[Electrify]

Councillors Stintz, Parker and Robinson are saying as datamouse said, that they're sticking with the original EA to retain Leslie stop. This is a cowardly backward step by Metrolinx which was finally making some sense and tunnelling to Don Mills, only to wimp out in the face of a few dozen condo dwellers on Leslie who never ride public transit anyway. (The bus stops are virtually empty). And as far as people going to the park, nobody takes transit to the park. They walk, bike or drive on weekends in order to haul their bbq's and picnic supplies.

Let's hope at least Metrolinx puts the surface LRT on the south lanes of Eglinton so it can still be separated from traffic until Don Mills and it will not mess up the Leslie/Eglinton intersection. This whole thing has become a joke.

What about the slope stability issues on Eglinton east of Brentcliffe? They'll be lucky if they get this thing open by 2030 if ever!

Pretty much this. I was actually thinking while putting together my thesis on stop spacing that the wide gap between Don Mills and Laird did help to offset some of the more excessive stops in the east (Ferrand, Lebovic, and arguably Pharmacy and Ionview). Guess now it won't even have that.

 

[datamouse]

Somehow I doubt Metrolinx is going to be so accommodating when people start complaining about the SELRT in the coming years.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

If Leslie will be a stop or station, does that mean Laird will be the last station for ATC, not Don Mills?

If they make Leslie completely segregated from motor traffic somehow, they could continue the ATC until Don Mills. What form will the Leslie stop/station be now? Elevated, south of the Leslie/Eglinton intersection, railway arms, or allegedly transit priority?

 

[Hipster Duck]

What a disappointment!

Between an added, useless stop at Leslie and the need for LRVs to physically cross one of the busiest, most-congested intersections in the city - Don Mills and Eglinton - we are looking at easily a 5 minute addition in travel times and a major f%^k up in scheduling.

I am not a big fan of tunneling suburban rapid transit but the tunnel was money worth spending.

I also lost a lot of faith in two people who I used to have a great deal of respect for in transit circles: Glen Murray for reopening the Scarborough RT replacement debate for the umpteenth time and Steve Munro for crusading against a tunneled alignment to Don Mills and using "access to the park" as a red herring to get people on his side.

Transit planning in Toronto is such a farce. We don't even have Rob Ford to blame this time.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Metrolinx needs to grow a backbone. City Council is clueless. Metrolinx should be doing what they know is right, instead of appeasing people who know nothing about transit.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

What a disappointment!

Between an added, useless stop at Leslie and the need for LRVs to physically cross one of the busiest, most-congested intersections in the city - Don Mills and Eglinton - we are looking at easily a 5 minute addition in travel times and a major f%^k up in scheduling.

5 minutes seems like quite a stretch for the addition of a single station.

 

[nfitz]

5 minutes seems like quite a stretch for the addition of a single station.

And at worst a single traffic light. Why do people make such absurd statements?

 

[CDL.TO]

What a disappointment!

Between an added, useless stop at Leslie and the need for LRVs to physically cross one of the busiest, most-congested intersections in the city - Don Mills and Eglinton - we are looking at easily a 5 minute addition in travel times and a major f%^k up in scheduling.

I am not a big fan of tunneling suburban rapid transit but the tunnel was money worth spending.

I also lost a lot of faith in two people who I used to have a great deal of respect for in transit circles: Glen Murray for reopening the Scarborough RT replacement debate for the umpteenth time and Steve Munro for crusading against a tunneled alignment to Don Mills and using "access to the park" as a red herring to get people on his side.

Transit planning in Toronto is such a farce. We don't even have Rob Ford to blame this time.

Agree 100%. We talk about fact-based decision making, but here we are even though we know that the traffic generated at Leslie and Eglinton is minuscule and that with the large amount of employment and potential development at Don Mills and Eglinton means that is a logical location for increased service to terminate (see we have heard that there will be higher frequencies in the tunneled section).

This is a complete embarrassment. Metrolinx admits that they will be paying the same money for a slower, lower capacity solution.

Perhaps the lesson is that we need to make more noise that we want better solutions that serve the whole city.

 

[Voltz]

What a disappointment!

Between an added, useless stop at Leslie and the need for LRVs to physically cross one of the busiest, most-congested intersections in the city - Don Mills and Eglinton - we are looking at easily a 5 minute addition in travel times and a major f%^k up in scheduling.

I am not a big fan of tunneling suburban rapid transit but the tunnel was money worth spending.

I also lost a lot of faith in two people who I used to have a great deal of respect for in transit circles: Glen Murray for reopening the Scarborough RT replacement debate for the umpteenth time and Steve Munro for crusading against a tunneled alignment to Don Mills and using "access to the park" as a red herring to get people on his side.

