Richard said:

I think this whole Eglinton line is being done on the fly and it’s a shame.

Looking back on the proposals listed in Ed Levy’s e-book, I’d say Eglinton has been getting the short end of the platform for about 40 years.

We have:

*Crosstown rapid transit
*”Eglinton West “rapid transit” out to the airport
*Eglinton West subway to Black Creek *cancelled
*Crosstown LRT from Kennedy to Pearson
*potential ICTS
*LRT from Jane to Kennedy including tunnel from Keele to Laird
*Underground LRT from Black Creek to Kennedy
*LRT from Black Creek to Kennedy with tunnel from Black Creek to Brentcliffe
*LRT from Weston to Kennedy with tunnel from Black Creek to Brentcliffe
*LRT from Weston to Kennedy with tunnel from Black Creek to Don Mills
*LRT from Weston to Kennedy with tunnel from Black Creek to Brentcliffe

Did I miss anything? Will the province find $80 dollars somewhere and have Metrolinx move back to underground routing with a station at Leslie? Will the Eglinton and Don Mills interchange be as grand as possible? Will there finally be a decent TTC/GO rail connection? All this and more … are completely unknown.

Cheers, Moaz

“Steve: I will follow up on this to see if Metrolinx has a current plan and elevation for the station to explain how it will work.”

Not absolutely necessary to follow-up, it’s right in the pdf to which you linked in your May 17 update (update 7) to this thread. See page 18, Kennedy Station – East-West Cross-Section.

Steve: Ooops! I stopped clicking through the presentation one page early!

Also Steve, you seem to have success getting e-mail responses from Jamie Robinson at Metrolinx. I sent him an e-mail re: south-side alignment and have not heard anything back, yet. I was curious if you could ask him if it’s even being considered for the Brentcliffe-Don Mills stretch. As I’ve said in other posts, I don’t know if it would even need and EA amendment as other changes such as Yonge-Eglinton seem to be able to be made without worrying that they’re different from the EA.

Also, I noticed in the last concept designs for Laird Stn., they seem to have eliminated the secondary stop from the northwest corner of Laird and Eglinton. Is this final? Combined with the Bayview exits at the south-east side of Eglinton and the northwest corner, that means North Leaside will have NO LRT entrances. North Leasiders will have to cross Eglinton (or Bayview) to access the line. I would definitely like to see the Laird northwest entrance designed and built as the EA called for.

Thanks so much.

Steve: Stations do not legally require more than two entrances, and the south side entrances at Laird are both on vacant land. I can understand not wanting to walk to Brentcliffe, but not across Eglinton?

Is there any measure for the capacity of a station or an interchange. We keep hearing numbers about the capacity of subway, underground LRT, surface LRT, etc, but never for a station. I realize each station is unique and it is more difficult to quantify, but it would be interesting to know what is the capacity (including interchange capacity) of each of the Yonge proposals. It seems intuitive that a direct connection to the subway platform is better, but by how much.

Besides saving money, could they also be trying to make this interchange a bit more inconvenient to encourage transfers at Eglinton West Station instead of Eglinton?

Steve: Capacities depend a lot of corridor and stairway widths, and these details are not all clear from the available drawings. No, I don’t think they are trying to force people to Eglinton West, only to save money on construction at Yonge.

TTC has a greater involvement in design of the interchange stations, but I think that they are still AFP for construction and maintenance up to a demarcation point with the original station.

The savings from this could be used towards elevating the ECLRT above Eglinton from Kennedy to Don Mills. With only one level of LRT above the subway, it could be built at a higher elevation (less depth) and the tracks could surface east of Kennedy and be fully elevated before crossing Kennedy. This would allow for the portal construction in an open parking lot, instead of with all the additional traffic control costs and disruptions associated with building it in the middle of Eglinton.

Steve: The TTC was quite firm some time ago about the SRT and ECLRT operating as separate lines, and so that option is unlikely to get much traction. The LRT platform cannot go directly above the subway platform because this space is already occupied by the mezzanine level of the station. The proposed new double-deck structure is under the bus loop which will make construction fairly straightforward compared with trying to repurpose part of the existing station.

As for saving money so as to elevate the Don Mills to Kennedy section, you undermine your arguments for Kennedy itself by linking them to such a proposal which is not a trivial change in the design. If you want to argue for an Eglinton elevated, do that on its merits first, and then figure out how to pay for it (I doubt what you propose at Kennedy would come close, by the way).

I don’t think this can be blamed on the TTC. They cannot put a school run going south in the AM as you cannot legislate the kids to ONLY take this bus (TTC tried in the 90′s with a 12D short turn running from subway to Bingham but it did not last long). The kids will take whatever 12 bus comes and the same in the afternoon. I heard it is hard to change the school run times as the buses all turn into another route at the subway.

The same situation happens on the 92 South on the summer weekends. Fifty million people all want to go to Ashbridge and the lake from the subway so it is not unheard of at say Gerrard to wait over a half hour for a bus you can actually squeeze yourself in.

Sometimes 3 or 4 buses pass you. They run a better than ten minute service so I don’t think you can just add extra buses. In the mid afternoon everyone is already at the beach so these buses run 1/2 empty, then crammed again later in the day and then 1/2 empty. I don’t think there is any logical, economic way they can schedule these buses any differently. I know that the TTC gets a lot of resident complaints for this weekend stuff and also for the crammed 12 buses, but as I said, doubtful they could ever do anything about it. I don’t know if it’s even possible.

“George N from Don Mills says:

May 17, 2013 at 11:03 am

…In addition to the single left turn lane at the Eglinton/Leslie intersection, a U Turn can be added further east on Eglinton, wrapping around the Don Mills LRT Portal. Eastbound traffic will then have the option of using the U-Turn to go north on Leslie. The U Turn will act like a relief valve for the intersection.”

Thanks for the above comment George N. I believe there are a number of ways we can make Leslie and Eglinton better than the approved EA and I appreciate people turning their minds to the problem. Unfortunately, I don’t think your U-turn idea would fly because it would require a stop light on Eglinton at the end of the portal and just west of Don Mills.

