[whatever]

If I lived at Morningside/Kingston and needed to get to Pearson I'd be driving regardless of whether the local transit line was running underground or in a ROW. A line making that many stops would take forever. You'd have more luck convincing me to hop on the GO to Union and then take the ARL the rest of the way

 

[nfitz]

If I lived at Morningside/Kingston and needed to get to Pearson I'd be driving regardless of whether the local transit line was running underground or in a ROW. A line making that many stops would take forever. You'd have more luck convincing me to hop on the GO to Union and then take the ARL the rest of the way

In my experience, it isn't driving to the airprot that the problem. It's what to do with the car for 2 weeks when you get there. The cheapest parking at the airport (without having to park off-site at Park N' Fly or something) for a 2-week trip, depart on Friday, back on Sunday is $170. Even the cheapest Park N' Fly lot is $80 (plus taxes and fuel surcharge, whatever that is).

Morningside/Kingston is a 5-minute very frequent bus ride to Guildwood station. From where it's 30 minutes on a train to Union, where you can catch the express train to Pearson. About 60 minutes travel time plus some waiting ... but it is 40 kilometres from Pearson. Google maps is telling me that right now in rush hour it's a 45-minute drive from there to the airport

 

[sixrings]

[*](Now getting to your comment) The Scarborough Subway debate of a few months back shows that people are willing to pay more if they get a better product (whether it is better or not does not matter, it is whether they think it is better).
[/LIST]

These same people voted for someone to get rid of the $65 vehicle tax. Are you sure they are actually willing to pay more? TTC is announcing it is going up 5 cents and people are freaking out. Sadly people do not want to pay for anything.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Beating a dead horse, but

1. When the Ford-Province compromise of an SRT connected to Eglinton LRT was on the table, nobody in Scarborough was upset. This shows that the definition of "subway" used by the populace was not "HRT" and not the "B-D Subway" - it was grade-separated transit with no forced transfer.
2. Once the underground line was dead, would people on Eglinton have accepted an elevated line. I would say yes but we will never know for sure. It is just that if the choice was in-median or underground they chose underground. That is why I proposed an elevated station at Ionview just so those residents who are closest to the elevated line would have better access to the line passing by their homes than the underground option. I also note that the fastest growing part of Scarborough (maybe all of it but definitely the part serviced by the SRT) is the STC area that is serviced by an elevated transit line. People do not have an intrinsic fear of elevated tracks.
3. (Now getting to your comment) The Scarborough Subway debate of a few months back shows that people are willing to pay more if they get a better product (whether it is better or not does not matter, it is whether they think it is better). I do not think very many people have yet given any thoughts to the Eglinton line, but once construction starts, and when the line is completed, they will realized it is not what they wanted. Spending a little more now could actually increase the chances of the Eglinton line being completed. For example, someone from Scarborough could see a grade-separated line from Malvern to Mount Dennis - with an extension to Pearson they could get to their jobs quite easily and fast. With the Scarborough portion being in the median, those people will say that the extension to Pearson does no good because they will still be driving to get to Pearson.

Could the eglinton line still switch to HRT now? Or are we stuck with the LRT?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Spending a little more now could actually increase the chances of the Eglinton line being completed. For example, someone from Scarborough could see a grade-separated line from Malvern to Mount Dennis - with an extension to Pearson they could get to their jobs quite easily and fast. With the Scarborough portion being in the median, those people will say that the extension to Pearson does no good because they will still be driving to get to Pearson.
[/LIST]

I have little doubt that Eglinton will be completed. Contracts have been signed, construction is well underway.

 

[W. K. Lis]

This image represents the west portal of the Eglinton Crosstown, west of Leslie Street.

What I propose is that the cars using the Eglinton eastbound left turn lane be on the north side of the right-of-way. They move into that left turn lane before the Brentcliffe portal and then stay on the north side of the right-of-way until they can make their left turn onto northbound Leslie. The left turn lane shown below would then be shifted right to where they show "landscaped area", just to left of the westbound lanes.

Instead of having the southbound Leslie turning directly into the eastbound Eglinton lanes,
they'll remain on the north side of the right-of-way until the east portal before merging into the eastbound Eglinton traffic.

The stops for Leslie could then be positioned westerly into the current intersection. A pedestrian signal may be a cheap way cross Eglinton eastbound traffic at that point. Regular traffic and pedestrian signals would be used to cross Eglinton westbound traffic.

