[W. K. Lis]

The GTAA owns Pearson Airport, most of which is in Mississauga. It runs its own "transit" called "TERMINAL LINK". See link.

I think the Terminal Link train should itself be extended (and paid by the federal government) south to the Renforth Gateway. That way it should serve both the Crosstown LRT and the Mississauga Transitway. Maybe upgraded while they're at it.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The GTAA owns Pearson Airport, most of which is in Mississauga. It runs its own "transit" called "TERMINAL LINK". See link.

I think the Terminal Link train should itself be extended (and paid by the federal government) south to the Renforth Gateway. That way it should serve both the Crosstown LRT and the Mississauga Transitway. Maybe upgraded while they're at it.

Now that's a solution I can get behind.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Dufferin & Eglinton.

1924. What a difference 92 years make.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

1924. What a difference 92 years make.

Amazing isn't it.

92 years from now, I wonder how our low-density inner city areas will survive.

 

[W. K. Lis]

In 1924, there was little or no NIMBY action. In 2024, that would be and will be a different prospect.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Amazing isn't it.
92 years from now, I wonder how our low-density inner city areas will survive.

Kind of hard to project that far ahead - but I suspect the most significant portions of it will - but the rest probably won't.

AoD

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

In 1924, there was little or no NIMBY action. In 2024, that would be and will be a different prospect.

Kind of hard to project that far ahead - but I suspect the most significant portions of it will - but the rest probably won't.

AoD

Higher density doesn't necessarily have to mean 50 storey condos though. If we allowed our inner-city detached homes to be converted to townhouses and duplexes, we can greatly increase the densities of the inner city.

That would require relaxing of our zoning laws and dealing with NIMBYs.

 

[Steve X]

I use the 32 Eglinton frequently and can attest that the mid-block stops are in fact sparsely used. Widdicombe Hill/Lloyd Manor is probably the busiest of the bunch, but do we really have $millions to shell out per additional stop just because a marginally few people couldn't be bothered to walk 150m over to Kipling or Martin Grove? And assuming platform lengths are 90 metres across, creative stop placement - such as having the Kipling stop on the west hand side and Martin Grove Stn positioned east - could have it be such that the walking distances are further minimized. We have done this historically on the TTC system with secondary entrances, which really help cut down the distances between stations such that it doesn't feel like an inconvenience to people living or working closer to the mid-blocks.

So in every case the need for a mid-block stop could be eliminated:

Scarlett Stn - actually positioned between Scarlett and 4400 Eglinton Ave West (the existing midblock stop)
Royal York North Stn - positioned between RY and Russell Valley
Islington North Stn - positioned between Islington and Wincott
Kipling North Stn - positioned between Kipling and Lloyd Manor
Martin Grove Stn - positioned between Martin Grove and Lloyd Manor
East Mall Stn - a barrier free tunnel could extend from the western end of the station (assuming grade separation) to the other side of the 427/401 interchange for access to Rangoon area residents.
Commerce/Renforth Gateway Stn - between Commerce and Renforth

It's a pity that we would unnecessarily overbuild transit in such a sparsely populated part of the city yet the DRL can't even get a Parliament St station stop.

Only 150m? The distance between Martin Grove to Kipling is not 300m.

The Martin Gtove stop is to be located on the east side BUT you still have to cross at the light or jaywalk the roadway. Considering how busy Eglinton is, that might be difficult in rush hour. So they have to walk that 90m to get to the crossing and onto the platform. An underground/overground passage is going to cost millions more. A secondary entrance in stations is really there for fire regulations and busy stations. If you're thinking of a crossover, that will never happen. It will kill people, especially at night.

BTW, the walk from Martin Grove to Lloyd Manor is actually 6-10min.

Now, how much does it really take to pour some concrete, install some shelters and put in some wiring? A lot cheaper than putting in an underground station. 6 more stops would really add <1% to the $1.5-2B project budget. A grade separation alignment cost a lot more than a few extra stops. Operating a parallel bus service because stops are 1000m apart NOT 300m apart cost millions every year and that adds up in many years.

\

Google map don't lie. You're lying.

 

[BurlOak]

I just got around to looking at the so called business case for Eglinton West.

