[BurlOak]

The more I think about Eglinton East and it's built form the more I actually prefer the on street option. At least from an urban design perspective.

If I was one of the 100's of people living on this stretch of Eglinton, I would probably want surface LRT as well. If I was one of the half million living in the rest of Scarborough, I would strongly prefer the grade-separated (elevated) option. Are the few NIMBY's on Eglinton so important that their wants should not be compromised, while the needs of the rest of Scarborough are ignored. Also will elevated transit have any real detrimental effect on already sprawling landscape of the area.

 

[Jaye101]

^^ Nimby is an overused term on this website to dismiss the opinion of others. We all live in Toronto, we all want the best thing for our city. I do not live on Eglinton in Scarborough.

Do you really think the area is going to be sprawling forever? The question we all need to ask ourselves is what kind of Eglinton we want for the future. A well managed surface LRT with signal priority can handle loads on this line well into the future, especially after the DRL is built. Elevation is not required for capacity, and does not hamper the "needs of the rest of Scarborough," where most would transfer from the line at Don Mills. It's the way we design the line that will determine it's effectiveness and speed, and that's not restricted to simply grade separation.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

^^ Nimby is an overused term on this website to dismiss the opinion of others. We all live in Toronto, we all want the best thing for our city. I do not live on Eglinton in Scarborough.

Do you really think the area is going to be sprawling forever? The question we all need to ask ourselves is what kind of Eglinton we want for the future. A well managed surface LRT with signal priority can handle loads on this line well into the future, especially after the DRL is built. Elevation is not required for capacity, and does not hamper the "needs of the rest of Scarborough," where most would transfer from the line at Don Mills. It's the way we design the line that will determine it's effectiveness and speed, and that's not restricted to simply grade separation.

Hear, hear. I find people are too obsessed with grade-separation and the idea that it's the only option that should be pursued. Surface LRT can handle large capacities quite well, as evident in other cities around the world.

 

[Rainforest]

My take:

1) "Needs of the rest of Scarborough" cannot be accommodated by Eglinton LRT, whether its eastern segment is on surface or elevated. The choke point is not there.

First choke point is Eglinton west of Don Mills. At Don Mills, multiple passenger flows will converge and use Eglinton LRT to get to Yonge subway. Those multiple flows are: riders coming from the east on Eglinton; riders from Lawrence East since that street is not continuous; Flemmingdon Park residents; and transfers from the #25 Don Mills bus. If the line designed / operated in such a way that all capacity is taken by riders coming from Scarborough, then other groups of riders will not be able to squeeze in.

Secondly, Yonge from Eglinton to Bloor might become a choke point. It is pretty busy already (though not as busy as south of Bloor). South of Bloor it can be relieved by DRL, but north of Bloor the demand will only keep increasing, and adding a massive flow from Scarborough will likely overwhelm it.

Some mentioned that the capacity crunch will force the governments to fund DRL extension to Eglinton. I think that this assumption is overly optimistic. Government types usually do not take public transit. Most of their constituents either do not take public transit, or do not use those sections of the network. The governments can tolerate that overcrowding just as easily as the tolerate overcrowding south of Bloor at present.

Because of that, elevated Eglinton LRT is not required between Don Mills and Kennedy, as full interlining is not possible anyway.

2) I doubt that side-of-the-road alignment is possible on that section, because of the conflicts with minor side streets and with driveways / access roads. Most likely, if it is at surface, it will be in the median.

3) Not sure that driving big-box stores away is a desirable task; they are part of the city's economy and must be located somewhere. Btw, they could use transit, too. Employees need to get to / from work, and customers can take small purchases on transit.

 

[Ramako]

^^ Nimby is an overused term on this website to dismiss the opinion of others. We all live in Toronto, we all want the best thing for our city.

I'd just like to point out that I totally disagree with this. I know a lot of people who openly and unabashedly support policies that serve their own personal self-interest over that of the greater welfare of the city, and vice versa. Such folk are most certainly out there.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

^^ Nimby is an overused term on this website to dismiss the opinion of others. We all live in Toronto, we all want the best thing for our city. I do not live on Eglinton in Scarborough.