Re: Kennedy station

“Steve: The Crosstown connection to the SRT is clearly shown in the blue lines that turn north along the right-of-way. The Scarborough-Malvern line is at the same level as the mezzanine of the existing station. This provides a direct transfer with only one change of level to any of the connecting services. It also avoids any conflict with the tail track structure that lies east of the subway platform.”

I believe the Scarborough-Malvern line is to be at subway level, in line (but east of) the Eglinton-Crosstown platform. The subway (platform and tailtracks) are parallel and south of the Eglinton tracks which curve north to connect to the SRT tracks after they all surface north of Eglinton. So the Crosstown tracks won’t interfere with the subway tailtracks. When (if) the Scarborough-Malvern line gets built, it’s (non-revenue) tracks would extend west and hook up to the Eglinton-Crosstown tracks. You would have a straight run through from the Eglinton-Crosstown platform to the Scarborough-Malvern platform with a junction in the middle with the connecting track up to the SRT. In theory then, you could through-route Eglinton and the SRT or Eglinton and the Scarborough-Malvern although this would create a massively long line.

Steve: I will follow up on this to see if Metrolinx has a current plan and elevation for the station to explain how it will work.

Yes, you are correct, the Scarborough Malvern line does come in at the same elevation as the subway and the Eglinton-Crosstown line.

Re: Eglinton station original EA design

“Steve: The underground tangle of utilities and existing passageways limits the options for this connection.”

Here we go again. It limits options but it’s not impossible. (Sound like the rationale for moving the launch site from Brentcliffe?) I spoke to one of the Metrolinx people at the last open-house and he said the reason they were changing the Eglinton connection was that the one in the EA was going to be too complicated (thus expensive) as they’d have to shore up the subway line, etc. He acknowledged that it was an inferior plan to have people go up from the subway, across and then back down 2 levels to the LRT (below the subway) but they were worried about cost and getting it done on schedule. He did say they would be protecting for adding the direct LRT to subway connections in the future.

I think this whole Eglinton line is being done on the fly and it’s a shame. Eglinton station could be done better, the Brentcliffe-Don Mills corridor definitely needs improving over the EA, and Don Mills Station itself will be inferior. I say this about Don Mills because, as Steve has said, they don’t seem to be planning for the future DRL connection. At one point Don Mills was going to have 3 tracks and 2 platforms to allow for turn-backs at the end of the tunnel. Now that they’ve given up on tunneling to Don Mills, I assume they’re back to a regular centre-platform station underground. The storage track (for short-turns) will be east of Laird station.

Don Mills screams for an elegant design like that of Lionel-Groulx in Montreal. A few years ago I even sketched out a plan for twisting the tunnels and having cross-platform transfers work smoothly. It would have stacked centre platforms running diagonally under the intersection. Most people would go north to east, or east to north (and west to south and south to west) I would imagine. It could even work if one line was LRT and one was subway. But alas, that’s a pipe dream. It would require a lot of cash (and foresight) and I know it won’t happen. It’s too bad though, as now’s the time to build it before the intersection is too built up.

Steve: The track map in the original EPR clearly shows both a crossover and pocket track at Don Mills Station. See Exhibit 99 at pages 14-16 in section “3.4.10 Special Track Work”.

I will agree that provincial insistence on freezing the total dollar value of the project has caused problems with the evolution of the design, not to mention various types of political interference along the way. In a less charged atmosphere, we might have had a better-informed discussion about optional alignments. The folks in Mt. Dennis forced the issue, but until the issue with Leslie Station came along, nobody was beating the drum for changes on the eastern side.

“I agree, *something* should be done for Kingston Road. Looking at the map, I’m not sure if it makes sense to have the bus run from Kingston/Ellesmere all the way to Queen Street (or Victoria Park Stn for that matter), but the streetcar/bus/another bus cross-over isn’t working.”

You should really spend some time there and observe sir. First off the Kingston Rd bus was extended to Lawrence in the 90′s and was a dismal failure. Nobody wanted to ride from Lawrence to VP area so they got rid of the extension. Next, the transfer rate from 502/503 to the 12, even in RH (EB or WB) is really not that high, certainly not high enough to re-lay a streetcar track. There just aren’t enough people. You can see this if you get out there and observe for a while.

Right now the EB 12 loses most of its load by Warden (which in itself is strange because if it were me, I’d subway to Warden Stn and take a 69 down, but quite a lot of people actually go to VP Stn and take a 12 to get to the same place. The stops from Birchcliff to the Cliffside strip are very lightly used, there is a bit of local shopping traffic thru the Cliffside strip and then empty thru to St Clair/Barkdene/Brimley. The same handful of folk use the Brimley extension (same as they did starting in 84) but there is actually a fair amount of people who get on in the Cliffside area and ride the big circle up Brimley and get off at Kennedy Sub.

Finally, in my opinion you may see an LRT in 100 years but you will never see a streetcar extension to Birchmount again. Get out there and ride it. The people are just not there. Hang out, sit outside at the Panda Bay, or the Starbuck and just see what the people do between bus and streetcar. Panda Bay is better as it affords a better view of the full intersection at VP/KR and you can see how many people remain on the car turning into the loop.

Steve: This is an example of how just drawing lines on a map does not always match actual travel patterns. It is conceivable at some future date with major redevelopment of Kingston Road that it might have a substantial local demand that would be better served by one through route. However, people in southern Scarborough want to get to the subway today, and the fragmented route structure serves this demand. Yes, there is a chicken-and-egg situation where one could argue that the route structure produces the observed demand, but I have not heard Councillors for the area banging on the TTC’s door to have the service restructured. Even the proposed Kingston Road LRT/BRT would go to the subway, not connect to Bingham Loop.

I came across this Youtube video of a LRT and Roundabout combination. It is an animation of proposed three leg roundabout at Courtland & Block Line in Waterloo, ON. It is the location of a future LRT station for the Waterloo LRT project.

I believe that the same, or similar design can be implemented at Leslie and Eglinton, assuming that there is enough land. I hope that the vacant land in the northeast corner of the intersection can be utilized.

