[W. K. Lis]

Tunneling under Eglinton West in Etobicoke would be dumb indeed. The corridor is wide and can easily accommodate surface / elevated LRT with enough room left for the traffic lanes.

The reason Eglinton West in Etobicoke is congested isn't that it has too few traffic lanes. The reason is that the areas those cars are going to do not have capacity to let them in.

It makes sense to build the Eglinton West LRT section to higher standard than a no-frills light rail line. This line will connect to the Pearson terminals and the Airport employment area; a large percentage of riders will travel end-to-end rather than to minor stops in between, and will benefit from a good speed.

However, that doesn't need to cost as much as a full tunnel would. Some sections will be perfectly fine with a street level LRT, and some can be elevated over intersections. Wider stop spacing with parallel local bus service is appropriate, and the same bus route can continue east of Mt Dennis all the way to Yonge.

The major problem are the cul-de-sacs in Etobicoke that pedestrian have to add extra travel time and distance for. Instead of grid layouts for the streets, the roads (and any sidewalks they might have) go into loops and crescents. Taking away mid-block stops (IE. Wincott, Lloyd Manor, Eden Valley, and the others) will make for even longer walking distances.

See link.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I'm told that the all tunnel option is coming up again because the traffic studies which were commissioned in the last Council transit debate are looking like they will justify duckunders/duckovers at several intersections along the extension. The debate is, is it better to have the transit line continually changing elevation, or just be built all at one elevation.
This reality has always been there. If you go back to the old traffic studies in the original ECLRT EA, they painted a negative impact for left turns especially at several intersections. Those findings were kind of swept under the carpet when the EA was written up, and with McGuinty cutting the line back to Mt Dennis the issue became moot.
The interesting thing is that I have recently heard people who are involved in residents' associations out that way debating about an elevated alternative. These folks arent transit geeks per se and would only be commenting on that idea if somebody they were talking to proposed it. Anyways, the next reportback to Council will happen once the Waterfront report has been dealt with. We may have data to look at before too long.

- Paul

Obviously the problem with continuous tunnelling vs duck-unders is the the tunnelling would be far more expensive. However, I am very curious about how the cost of continues elevation compares to the duck-unders. And would this elevation even result in a significant improvement in traffic and/or transit flow? If duck-unders make traffic impact a non-factor at the most troublesome intersections, then the improvements to be had from elevation would be minimal. And as per @W.K. Lis's post, it would mean less potential for mid-block stops.

I'm told that the all tunnel option is coming up again

Who is bringing up the tunnel option? The community groups you mentioned in your post, or people working on the project?

 

[crs1026]

Who is bringing up the tunnel option? The community groups you mentioned in your post, or people working on the project?

This was related to me by someone who has knowledge of discussion between residents' groups and some unnamed interface to the project. The essence was the community troups were saying "well, in that case just bury the whole thing" (which, as you point out, is an expensive and extreme proposition). What I was pointing out is that they were saying this in response to what they were being told....ie they were being told that the likely design would have to be multiple duckunders or flyovers to solve traffic issues at multiple points.

- Paul

 

[Amare]

Here's an example where the city creates its own problems that they easily could've avoided or mitigated for very few public dollars in comparison had they kept enough right-of-way for lane expansion of Eglinton West when RoFo and DoFo decided to sell off the Eglinton lands.

Residents in the area didnt bother to complain about the lands being sold off, but the minute transit is being discussed they line up and whine about problems that never manifest. I can almost guarantee everyone here that this portion of the Crosstown will be some half baked LRT by the time it's constructed due to the stupidity from all sides.

 

[sixrings]

if they decide to make it under Ground then they should put in subway cars until laird where they can continue east with lrt. Scarborough would lose their minds

 

[Allandale25]

Who is bringing up the tunnel option? The community groups you mentioned in your post, or people working on the project?

The local MPP is strongly pushing the tunnel option, as noted in the link I posted above.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The local MPP is strongly pushing the tunnel option, as noted in the link I posted above.

Is the MPP actually pushing the underground option, or is the letter just a way for him to claim he’s pushing the underground option. Seems like grandstanding to me.

 

[crs1026]

Residents in the area didnt bother to complain about the lands being sold off, but the minute transit is being discussed they line up and whine about problems that never manifest. I can almost guarantee everyone here that this portion of the Crosstown will be some half baked LRT by the time it's constructed due to the stupidity from all sides.

