[Steve X]

I agree but I was hopeful that only having Eglinton West underground between Martin Grove and Rpyal York, which is even less than option 4, would have brought significantly more savings.

I don't get how you shorten a tunneled segment and go from 3 billion to 4.7 billion.

Although maybe not a surprise given Doug Ford lol

The 4.7b figure includes the airport link from Renforth to Pearson. The 3b city figure is for the Toronto section from Mt Dennis to Renforth only.

Doug Ford made it more expensive to operate transit by reducing subsidies, disallowing road tolls and forcing TTC to operate a parallel bus service on Eg West with the tunnel option.

 

[JSF-1]

Those residences with their townhouse balconies facing Eglinton is going to be real happy with you proposing that they should stare at those ugly concrete elevated guideway everyday.

And your point? That's just another one of those garbage non-issues that always come up when there is any discussion about Elevated transit. Its just like whenever things like "the Wheather" or "The view" are brought up, its things that are best ignored. Are we honeslty going to let a few people dictate what happens to the detriment of thousands of riders and billions of municipal and provincial dollars?

 

[Steve X]

And your point? That's just another one of those garbage non-issues that always come up when there is any discussion about Elevated transit. Its just like whenever things like "the Wheather" or "The view" are brought up, its things that are best ignored. Are we honeslty going to let a few people dictate what happens to the detriment of thousands of riders and billions of municipal and provincial dollars?

Too bad we don't live in a communist society where we can just bull through everything. I'm just saying the city won't support elevated transit in front of residential zone. Nothing wrong with elevated transit itself. I say they fit well in commercial area. Eglinton from Don Mills eastward would be much more suitable.

 

[BurlOak]

• It can be cut-and-cover (trench-and-cover) on the north side of Eglinton from Scarlett to Wincott - about 2.5 km. The 3 stations in this stretch would extend under Eglinton - or at least have pedestrian access tunnels under Eglinton - so it's not like there is no disruption to Eglinton. At the cross streets (i.e. Islington, Royal York, etc.), some form of decking is needed to maintain traffic.
• For the next 500m, it would go under Eglinton to switch to the south side. Some major work on Eglinton, and decking to support the traffic.
• From Kipling to west of Martin Grove, it can be be trench-and-cover again.

Overall, this is still less disruptive (and less costly, and less time consuming) than the deep excavations needed for TBM stations.

 

[BurlOak]

Those residences with their townhouse balconies facing Eglinton is going to be real happy with you proposing that they should stare at those ugly concrete elevated guideway everyday. If those Richview Expressway land wasn't sold off, they could have trenched it. It's too late now. Eglinton West would mostly go underground between Royal York and Martin Grove.

Somehow, I don't think Ford was smart enough to foresee this.

Rob directed the City that all transit should be grade-separated, and then asked what city properties can be sold. I suspect the city put these properties up thinking it would be a way of guaranteeing the on-street LRT would be built.
I can't imagine staff briefed Ford that these few townhouses would preclude a "subway"

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I campaigned for Finch to be grade-separated, mostly elevated.
I figured that Eglinton LRT would be fully grade-separated (mostly elevated from Don River West Branch to Kennedy) and then connected to the SRT. It would be upgraded to new Mark III technology.
No point having Finch as an orphan LRT technology, so it too would be SkyTrain - but somewhat short trains than Eglinton-Scarborough. Finch would have 2 cars x 150 passengers per car x 20 trains per hour = 6k ppdph, while Eglinton would have 4 cars x 150 passengers x 24 trains per hour = 14k ppdph. This is a 33m platform vs. a 66m one. If needed, both could have 30 trains per hour (i.e. every 2 minutes), so Finch's capacity could be increased by 50%, and Eglintons by 25%.
Like my thoughts on other lines, the busiest stations would have Spanish solution (to reduce the dwell time on the busiest interchange stations), and these stations would also be built to accommodate 1 extra car per train. The trains would be longer than above (1 car longer for Finch, for 3, & 2 cars longer for Eglinton for 6). The typical station would be regular length (2 car or 4 car) to reduce costs (when underground) and to reduce visual intrusion (when elevated). The way it works is that 1 car typically doesn't line up with the station and it's doors don't open. Basically, for stations East of Yonge, the first car doesn't open, while for West of Yonge its the last car that doesn't open. This would add 50% to the above 2 capacities.

So overall, the ultimate capacities would be 13.5k and 27k.

