plans to overhaul the public realm.

 

[andrewpmk]

That massive station in Edmonton is connected to a bus terminal, and the structure would be a bit excessive for any location along that part of Eglinton East.

If Kennedy or Don Mills stations were above ground, the design you mentioned would be suitable for them. But they will be underground.

The capacity issue can be solved by short-turning 1/2 of trains at Don Mills, where the tunneled section ends.

Ferrand is too close to Don Mills and shoehorning the tunnel portal between the two stations means that there is no room for tail tracks east of Don Mills, which would make short turning easier to manage. It ought to be eliminated, as should Lebovic and Ionview. Eglinton is intended to be a high capacity, "express" light rail line, not a slower local light rail line like St. Clair.

Quite a few of the Calgary and Edmonton stations have pedestrian bridges. These should be seriously considered at Victoria Park and Warden stations. At a busy station this improves passenger flow during rush hours. Almost all the stations (other than the downtown section in Calgary) have fairly large platforms, not the tiny islands like St. Clair and Spadina. These small islands are fine for a tram line operating in a single vehicle configuration (like St. Clair), but might get overcrowded in rush hour at some of the busier stops on Eglinton.

 

[W. K. Lis]

That massive station in Edmonton is connected to a bus terminal, and the structure would be a bit excessive for any location along that part of Eglinton East.

If Kennedy or Don Mills stations were above ground, the design you mentioned would be suitable for them. But they will be underground.

The capacity issue can be solved by short-turning 1/2 of trains at Don Mills, where the tunneled section ends.

Ferrand is too close to Don Mills and shoehorning the tunnel portal between the two stations means that there is no room for tail tracks east of Don Mills, which would make short turning easier to manage. It ought to be eliminated, as should Lebovic and Ionview. Eglinton is intended to be a high capacity, "express" light rail line, not a slower local light rail line like St. Clair.

Quite a few of the Calgary and Edmonton stations have pedestrian bridges. These should be seriously considered at Victoria Park and Warden stations. At a busy station this improves passenger flow during rush hours. Almost all the stations (other than the downtown section in Calgary) have fairly large platforms, not the tiny islands like St. Clair and Spadina. These small islands are fine for a tram line operating in a single vehicle configuration (like St. Clair), but might get overcrowded in rush hour at some of the busier stops on Eglinton.

The current specs call for 3000 mm wide stop platforms, minimum. Narrower by about 300 mm than a typical suburban traffic lane (3300 mm) along Eglinton.

 

[gweed123]

The current specs call for 3000 mm wide stop platforms, minimum. Narrower by about 300 mm than a typical suburban traffic lane (3300 mm) along Eglinton.

You have to wonder how much the City could do with the extra couple of metres if they did a 4m central platform instead. I mean, I can understand side platforms for streetcars, because the vehicles only have doors on 1 side. But if you have dual doors, why not take advantage of that?

 

[Voltz]

You have to wonder how much the City could do with the extra couple of metres if they did a 4m central platform instead. I mean, I can understand side platforms for streetcars, because the vehicles only have doors on 1 side. But if you have dual doors, why not take advantage of that?

I'd say Eglinton is wide enough that they don't need to worry about it.

 

[M II A II R II K]

So the cars for this route probably will be green after all.

 

[andrewpmk]

There is definitely enough room on Eglinton to put wide centre platforms at the light rail stations. Eglinton Avenue through the Golden Mile area is a very wide road. Unlike, say, St. Clair, which is too narrow to do this, and the much lower demand on this route means that there is no real need to do so.

Pedestrian bridges or tunnels at major stops - this would cost extra $$$, but would definitely increase the capacity at busier stations. This is most useful at Victoria Park and Warden which will see large volumes of bus transfers. This design is seen not only in the Calgary and Edmonton LRT systems, but a number of very high capacity BRT systems like Mexico City <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:InsurgentesSurWMetrobus.JPG>, Istanbul <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mecidiyek%C3%B6y_Metrob%C3%BCs_Dura%C4%9F%C4%B1_cropped.jpg> and Guangzhou <http://thecityfix.com/blog/guangzhous-brt-revolutionizing-perceptions-of-bus-travel-in-china/>. Bermondsey, Pharmacy and Birchmount do not really need this as much, Wynford Dr is already grade separated so it does not need this and the stations at Ferrand and Ionview should be removed. My point is that Eglinton is going to be far busier than most other LRT lines in the world; building LRT with a long tunneled section is rare; so this type of thing is needed when running LRT close to its maximum capacity limit, if Metrolinx does not decide to built elevated rail instead.

 

[11th]

You have to wonder how much the City could do with the extra couple of metres if they did a 4m central platform instead. I mean, I can understand side platforms for streetcars, because the vehicles only have doors on 1 side. But if you have dual doors, why not take advantage of that?

It defeats half the purpose of having doors on both sides of the LRVs. (the other half being saving the cost/space? for turnaround loops)

 

[BurlOak]

The capacity issue can be solved by short-turning 1/2 of trains at Don Mills, where the tunneled section ends.

What is the current view of Metrolinx? DM seems set up for short turns, but is it every second or every third train. Also, will there be any (revenue) connection between ECLRT and SRT?

If they run any trains (i.e. Every second or third) from SRT to ECLRT then there is a great risk that they will run full with no room for boardings between Kennedy and DM. It will be very difficult to run frequent reliable service with the 15 intersections that exist in the 5.2 km. With the median portion being retained, I imagine that the ECLRT and SRT will not be connect and Eglinton will be a local line and the "crosstown" nickname should be dropped.

 

[innsertnamehere]

no revenue service between SRT and ECLRT, this has been established ever since the plan switched back to being on the surface a year ago. (for better or for worse, of course)

 

[nfitz]

no revenue service between SRT and ECLRT, this has been established ever since the plan switched back to being on the surface a year ago. (for better or for worse, of course)

I don't really think that's been fully established yet. Let's see what the revised Kennedy station plan is like when they release that ... and see if they've left a contingency in there for it.