Updated June 17, 2013 at 6:15 pm:
In the comment thread for this article, there has been substantial discussion about a “south side option” for the Eglinton LRT between the portal at Brentcliffe and Don Mills Road. I have after several requests obtained an answer from Metrolinx about whether this had ever been considered. Here is their reply sent by Jamie Robinson today.
Placing the LRT on the south side of Eglinton Avenue East in the vicinity of the West Don River/Leslie Street was included in three of five options compared to the at-that-time base case (which was underground throughout the corridor) in the Don Mills River Crossing Study prepared in February 2012 by HMM. However, the LRT would have been in a completely separate right-of-way on a new bridge across the West Don River in order to maintain current vehicle capacity of Eglinton Avenue East (i.e., no conversion of travel lanes to LRT tracks).
That report recommended one of the options that included a continuation of the bored tunnel from the west to pass under the West Don River and portal east of the Don Valley Parkway. That option was selected because the cost differential with the at-grade options was minimal, provided that a station at Leslie Street was not required. If a Leslie Station would be required, then one of the at-grade south side options was the preferred option. MX decided to proceed with the first option, and further refined that option with a launch at Don Mills Road and continuing eastward with the EA alignment, which led to the preparation of the Eastern EPR Addendum.
The at-grade south side option was not compared to the EA Option.
Generally, however, It is very difficult (if not impossible) to relocate the portal from the centre of Eglinton (as proposed in the current design) and shift it to the south side of the right-of-way and continue to use the existing bridge. The “viaduct” option that HMM reviewed, was suggested by the public and was presented during the recent consultations for the changes in the East, was more expensive and required an EA amendment. Due to project implementation timelines the project is proceeding with the EA option.
In brief, yes they looked at it, although not in the context of the original EA. Shifting to the south presents problems for the river crossing and the tunnel launch shaft, but might have survived as an option if Metrolinx had not decided to go all-underground to Don Mills. Now that they’re back on the surface, they are sticking with the original plan.
Updated May 17, 2013 at 7:15 pm:
Recent events have raised questions about which versions of two major stations, Yonge and Kennedy, on the Eglinton LRT were actually to be built by Metrolinx.
In the case of Yonge Station, there are two quite different versions:
In the EA document (see plate 57A-E, pages 17-21 in the PDF), link from the LRT to the subway is handled via a mezzanine level between the two lines making the transition from east-west orientation (LRT) to north-south (subway). The primary route between the two lines reaches the subway level via new escalators and stairs into the north end of the subway platform. A secondary route rises all the way to the existing mezzanine level from the west end of the LRT platform and connects with both the paid and unpaid areas of the north entrance (under the BMO branch).
In the Metrolinx Central Station Reference Concept (see pages 47-52), the direct connection to the subway platform has been eliminated, and all traffic is funnelled to the upper mezzanine where it would connect to the paid area of the subway through area under the old bus terminal (now closed off). This would eventually be incorporated in redevelopment of the terminal lands.
In the case of Kennedy Station, one of the proposed layouts, quite different from what we have seen before, was shown by Councillor Bernardinetti at last week’s Council Meeting. It was unclear whether this was the version under active consideration by Metrolinx.
I wrote to Metrolinx for clarification, and here is their response (provided by Jamie Robinson via email).
Re Yonge/Eglinton:
The current Reference Design for the station includes a main entrance to the west (in the abandoned bus terminal property), which is meant to be an interim pavilion that will be incorporated in the future development of the site by Build Toronto.
The Reference Design is indicative of one design where requirements are reflected. The AFP process allows the Proponents, and later the Project Contractor to come up with a design solution that satisfies the requirements of the PSOS (Project Specific Output Specifications).
At Yonge/Eglinton the more recent design will be used. It is simpler to build and brings passengers through the “traditional” transfer route into the central part of the subway mezzanine just as they once came from the bus terminal.
For Kennedy:
Metrolinx has undertaken an intensive design exercise to review options for integrating a converted Scarborough RT and a new Eglinton Crosstown LRT into the existing Kennedy Station, as well as addressing other mobility hub considerations in this location. Based on this exercise, we have concluded that the basic station design indicated in the 2010 Environmental Project Report is the most functional and appropriate approach from a transit operations perspective. We have directed our design team to proceed with further design of this approved alternative.
This design was presented at an April 2010 public meeting. It includes a double-deck LRT station north of the existing structure under the existing bus platforms.