Thanks George

Steve: Doing rough scaling off of the animation, there are four lanes (two each way) on what would be the “Eglinton” part of this roundabout, and the circle between them is at least the equivalent of another six. There is also some land taken for the shoulders of the roundabout particularly on the “Leslie” leg. I suspect that constraints at Eglinton/Leslie of parkland (south and west sides) and the railway (east) could make life difficult here. Another important issue for which we would need traffic study details is the volume of traffic expected for each type of movement through the roundabout. Looking at the animation, the amount of traffic crossing the LRT seems comparatively small whereas at Leslie/Eglinton, the big concern is the capacity for the east-to-north left turn.

Steve: What exactly did you have in mind? Coming in through the old bus terminal concourse puts the LRT passengers at the middle of the subway platform and gives good distribution. Coming in through the north end of the subway platform would have compounded an existing problem with busy “north end” stations at York Mills and Sheppard.

The underground tangle of utilities and existing passageways limits the options for this connection.

Also, where would the Crosstown tracks go up to in the picture? The lines would have merged at some point for runs to the yard but there wouldn’t have been any revenue service, correct?

Finally, does the TTC have any plans for the SRT level after the SRT is rebuilt? I suppose a cafe with a view would be too much to ask?

Cheers, Moaz

Steve: The Crosstown connection to the SRT is clearly shown in the blue lines that turn north along the right-of-way. The Scarborough-Malvern line is at the same level as the mezzanine of the existing station. This provides a direct transfer with only one change of level to any of the connecting services. It also avoids any conflict with the tail track structure that lies east of the subway platform.

Cafe on the top level? Mausoleum, more likely.

Does the TTC really, really dislike cross-platform interchanges? I personally do not like stacked interchange designs and cannot think of anyone I know who does…while cross-platform interchanges are easier to understand, quicker to use and more accessible …

I would have thought that this would be one opportunity to build a cross-platform interchange in Toronto.

And yes, I know Sheppard East is a direct transfer along the platform (at least until the day comes when we finally wise up and convert the Sheppard subway to LRT and can run trains from Scarborough to Jane street) but I’d still like to see a cross-platform interchange.

Cheers, Moaz

Steve: The two transfer movements from the SRT will require only that passengers descend one level either as at Spadina Station Loop (LRT to subway) or at St. George (SLRT to ECLRT). That’s about as good as you can expect for three lines and an existing subway station.

Richard White:

Someone also mentioned Kingston Road and the need for continuous service along the street. A person mentioned that she works at Guildwood and Kingston but lives at Queen and Kingston. She stated that it took her 4 buses if she wanted to go that route. I noted that it would take 5 if she wanted to go to Port Union and Kingston road. Andy mentioned that things like that are looked every 6 weeks and they would for sure look into that.

I agree, *something* should be done for Kingston Road. Looking at the map, I’m not sure if it makes sense to have the bus run from Kingston/Ellesmere all the way to Queen Street (or Victoria Park Stn for that matter), but the streetcar/bus/another bus cross-over isn’t working.

The 502/503 loop was, at one point, located around Birchmount/Kingston?

Steve: Yes, it was on the south side of the street, and now has a small housing development on it.

This would be a better loop (possibly short-turn) for the streetcar. I think if it were possible to get the streetcar up to Barkdene (St. Clair E/Kingston), then a new Kingston Road bus could leave Warden Station via St. Clair Avenue East/Kingston Road up to Ellesmere. That might be a better split of service (of course, that’s pretending that there is one user who isn’t headed for the subway at all times) meeting more trip demands. Bingham loop could be retained so that 24 Victoria Park buses go from Steeles to Kingston looping both ways in Victoria Park Station.

I spent some time working at sites in the ‘upper beach’ (Kingston/Southwood) and ‘bluffside’ (Birchcliff/Kingston) and was very frustrated by the transit service. It should be noted that the area from Birchmount to at least Southwood/Main Street, is one neighbourhood. Goods and services, businesses, schools and residents in this area travel along Kingston Road, as much as Queen, as much to the subway.

Steve, did you attend the ACAT meeting? I wanted to go, but fortunately it was located in one of the least accessible parts of the system. Next time they should host it in the elevator at Lawrence West station.

Steve: No, I didn’t as I was at an event elsewhere. The location is actually preferred by ACAT presumably because of facilities there and easy of sending a bunch of WT vehicles to one location. However, despite being widely advertised on the TTC, it is not an easy to reach location for the general public.

Steve: I suspect that passengers transferring to the 54 would prefer (a) to do so in a protected environment at Don Mills, and (b) would also prefer to avoid the extra running time of a trip via Leslie.

In addition to the single left turn lane at the Eglinton/Leslie intersection, a U Turn can be added further east on Eglinton, wrapping around the Don Mills LRT Portal. Eastbound traffic will then have the option of using the U-Turn to go north on Leslie. The U Turn will act like a relief valve for the intersection.

Nick L wrote:

It does seem like an odd thing to not include a “press for transfer” option on at least some the Presto readers.

The terminals on buses can and do print transfers, but the button is operated by the driver. This is done for cash and ticket passengers and eliminates the need to tear off a transfer. It also means that a transfer is printed with a two-hour expiry down to the minute (i.e.: board at 14:07 and the expiry will be 16:07). The old tear-off transfers used by YRT had (have, they still are in limited use) 15-minute expiry intervals, and many operators would set it longer to avoid having to adjust it every 15 minutes. I once boarded a bus at 16:30 and received a transfer with a 21:00 expiry!

The terminals at VIVAstations have a “print” button on them, but they have NEVER been in operation. That means that someone starting their journey on a VIVA route cannot get a paper transfer if they transfer from that route to a TTC-operated route. Of course, even if on a regular YRT route and needing to transfer to a TTC-operated route, one also won’t get a transfer if the operator is following official policy. I have been lucky in that regards.

Steve pointed out:

That works fine for someone beginning their trip at a Presto-equipped location, but not for someone with a Presto card getting on a surface vehicle that can’t read it.

This is true. I have been “lucky” in this respect as well. Either my round trip was within the two hours of the outbound transfer’s expiry time, or I have had the odd YRT ticket because of a recent overcharge issue with Presto (YRT mails out a ticket to reimburse the charge).

