KhalilHeron
Active Member
Same problem with the full LRT plan but at least terminating routes at Eglinton would provide a useful transfer downtown.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Monarch Butterfly
- Start date
lastcommodore
Active Member
Thank you! I did not know about this document.
Read through it, unfortunately if this document is right, it's not feasible for 5 to be drawn under the SSE, and not feasible to be above, so the only possible option without rebuilding the whole SSE tunnel under it would be to go surface or above ground where it could not interline with 5... Deeply unfortunate.
Perhaps an alternative would be to rebuild the eastern terminus of line 5 to instead go elevated and meet EELRT in an elevated terminal, but I can already see how ridiculous it sounds that we'd have to rebuild part of a line we just opened. Plus it seems that the document strongly supports the surface alignment for EELRT.
As you said, a dumb decision by MX. Somehow nobody thought to futureproof.
Bojaxs
Senior Member
Another transit "L" for the Toronto area.
I absolutely hate these at-grade LRT's.
Rip 'em up and replace them all with bus lanes! Completely "re-do" Line 5 so it tunnels all the way to Jonesville Crescent, and then elevate from Victoria Park Ave all the way to Eglinton GO station. Make the line completely grade separated. As it should have been from the very beginning.
NY99
Active Member
If we had to do it again, should the Finch LRT have been built as BRT? I think there's a very good case for yes, given the drastically lower capital costs, shorter construction timelines, etc. But objectively, what we have is an upgrade over BRT in capacity, speed, etc. Downgrading for bus lanes is a preposterous idea.
In the long term, I think a full or near-full grade separation of Line 5 is very doable. No extra tunnelling needed. My back-of-the-napkin plan:
1) The in-median section at Sunnybrook can be grade-separated by shifting eastbound traffic north of the LRT ROW (a new bridge span over the West Don and tunnel under the CPKC rail line would be needed, which wouldn't be cheap. Perhaps this could be packaged along with the station for GO 2.0 if/when that happens).
2) The in-median section between Don Valley Station and the East Don can stay. It can be separated from vehicle movements relatively easily. Get rid of Aga Khan station, redo the intersection with the DVP to eliminate left turns (some kind of modified cloverleaf, perhaps?), and create a grade-separated connection to Wynford station, cutting out the at-grade crossing.
3) Then transition to an elevated guideway for Bermondsey station onward to Kennedy.
Grade separation isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. In fact, I don't think you need a new ROW at all until Victoria Park or so. We could probably get away with crossing arms/pedestrian refuge islands at Leslie and Bermondsey, and remove the vehicle conflicts everywhere else, to reap the full benefits of a grade-separated line. This approach minimizes the amount of new hard infrastructure needed, cutting costs substantially.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
That is nothing short of bizarre. When supporting the LRT east to Eglinton GO, I just assumed that that Kennedy was designed to extend Eglinton further east. Could ML possibly screw up a transit system worse than it already has?
Also, where was the City when all this work was taking place? Both Eglinton portions were part of the original TransitCity which was a City plan not ML. In the 13 years it took to build this line, did no one in the City manage to mention that it should be designed to be extended further east? Thank God you didn't have the same morons running your city 75 years ago or the first section of Yonge to Eglinton would have required them to build a whole new station underneath it and transfer onto a different line to continue in the same direction to Lawrence running under the exact same street when that extension happened. You couldn't make this up.
It's a sad, sad state of affairs when you have to look back a decade and realize that your crack smoking Mayor was right........it should have been a subway.
duffo
Active Member
Metrolinx runs the show. I doubt this issue came out of nowhere, but rather Metrolinx realized it could reduce tunneling costs by not protecting for EELRT, and the City having no power to stop them.
dougtoronto
Active Member
While I recognize it would be wasteful, what are the chances we could build a new elevated Kennedy station to bypass the whole mess, and continue along with through service with an eastern extension? Incredibly wild that we have to think of solutions like these when Metrolinx could have just designed the whole thing better.
jcam
Active Member
This may be a silly question, but could we not run a centerline service along Eglinton up to the crest of the Stouffville corridor bridge, and have a signalized crossing for eastbound traffic that allows the trains to cross off the bridge onto a new alignment into the existing platforms within Kennedy station that were previously used for Line 3? Obviously there would be significant renovations required, but why couldn't this be feasible?
If we could pass a tunnel within metres of the bottom of the Schulich building at York for TYSSE, why couldn’t the portal structure be supported around the tunnels? Alternatively, could you not potentially re-use the existing SRT platform structure (obviously with significant renovations) like below:
Northern Light
Superstar
I am not suggesting an approval of anything..................
But I will say, just because an option has not been spoken of publicly does not mean it has not been discussed
Northern Light
Superstar
In the supplementary report on the EELRT to today's Council meeting.....
There's a tidbit for some of you to mull over
Also staff still using the old budget placeholder of ~4.5B for the project ....but that is with zero grade separation, and does not to my understanding account for the change in MSF location.
Report link: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2026/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-286353.pdf
There's a tidbit for some of you to mull over
Also staff still using the old budget placeholder of ~4.5B for the project ....but that is with zero grade separation, and does not to my understanding account for the change in MSF location.
Report link: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2026/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-286353.pdf
JSF-1
Active Member
I wonder what "provincial priorities" prevent the use of the Conlins site. Redevelopment? Trying to cram a yard for the Sheppard Line in there? or are they just actively trying to sabotage the project?
KhalilHeron
Active Member
It's certainly been discussed, but that just makes me more worried that it hasn't been discussed publicly. There was a conscious decision made not to publicly present it as one of the options under consideration. Could be many reasons, and I'm not sure i like any of themI am not suggesting an approval of anything..................
But I will say, just because an option has not been spoken of publicly does not mean it has not been discussed
I imagine its the former. If they take the southern alignement to stc and anwyehere further east theres not a ton of great spots for a yard
duffo
Active Member
If the route ends up being phased - is there more demand from the future Sheppard-McCowan Station to Malvern and UTSC, or from Kennedy to UTSC (where RapidTO lanes already exist)?
KhalilHeron
Active Member
Eglinton has way more density than along Sheppard out there, plus two go stations are along that section so definitely from Kennedy first. A bus from Scarborough centre will still probably end up being the fastest way to UTSC either way.
duffo
Active Member
Which is why I'm still very much of the opinion that the priority should be packaging DSBRT from STC to UTSC, the existing RapidTO lanes, and upcoming Busway into a serious BRT program for Scarborough...