The SRT trains would use the upper level which is designed as a large loop at the existing mezzanine level of the station. The Eglinton trains would use the lower level which is designed as a conventional centre platform terminal station with a crossover.
Transfers between routes would be:
- SRT to Subway: walk from the SRT platform across the mezzanine to the existing stairs and escalators, then down one level.
- SRT to Eglinton LRT: via stairs and escalators between the upper and lower level of the LRT section of the station.
- Eglinton LRT to Subway: up from the Eglinton LRT level to the SRT level, across the mezzanine, and down to the subway.
In the Metrolinx reply, I was curious about the implication that bidders might change the designs that were already approved. Metrolinx further replied:
With the decision to procure the project using an Alternative Financing and Procurement or AFP model, each proponent will be developing designs for the stations. Therefore a reference concept design (RCD) is being developed for each of these stations.
The RCD is intended to identify the location of entrances, exits and ancillary station (ventilation) equipment to allow property acquisition and (if required) major utility relocation to commence.
The Request For Qualifications (RFQ) for the project was issued by Infrastructure Ontario in January. Once a preferred proponent is selected, the proponent will be required t submit designs to Metrolinx and the City for approval. The designs will be reviewed by Metrolinx. The proponent will also be required to participate in the City’s Site Plan Review process which could potentially include the City’s Design Review Panel. There will also be a requirement for the preferred proponent to incorporate consultation with the public as a condition for design approval.
Updated May 10, 2013 at 5:10 pm:
Metrolinx issued the following statement regarding the Eglinton project via email:
Metrolinx has decided to proceed with the approved 2010 Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown LRT Environmental Assessment (EA) and launch tunneling just east of Brentcliffe Road.
Metrolinx had identified some potential issues with the Brentcliffe Road launch site. It investigated different options and engaged the community, including convening three public meeting. We believed that our proposals would result in significant improvements to construction staging, schedule and traffic impacts. However, in discussions with the local community and with local community organizations it was clear that there was a strong preference for a stop at Leslie Street and for a station at Laird, not moved to Brentcliffe Road. We have listened. Metrolinx will proceed to tender the contract for the construction of the tunnels from Brentcliffe Road to Yonge Street. This signals another important step in the largest light rail transit expansion in the City of Toronto’s history. When the tunnel contract is awarded later this year, construction of the east launch shaft can begin.
Metrolinx will work to minimize disruption to the community during construction. Traffic lanes will be reduced along Eglinton for many months. But, as much information as possible will be shared ahead of time so people can choose alternate routes. We will also develop a traffic management strategy with the City of Toronto. Finally, Metrolinx community relations staff are available to provide information and answer questions.
[Email from Jamie Robinson at Metrolinx]
I spoke with Robinson to clarify various issues, and here in brief are his responses to my questions. (The notes below are my paraphrase of his comments.)
- There is a need to get on with the tendering of work on the Crosstown so that construction can begin.
- Any changes to the approved design will require approval by Toronto Council which, under the current circumstances, could be difficult to achieve on a timely basis.
- The cost for an underground alignment between Brentcliffe and Don Mills would be approximately the same as the surface alignment to which the project has returned. The extra cost of tunnelling is offset by the cost of removing contaminated soils east of Brentcliffe and the shoring needed for the launch shaft adjacent to existing development.
- Traffic disruption in the area will last 2.5-3 years (this launch site will be the extraction point for all tunnelling west to Yonge Street).
- Plans to reinstate the Ferrand Drive stop east of Don Mills are not affected by this decision as this stop was in the originally approved project.
I asked about the design of Kennedy Station given that a version of this site was shown at the recent Council meeting by Councillor Berardinetti. Robinson confirmed that this design has not yet been settled, and it is unclear whether Metrolinx will simply return to the original design, again to avoid an EA amendment. He will provide an update on this situation next week.
Updated May 10, 2013 at 4:15 pm:
TTC Chair Karen Stintz has tweeted that Metrolinx has decided to return to the original plan for Eglinton between Laird and Don Mills with surface running east of Brentcliffe. Detailed reasons for this change of heart have not yet been issued by Metrolinx, notably an explanation of why the tunnel to Don Mills, presented as an essential engineering requirement at recent meetings, has been dropped.
I have sent a request to Metrolinx for an official statement on this matter including a technical explanation for the change.
Updated April 24, 2013 at 10:00 pm:
Metrolinx proposes to change the section of the Eglinton route to underground construction between Brentcliffe and Don Mills. On April 23, they held a public meeting to discuss this proposal. The presentation deck is available online. There is a detailed map on page 5 of the presentation. The PDF version is at high resolution and can be zoomed to read the notes and design details.