As soon as Wynne got her majority in 2014, construction had progressed too far on Eglinton through Leslie and Don Mills, that it was too late to grade-separate this portion of Eglinton - or too costly and time consuming to rip up the existing contract and start this portion again. Same thing happened to Finch about a month (or less) before the election. The contract was signed and it just became cost prohibitive to rip it up and re-design the line.

For Eglinton West, it is still an open slate. Officially, the City has yet to decide whether this should be grade-separated or on-street. Both options (and a few others) are still in the discussions at the information sessions - so it is easy to just dictate that the grade-separated option will win.

Because Finch is being built and this is still a proposal.

I would also suggest that until four days back, many were happy to build something, anything. A paradigm has been smashed here and if the blue party succeeds where the red party failed miserably for fifteen years then maybe the red party are not the transit champs we all thought they were.

Someone actually said, “we plan to spend the money.” And surprisingly, it was the blue party and it’s new and untested leader.

Ok, but that doesn't stop the debate wether it's being built or not. We know Ford hates on street LRT, so if Finch is built and doesn't do as well, doesn't that justify his comlaint?

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

also another problem with selling off richview is that if this goes underground, kipling and eglinton would have needed a bus terminal. Now all these stops are going to be like osgoode or king.

 

[TransitBart]

Ok, here's the thing: Why are we ok with debating grade seperation on Eglinton West on but not Finch? Finch is a busier bus route and covers a little more area. Surely on street LRT is fine for Eglinton West as it is for Finch? Just curious.

Because Finch is being built and this is still a proposal.

I would also suggest that until four days back, many were happy to build something, anything. A paradigm has been smashed here and if the blue party succeeds where the red party failed miserably for fifteen years then maybe the red party are not the transit champs we all thought they were.

Someone actually said, “we plan to spend the money.” And surprisingly, it was the blue party and it’s new and untested le

Ok, but that doesn't stop the debate wether it's being built or not. We know Ford hates on street LRT, so if Finch is built and doesn't do as well, doesn't that justify his comlaint?

Yes, it does. Everything we do should work well. If it doesn’t, what is the point? We aren’t constructing a rail line as a higher capacity bus. The idea is RAPID transit and if we spend billions and it ain’t rapid, we failed miserably.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Because Finch is being built and this is still a proposal.

I would also suggest that until four days back, many were happy to build something, anything. A paradigm has been smashed here and if the blue party succeeds where the red party failed miserably for fifteen years then maybe the red party are not the transit champs we all thought they were.

Someone actually said, “we plan to spend the money.” And surprisingly, it was the blue party and it’s new and untested le

Yes, it does. Everything we do should work well. If it doesn’t, what is the point? We aren’t constructing a rail line as a higher capacity bus. The idea is RAPID transit and if we spend billions and it ain’t rapid, we failed miserably.

Right but Finch isn't Rapid. That's the issue.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Right but Finch isn't Rapid. That's the issue.

Finch West and Eglinton West light rapid transit lines will both be rapid transit. Faster than the single-occupant motorists, when completed.

 

[thettctransitfanatic]

Finch West and Eglinton West light rapid transit lines will both be rapid transit. Faster than the single-occupant motorists, when completed.

I agree. WAY faster then them all.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Finch West and Eglinton West light rapid transit lines will both be rapid transit. Faster than the single-occupant motorists, when completed.

It seems Metrolinx likes to use the terms Light Rail Transit and Light Rapid Transit interchangeably, which I feel is not good. Although when you say LRT and BRT together in their full names, some people can get confused by the inconsistencies.

 

[smallspy]

Right but Finch isn't Rapid. That's the issue.

How do you figure? It will be far faster than the current buses that run on the same street.

Dan

 

[sixrings]

Unless you can get from Oakville or Milton to Toronto in twenty minutes then it isn't considered rapid. We should start working on Teleporters

 

[crs1026]

How do you figure? It will be far faster than the current buses that run on the same street.
Dan

I have lost track of the precise facts here.... can anyone recite the planned velocity for Finch compared to velocity of our subway system and/or the current Finch bus? And/or downtown streetcars?

I’m sure it is true that the LRT will be faster than current bus. However I have a theory that the average person’s view of transit will be relative to the best, or perhaps to an existing norm, rather than relative to what it used to be.

In Toronto the prevailing gold standard for transit speed is our subway system. LRT’s that compare unfavourably to subway will be seen as mediocre, even if they are faster than bus and damn good value overall.

I’m not arguing for building subways everywhere, but I am arguing that those people who critique transit proposals (as professionals or just for fun) need to look at things from the average Joe’s viewpoint.

Our LRT designs need to have a need for speed. Mediocre is not good enough, even if it is faster than before.

- Paul