[BurlOak]

^ Mea culpa. I didn't get that exactly right. There are some differences in the Options. Option 2 is completely tunnelled, Options 3 and 4 are elevated over the Humber. Beyone Renforth, all options have the same mix of elevated and surface.

- Paul

Hopefully, those at-grade portions at Renforth and (north) West are fully grade-separated.

Option 4 for the win!

I think there may be some tweaking near 427. There should be a way of going over Etobicoke Creek, then through the end spans of the 427 and all the ramp bridges - basically at-grade.
It depends on how they plan on solving the entire interchange.

 

[thettctransitfanatic]

Surely Etobicoke is just as deserving as Scarborough. In Scarborough everyone felt it was unfair that there'd be lots of stop on rapid transit, so it's just getting a single new station with a long tunnel.

Etobicoke then should get a 9 km tunnel from Mount Dennis to Renforth, with no intermediate stations. Anything else is clearly just bias against Etobicoke!

Well, Doug the premier is from Etobicoke! What do you expect ( sacarasm)

 

[BurlOak]

If I look at that diagram, the EB to SB ramp does not seem to do much. It gets you on 27 SB, which becomes 427 SB. The only way to get on that 401 EB off ramp is if you came from 427 SB, or 401 EB. Both of these could just as easily got onto 427 SB, instead of taking this circuitous route of exiting to Eglinton and then deciding to get back onto 427 south. The only access it provides is to Eringate Drive - which I doubt has the demand.

Eglinton EB to 401 WB is theoritciall missing, but how many of these people could have got on 401 WB at Renforth? Not the greatest priority I would think.

I would have thought that the 401 EB to 27 NB would not be that heavily used - again because the 401 drivers could have just taken 427 NB to either Dixon or Rexdale or 409. Or continue on 401 EB to Dixon Road. However that said, the intersection does suggest people make U-turns probably to access 27 NB.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

 

[robmausser]

- PaulView attachment 176093

What doesnt make sense to me here is why with Option 4 the portion from Martin Grove to Renforth would have to be underground.

To me it looks like it is south of Eglinton and in a space that is able to be grade separated with underpasses etc without having to be tunneled.

 

[JSF-1]

What doesnt make sense to me here is why with Option 4 the portion from Martin Grove to Renforth would have to be underground.

To me it looks like it is south of Eglinton and in a space that is able to be grade separated with underpasses etc without having to be tunneled.

I look at Option 4 and wonder why any of it needs to be underground. Why does the line suddenly have to go underground after Scarlett? The entire stretch of Eglinton from Scarlett to Martin Grove is suitable for an Elevated alignment. It just seems to me the planners just had to have an underground section for reasons beyond my comprehension. Is there some sort of mandatory underground mileage quota we don't know about? Why else would they just toss the elevated line underground in an area that doesn't need it?

 

[cplchanb]

I look at Option 4 and wonder why any of it needs to be underground. Why does the line suddenly have to go underground after Scarlett? The entire stretch of Eglinton from Scarlett to Martin Grove is suitable for an Elevated alignment. It just seems to me the planners just had to have an underground section for reasons beyond my comprehension. Is there some sort of mandatory underground mileage quota we don't know about? Why else would they just toss the elevated line underground in an area that doesn't need it?

Well as we all know, most ignorant pro subway people have an absolute hard on for underground subways just because, while shutting every other logical option out of their heads. On that note, would it be possible to finally use the Kipling elevated LRT rough in for the station or would that require too much engineering to make it work? Can they build an elevated second platform spanning across the GO tracks more easily than digging?

 

[JSF-1]

Well as we all know, most ignorant pro subway people have an absolute hard on for underground subways just because, while shutting every other logical option out of their heads. On that note, would it be possible to finally use the Kipling elevated LRT rough in for the station or would that require too much engineering to make it work? Can they build an elevated second platform spanning across the GO tracks more easily than digging?

I don't think that's possible anymore. Last I heard (admittedly a long time ago) was that the old platform was decked over and is being converted into some sort of space for something. I haven't been to Kipling since last May but last time I was there that entire side of the station was boarded up.

 

[BurlOak]

I look at Option 4 and wonder why any of it needs to be underground. Why does the line suddenly have to go underground after Scarlett? The entire stretch of Eglinton from Scarlett to Martin Grove is suitable for an Elevated alignment. It just seems to me the planners just had to have an underground section for reasons beyond my comprehension. Is there some sort of mandatory underground mileage quota we don't know about? Why else would they just toss the elevated line underground in an area that doesn't need it?

Well as we all know, most ignorant pro subway people have an absolute hard on for underground subways just because, while shutting every other logical option out of their heads. On that note, would it be possible to finally use the Kipling elevated LRT rough in for the station or would that require too much engineering to make it work? Can they build an elevated second platform spanning across the GO tracks more easily than digging?