These are not situations that the average rider would encounter, but the average rider tends to make a similar trip on a daily basis, so purchasing tickets for one direction of the trip is not a hardship, especially with the TTC where one can purchase as little as three at a time and not be forced to purchase ten. Assuming that when tokens are phased out, there will be some form of ticket replacement.

Steve: However, your scheme does not address passholders who depend on bulk purchase of large numbers of fares. Until all vehicles accept Presto and support the equivalent of a Metropass, riders will not be able to switch over. This will be a major drag to getting buy in by heavy users from passes to Presto.

Steve said:

It was not a political decision. Metrolinx already has approval for the surface option, and would have needed political approval to change to the tunnel. Going back to the original scheme is not, at least overtly, a political decision.

I still don’t get why we can’t just find the political will to bury the damn thing all the way to Don Mills?

What if there is enough demand to convert the underground section to a subway in 25-30 years? You’ll have all of the tunnelling costs covered for that portion of the line and conversion could be really easy to do. Unfortunately people think of the “me-now” and “lowest cost” options.

Too bad we’re starting to think like Americans… if only we could look to the future with this line the way we did when we created the CANDU reactors and didn’t use the cheap stuff that the Americans and Japanese use that caused both the Three Mile Island meltdown and Fukushima disasters.

Whatever happened to the “spend a dollar more today which could save you many more dollars tomorrow” attitude?

Steve: This argument fails if one does not agree with “we will need a subway” as a premise. The Eglinton line will be intercepted at Don Mills by the DRL, and the accumulated peak demand is not projected to come close to subway levels.

The line is only on the map because the Kennedy to Airport original version was comparatively cheap with only 1/3 of it underground. If we had presumed a full subway from day one, it would likely never have been built, and would be competing with subway fantasies on Sheppard for attention.

Richard White wrote:

Regarding strollers, it was mentioned that the TTC would be working on a new policy regarding the flip seats on buses and trains to indicate that they could be used for strollers.

This highlights a MAJOR problem with the TTC: that they need to WORK ON A POLICY for something like this.

The seats flip up. When someone gets on a bus with something on wheels that takes up more space than a standing person, the seat should be flipped up and the wheeled thing parked in that position. No policy needed.

Back when my kids were young enough to be in strollers (which was shortly after flip seats started appearing), I always did this to get the stroller out of the way of people who need to get by. Then again, I’m that rare person who, when boarding a plane, steps out of the aisle and puts my carry-on on the seat to wait for following people to pass by before trying to place it in the overhead.

These days, when I’m on a bus and I see someone waiting about to board the bus who will need that space, I’m flipping up the seat as they are boarding so it will be available to them with no delay. That’s MY policy, and there’s no need for an official policy.

Steve: The TTC agreed to look into this when it was suggested by a deputation at a Commission meeting a few months back. The existing seats need to be lifted as a block, and this is not always easy to do. Changing to the subway-type flip-up seats would be an improvement, but I suspect that a new mounting arrangement will be required. They are also considering changing the seat colour to blue to indicate which seats are intended for those with mobility issues.

However, in the interest of fairness, realism and objectivity, I find it amazingly annoying that I don’t think I have ever read you say anything positive about the TTC or GO Transit or Metrolinx. To you they are totally and completely incompetent. They have done nothing right.

Correct me if I’m wrong, please, and show me where you think they are doing a good job. You’re clearly a smart guy and this blog has a lot of timely information and discussion, which is why I come here, but it is exasperating having to constantly read your “grumpy old man” tone that is never happy with anything transit-wise in this city.

Steve: The aim is to talk about what transit could be, not to write love letters to the agencies involved. I’m not the only “grumpy old man” here if you read the comment threads, and the same can be said for other sites with a transit focus. Toronto has been very badly served by poor planning for decades and this infects many levels — professional and political — where we have been content to just make do, to put off necessary investment, to blame poor service on mythical forces beyond our control. These debates should happen, and with sufficient detail that those responsible can’t just slither away with their positions unchallenged.

This takes more than perfumed fan letters, it takes commitment and advocacy, not to mention impatience with decades of delay.

“Steve:if you want to critique my position simply by accusing me of political spin, that in itself avoids the issue here. Fie on you.”

Ok I think your position is completely wrong! Operators are no better or no worse than any other workers/persons in this province and they do not deserve special treatment. Management’s role is, and they have the right to manage as they see fit. Whether or not my streetcar comes on time or in bunches has nothing to do with the operators feeling “picked on” or abused by management or not, and it is certainly not any of my concern or business. In my opinion if Byford is going to ‘fix’ the system, sorry but the operators are the last in line. I understand your trickle down theory and no slag to the drivers but there are far more important things to fix.

Hence I felt Brian’s ‘poor us’ comment about everything management does wrong to the helpless drivers did not belong here.

My comment earlier was somewhat in jest because you hate to shoot down any operator comments, reinforcement by you response “lose-lose situation that gives employees the sense they are never right, and shouldn’t bother”

Well IMHO, any operator that doesn’t ‘bother’, for any reason is not an operator we want! They are no more special or less special than a millions of other employees in this province.

Steve: There is a difference between expecting “special treatment” and simply getting consistent messages about how a job should be done. This is something Byford himself has spoken about. You say that management has the right to “manage as they see fit”, but if middle/lower management is doing so in a manner contrary to corporate objectives, then it is they who are not doing their jobs properly. It’s not all the fault of all operators or all managers, but a more subtle and tangled situation that Byford has to unravel.

Sensitive? Hardly. When someone accuses me of political spin rather than engaging with the question, then I have every right to call them out.

“Mikey says:

May 17, 2013 at 12:18 am

@Richard

I also prefer the side-of-the-road proposal for the reasons you’ve mentioned. I just think that it’s not absolutely critical for the Eglinton LRT to operate effectively. I also think that it’s wishful thinking to believe that Metrolinx would consider switching to the south-side option at this point in time.”

Ok Mikey, you make some fair points. But why is it wishful thinking to think that Metrolinx would switch to the south-side option at this point? It’s a relatively minor change from the approved EA (certainly compared to the underground option that they were pushing only three weeks ago) and it will be years (3 or 4 at least I’d guess) before they’re actually building the above ground section east of Brentcliffe portal. The traffic situation in Leaside is awful now, but imagine when the cars trying to turn up Leslie have only one left turn lane, that has to cross the LRT. It will be gridlock all the way past Laird not to mention the side streets in Leaside north and west of Brentcliffe and Eglinton.

