[kEiThZ]

Banning trucks on Eglinton East would be a tough sell.

They might not have to ban them. I am guessing there will be very little through traffic once the LRT is in. Most will use a parallel street and then use only right and left turns on to Eglinton. Simply banning trucks from U-turns would remove a lot of truck traffic on Eglinton once the LRT is in.

 

[Republic of Toronto]

No pain no gain

I wondered from the drawing if they've done them, or at least roughed them in as full subway stations. Hmm, so will this be designed so that the tunnel can be upgraded without much pain at some date in the distant future? Someone might appreciate that in 2050 or so.

Subway boxes are much longer....depending on location of service rooms...they can be beyond 200m.

So try to rationalize....twice the upfront cost to build for a subway station (150m platform) so that for the first 10-20 years only 60m are used. What happens with the other 90m? That's flushing money down the toilet especially when after 20 yrs all structures need some sort of refurbishment. The reason we do that is that we are married to a single type of construction method for stations...."cut-&-cover". Plus....there is a vertical difference between LRT's and HRT's. To make the subway conversion feasible, the entire station would have to be closed thus disrupting service...while the platform is raised by 70 cm and including modifications to escalators and elevators.

The alternative is a large single bore tunnel which does not require substantial upfront costs for conversion. Platforms can be expanded longitudinally and one level (track+platform) is always operational.

 

[Dan416]

Subway boxes are much longer....depending on location of service rooms...they can be beyond 200m.

So try to rationalize....twice the upfront cost to build for a subway station (150m platform) so that for the first 10-20 years only 60m are used. What happens with the other 90m? That's flushing money down the toilet especially when after 20 yrs all structures need some sort of refurbishment. The reason we do that is that we are married to a single type of construction method for stations...."cut-&-cover". Plus....there is a vertical difference between LRT's and HRT's. To make the subway conversion feasible, the entire station would have to be closed thus disrupting service...while the platform is raised by 70 cm and including modifications to escalators and elevators.

The alternative is a large single bore tunnel which does not require substantial upfront costs for conversion. Platforms can be expanded longitudinally and one level (track+platform) is always operational.

On SSC, it was TRZ I believe who said if they plan to build Eglinton so the tunneled portion is convertible to subway, then it wouldn't take long to do so. I believe he said that they would just add cement blocks on top of the platform so that it becomes ready for high-floor subway trains as opposed to the low-floor LRT cars. There were also pictures posted of "pre-metros" that were built in this way. Basically, as long as its planned for conversion in the future, the conversion will not be long and drawn out. I'll try to find his posts regarding this.

 

[golodhendil]

On SSC, it was TRZ I believe who said if they plan to build Eglinton so the tunneled portion is convertible to subway, then it wouldn't take long to do so. I believe he said that they would just add cement blocks on top of the platform so that it becomes ready for high-floor subway trains as opposed to the low-floor LRT cars. There were also pictures posted of "pre-metros" that were built in this way. Basically, as long as its planned for conversion in the future, the conversion will not be long and drawn out. I'll try to find his posts regarding this.

As had been pointed out a few times on UT, successful conversions of premetros to full metros had been vanishingly few. Pretty much the only examples are Lines 1 and 2 of Brussels, Lines U2 and U4 of Vienna, and Line 2 of Rio de Janeiro. Vienna's lines basically required a complete rebuild (which took 5 years each) so are not the most comparable examples. The Rio line already started out with high-platforms, partial third rail and a separate ROW with grade crossings, and had a very low service frequency, but the conversion to full metro (mainly by removing grade crossings) still took 3 years. The stations of Brussels' premetro lines all have partial high platforms so that only part of the platforms need to raised for conversion; line 1 (2 km, 6 stations) took 4 years, line 2 (3.5 km, 8 stations) took a miraculous 2 years (compare that to Eglinton's 8-10 km, 12-14 stations), and none of the other lines had since been converted in 30 years. None of the German and American premetros, many of which have built-in conversion-ready features, have ever been converted in the past 100 years. As I've said before, given the trackrecord of TTC (and Canadian transit in general), I do not see we'll do any better, and Eglinton is unlikely to ever see conversion in the next 1-2 centuries.