At a previous public meeting where an early version of this scheme was proposed, Metrolinx heard concerns about:
- The loss of the stop at Ferrand Drive east of Don Mills,
- The loss of the stop at Leslie Street and, with it, easy access to parkland,
- Bus activity at the proposed Laird Station, and
- Alternative alignments the route might take.
The need for all this was triggered by Metrolinx’ decision to shift the access site for tunnel boring from a portal on the hill between Brentcliffe and the west branch of the Don River to the southeast corner of Don Mills and Eglinton. Their claim is that the soil at the Don River is contaminated, that construction is now complicated by condos that have been built nearby, and that about $20m in construction cost can be avoided by shifting the launch site elsewhere.
To those who have followed the Eglinton line’s history, it is no surprise that Metrolinx would propose to underground the line to Don Mills, and they were pushing the merits of fewer stops and faster “regional” travel back in the days Transit City was struggling for their attention. Metrolinx simply does not understand that this line is not “regional” but local especially as it will go nowhere near the 416 boundary in current plans.
In any event, Metrolinx tries to make a case for the new scheme with arguments that simply don’t hold up, and the sense of “say anything to keep them happy” pervades the presentation.
Station Spacing
Metrolinx proposes to shift the Laird Station to Brentcliffe about 400m to the east. The reason for this is to “improve park access” (via long walkways from Brentcliffe down to the park itself) and to “even out” the spacing of stations between Bayview and Don Mills.
The park access is nowhere near as convenient as a station at Leslie would be, especially for anyone who is neither a cyclist nor an avid walker, because Brentcliffe Station is located at the top of the west bank of the Don Valley.
As for “even spacing”, this is hogwash given that stations are to serve people, and a Brentcliffe station is further away from the main concentration of would-be riders who live west of Laird. Indeed, an early plan of the Eglinton line placed the station at Brentcliffe and it was shifted west precisely because that’s where the riders would be. Spacing has nothing to do with the issue as almost all of the land east of Brentcliffe is green space.
At the meeting, there was good support for going back to the original plan with surface operations east of Brentcliffe, but the moderator and Metrolinx folks seemed to be encouraging acceptance of the new plan as “second best”. That was not the sense of the meeting, but it will likely be reported that way.
The Access Shaft
It is quite astounding that someone didn’t figure out there was a soils problem, let alone one with adjacent development, a long time ago for the originally proposed launch site east of Brentcliffe. I cannot help thinking Metrolinx is taking advantage of what might have been a difficult situation to make the case for a design change they always wanted, but could not justify.
At the meeting, it was claimed that this change is cost neutral. That is very hard to believe if the delta for the original launch site is only $20m over original estimates. That will hardly cover the cost of tunelling all the way to Don Mills Station. Yes, there are savings in avoiding modifications to the Eglinton Avenue bridge over the Don, but it is not credible that this would pay for the extended tunnel.
An alternative launch site at Bayview & Eglinton, using the playing grounds beside Leaside High School, was rejected because of the length of time — five years — that work would occupy the site and the neighbourhood disruption this would cause. That’s a real stretch considering that tunnelling for the entire line is supposed to be completed in less time than that. The slide concerning the Bayview access option is not in the online slide deck although it was included in the meeting materials.
Brentcliffe and Laird Stations
Because the proposed tunnel now dives under the river rather than emerging east of Brentcliffe, the tunnel where this station would be located is much deeper than in original plans. Although Metrolinx claims its stations will be accessible, it is unclear exactly what this means, specifically whether there will be bi-directional escalator service from street to platform plus an elevator. Moreover, secondary entrance(s) will not have any accessibility features. For deep stations, this means a lot of stair climbing. (See presentation page 6.)
A strange exchange came up during the Q&A when someone asked about siting a station between the two streets. The first and obvious answer is that with a station being only 130m long, and the space between the streets measuring 400m, this change wouldn’t really please advocates of either location. A midblock station would be further from the park, but still well east of Laird.
In any event, Metrolinx rambled on about how with the private sector being involved in construction, there was another round of design reviews in which the station designs would be finalized, and the site could be adjusted then. This is complete nonsense because (a) the station location affects tunnel grades and a new location would require an EA amendment, and (b) the private bidders are supposed to “inherit” an already-built tunnel structure around which they will place the stations. Obviously, Metrolinx has to decide on the station locations as part of tunnel design.