When the tunnel extension was proposed, there seemed to be lots of time for public meetings and debates and complaints, but now that a south-side alignment is suggested, it seems that there’s no time and “too bad – it’s too late.”

Steve: Part of the problem here, aside from political machinations at City Hall, is that the AFP process requires Metrolinx to lock down the design relatively early in the process so that they can go through the tendering process for private sector partners based on a fixed design. I am willing to be convinced that AFP is actually useful, but there is so much ideology surrounding its use that the “smoke and mirrors” factor trumps everything else.

Mikey said:

“I think those advocating for the underground option need a bit of perspective here. Yes, staying on surface decreases the speed and capacity, precludes ATO (and messes with the minds of car-drivers, of course). But to what degree are these perks even necessary?”

I would not be so quick to describe capacity and ATO-compatibility as “perks”. Two major factors in the area are the Flemington Park neighborhood with its high density, and the discontinuity of the Lawrence East avenue that causes bus #54 to shift from Lawrence to Eglinton in order to reach Yonge.

The present-time TTC bus route map reflects that situation. There is only one bus route on Eglinton east of DVP, but 5 east of Yonge (34, 54, 100, 51, 56). When the LRT is built, it is supposed to take passengers of all those routes who want to reach Yonge. I am quite surprised that proponents of the surface option between Brentcliffe and Don Mills choose to ignore those facts.

Mikey said:

“Also, did underground advocates consider that the omission of Leslie Station may require more bus-service to compensate for the loss of access, offsetting the operating savings?”

Decent frequency on the new combined route #51/56 will be needed anyway, to serve Leslie street and in particular to compensate for the loss of #54 service to Edwards Gardens at the corner of Leslie and Lawrence. Presence or absence of the Leslie LRT stop will not affect the frequency of bus route #51/56.

Steve: What is forgotten in this conversation is the eventual presence of a north-south subway at Don Mills and Eglinton. This will be the terminal for 54 Lawrence East and 100 Flemingdon Park, and the subway will provide a much more direct (and less crowded) route to downtown than the Eglinton LRT and the Yonge Subway. If we are going to talk about planning for future demand on Eglinton, we must also talk about the future network that will distribute demand differently from what might be the case today.

Although there are five routes on Eglinton east of Mt. Pleasant (you omitted that bus from your list), two of them run infrequently (51 Leslie and 56 Leaside). They are rarely heavily loaded on Eglinton unless they happen to operate in a gap in the other, frequent services. Their loading position at Eglinton Station guarantees that they will only get “local” Eglinton riders when there is nothing else on the platform.

I also prefer the side-of-the-road proposal for the reasons you’ve mentioned. I just think that it’s not absolutely critical for the Eglinton LRT to operate effectively. I also think that it’s wishful thinking to believe that Metrolinx would consider switching to the south-side option at this point in time.

I bring up the Spadina and St Clair LRT lines because their difficulty in providing a capacity of 11,880 pphpd (the equivalent of 3-car trains @ 2 minutes) with traffic crossing tracks at intersections is largely a non-issue. Same with the Eglinton LRT.

No, I’m not advocating for a surface alignment through central Eglinton, but providing higher capacity between Brentcliffe and Don Mills by further separating the right-of-way won’t be necessary.

The currently-approved median alignment across Leslie is less than ideal, but acceptable nonetheless. There are times where we do have to forgo the perfectly ideal option if it’s not realistic to achieve. I can point out numerous less-than-ideal situations and arrangements in our transit network that we will have to live with for a long time (but I guess I can complain about them anyways).

The Scarborough subway alone will bring vastly more auto competitive transit to Scarborough. It will mean that Yonge-Bloor will be under a 30 minute transit ride from Scarborough Town Centre.
The Scarborough subway could be extended through elevated structures, to north east Scarborough. Again, bringing vastly improved travel times for riders.
It is a clear win win that future generations will be happy we built.

Calvin Henry-Cotnam said:

It does not make sense to pay $3.75 cash, or be forced to spend $30 on ten tickets for the odd trip that needs it when I generally add $10 to $15 to my Presto card as I need it.

It does seem like an odd thing to not include a “press for transfer” option on at least some the Presto readers. I mean, when the system is upgraded to handle other tap payment options, people will probably appreciate having the option of a printed receipt.

Steve: That works fine for someone beginning their trip at a Presto-equipped location, but not for someone with a Presto card getting on a surface vehicle that can’t read it.

“Steve: I read Brian’s comment in a different light. One of the big problems …”

great answer sir. Slippery & smooth, like a true politician.
Don’t offend or alienate anyone, and keep kissing the babies………

Steve: I don’t kiss babies, and if you want to critique my position simply by accusing me of political spin, that in itself avoids the issue here. Fie on you.

“Richard White: a prolonged closure north of Eglinton may get it done faster..”

Correct me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t it take a complete closure for 2 or 3 months to get rid of all the old asbestos in these tunnels?

Steve: It’s not just asbestos they are working with. The tunnel liners have a design defect that causes the tunnel to be out of round thanks to soil pressure from above. These are gradually being replaced before the tunnel becomes non-clearance for subway trains.

A couple things I forgot to add to my comment yesterday.

Someone also mentioned Kingston Road and the need for continuous service along the street. A person mentioned that she works at Guildwood and Kingston but lives at Queen and Kingston. She stated that it took her 4 buses if she wanted to go that route. I noted that it would take 5 if she wanted to go to Port Union and Kingston road. Andy mentioned that things like that are looked every 6 weeks and they would for sure look into that.

I mentioned about fares by distance and eliminating transfers. I was told that it would be a loss leader for the TTC to do fares by distance and to have people pay a separate vehicle for every vehicle they got on.

Regarding strollers, it was mentioned that the TTC would be working on a new policy regarding the flip seats on buses and trains to indicate that they could be used for strollers.

