[drum118]

Excellent points. And that reminds me.

If the comments that Metrolinx staff made at the meeting are true, that they would have to close the line for 2 years to build a station at Leslie in the future (something I actually find pretty hard to believe actually). Maybe they would be better off the start of the station box now, even if it isn't used for 200 years. Though I expect it would be cheaper to find a way to construct the station in the future without closing the line for significant periods.

If TTC could run trains during the building of the NYC station, why does Metrolinx have to shut the line down for Leslie?

I can't see a station for this location now or 50 years down the road to justify building a box for it. Too costly at the end of the day.

 

[11th]

If TTC could run trains during the building of the NYC station, why does Metrolinx have to shut the line down for Leslie?

Probably because north Yonge was built using cut-and-cover, whereas the tunnels for Eglinton will not be.

 

[EnviroTO]

If TTC could run trains during the building of the NYC station, why does Metrolinx have to shut the line down for Leslie?

I would think it has to do with the position of the water table. They would need to put in the station box to create an impermeable wall which is tough with the tunnel already there. I would think that the cheapest way to not build the station now but allow for it in the future would be to put the end walls now so the boring machine can tunnel through the end walls to create the seal, but leave the side walls and excavation until a future date.

 

[UD2]

We won't be needing a Leslie Station for a long time. The 54 Lawrence and 51 Leslie bus will still be running through this location to deliver any passengers to the next station down the road. This would be more than enough to deal with the volume at this location for the next 30-60 years.

If you ever pay a visit to the intersection to Leslie and Eglinton, you would understand why. There are simply not that much useable space to develop.

 

[datamouse]

With the move of the DRL to the 15 year plan Metrolinx needs to address a connection at Don Mills at least in some form. Detailed work of roughing in a box right underneath for the DRL might be too time consuming for the Crosstown schedule but at the very least Metrolinx needs to be sure that the position of the current Crosstown position is located well enough that future construction will have the space necessary close by and void of any future problems. You want to try to avoid the high cost of an interchange station like what happened at Sheppard-Yonge.

 

[nfitz]

We won't be needing a Leslie Station for a long time. The 54 Lawrence and 51 Leslie bus will still be running through this location to deliver any passengers to the next station down the road. This would be more than enough to deal with the volume at this location for the next 30-60 years.

Assuming there's no major change to the land use in the area. Can we really predict what the land use is going to be in the 2100s - particularly at the intersection of Leslie and Wickstead? I'm not saying we should spend much on this - just make sure we don't do something that could be avoided that would make a future station impossible.

If you ever pay a visit to the intersection to Leslie and Eglinton, you would understand why. There are simply not that much useable space to develop.

Perhaps one could avoid assuming that those who suggest something don't know the area. Until about 2 years ago, I used to drive through that intersection to get to work, day after day.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

With the move of the DRL to the 15 year plan Metrolinx needs to address a connection at Don Mills at least in some form. Detailed work of roughing in a box right underneath for the DRL might be too time consuming for the Crosstown schedule but at the very least Metrolinx needs to be sure that the position of the current Crosstown position is located well enough that future construction will have the space necessary close by and void of any future problems. You want to try to avoid the high cost of an interchange station like what happened at Sheppard-Yonge.

Once the study and environmental assessment for the DRL is completed, we'll find out if the DRL will be heavy rail or light rail. Also, if there will be a Don Mills LRT continuation or a Don Mills LRT terminal. If heavy rail, then the interchange with the Eglinton will be simply, If the DRL will be light rail or if there will be a Don Mills LRT, then there could be a rail connection between the DRL and Eglinton. Lots of questions to be answered, hopefully answered before construction reaches the Don Mills and Eglinton area.

 

[Ansem]

Once the study and environmental assessment for the DRL is completed, we'll find out if the DRL will be heavy rail or light rail. Also, if there will be a Don Mills LRT continuation or a Don Mills LRT terminal. If heavy rail, then the interchange with the Eglinton will be simply, If the DRL will be light rail or if there will be a Don Mills LRT, then there could be a rail connection between the DRL and Eglinton. Lots of questions to be answered, hopefully answered before construction reaches the Don Mills and Eglinton area.

I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that it will be heavy rail. LRT would not make any sense

 

[gweed123]

I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that it will be heavy rail. LRT would not make any sense

I agree. Unless they go with a 4 tracked LRT, it wouldn't make any sense to do anything other than HRT.

 

[Catenary]

The question is what kind of Heavy Rail? Subways, UPX and GO trains all fall into that category. Although at first glance building a TTC subway line makes the most sense, building a GO compatible S-Bahn type system could also work and relieve congestion in some other places.

 

[diminutive]

The question is what kind of Heavy Rail? Subways, UPX and GO trains all fall into that category. Although at first glance building a TTC subway line makes the most sense, building a GO compatible S-Bahn type system could also work and relieve congestion in some other places.

In North America at least, isn't the distinction between GO/UPX and subways mostly regulatory in that GO/UPX conform to federal regulations and standards? In Japan "commuter rail" and "subway/metro" are more or less indistinguishable from each other.

Re. DRL technology, I would by highly suspicious of running it as part of a Federally regulated railway. We'd pretty much screw ourselves out of every lightweight EMU on earth.

That said, I would be highly supportive of using the DRL as a kind of regional route as well. The typical DRL end-points (DM/Elginton, DW) seem ripe for radial commuter lines near or along existing GO lines or hydro rights of way.