1. 
   
2. First off, they didn't study the fully grade-separated with 11 stations - an obvious omission (section 3).
3. It didn't really state why certain locations were targeted for grade-separation (low cost or necessity) (for example, it says its needed at Kipling because of bus, but do the other locations not also have bus connections.
4. It even says that 6 stops is likely too few and 17 too many, but they did not apply this logic to the fully grade-separated option (section 4.1).
5. The cost with 3 targeted grade-separations was $1.7 to $2.1B. For fully grade-separated, it was $2.0 to $3.0. This is 20% to 40% more, although the report makes it sound like it is twice as much (or it fails to mention that the targeted grade-separation is 70% more than the base case.
6. Fully grade-separated has a low operating cost, and the preamble even says that few stop adds maintenance costs due to parallel buses - something that is not needed with the 11 stop option (section 5).
7. Despite this, the fully grade-separated actually has the best benefit-cost ratio (section 6).
8. In Section 6, when they are discrediting the fully grade-separated option, they even say it is 2 to 3 time the cost of the base - despite the fact that the base is $1.4B and the grade-separated is $2B to $3B - or 1.4 to 2.1 times.
9. Community impacts of elevation are likely exagerated and there is no mention that this corridor is a freeway.

I guess the goal is that no transit line segment is allowed to be fully grade separated - just look at the portion between Mount Dennis and Don Mills. They did achieve that goal with this report.

 

[BurlOak]

Operating a parallel bus service because stops are 1000m apart NOT 300m apart cost millions every year and that adds up in many years.

This line would have service that is not exactly parallel, maybe perpendicular, or at an angle. There is East Mall 111, Royal York 73B, and 405. It is not difficult to imagine altering the schedule or route of one of these existing buses - and it may even be more popular. It would offer a short bus from almost directly in front of your building to a station, instead of a couple hundred metre walk down to an Eglinton stop.

 

[Steve X]

I just got around to looking at the so called business case for Eglinton West.

1. 
   
2. First off, they didn't study the fully grade-separated with 11 stations - an obvious omission (section 3).
3. It didn't really state why certain locations were targeted for grade-separation (low cost or necessity) (for example, it says its needed at Kipling because of bus, but do the other locations not also have bus connections.
4. It even says that 6 stops is likely too few and 17 too many, but they did not apply this logic to the fully grade-separated option (section 4.1).
5. The cost with 3 targeted grade-separations was $1.7 to $2.1B. For fully grade-separated, it was $2.0 to $3.0. This is 20% to 40% more, although the report makes it sound like it is twice as much (or it fails to mention that the targeted grade-separation is 70% more than the base case.
6. Fully grade-separated has a low operating cost, and the preamble even says that few stop adds maintenance costs due to parallel buses - something that is not needed with the 11 stop option (section 5).
7. Despite this, the fully grade-separated actually has the best benefit-cost ratio (section 6).
8. In Section 6, when they are discrediting the fully grade-separated option, they even say it is 2 to 3 time the cost of the base - despite the fact that the base is $1.4B and the grade-separated is $2B to $3B - or 1.4 to 2.1 times.
9. Community impacts of elevation are likely exagerated and there is no mention that this corridor is a freeway.

I guess the goal is that no transit line segment is allowed to be fully grade separated - just look at the portion between Mount Dennis and Don Mills. They did achieve that goal with this report.

It never says it doesn't need parallel bus service for the 11 stop plan. It was just not accounted for in this initial report that has zero final recommendations. On 23rd page of the PDF (page 18 on the bottom) it says:
Operating and maintenance costs for the options with only three stops on Eglinton Ave include provision for a parallel TTC local bus service. Although not currently costed, the 11-stop option may require a parallel local bus. This will be confirmed in a future phase of this work.

This line would have service that is not exactly parallel, maybe perpendicular, or at an angle. There is East Mall 111, Royal York 73B, and 405. It is not difficult to imagine altering the schedule or route of one of these existing buses - and it may even be more popular. It would offer a short bus from almost directly in front of your building to a station, instead of a couple hundred metre walk down to an Eglinton stop.