Although 9 times out of 10, its the planner who want to avoid elevated because it is cost effective. They would rather have an underground option to drive up the costs, so they can go with their on-street option in hopes that Eglinton West will become a Queen Street.

 

[cplchanb]

Although 9 times out of 10, its the planner who want to avoid elevated because it is cost effective. They would rather have an underground option to drive up the costs, so they can go with their on-street option in hopes that Eglinton West will become a Queen Street.

Sometimes I dont understand the logic behind our transit planners... it would seem their selfish motives are always before the betterment of the city

 

[thettctransitfanatic]

Sometimes I dont understand the logic behind our transit planners... it would seem their selfish motives are always before the betterment of the city

I agree. Not to mention the level of crazy politics just to get stuff built

 

[W. K. Lis]

From link:

Phase 2 Public Consultation Materials
Public Meetings March 5 and 7, 2019
Display Boards

* Overview/ History

• Why Are We Here?
• History of the Eglinton West LRT
• Why the Eglinton West LRT Makes Sense

What We've Done/ What We've Heard

• What We've Been Up To
• What We Heard From You - Benefits
• What We Heard From You - Concerns
• What's Happening Now

Options Analysis

• Eglinton West LRT Design Options
• Options Analysis
• Design Options Analysis - Strategic Considerations
• Design Options Analysis - Economic Considerations
• Design Options Analysis - Ridership & Capacity
• Design Options Analysis - Financial Considerations
• Design Options Analysis - Deliverability & Operations Considerations
• Summary of Options
• Potential Traffic Impacts of LRT on Surface
• Traffic Optimization Along Eglinton

Eglinton West Planning & Streetscape Study

• Part 1 (3.8 MB PDF Download)
• Part 2 (13 MB PDF Download)

Next Steps

• What's Next?

 

[Rainforest]

What doesnt make sense to me here is why with Option 4 the portion from Martin Grove to Renforth would have to be underground.

To me it looks like it is south of Eglinton and in a space that is able to be grade separated with underpasses etc without having to be tunneled.

Indeed it seems strange that so much tunneling is deemed necessary for all options, except Option 1.

I'd like to try something in between Option 4 and Option 1. For example: Jane to Islington elevated, Kipling and Martin Grove underground.

Or: Jane elevated, Scarlett and Royal York at grade, Islington elevated (can be done cheap due to the intersection being depressed), Kipling and Martin Grove underground.

Maybe the project team feels that if any tunneling is involved at all, then they should put the TBMs into the ground and let them dig as far as possible. Saving on the portals etc.

Anyhow, if we must choose from Options 1-4 and no more variations are allowed, then my preference is #4, the runner-up is #1.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Those capacity assumptions are an issue. They assume the same frequency regardless of mode - the reality is that surface LRT cannot provide much more than 3 minute frequencies - while a grade seperated line would allow it to drop to the 90 second to 2 minute range. This means that the "ultimate" capacity of the surface LRT is in the 7,800/hour range, while grade separated is in the 15,600 range.

I agree that the project team seems to be pushing for a lot of underground in the grade separated options. They need to visit Vancouver to see how elevated rail can work - You could probably do the vast majority of this line as an elevated project just fine, burying in only a few tight spots like around Kipling.

 

[max]

Those capacity assumptions are an issue. They assume the same frequency regardless of mode - the reality is that surface LRT cannot provide much more than 3 minute frequencies - while a grade seperated line would allow it to drop to the 90 second to 2 minute range. This means that the "ultimate" capacity of the surface LRT is in the 7,800/hour range, while grade separated is in the 15,600 range.

I agree that the project team seems to be pushing for a lot of underground in the grade separated options. They need to visit Vancouver to see how elevated rail can work - You could probably do the vast majority of this line as an elevated project just fine, burying in only a few tight spots.

I asked a member of the project team about why full elevation wasn't studied. I don't exactly recall the name of the group but it was either a working or stakeholder group that had a hand in choosing the alternatives to be studied. The team member didn't have a specific reason why it was eliminated but tried to tell me a bunch of stuff about noise carrying further from an elevated structure being a concern.

I agree with you, looking at the costs of going underground I think they need to more seriously consider elevation.

 

[CapitalSeven]

The cost of option 4 shouldn't be that ridiculous, if it's possible to build the station relatively shallow and have the entrances in some of the green strip on one side or the other of the road. But I don't know if Toronto can imagine that. Ottawa is building a section of the Phase 2 along Richmond Road that way, so just a few elevators and stairs, no mezzanines, and as a result less excavation.