 

[nfitz]

The stops for Leslie could then be positioned westerly into the current intersection. A pedestrian signal may be a cheap way cross Eglinton eastbound traffic at that point. Regular traffic and pedestrian signals would be used to cross Eglinton westbound traffic.

Yes, that's an interesting thought. Surprised they didn't think of it ... shouldn't have been any cost.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

This image represents the west portal of the Eglinton Crosstown, west of Leslie Street.

What I propose is that the cars using the Eglinton eastbound left turn lane be on the north side of the right-of-way. They move into that left turn lane before the Brentcliffe portal and then stay on the north side of the right-of-way until they can make their left turn onto northbound Leslie. The left turn lane shown below would then be shifted right to where they show "landscaped area", just to left of the westbound lanes.

Instead of having the southbound Leslie turning directly into the eastbound Eglinton lanes,
they'll remain on the north side of the right-of-way until the east portal before merging into the eastbound Eglinton traffic.

The stops for Leslie could then be positioned westerly into the current intersection. A pedestrian signal may be a cheap way cross Eglinton eastbound traffic at that point. Regular traffic and pedestrian signals would be used to cross Eglinton westbound traffic.

That's what spadina looks like.

 

[gweed123]

Yes, that's an interesting thought. Surprised they didn't think of it ... shouldn't have been any cost.

Theoretically the same thing could be done for eastbound Eglinton to northbound Leslie vehicles. Have the left lane on eastbound Eglinton cross over to the north side prior to the portal, so they don't have to cross the ROW at all. Just think of it as a super long left turn lane.

If the south side alignment isn't possible, that may be a good alternative.

 

[BurlOak]

This image represents the west portal of the Eglinton Crosstown, west of Leslie Street.

The proposal shown has 2 EBL, a portal, a turn lane from WB to SB "Scenic Gate" and 2 WBL.

Your proposal would require the portal (and EBL) to be shifted south by 3.25m (a lane width) and have an arrangement of 2 EBL, a portal, an EBL to NB turn lane, a WB to SB "Scenic Gate" turn lane and 2 WBL. (Even the graphic shows that widening to the north is more difficult (wooded and steeper). This proposal requires a wider road cross section at this point and it requires the portal to be relocated.

If the south side alignment were chosen, then the cross section would be Portal, 2 EBL, a turn lane from WB to SB "Scenic Gate" and 2 WBL - the exact same roadway width. The image actually shows quite clearly why the south side alignment is preferred.

A similar thing occurs under the CPR tracks. I believe the options are:

Current Plan: 2 EBL, 2 LRT lanes, 2 WBL.
Revised left plan: 2 EBL, 1 EBL (Leslie to Eglinton EB), 2 LRT lanes and 1 WBL?? (I think you left idea would take up valuable space under the CPR bridge).
South Side: 3 EBL, 3 WBL and 2 LRT's in separate tunnels on south side.

Maybe there is a graphic of the CPR bridge, but I think the South side alignment again is best.

Yes, that's an interesting thought. Surprised they didn't think of it ... shouldn't have been any cost.

I am not that surprised - they did not seem to think of any options. The south side alignment is also quite close to cost neutral based on my back of envelope calculations.

 

[Ozman]

This image represents the west portal of the Eglinton Crosstown, west of Leslie Street.

What I propose is that the cars using the Eglinton eastbound left turn lane be on the north side of the right-of-way. They move into that left turn lane before the Brentcliffe portal and then stay on the north side of the right-of-way until they can make their left turn onto northbound Leslie. The left turn lane shown below would then be shifted right to where they show "landscaped area", just to left of the westbound lanes.

Instead of having the southbound Leslie turning directly into the eastbound Eglinton lanes,
they'll remain on the north side of the right-of-way until the east portal before merging into the eastbound Eglinton traffic.

The stops for Leslie could then be positioned westerly into the current intersection. A pedestrian signal may be a cheap way cross Eglinton eastbound traffic at that point. Regular traffic and pedestrian signals would be used to cross Eglinton westbound traffic.

I like your thinking but in the (middle) image of the portal and traffic lanes, I think you're mixed up with directions. Note the WB (westbound) and EB (eastbound). The left turn lane shown (to the left in the image of the LRT tracks) is the left-turn lane to the new road leading up to Scenic or if that road's not built the long left turn lane to Brentcliffe southbound. This left turn lane in the image is NOT for EB Eglinton to NB Leslie.

That said, your ideas can be tweaked I'm sure to get a superior solution to the present one. One note though: the present set-up has TWO left-turn lanes from Eglinton EB to Leslie NB and if they are reduced to one the traffic will be backed up past Brentcliffe no matter configuration is adopted.