Except it would be very difficult for someone to get from East Mall or Mulham (near the Plant World) to Wincott. You counting on people not going from mid block to mid block. With new condos possibility going to at The Plant World site and commercial strip at Wincott, a reasonable trip would require people to take 3 different vehicles turning a 10 minute trip into 30+ minutes. I know the chances are low but just throwing it out there. People do make these kind of mid-block trips on the 85J between Sheppard-Yonge and Don Mills.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Higher density doesn't necessarily have to mean 50 storey condos though. If we allowed our inner-city detached homes to be converted to townhouses and duplexes, we can greatly increase the densities of the inner city.

That would require relaxing of our zoning laws and dealing with NIMBYs.

No, but the larger the amount of occupied land you have to rezone, the higher the amount of political resistance one has to deal with (that is in general - specifics - like how well organized the neighbourhood resistance is, economic/political power, etc matters). This dynamic almost invariably favour rezoning the least amount of land (on a reactive basis) and slapping the highest density possible on it. Which is also exactly what's happening now in the core area.

AoD

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

No, but the larger the amount of occupied land you have to rezone, the higher the amount of political resistance one has to deal with (that is in general - specifics - like how well organized the neighbourhood resistance is, economic/political power, etc matters). This dynamic almost invariably favour rezoning the least amount of land (on a reactive basis) and slapping the highest density possible on it. Which is also exactly what's happening now in the core area.

AoD

I wonder then what happens to the old housing stock that is already deteriorating. I've been in many student housing in downtown Toronto and the places are falling apart in near slum conditions. Even in my own neighbourhood in Davisville, the older houses, occupied by the middle-class with the means for repair, are rut with issues.

Historically, the older housing stock became the purview of lower income people, as the previous property owners flee to a newer home further north/west. When the older housing stock are rendered deplorable, they were bulldozed like in The Ward.

Nowadays any detached or semi-detached home in the core is a sacred cow that costs over $1 million, are people's primary asset and cannot be sold either out of sentimentality, fear of losing further house price gains, or inability to buy a house of equivalent size in the core (even with the previous house serving as downpayment). This is going to become an issue in the near future as these homes begin requiring major structural repairs and the house-owners are either reluctant student-housing slumlords, people already living within their margins, or seniors whose pensions cannot cover the costs of the repairs.

Again, I find rezoning to allow denser low-rise developments like townhouses and duplexes as the solution to our deteriorating housing stock, as well as reducing the severity of our housing affordability crisis as we can effectively increase the housing supply. It is the obvious market solution that is hindered by restrictive zoning laws.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I wonder then what happens to the old housing stock that is already deteriorating. I've been in many student housing in downtown Toronto and the places are falling apart in near slum conditions. Even in my own neighbourhood in Davisville, the older houses, occupied by the middle-class with the means for repair, are rut with issues.

Historically, the older housing stock became the purview of lower income people, as the previous property owners flee to a newer home further north/west. When the older housing stock are rendered deplorable, they were bulldozed like in The Ward.

Nowadays any detached or semi-detached home in the core is a sacred cow that costs over $1 million, are people's primary asset and cannot be sold either out of sentimentality, fear of losing further house price gains, or inability to buy a house of equivalent size in the core (even with the previous house serving as downpayment). This is going to become an issue in the near future as these homes begin requiring major structural repairs and the house-owners are either reluctant student-housing slumlords, people already living within their margins, or seniors whose pensions cannot cover the costs of the repairs.

Again, I find rezoning to allow denser low-rise developments like townhouses and duplexes as the solution to our deteriorating housing stock, as well as reducing the severity of our housing affordability crisis as we can effectively increase the housing supply. It is the obvious market solution that is hindered by restrictive zoning laws.

What's going to happen in good neighbourhoods is that they are going to be get snapped up - either renovated as family homes or rented out at the maximum rent possible. Neither are necessarily conductive to redevelopment - and we've seen what happens to attempts to build townhouses or increase density in these neighbourhoods.

AoD

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

What's going to happen in good neighbourhoods is that they are going to be get snapped up - either renovated as family homes or rented out at the maximum rent possible. Neither are necessarily conductive to redevelopment - and we've seen what happens to attempts to build townhouses or increase density in these neighbourhoods.

AoD

Ah yes. I remember quite well.