Do you really think the area is going to be sprawling forever? The question we all need to ask ourselves is what kind of Eglinton we want for the future. A well managed surface LRT with signal priority can handle loads on this line well into the future, especially after the DRL is built. Elevation is not required for capacity, and does not hamper the "needs of the rest of Scarborough," where most would transfer from the line at Don Mills. It's the way we design the line that will determine it's effectiveness and speed, and that's not restricted to simply grade separation.

Nimbyism lives on with busways as well, not just LRTs.

See this link.

Thornhill MPP against rapidway bus route

Thornhill’s MPP has come out against a portion of the rapid bus lanes planned for Hwy. 7 that will take a detour through a residential neighbourhood.
“We want to avoid another divisive, unsafe and expensive St. Clair disaster in our own neighbourhood,” MPP Peter Shurman said this week in reference to a contentious downtown Toronto streetcar line.
Mr. Shurman decided he had to support residents after receiving many letters from those opposed to having the rapidway service running through their Thornhill neighbourhood. He held a press conference Monday at The Promenade Mall’s York Region Transit and Viva bus terminal.
“This project is not warranted, even with future intensification,“ he said in an interview.
VIVA’s east-west rapidway line — which will allow buses their own lanes across the region — detours from its Hwy. 7 route, down Bathurst Street, along Centre Street to Dufferin Street before linking up again with Hwy. 7.
The rapidway is part of York Region Transit’s rapid transit plan to introduce a public transit system that provides fast, frequent service. It is meant to ease projected road congestion caused by population growth.
Beverley Glen Ratepayers Association president Gila Martow joined Mr. Shurman at the press conference and pointed to the failures of the St. Clair Avenue light rail project in opposing the Centre Street portion of the rapidway.
“After four years of construction, it decimated business and lives,” she said.
The busway route would be faster if it stayed on Hwy. 7, she added.
She believes the money should be reallocated to funding the Yonge Street subway extension.
Other residents have said they are concerned the rapidway will lead to extra traffic and the dedicated bus lanes will pose a danger to pedestrians and cyclists.
“Centre Street and the Beverley Glen area are home to many families and children. Keeping a rapid transit way above ground is a recipe for disaster,” Mr. Shurman said. “Subways are faster, safer and have greater utility than this project. I hope that the local councillors, who have heard the concerns of our constituents, will listen to their wishes and do what they were sent to City Council to do, fight for their constituents and get busy on Yonge Street.”
Rapid bus service is coming to Thornhill’s Centre Street. It’s just a matter of time, Vaughan Ward 5 Councillor Alan Shefman insisted.
“It is funded, it is happening and it will be built,” he said. “People should be focused on design, aesthetics. There is no question it is going to happen.
“People have really been misled if they have the impression they can stop it. Direct your energy where change can have an impact,” he said.
“We can work to ensure the rapidway fits nicely into the community. The net benefit to the streetscape will be better than today.”
He cautioned that residents opposed to the rapidway do not represent everybody.
“Many residents are dying to have it in place. We need transit everywhere or we will die with congestion everywhere.”
He said when the bus rapidway is finished, riders will be able to take the rapidway from The Promenade Shopping Mall to the new subway station at Jane Street and Hwy. 7 in 11 minutes.
He also said the rapidway needs to go through Bathurst and Centre streets. because this area is densely populated.
Mr. Shefman is hopeful critics will come around to his way of thinking.
“People will start to see the value of the busway. We desperately need transit.”

 

[Jaye101]

I'm not saying Nimbyism doesn't exist. Especially in the case of the above, the politician is speaking on a subject to which they clearly have no knowledge. It's hard to understand why people would be against things that would profit them through increases in land value. But I feel like many use the term on this website to simply dismiss other forumers, not necessarily in this instance but in general.

Nevertheless, there still remains more options than elevation. Even partial elevation over major intersections would be preferable.