 

[BurlOak]

I like your thinking but in the (middle) image of the portal and traffic lanes, I think you're mixed up with directions. Note the WB (westbound) and EB (eastbound). The left turn lane shown (to the left in the image of the LRT tracks) is the left-turn lane to the new road leading up to Scenic or if that road's not built the long left turn lane to Brentcliffe southbound. This left turn lane in the image is NOT for EB Eglinton to NB Leslie.

That said, your ideas can be tweaked I'm sure to get a superior solution to the present one. One note though: the present set-up has TWO left-turn lanes from Eglinton EB to Leslie NB and if they are reduced to one the traffic will be backed up past Brentcliffe no matter configuration is adopted.

You are correct - I was distracted by the colourful picture and didn't notice. The 3D perspective view really shows it the best.

I looked up the CPR bridge and there are indeed 6 lanes (2 LRT and 4 through lanes) (didn't have time to post image now). It is even so tight that the sidewalks are shared ped/bike. Thus, the Leslie SB to Eglinton EB cannot be on the north side of the LRT, unless we put up with only one (1) through lane for one of the directions of Eglinton). It must cross the LRT at Eglinton. Of course, the south side alignment solves this.

I do not have the dimensions handy, but quick scaling says it does look like the LRT lanes take up a bit more space than the car lanes. Thus, If the south side LRT is used (through twin, jack-and-bore tunnels through the CPR embankment), and the road cross-section would be 6 traffic lanes, then it would create a bit more space for the peds and bike (about 400mm per side).

And by the way, the third image shows that there will be a reduction to only 1 left turn lane for Eglinton EB to Leslie NB. Again, with the south side alignment, it would not have to be reduced.

It truly is a shame that we have to hunt around for solutions after the fact just because the obvious one was not looked at.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Another consideration is the width of the lanes and the need to have someplace to plow the snow windrows. How wide are the traffic lanes currently? What width do the plans give the traffic lanes to be? Could they be narrowed even more, almost to the traffic lanes in old Toronto and not use suburban Toronto traffic lane widths? Wide traffic lanes only encourage faster speeds, better to go narrow to slow down the traffic.

 

[Dan416]

Why would you want to slow down traffic on Eglinton?

 

[Ozman]

There is one simple solution to solve the problems of Leslie and Eglinton and I believe it would make the LRT riders AND drivers happy. Unfortunately, while simple to imagine, it would probably be prohibitively expensive to build. However, I'll throw it out to see what you guys think.

Keep the LRT in the median with the station just east of Leslie St, as per the current plan.

Keep two westbound lanes on Eglinton (north of LRT tracks).

Keep two eastbound Eglinton lanes (south of LRT tracks). Southernmost EB lane ends (merges into other EB lane) between intersection and CPR overpass.

Have (only) ONE left turn lane from EB Eglinton to NB Leslie. But have it start elevating just east of the West Don River bridge so that by Leslie St. it can turn north on a bridge over to Leslie north and then ramp down to grade to become the westernmost NB lane of Leslie.

Have one of the two SB Leslie lanes go to WB Eglinton as is now.

Have the other SB lane ramp down to a tunnel going under the WB Eglinton lanes and LRT tracks and curving south-east to emerge as the northernmost of the EB Eglinton lanes right near where the two (straight-through) EB lanes merge into one.

Have the WB Eglinton right-turn lane become the second NB Leslie lane (the one on the easternmost side of Leslie).

Build a pedestrian bridge with ramps from the south-side of Eglinton over to the NE comer of Leslie and Eglinton, with a ramp in the middle down to a centre LRT platform. It would also have elevators from the platform to the bridge and one at each end for full accessibility.

Here's the kicker:

Eliminate ALL signals!!!

LRT would continue totally grade separated from Brentcliffe portal through Leslie stop and Don Mills station.

All traffic on Leslie and Eglinton would be non-stop with NO SIGNALS. This would more than compensate for the pinched lanes (merging) on EB Eglinton and the fact that the left-turn lanes (both EB to NB and SB to EB) would be reduced from two to one. Traffic wouldn't back up because it would never have to stop. Pedestrians could cross Eglinton using the ramps/elevators and bridge across Eglinton and the yield to pedestrian signs could remain across the right turn lanes from WB to NB and SB to WB.

All traffic would flow continuously through the intersection: LRT, cars and pedestrians.


Something to chew on...