 

[GenerationW]

I wondered from the drawing if they've done them, or at least roughed them in as full subway stations. Hmm, so will this be designed so that the tunnel can be upgraded without much pain at some date in the distant future? Someone might appreciate that in 2050 or so.

I was at the open house on Monday, and from the literature that was handed out, there was no mention about the possibility of upgrading this line to a subway in the future. In addition, the two officials I asked about this were very non-committal ("could be", "it's a possibility", "we'll see").

Take that for what you will.

 

[GenerationW]

Considering how busy the Don Mills/Eglinton intersection is, I can't see how they wouldn't choose the underground option (#2) for that stop. For example, the single left turn lane from Eglinton to Don Mills northbound is already overtaxed during the P.M. rush, so re-routing left turns via option #1 could only increase gridlock.

I would even argue that the line should stay underground from Brentcliffe to Don Mills to avoid both Don Mills and Leslie, but I know that's wishful thinking.

 

[Second_in_pie]

As had been pointed out a few times on UT, successful conversions of premetros to full metros had been vanishingly few. Pretty much the only examples are Lines 1 and 2 of Brussels, Lines U2 and U4 of Vienna, and Line 2 of Rio de Janeiro. Vienna's lines basically required a complete rebuild (which took 5 years each) so are not the most comparable examples. The Rio line already started out with high-platforms, partial third rail and a separate ROW with grade crossings, and had a very low service frequency, but the conversion to full metro (mainly by removing grade crossings) still took 3 years. The stations of Brussels' premetro lines all have partial high platforms so that only part of the platforms need to raised for conversion; line 1 (2 km, 6 stations) took 4 years, line 2 (3.5 km, 8 stations) took a miraculous 2 years (compare that to Eglinton's 8-10 km, 12-14 stations), and none of the other lines had since been converted in 30 years. None of the German and American premetros, many of which have built-in conversion-ready features, have ever been converted in the past 100 years. As I've said before, given the trackrecord of TTC (and Canadian transit in general), I do not see we'll do any better, and Eglinton is unlikely to ever see conversion in the next 1-2 centuries.

This. There is no way the TTC is going to spend billions of dollars on LRT just to convert it to subway 10 or 20 years down the road. Even once the route reaches capacity, the TTC won't convert it to subway less than a century or two down the road. It probably won't be converted ever.

So one might ask: 1. Why we're spending so little time looking at a project that will last us for at least a century. And 2. Why we aren't looking at future demand along the route and building to suit that future ridership. Eglinton, Sheppard, and Don Mills are all routes that will warrant subway in less than 50 years, but instead we're just doing LRT, with absolutely no exceptions.

You know, I bet that David Miller is just thinking that the underservice on Eglinton and Sheppard is balanced out by blatant overservice on Jane and Scarborough-Malvern. Anybody else feeling that?

 

[Rainforest]

You know, I bet that David Miller is just thinking that the underservice on Eglinton and Sheppard is balanced out by blatant overservice on Jane and Scarborough-Malvern. Anybody else feeling that?

Scarborough-Malvern, which will actually be Scarborough-UTSC or Scarborough-West Hill (won't go to Malvern Centre) should be a pretty useful LRT line.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Scarborough-Malvern, which will actually be Scarborough-UTSC or Scarborough-West Hill (won't go to Malvern Centre) should be a pretty useful LRT line.

The Eglinton and Kingston Road portions of the line will be very useful, but Eglinton can be solved by a Subway extension, and Kingston Road's already getting BRT, with LRT to follow. Morningside's kinda bleh for me. Sheppard past Midland is stupid (unless of course it's going to STC) so the East Sheppard East is overkill as well, if you ask me. Pretty much totally political, very little real higher order transit need.

Either way, Jane LRT is massive overkill. The Malvern portion of the Scarborough-Malvern LRT was massive overkill as well.

 

[Voltz]

This. There is no way the TTC is going to spend billions of dollars on LRT just to convert it to subway 10 or 20 years down the road. Even once the route reaches capacity, the TTC won't convert it to subway less than a century or two down the road. It probably won't be converted ever.