 

[BurlOak]

I'm not saying Nimbyism doesn't exist. Especially in the case of the above, the politician is speaking on a subject to which they clearly have no knowledge. It's hard to understand why people would be against things that would profit them through increases in land value. But I feel like many use the term on this website to simply dismiss other forumers, not necessarily in this instance but in general.

Nevertheless, there still remains more options than elevation. Even partial elevation over major intersections would be preferable.

There are 15 intersections from Don Mills to Kennedy in about 5.5 or 6 km. If you go over DVP and Vic Park then you may barely be able to have an at grade stop at Bermondsey and then maybe 3 or 4 stops in the 2 km between Pharmacy (Lebovic) and Kennedy (Ionview). This option will be a bit more Roller Coaster like though, and the inclined track would be more of an eyesore and a barrier than track that is a constant height above the ground. Plus, I would guess that it would seem odd to have such a short stretch that prevents the line from running auto and driverless.

 

[Jaye101]

I'm not proposing that all intersections be elevated rather some, and it's just a theoretical suggestion. Another suggestion would be to cut and cover under major intersections, however with true signal priority I doubt these features would even be needed. However, the unfortunate situation in Toronto is that we've never even seen true signal priority.

 

[nfitz]

I'm not proposing that all intersections be elevated rather some, and it's just a theoretical suggestion. Another suggestion would be to cut and cover under major intersections, however with true signal priority I doubt these features would even be needed. However, the unfortunate situation in Toronto is that we've never even seen true signal priority.

If you don't think it would be needed, then simply design true signal priority and save a lot of money.

 

[andrewpmk]

Not sure that driving big-box stores away is a desirable task; they are part of the city's economy and must be located somewhere. Btw, they could use transit, too. Employees need to get to / from work, and customers can take small purchases on transit.

As land values increase, big box stores will get driven away and replaced with high density retail (shops with multi-storey or underground parking) and condos. Given that the Golden Mile is a fairly low-income area this may take several decades, but it will probably happen eventually. How many big box stores do you find in densely populated Asian cities - not very many.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

As land values increase, big box stores will get driven away and replaced with high density retail (shops with multi-storey or underground parking) and condos. Given that the Golden Mile is a fairly low-income area this may take several decades, but it will probably happen eventually. How many big box stores do you find in densely populated Asian cities - not very many.

The city should be taxing the property that the parking lots sit on at a higher rate to discourage them, or charge a parking tax. I've noticed many times that the parking lots usually take up more real estate than the stores themselves. Just wondering what they are taxed at?

 

[BurlOak]

I'm not proposing that all intersections be elevated rather some, and it's just a theoretical suggestion. Another suggestion would be to cut and cover under major intersections, however with true signal priority I doubt these features would even be needed. However, the unfortunate situation in Toronto is that we've never even seen true signal priority.

I am not sure if you can turn this into a Rapid transit corridor. There are 15 intersections between the Don Mills portal and the Kennedy portal - that is a spacing of about 350m. I doubt that signal priority is possible with so many, and so close intersections, especially at the train frequency needed to be a rapid transit line. Crossing gates and signal priority could work if intersections were a kilometre of more apart. In order to go over an intersection, the track would have clear the roadway by about 5.5m, plus about 2.5m for the structure to support the tracks. If you want to go under an intersection you again need about 5m clearance for the LRT, 0.5 to 1.0m for the "tunnel" structure, and 2 or 3m for services and utilities under the cross road. In order to get the track to go from horizontal to 8m (above or below) would need about 150m at 4% grade, plus 75m for the vertical curve (transition from level to inclined or inclined to level). Plus add in a 100m station and this means that the elevated portion for one crossing would require about 0.7 km. It also means that if you go over Vic Park, you can not come down before Pharmacy. This means that it would have to go over both and be over 1 km long.

Thus, I think the only options are to keep it the way it is designed or have it fully elevated.