Vancouver and countless other world cities show that elevated structures can and do work in new build. Not to mention the tons of underused railway corridors and hydro corridors, which the much touted LRT plans of the 60′s and 70′s for suburban Toronto wanted to use.
None of the LRT plans from before had in the middle of the street operation planned. It was all on rights of way away from the streets.

Steve: The problem with hydro corridors is that they don’t necessarily go where transit capacity is needed. When the original 60′s network was proposed, those corridors ran through empty suburbs and could have shaped the growth of neighbourhoods. Now we are stuck with travel and population patterns as they have developed along roads because that’s where the cars (and associated destinations) are.

I will believe that Vancouver is really committed to elevated structures when they propose a Skytrain line down the middle of Broadway rather than under it.

Yes Mr. Byford you have some work ahead. Hopefully, he sees this riding the system, and hopefully he understands this needs to be ferociously rooted out, among other cultural behaviours, before we talk about increasing headways.

For example, a PRESTO user boards a streetcar but wants to transfer to a bus that does not have PRESTO support. They will need some sort of paper transfer as proof of payment.

YRT-contracted routes operated by the TTC are not equipped with Presto terminals while all other YRT routes are. YRT’s answer to this is use cash, tickets, or a pass if one needs to use these routes.

Personally, I feel this is idiotic for anyone occasionally needing such service. Granted, I suspect that most YRT users make use of the same routes everyday, so this is not an issue for them, but I find it unacceptable (and I mentioned so when I had a chat with YRT’s General Manager, Richard Leary). I use Presto to pay my $3 fare, and have not had problems asking an operator for a paper transfer (printed by the Presto terminal) when changing to a TTC-contracted route (though, drivers have been surprised that the TTC buses in York Region are not Presto-equipped). Officially, paper transfers are only to be issued to cash and ticket passengers.

It does not make sense to pay $3.75 cash, or be forced to spend $30 on ten tickets for the odd trip that needs it when I generally add $10 to $15 to my Presto card as I need it. This may not sound like a big deal, but when one’s household income has dropped by 44% in the past year, it is.

Come to think of it, I should purchase ten tickets at a time and put up flyers selling them for $3.25 or $3.50 each!

I can see similar happening if the TTC does not have a smooth way of handling the transition.

Mikey says:

May 16, 2013 at 10:59 am

@Ron, Sjors, and Richard

The 512 St Clair and 510 Spadina LRT lines are compromised because they interfere with traffic. So why aren’t you advocating for these lines to be put underground? Think of the operational benefits and the higher speeds this would achieve. Let’s not let the locals get in the way of regional goals, right?

Come on Mikey, let’s not make this discussion completely absurd. The 510 and 512 have always been streetcar lines and are not underground at all (save for the subway connections at Spadina, Union and St. Clair West).

You can’t compare these lines with the Eglinton LRT. Eglinton has always been planned to be underground in the central core and I think most people support that. (Surely you don’t want LRT in the median through Leaside and Yonge and Eglinton where the street is already narrow.)

And I have no problem going centre median for the stretch from the DVP to Kennedy. In fact I personally thought it was a waste of money to bury it when Ford proposed that a year ago and McGuinty agreed. (Just as burying the Spadina subway is a waste up in Vaughan when an open-cut run would be fine through empty fields).

But the Brentcliffe-Don Mills stretch is a unique section with virtually no south-side entrances to Eglinton. When the 2010 EA was first approved, I thought it was generally good but could use some adjustments. They tweaked the west end at Mt. Dennis -ok great. I pushed them, through on-line consultations and at meetings to consider using the 2 southernmost lanes between Brentcliffe portal and Don Mills for all the reasons mentioned in many posts above. Suddenly, to my surprise, they announce in Dec. 2012 that they want to go underground to Don Mills. That was better than I expected and I thought a little excessive but I’m not about to complain.

Underground also has the added benefit of preserving the precious parkland far better than having more vehicles running through it adding to the noise etc.

When Metrolinx reversed course, instead of looking at other options to maintain a Leslie stop, they go right back to square one. If you have a mediocre plan that you later try and improve, but it turns out the improvement won’t fly, you don’t just give up. You try a different improvement. Unfortunately Metrolinx appears to have given up and settled for mediocrity. I still can’t understand why a south-side alignment isn’t supported by virtually everyone. You get your Leslie stop and we get separate right-of-way to Don Mills.

It seems like for some people who fought for the Leslie stop, it’s not good enough to win -others must also lose. South-side alignment should be the compromise that everyone can support but sadly it’s devolved into all or nothing and unfortunately what may happen in the end is that we all get nothing.

Steve: I have the list but have not formatted it for publication yet. The usual long list summer cutbacks and seasonal route changes plus some construction odds and ends. Stay tuned.

Oh yes — one major change — several contract services to York Region are being reduced or eliminated at YRT’s request.

Steve wrote:

“Presto will bring smart card fare collection to the TTC (with credit card support to follow) beginning on the new streetcars and spreading to the rest of the system. The transition will be complex because of the need to support both the new and old fare media and protocols at the same time.”

And what is the problem here? Not everyone is going to use transit everyday so PRESTO is not the solution. Allowing tokens and cash for more occasional users is part of collecting fares.

“Service levels with new, larger vehicles will be a challenge because of the debate over how to use increased capacity. Should the TTC replace capacity or vehicles one for one, or something in between? This question has not yet been answered and depends in part on the budgetary stance taken by transit supporters in the 2014 City Budget debates.”

Well, unless you replace vehicles on a 1 to 1 ratio or better, frequency is guaranteed to decrease, not stay the same or improve. Capacity is great, but not if people have to wait too long for it.

Steve: The issue with the PRESTO cutover is not with the retention of cash fares (tokens will disappear), but with the co-existence period when the bus system is still using the “old” system including transfers. For example, a PRESTO user boards a streetcar but wants to transfer to a bus that does not have PRESTO support. They will need some sort of paper transfer as proof of payment. Moreover, on their return trip, they won’t be able to use their PRESTO card. That’s the complexity I am talking about.