So one might ask: 1. Why we're spending so little time looking at a project that will last us for at least a century. And 2. Why we aren't looking at future demand along the route and building to suit that future ridership. Eglinton, Sheppard, and Don Mills are all routes that will warrant subway in less than 50 years, but instead we're just doing LRT, with absolutely no exceptions.

Eglinton will be just fine for several decades, the projected ridership could double and we would still have room to spare.

Capacity concerns about eglinton are unfounded, particularly when considering other projects such as the crosstown go line, and a possible lawrence LRT/BRT, both of which could be paid for by not building a subway on eglinton instead of the LRT. There is also the Bloor-Danforth line and the lakeshore go line

 

[Rainforest]

The Eglinton and Kingston Road portions of the line will be very useful, but Eglinton can be solved by a Subway extension, and Kingston Road's already getting BRT, with LRT to follow. Morningside's kinda bleh for me. Sheppard past Midland is stupid (unless of course it's going to STC) so the East Sheppard East is overkill as well, if you ask me. Pretty much totally political, very little real higher order transit need.

Either way, Jane LRT is massive overkill. The Malvern portion of the Scarborough-Malvern LRT was massive overkill as well.

Jane LRT is an overkill indeed. At least, it should not be in TC 1.

Regarding Scarborough-UTSC LRT (let's not call it Scarborough-Malvern as it is no longer expected to reach Malvern):

Subway extension on Eglinton east of Kennedy to Kingston would cost more than the whole LRT line.

If it is LRT on Eglinton east of Kennedy, then there is a good case to continue it on Kingston and to UTSC (major trip generator).

So, the only not-so-useful part of this route will be 2 km from Ellesmere (UTSC) to Sheppard. But those 2 km are needed to connect to Sheppard East LRT. (Usefulness of the Sheppard East LRT is a separate issue, but if they are going to build it anyway and ahead of Scarborough-UTSC, then it makes sence to connect the two lines and use a common carhouse.)

 

[W. K. Lis]

I attended the Eglinton Crosstown LRT Open House at Richview Collegiate. Here are my comments:

Would like to see the Caledonia Station moved east, closer to Caledonia Road. Both Westside Shopping Centre and Caledonia Road should have entrances, either directly or via an underground walkway.

Each station should have entrances at opposite ends, if possible. For example, Yonge station should have an additional entrance at Duplex Ave. Brentcliffe station should have an additional entrance at the Leaside Centre. Keele Station should have an additional entrance at its east end, close to Scott Rd. And so on.

Scarlett Road should share a center platform on the west side of Scarlett Road.

I like option 2 for the Jane stop, both stops off roadway.

For the area from Weston Road to Black Creek, I prefer option 4 (all underground) the best, followed by option 5, then option 3, then option 2. Don't like option 1 (all at surface) at all.

Having U-turns on the crossroads for left turns on Eglinton is an interesting concept. How would 18-wheeler tractor-trailer or double tractor-trailer be handled when they use those U-turns. Think we need a better presentation on that concept.

Thank you,​

 

[GenerationW]

Would like to see the Caledonia Station moved east, closer to Caledonia Road. Both Westside Shopping Centre and Caledonia Road should have entrances, either directly or via an underground walkway.

Each station should have entrances at opposite ends, if possible. For example, Yonge station should have an additional entrance at Duplex Ave. Brentcliffe station should have an additional entrance at the Leaside Centre. Keele Station should have an additional entrance at its east end, close to Scott Rd. And so on.

I disagree about Caledonia -- I prefer the proposed location.

A station at (or closer to) Laird makes more sense to me than Brentcliffe.

I agree about the station entrances.

 

[urbanboom]

A station at (or closer to) Laird makes more sense to me than Brentcliffe.

I agree with you here. Having a station at Brentcilffe, which is so close to Leslie and is a dead end street, is really really stupid. Laird, on the other hand is an actual thoroughfare, with the potential to be urbanized and pedestrianized. I really don't see the TTC's rationale behind it.

 

[nfitz]

Perhaps someone who is going to a meeting (is there still some left?) can ask ...