I am curious about one thing. Is the Eglinton LRT - SRT link up conditional on the Eglinton LRT being fully grade separated to run successfully?
Many here talk about how the decision to grade separate the non-central portions could be reversed. But does this hold true when the two lines are linked?
I would think that the frequencies at which the whole line will be operating will make grade separation sensible.
I have thought about this as well. Given the projected ridership when the SRT is included, it certainly does push into the upper ranges of what at-grade LRT can handle. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw some sort of hybrid proposal though, where it ducked underneath intersections, and the stations were located underneath the intersection itself. I wouldn't mind this at all, as it would be a nice compromise between fully at-grade and tunnelled.
My personal preference would be one of two options:
1) Elevated, either in-median or on one side of the road. All the advantages of grade separation, without the added expense of tunnelling.
2) Trenched in-median. That way it could be decked over in select locations to give a pleasant boulevard, even if the decking over was done in phases after the project is complete. Normally a trench in the middle of an avenue would be an eyesore, but Eglinton East is such an eyesore anyway, no one would really notice. Naturally though the walls would need to be concrete and vertical, the sloped grass thing clearly wouldn't work. Again, grade-separation without the expense of tunnelling.
Not just planning. I'd like to see Metrolinx take over operations for the subway network and any fully grade-separated LRTs (like Eglinton) that are built. I firmly believe that this is the only way we'll get proper integration between GO and the subway network. This is also the only way we'll get sensible investment for the billions that are about to be spent on transit network expansion.
Good idea. Only thing is though then Metrolinx would pretty much have to fund local transit as well (or at least set up some kind of funding scheme), because the only reason the TTC even comes close to breaking even is the revenue generated from the subway network. If they had to fund the bus network without that revenue, they'd be toast. And if you had that funding arrangement for the TTC, you'd have to have it for all GTA transit agencies. I would think that would be where the NDP's 50% operating subsidy would come in quite handy.
I am willing to bet that if Metrolinx had been given the billions and a clean sheet, we'd have seen nothing like Transit City. Billions on LRTs that shave mere minutes for most riders while a whole bevy of rail corridors, that could bring millions of riders annually to their destinations in half the time, lie unused. Sadly, Metrolinx is more rubber stamp, than regional planning and co-ordination authority.
That's part of what I was hoping for
. Come up with something that actually makes sense from a regional transit perspective, instead of from a social planning perspective.
Although part of me does worry about Metrolinx getting into a Robert Moses-esque "I can do whatever I want" mindset, where the public opinion means nothing to them, especially because they would only be accountable to the Premier. But given that option over what we currently have (pointless political bickering), maybe a Robert Moses-esque mentality wouldn't be a bad thing, as long as it was directed towards transit and not highway expansion.