If left as is, then ECLRT will not have enough capacity to carry many, and all of Scarborough (aside from Agincourt) will be funnelled onto the B-D subway. This means that:
1) There would be a significantly higher number of passengers arriving at Yonge-Bloor and the DRL would have to solely be required to get as many riders as possible. This could only be accomplished if there were no intermediate stations and the DRL ran express from Pape to the Financial District. (Pape and the Downtown station would have to be designed for huge passenger volumes).
2) There would be significantly fewer passengers passing Don Mills and Eglinton, and a DRL extension to Eglinton would not be required.

If the ECLRT were elevated, passengers would be better distributed between the two lines. This would mean
1) The demand on the DRL to solely relieve Yonge-Bloor would not be as great, and the line could have additional stations downtown.
2) Pape station would not require nearly the capacity and could be more easily built without massive construction.
3) The demand at Don Mills and Eglinton would be higher and an extension of the DRL to Eglinton would be justified.

So I think it is possible for ECLRT to be in the median, but it will have a great effect on the rest of the network.

 

[Rainforest]

Thus, I think the only options are to keep it the way it is designed or have it fully elevated.

If left as is, then ECLRT will not have enough capacity to carry many, and all of Scarborough (aside from Agincourt) will be funnelled onto the B-D subway. This means that:
1) There would be a significantly higher number of passengers arriving at Yonge-Bloor and the DRL would have to solely be required to get as many riders as possible. This could only be accomplished if there were no intermediate stations and the DRL ran express from Pape to the Financial District. (Pape and the Downtown station would have to be designed for huge passenger volumes).
2) There would be significantly fewer passengers passing Don Mills and Eglinton, and a DRL extension to Eglinton would not be required.

If the ECLRT were elevated, passengers would be better distributed between the two lines. This would mean
1) The demand on the DRL to solely relieve Yonge-Bloor would not be as great, and the line could have additional stations downtown.
2) Pape station would not require nearly the capacity and could be more easily built without massive construction.
3) The demand at Don Mills and Eglinton would be higher and an extension of the DRL to Eglinton would be justified.

So I think it is possible for ECLRT to be in the median, but it will have a great effect on the rest of the network.

I have to disagree on some points:

1) There is no relation between the design of Eglinton line, and the number of DRL stations south of Bloor. There are 9 stations from Pape/Danforth to Yonge/King if traveling with BD and Yonge subways. If DRL will have 5 or 6 intermediate stations between those two points, it will be attractive enough; added bonus is avoiding the Yonge line crowds. DRL can have a reasonable number of stations south of Bloor; more than 6 is not needed anyway.

2) Better distribution of passengers between the two lines (BD and Eglinton) does not mean even distribution. Eglinton is being designed in a way that it hardly can carry more than 15,000 pphpd; while BD can easily handle 30,000. Elevating Eglinton east of Don Mills will not add capacity near Yonge, where the demand will be highest. It is actually desirable to direct more riders from Scarborough to BD than to Eglinton.

3) Extension of DRL to Eglinton is justified; but that does not necessarily mean it will be funded in the foreseeable future.

 

[ssiguy2]

While Toronto spends a not so small fortune on Eglington hoping that there is no accident along the route and waiting for the lights to change here is what Vancouverites are going to have to suffer thru on their new Evergreen and existing Expo and Millenium Lines............. skytrainforsurrey.org and just type in gallery under the search.

These are the very nice, very bright Innovia 300 series which as you can see have twice the length of the current MK11 using one longer train and articulation like the new Rockets. They can be expanded to 6 car trains and have frequency level potentials of every 75 seconds. Vancouver plans on eventually having all 6 car Innovia 300 trains and on the Expo/Mill and Mill/Evergreen line interlined sections running every 75 seconds each way. Think of that in Toronto's old ICTS buggies as being the equivalent of 11 MK1 cars coming by every 75 seconds and yet still be cheaper to run than Eglinton LRT because they are automated.

Aren't you glad Toronto is engaging in "great city building" as opposed to creating a cost effective Metro system?