Residents didn't know this sale was happening, let alone what its impact was. City officials claimed at the time that the amount of land being retained would meet LRT needs. RoFo probably didn't care whether this was really true, as if it wasn't the LRT would be forced underground which is where Ford Nation believed transit belongs.

The squandering of a corridor which had been carefully safeguarded for over 40 years was a real betrayal. Sadly, it happened while everyone in the media was distracted with crack videos and football games.... a very calculated bit of sneakiness that only benefitted the developers involved. The added cost to the city when the LRT is built in the remaining narrow corridor will eat up any revenue from the land sale.

- Paul

 

[Adjei]

The local MPP is strongly pushing the tunnel option, as noted in the link I posted above.

Well if he wants it so bad, why doesnt his government foot the entire bill for it?

 

[BMO]

I think above ground between west of Weston Rd and Scarlett Road makes a lot of sense, it's parkland and there's ample room, it would also mitigate changes in grade and facilitate crossing the Humber river. Then go underground west of Scarlett Road and emerge just west of Royal York and be at-grade until Islington and then I have no clue what to do other than elevate or underground to avoid being put in the middle of the road.

 

[sixrings]

I think elevated from weston to Scarlett makes sense as well but surface might not be perfect but with so few lights should be okay the rest of the way...

People are going to judge me for not listening to people's wants but if we concede to much here then the other lrt areas will demand the same adjustment increasing costs and slowing down the construction. this was my biggest fear of flip flopping to the SSE plan. Everyone has different wants, if we listen to all of them we will never build anything

 

[crs1026]

I think elevated from weston to Scarlett makes sense as well but surface might not be perfect but with so few lights should be okay the rest of the way...

People are going to judge me for not listening to people's wants but if we concede to much here then the other lrt areas will demand the same adjustment increasing costs and slowing down the construction. this was my biggest fear of flip flopping to the SSE plan. Everyone has different wants, if we listen to all of them we will never build anything

Well, the issue is exactly what @Amare pointed out.... how much do we want to dilute the effectiveness of LRT by accepting tradeoffs in design in the interest of economy. The traffic studies established (to no one's surprise, sine it can be observed by the lay person today) that a high volume of cars make left turns from Eglinton to a number of side and major streets along Eglinton West. If you design a center median LRT that has to share left turn lanes with all these cars, the delays at all these intersections will be material. The solution proposed - built U-turn lanes so that left turns become right turns - you really don't solve this because the U turn lane still crosses the LRT row and LRT vehicles (as well as cars) still encounter red lights en route. No amount of transit priority signalling really corrects this.

The residents may have a different agenda - they mainly don't want cars waiting longer at red lights waiting for lrt trains to move away - but this is a case where a bad solution for the car is also a bad solution for the LRT.

I recently spent a week in LA and rode the Gold Line daily. It is a shining example of how LRT works best when it is built to a subway velocity. There is one short segment in South Pasadena where the road signalling overrides the LRT priority. Even a short delay is annoying and burns seconds. If we are going to sell LRT in Toronto, it has to equal this performance.

- Paul

 

[BurlOak]

Has it really been since June 2016 since we last had an update? Is anyone even working on this project anymore?

East Mall Station looks like a joke.
As I recall the 2016 study, They didn't study the fully grade separated option, with only main street stops. But all indications were that it was best.
They looked at many stops (10+), and it was found to be slow.
They looked at too few stops (3?) with separation and it was better.
They did not look at what was the obvious optimum.
As I recall, elevated on the North side would work, and switch to South between Islington and Kipling. I don't know the exact elevation of the main hydro lines just West of Martin Grove - hopefully you can go under these.

 

[Amare]

East Mall Station looks like a joke.
As I recall the 2016 study, They didn't study the fully grade separated option, with only main street stops. But all indications were that it was best.

1/4 of the stations on the proposed western extension are a joke and will never be warranted, not even 25 years from now. Chief among them are: East Mall, Wincott, and Widdicombe Hill.

 

[BurlOak]

1/4 of the stations on the proposed western extension are a joke and will never be warranted, not even 25 years from now. Chief among them are: East Mall, Wincott, and Widdicombe Hill.

True - but I was referring to the map referenced by W.K.Lis. It was some sort of more rapid proposal, with East Mall (which will still be served by a bus) the only 1 of the stations kept among those you listed.
The problem is, if it is not grade-separated, it is too easy for a few loud locals to demand, and get, a stop.