As for capacity and frequency, this is related to the question of improved service management. If the TTC can correct some of the problems with existing service practices, then the wider headways may not be quite as bad, but I am not counting on it. Meanwhile, the TTC still claims that putting more cars on the street to increase capacity is a waste because they will just get stuck in traffic. This is a typical TTC cop-out, an attitude that they don’t need to try harder because it’s somebody else’s problem. Byford has a big challenge combating that attitude.

There’s a reason why this logic doesn’t apply to every single bus and streetcar line we plan – Many routes don’t need grade-separation to operate effectively. The Eglinton LRT is one of these lines, because the peak point ridership is already within the capacity of surface LRT (even though the peak point happens somewhere in the central underground portion).

Furthermore, how can anyone possibly believe that a little-used surface LRT stop is as big of a money-sinkhole as a little-used underground station? Are you going to decry all the bus and streetcar stops that see very little usage?

Also, did underground advocates consider that the omission of Leslie Station may require more bus-service to compensate for the loss of access, offsetting the operating savings?

Ron 25 says:

May 16, 2013 at 7:29 am

… the sad governmental and political excuses and claims from the Robinson twins (Jamie and Jaye) show that decisions are being made by the application of pressures that no one will disclose.”

I agree. There’s a lot more going on here than meets the eye. From when the tunnel option was first proposed, to the variation of moving Laird to Brentcliffe and now back to square one, things don’t add up. While we may agree or disagree with various options, the rationale being presented at each change is weak at best. I happened to like the tunnel, so that traffic would flow better at Leslie, short-turns could be at Don Mills and traffic would not back all the way up past Brentcliffe waiting to turn north on Leslie. Also the mess have having Eglinton down to possibly one lane in each direction at the launch site for 3-5 years, doesn’t thrill me. But Metrolinx said in December 2012 that the main reason to tunnel was that they could NOT launch east of Brentcliffe.

Turns out they can, it will just be tougher. Now they go back to square one instead of looking at a south-side alignment.

I figure Ron25 was joking about “the Robinson twins” but I’ve wondered since last Friday: are Jamie Robinson and Councillor Jaye Robinson related? Just curious.

Steve: They certainly don’t act as if they are when they are in the same place.

The 512 St Clair and 510 Spadina LRT lines are compromised because they interfere with traffic. So why aren’t you advocating for these lines to be put underground? Think of the operational benefits and the higher speeds this would achieve. Let’s not let the locals get in the way of regional goals, right?

Steve: The work I have been publishing here on service reliability is finally bearing fruit with a recognition that things are not as good as they could be, and that detailed examination of route behaviours can reveal patterns in what works or doesn’t. Byford is aware that many systems have better systems for monitoring and publicly reporting route and system performance, and more of this will be coming to Toronto. He clearly does not accept the standard line about the inevitability of poor service.

Steve:

The problem with a roundabout is that to get decent speed through the intersection, the circle would have to be larger than the land available at Leslie and Eglinton. Moreover, this would still leave the LRT crossing the traffic lanes (twice), something everybody here seems to be trying to avoid.

Getting back to the Roundabout solution, a 2 lane roundabout will need to be between 200 – 250 feet in diameter (inscribed circle diameter). The northeast corner of Leslie and Lawrence is currently vacant land and is should be large enough to be contain most of the traffic circle. Therefore, the centre of the intersection will need to be repositioned further north and east.

Even though the LRT will intersect the traffic circle at 2 points (west and east), the vast majority of traffic will cross the tracks only at the eastern point. If a light is added to the roundabout, it will not be much different than the proposed design where the eastbound left turn lane will force cars to cross over the tracks to go northbound on Leslie.

The proposed design only has one eastbound left turn lane to go northbound on Leslie. This will result in a longer backlog of traffic than is experienced today. The roundabout design will minimize backlogs and result in a better flow of traffic, even if it is at a reduced speed.

With the relocation of the centre of the intersection, the LRT station may need to be repositioned further east. I don’t think that should be a problem.

I agree that this may be a unconventional for North America, but it has been done elsewhere in the world.

“Steve: I had wanted to get into Planning, but Transportation didn’t want to let me go.”

That’s because you were the only guy in the entire department who could punch the 35mm schedule film using only 2 holes of a 3-hole paper puncher …

I wanted to work for them as an operator, but then realized how mundane and tedious it would become.

Andrew said …

“I really don’t know how to make this fit in my mind with the fact that it was Rob Ford who pushed this guy into power.”

Ford should get some credit for this. There’s no way any of these positive changes would be happening with Webster.

Steve: I think Ford got more than he bargained for, and Byford will be much harder to tangle with over transit spending and nonsensical dreams of subways everywhere. A case of unintended consequences more than good planning.

He stated that this is one of the things he will be including in his charter i.e. construction delays.

We also spoke about the need for prolonged closures when it comes to construction and he seemed open to the idea of long term closures to complete work faster. He mentioned how on the Pape Station survey (re: construction closure) there was an overwhelming desire to close it for the 12 days to get it over with. He stated that people are growing tired of the delays and prolonged closures are something they are considering.

I used North Yonge as an example and he admitted it could be done better. I pointed out that the tunnel work has dragged on for years and a prolonged closure north of Eglinton may get it done faster. He agreed with that assessment.

As an aside, there was also some discussion regarding the debacle over the SRT and he stated that the master agreement is what they are going by with no deviation.

One thing people noted about the SRT closure in 2015 was the way they will accommodate buses. People who live next to the station stated that the station is packed currently at most times of the day and cannot handle the buses, they were concerned with how it would be handled. Chris stated they would do their best but they can only do so much.

The meeting was rather informative and focused mainly on service quality. One thing people did mention was over-crowding at stations like Kennedy and STC. One interesting thing that was brought up was the long lines at the Town Centre and the fact that only 1 of 3 booths there is used. I mentioned to Chris about the need to open the auxiliary booths at STC and Yonge to assist passengers. It is interesting to note that there is a crash gate at STC that is always in use but the second booth at the mezzanine level is never used. There is also a booth at the GO transit level that is never used (and I doubt it ever was).

Long story short, I see Andy Byford as a modern day David Gunn. I told him so myself. He is more focused on a state of good repair and modernization compared to his predecessors who maintained the status quo.

All in all it was a good meeting and no doubt there will be some sort of transcript of it online at some point.