Transit planning in Toronto is such a farce. We don't even have Rob Ford to blame this time.

Don Mills was going to be underground before the change to extend the tunnel, I don't see that changing. However the line will now have to cross the Leslie and Eglinton intersection which will likely have significant impacts to vehicle traffic as the are a large number of left turn movements there. As well it could limit the number of LRV that can reach Don Mills as having to cross the leslie intersection will limit the frequency.

I was never under the impression that Steve Munro was against extending the tunnel to Don Mills, he seemed to be in favor. And I blame Glen and Stintz for reopening the SRT, as well as making metrolinx think that it's not worth bringing the tunnel extensioin change to council for approval.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Perhaps the lesson is that we need to make more noise that we want better solutions that serve the whole city.

About that

So many here on UT passionately debate transit issues, dedicating a significant amount of time to it. Perhaps instead of simply debating it here on UT, more members should take a more active role and take their concerns directly to Metrolinx. Nothing will change by simply discussing it here on UT. But we do have the potential to change things if we alert those in a position of power about our concerns.

 

[BurlOak]

Metrolinx is now saying they're sticking to the original EA with stop at Leslie retained.

We were told late last year that the portal east of Brentcliffe (on the hillside) was not possible due to engineering complexities. It was not that this portal location was more expensive, it was that it was not possible. We were also told that the stop at Ferrand had to be eliminated since it could not be put in with the underground station at Don Mills.

Then, Metrolinx announces that they looked at it in more detail and the stop at Ferrand could in fact be re-instated.
Now, Metrolinx announces that the original portal location could in fact be built.

Metrolinx does not have any crediibility since we never know if or when they are telling the truth.

I guess there is no chance of swtiching from the median to a South side alignement past Leslie. No matter what Metrolinx would say about this option, I am not sure if I would believe them.

 

[nfitz]

We were told late last year that the portal east of Brentcliffe (on the hillside) was not possible due to engineering complexities. It was not that this portal location was more expensive, it was that it was not possible.

That's not my recollection. Simply that it was going to be a lot more expensive.

 

[datamouse]

About that

So many here on UT passionately debate transit issues, dedicating a significant amount of time to it. Perhaps instead of simply debating it here on UT, more members should take a more active role and take their concerns directly to Metrolinx. Nothing will change by simply discussing it here on UT. But we do have the potential to change things if we alert those in a position of power about our concerns.

Say what you want about Ford but out of all the letters I've sent to politicians on he and my local MPP ever bothered to respond to me. It feels so damn futile when they won't even send an acknowledgement of receipt leaving you to wonder if they even read it. I don't expect a full written response all the time, just some degree of confirmation that I'm being heard.

 

[CapitalSeven]

It's true the there's been some backtracking, but I've gone back to the document from December that presented the revised plan, and it said in part this:

-new development to the south of the Brentcliffe launch site would require temporary shoring to protect the building foundation for the duration of construction, and construction noise mitigation measures may be insufficient

-Slope Stability issues north of Eglinton at the Brentcliffe portal could impact the ability to permanently maintain 4 lanes of traffic at this location

I don't know how you could read that as "not possible." To me it sounds more like "tricky."

Look, there are a lot of voices in this forum asking for faster lines and fewer stops, or rather a few fairly vocal ones. But it's a bit of an echo chamber, and if it were representative of people out participating in Toronto's democracy, we'd see planners removing stops after open houses. We see the opposite. And can you blame Metrolinx for not wanting to send this back to the city, after the wretched spectacle Toronto's city council puked out this week?

 

[Rainforest]

What a disappointment!

Between an added, useless stop at Leslie and the need for LRVs to physically cross one of the busiest, most-congested intersections in the city - Don Mills and Eglinton - we are looking at easily a 5 minute addition in travel times and a major f%^k up in scheduling.

I am not a big fan of tunneling suburban rapid transit but the tunnel was money worth spending.

I also lost a lot of faith in two people who I used to have a great deal of respect for in transit circles: Glen Murray for reopening the Scarborough RT replacement debate for the umpteenth time and Steve Munro for crusading against a tunneled alignment to Don Mills and using "access to the park" as a red herring to get people on his side.

Transit planning in Toronto is such a farce. We don't even have Rob Ford to blame this time.

Steve Munro was not much against this particular tunnel, and certainly did not bring "access to the park" as an argument against such tunnel. Some people posting on his site did.

Other than that, I agree with your statements.

Furthermore, now the capacity between Yonge and Don Mills will be limited by the design of surface section, and very frequent service will not be possible on that segment. Meanwhile, the demand there is the combined flow from Eglinton, Lawrence East, the Flemmington Park cluster, and the riders transferring from the Don Mills bus.