This exchange had all the earmarks of someone making up an excuse to avoid debate on the fly.
Surface Bus Routes
One claimed reason for the shift away from Laird involves surface bus service. Metrolinx claims that the TTC will integrate the 56 Leaside and 51 Leslie, and this will mean the combined route will make west-to-south and north-to-east turns at Laird or at Brentcliffe depending on which site is chosen. Apparently, there was concern that this operation will completely foul up traffic at the Laird location, even though the claimed frequency of service was every 10 minutes at peak. The real issue, regardless of location, for some people was that this connection will be open air, and people waiting for a northbound Leslie bus will do so at a regular bus stop on the east side of Laird or Brentcliffe as the case may be.
(If the station is at Brentcliffe with the primary entrance on the southwest corner, there is no reason the TTC could not run southbound service via Brentcliffe, and northbound service via Laird and Eglinton so that both transfer stops could be served by the same weather-protected waiting area in the station entrance.)
The whole issue of TTC service was a bit of a conundrum for Metrolinx who claimed that any surface routes, including a supplementary bus on Eglinton, were up to the TTC (who were not at the meeting). Sorry, but that excuse won’t wash. Earth to Metrolinx: you are building a transit corridor, and you are responsible for co-ordinating all of the service that will operate there, not just for your pretty green trains. The Metrolinx folks also didn’t seem to know that their recent proposed amendment for the Mt. Dennis portion of the line includes a table of proposed TTC services including “34 Eglinton” which would no doubt serve the eastern part as well.
The Leslie Stop
Without question, if the line is underground (and at this point under the Don River), a station at Leslie cannot be justified given the very low density at this site even allowing for future development north of Eglinton (e.g. the Sony property). On a surface LRT line, a stop at Leslie would be simple to include, but Metrolinx’ decision to go underground with a south-of-Eglinton alignment scotches that possibility.
The matter of a future GO Transit connection to the CPR tracks came up during the Q&A. Again, the Metrolinx team showed its ignorance when they claimed that there were not plans to implement service on this line beyond a Federal study (one that will probably die once influential MPs along the route retire or are defeated, notably the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Assistant). However, service on this corridor was originally in the 15-year Big Move plan, and it has been pushed back to the 25-year plan in recent revisions. For Metrolinx to claim that no service is planned here is either a flat out lie, or simply a case of incompetence — not knowing what’s in your own plan.
In any event, as and when the CPR does get GO service, a technically preferable station site would be at the Don Mills crossing north of Eglinton and a potential station on, dare I say it, a Don Mills subway (aka the DRL).
All in all, Metrolinx appeared to be making up excuses about the Leslie stop out of thin air without fully understanding the options in this area.
Don Mills and Ferrand Drive
In the original scheme, Don Mills Station and its approaches from both east and west would have been built cut-and-cover. However, with the change to bored tunnel, the entire structure must remain far enough underground to give headroom for the boring machines. this shifts the depth of the station, and presented problems with the space needed for turnback tracks at the station and a ramp back to the surface. For this reason, the Ferrand Drive stop was eliminated in the design shown a few months ago.
Now, Don Mills Station has been revised so that the portal out onto Eglinton is far enough west that the originally proposed Ferrand Drive stop can be included. This was another nibble Metrolinx planned to take out of the surface operation, but the bite may have proven indigestible. This change will keep the advocates of a Ferrand stop happy.
Meanwhile, at Don Mills, potential integration with a new subway line (the “Downtown Relief Line” or the “Don Mills Subway” as I prefer to call it) is not mentioned. The plans show no provision for a north-south station connecting with the Eglinton line’s east-west box structure.
The DRL itself is the subject of confusion at Metrolinx where the length and cost cited on the Big Move’s Next Wave page do not match with the diagrammatic map. Terminating the line at Danforth is not a viable design, but the TTC/Metrolinx seem to be dragging their feet on pushing north to Eglinton despite the benefits of such a scheme. Clarity on the DRL’s design would help considerably in placing discussions re the Eglinton route in context.
Conclusion
Metrolinx is missing a great deal of detail, but if past experience is anything to go by, their mind is already made up, and the option presented to the public meeting will be the one on which the EA amendment will be based. There are serious questions about assumptions in this version, but getting them asked, let alone answered, will be quite another matter.
Metrolinx really does need to try again and get its story straight on many of the issues raised at the public meeting.