Steve: Thanks for this report. I am glad to see that service quality was a major topic, and I can only hope that Scarborough politicians will remember this when it comes time to debate the TTC’s budget and any proposals to improve service standards. The question of bus congestion at STC and Kennedy has an interesting spin-off in that it shows how dependent these two locations are on the surface network to feed rapid transit and how the collection of riders from Scarborough onto higher capacity lines needs to push further out to the east and north.

The issue with station staff and queues is a good example of the local level detail that the TTC needs to address in being more “customer” based. I can’t help wondering if somewhere there is a report saying “we shouldn’t spend more money on station collectors” that is responsible for this situation, or simply a lack of attention to an obvious problem. This is definitely something the new Group Station Managers should pick up on.

Steve: I read Brian’s comment in a different light. One of the big problems Byford has is that directions and policies given at his level don’t necessarily filter down to the street as intended, and his hope that employees who do good work will be respected may not be borne out as a result. The TTC has a history of making arbitrary rules for its operations that take a one-size-fits-all approach and don’t allow for variation. The most common complaint operators make is that if they follow the rules to the letter, they are disciplined for a lack of sensitivity, but if they make exceptions (for example in dealing with riders), they are disciplined for failing to toe the line. This is a lose-lose situation that gives employees the sense they are never right, and shouldn’t bother.

The TTC has contracted out bus fuelling/cleaning in 2 garages and the rest to be contracted out later this year BUT the contractor only cleans buses until 6am so if a bus needs cleaning (unsanitary condition, late returning night bus or bus returning from service after repairs completed) after 6 am there is no contracted out bus cleaners available to clean & fuel the buses thus leaving the TTC with a lack of equipment.

Byford must repair the damaged relationship between [the TTC's] workers (Union) and management if his plan is to be successfully implemented. It’s the workers who are the front-line customer service representatives and they must not start a day in fear of their jobs being contracted out or heavy handed disciplinary culture of the TTC that poisons the work environment. If an operator starts the day in a sour mood that will be reflected in the customer service that the operator will provide. The TTC must work with the union as PARTNERS not adversaries! In all of the press releases or meet the managers at stations not once have I seen Bob Kinnear or a union representative present to show that Byford’s vision is a partnership and an overall team effort. How can Byford believe his customer service first vision is implemented if the front-line workers (union) aren’t a partner in that vision? Has Byford consulted his workers for their input seeing that they do the job daily & might have some insight into how to improve operations & customer service? Until Byford stops this attack on the union (essential service, contracting out, unjust & un-investigated discipline the union says is happening) then all his efforts to change customer service vision will be for naught.

How can the TTC tell the public they are reducing costs by contracting out bus cleaning, (misquote the savings now at yet to be seen $2.9M not $4.2M that was preached during September’s TTC Commission meeting/vote) then hire 24 station managers and want to hire station supervisors also at a cost of over $4.0M?

The TTC & ATU113 are now in the final year of their current collective agreement and contracting out union jobs will be a huge roadblock in any partnership that Byford needs to forge if he is to be successful in his customer service overhaul. During the 2012 collective agreement arbitration hearing the TTC argued heavily to have the union job protection clause by contracting out removed and argued for a 4 year wage freeze yet the Ontario Liberal Government is only asking its union workers for a 2 year wage freeze. That kind of heavy handed approach will NOT forge a partnership with its workers (union) and only poisoned the work environment which is then passed along to its customers.

The TTC needs to communicate better with its bus operators about system delays so the bus operator can announce delays to customers over the bus PA system giving customers a chance to use alternative routes before being notified & trapped in the subway tunnel.

If you are going to ask people to pay more taxes for transit then the TTC must be prepared to provide good customer service and increase service levels so 5 full buses don’t pass customers at stops. The thinking of using larger vehicles but less of them will only increase wait times (Headway) and the overcrowding of those vehicles will still exist doing nothing to improve service standards or customer service.

Byford must break ranks from Rob Ford and Karen Stintz if he wants to honestly obtain his objectives otherwise we’ll have larger vehicles but less of them with the same issues we have now and a workforce (union) that is not partners in this new vision.

“…The Crosstown line should have been and always should be buried up to Don Mills – it makes little logical sense to bring it above ground for one stop (albeit under-used because it is STILL a long walk UPHILL for those exiting at Leslie and proceeding to the condos by the Toyota dealership) when there are many more tangible benefits over time to leaving it underground – ATC included.

Does anyone agree?”

Yes, I agree — see all my posts above in this thread over the last 5 days. At the very least it should be south-side alignment and separated from traffic all the way to Don Mills. They made sensible changes to the west end at Mt. Dennis. But Leaside (if this stands) will be screwed by appeasing a few condo-dwellers on Leslie who, I agree, will never walk half a kilometre down the hill on Leslie to an open Leslie Stop, especially in winter.

As noted there is a mountain more work to do, far more to be accomplished; what has happened thus far was, in relative terms ‘the easy stuff’.

But pre-Byford, washrooms were left to rot, cleaning was ad hoc and inadequate at best, and there were no end of excuses for just about everything.

Subsequently there have been real, if small improvements; and there does seem to be a move towards fewer excuses and greater accountability.

Now comes the hard part; getting political buy in, a meaningful subsidy increase and then predictable, and at least inflationary increases in budget thereafter.

Good luck to him!

I really don’t know how to make this fit in my mind with the fact that it was Rob Ford who pushed this guy into power.

I think you are right Steve about the need of a surface manager to keep up with everything that happens at the waterfront this year. It needs someone with the authority to change things immediately instead of having to wait for higher levels of management to think about it.

As you said

“On his way to the meeting, Byford travelled by TTC and made the connection from Union to the 509 bus looking as if he were a tourist for a continuous set of direction signs. He noticed that the path is not marked continuously.”

This is probably one of his best features; he actually rides the TTC and sees it from a passenger’s point of view. I know that there are a number of others in the TTC who do this but they all should be forced to do it. When Hunter Harrison was at CN he made all the supervisory staff work as train crews so they could see the problems from the pointy end.

Byford said that he “will not accept that bunching of vehicles is inevitable, that the short-turning of vehicles is inevitable.”

Hallelujah!