Also, if a substantial part of the GO network was transferred to this new route, the issue of getting across downtown could be simplified. Instead of a tunnel, we could segregate two tracks from the existing rail corridors and maybe four platforms at Union. No super expensive tunnel needed. Since the two tracks could handle >30 trains per hour, there wouldn't be any overall loss of rail capacity.

The obvious downside to that is whatever commuter lines fed into this central corridor would need to be segregated as well and turned into 'metro systems, which would imply hundreds of kilometers of new 'metro.' Since the long term GO/REX/WTF service requirements on many corridors seem to implicitly require much of this anyways though it could be a worthwhile tradeoff.

EDIT: Just to be consistent with some earlier posts of mine, if we are going to end the DRL @ Dundas West and Eglinton, or even more so simply Pape-Spadina, then I'd say best to build it as a kind of mini-metro technology to save whatever construction costs possible (Smaller tunnels, smaller trains, smaller stations). A Pape-King-Spadina route's demand in 2031 is only ~12k pphpd. Full bore subway isn't really necessary for those demand levels, and since most of them are existing riders avoiding BloorYonge there wouldn't be much new revenue to offset it. But if we start adding in regional routes I think a full bore heavy rail system is warranted.

 

[ssiguy2]

There are so many different technology choices today that what is Metro/subway and what isn't is not clear except in one situation............all Metro/subway lines can be, atleast hypothetically, automated. You can use any form of technology you want but only complete and total segregation is the definition of a true Metro/subway system and whether is runs at-grade, elevated, underground or a combination is also irrelevant.

This is why Manilla's LRT, Vancouver's SkyTrain, and Tokyo's Monorail are all considered Metros but Calgary's CTrain or Edmonton LRT are not despite both being rapid transit and Edmonotn having the entire downtown section underground. Id the DRL is to be totally grade separated then obviouslly LRT is the worse possible option due to the tunnels costing more than the other three as does elevation but offers the lowest capacity.

It makes total sense for Eglinton to have atleast a "roughed-in" underground or elevated station at Don Mills for a potential DRL connection. This is what Vancouver did with the Canada Line at 33rd Ave. The station is not open and there are no plans to open it anytime soon but eventually as the area builds up the station will be opened. By having it already roughed=in, they have made that option MUCH less costly and disruptive. If the TTC had any forsight they would have done the same with Spadina's new Sheppard West station and especially considering how much they are paying for these suburban stations.

 

[adeel]

Assuming there's no major change to the land use in the area. Can we really predict what the land use is going to be in the 2100s - particularly at the intersection of Leslie and Wickstead? I'm not saying we should spend much on this - just make sure we don't do something that could be avoided that would make a future station impossible.

Is there a leslie and wicksteed (sp?) intersection? Doesn't leslie end at Eglinton?

I don't think there is any need at all for a leslie station. I drive by the area every Thursday. As I see it by driving, leslie ends at eglinton, and there is nothing of note at leslie that would require putting a stop there.

 

[UD2]

Assuming there's no major change to the land use in the area. Can we really predict what the land use is going to be in the 2100s - particularly at the intersection of Leslie and Wickstead? I'm not saying we should spend much on this - just make sure we don't do something that could be avoided that would make a future station impossible.

Perhaps one could avoid assuming that those who suggest something don't know the area. Until about 2 years ago, I used to drive through that intersection to get to work, day after day.

1. Leslie never meets Wickstead; It ends at Eglinton. Are you thinking Laird? I would agree with you that Laird could be fully redeveloped in the next 30 - 50 years.

2. I'm not suggesting anything. Driving through the area one would notice that the northwest, southwest, due south, and southeast of the intersection resides a deep valley that is neither developable nor should be developed. While the Northeast, the only developable space, sits on a large incline and would not only be costly to redevelop, but also house what seems to be a very profitable newly built Toyota dealership complex, which should remain there for the time being.

3. I'm all for planning for 2050, but I couldn't care less about what'll happen at 2110, and rightfully so. Nobody, 100 years ago, could have correctly planned for our current day infrastructure needs while driving down the road in their Ford Model T, and our world today is only changing ever faster. As for 2050, I don't think we would be filling in the Serena Gundy Park for condominium developments during this time and I don't believe a possible mid scale development on one street corner of an intersection can justify the building of a subsurface transit stop.

 

[nfitz]

Is there a leslie and wicksteed (sp?) intersection? Doesn't leslie end at Eglinton?

1. Leslie never meets Wickstead; It ends at Eglinton. Are you thinking Laird? I would agree with you that Laird could be fully redeveloped in the next 30 - 50 years.

I'm amused that so many here are commenting on what the area needs, that don't know the area. While Leslie does stop at Eglinton, there is another small piece further south between Vanderhoof and Wickstead. Essentially Vanderhoof curves to the south where it turns into Leslie which stops at Wickstead - though the road ROW continues south to Thorncliffe Park Drive (and of course reappears near the lake).

Google Maps is wrong, BTW ... but if you jump into Google Streetview you can clearly see Leslie Street signs at both Research Road and Wickstead Avenue. The correct road names are visible on the City of Toronto mapping tool - http://map.toronto.ca/imapit/iMapIt.jsp

And certainly, if you drive through the area, the Leslie St signs are quite visible at Wickstead!

I don't think there is any need at all for a leslie station.

Currently, I agree. But what if there was 50,000 people living in the Leslie/Wickstead area in 50 years - the area is ripe for redevelopment.