Updated April 18, 2013 at 11:00 am:
The Environmental Project Report addendum covering the section of the line west of Black Creek is online as part of a report to the Toronto Executive Committee for April 23, 2013. This includes the redesign of the section from the tunnel portal east of Black Creek Drive through Mount Dennis Station to Jane Street, although only the section as far as Weston Road would be built in Phase 1 of the project. Attachments to the report include:
- Chief Planner’s Report with comments
- Addendum Part I
- Addendum Part II
- Addendum Part III
- Addendum Part IV
The revised alignment is shown in Figure 2-5b at the start of Part II. This includes cross-sectional views of the portion in Phase 2 which would be built cut and cover from the west limit of Weston Road to a portal in the hill down to the Jane Street flats. Detailed views appear in Figures 3-7a to 3-7d at the end of Part II, and 3-7e to 3-7g at the start of Part III.
Although the portion west of Weston Road will not be built in Phase 1, it has been revised so that demolition of the houses on the north side of Eglinton is no longer required. (A list showing the original and revised property requirements is in Table 5-2 in Part IV.)
The Mount Dennis Station itself straddles the rail corridor in a layout that is described under “Option 11” in the report. The existence of options 1 through 10 documents the long process of working through alternative schemes for this section of the route, and ironically ends up with a variant that in the early days of the line’s design was called “too expensive”.
(The overview map of Option 11 in Figure 2-4 of Part I erroneously shows the alignment as underground to west of Jane Street when, in fact, it emerges from a portal east of Jane and runs on the surface west from there.)
The alignment east of Mount Dennis Station has been designed to remain completely grade separated and protected including the junction leading to the maintenance yard. Metrolinx intends to use automatic train control on the underground section of Eglinton, and the yard access will be part of the ATC territory. (A detailed view of the yard layout is in Figure 3-7e.)
As the line emerges from the portal at Black Creek and crosses on a bridge to the Kodak lands, an access track to the yard splits off from the westbound track. A single crossover east of this split would allow an eastbound train to reverse into the yard.
Two exit tracks from the yard turn south and west with one of them joining the westbound track and one running just north of it. At this point, the layout is three tracks wide. A double crossover between the eastbound and westbound tracks lies in the area just west of the yard exit. The northern exit track from the yard merges with the westbound mainline track just before the station where the platform separates the eastbound and westbound tracks.
Metrolinx’ intent is that Mount Dennis will be a “Mobility Hub”, and the station is now actually designed with a view to that purpose. However, there remain concerns about walking distances to various nearby facilities including the bus terminal and a community centre, but this is almost inevitable given that the “hub” stretches from Weston Road to Black Creek Drive.
Although Metrolinx shows generic drawings of primary and secondary exits, with escalators and elevators only at the former, their drawings do not show in detail the level of accessibility at various access points to the station and its satellite facilities such as the bus terminal. This is a “Mobility Hub” in Metrolinx lingo, and the ability to easily circulate within it and to all nearby points will be essential.
The report includes a preliminary service plan with trains to operate at 2’00” headways between Mount Dennis and Don Mills, with a 3’00” headway beyond to Kennedy Station. Proposed bus services and frequencies are also shown including a “34 Eglinton” route (a surface bus to supplement the LRT subway) at a 15’00” headway. (See pages 3-2 through 3-7 in Part II.)
Updated April 13, 2013 at 6:45 am: Presentation materials from an April 10, 2013, public meeting on the Mount Dennis Mobility Hub design are now available.
This presentation includes a major change in the treatment of Eglinton Avenue and of the Mount Dennis station itself. Previous schemes struggled with two physical problems at either end of the site:
- At the east end, the retaining wall on the north side of Eglinton created a barrier and constraint to any significant change to the road layout, and the LRT alignment necessarily tunnelled through the hill behind the barrier to get under the rail corridor.
- At the west end, the station box and provision for tracks west of the station caused design problems and conflicts with existing buildings.
The station now sits well east of Weston Road with the station box centred under the rail corridor. This shift also allows the old Kodak building to have a role as part of the station.
The existing retaining wall and the land north of it are dug out to provide a short section of surface LRT on the approach to the station. This places the junction with yard tracks on the surface (rather than the original underground scheme, and allows the Eglinton corridor to be widened and improved as part of the future design of the Black Creek intersection. (The design proposed at the December 2012 meeting moved the retaining wall, but not as dramatically as in the April 2013 version.)
Metrolinx is under no illusions that the type of neighbourhood this could become is many years away and will require efforts by the city to encourage development, but at least the transit scheme now attempts to be a catalyst for that development rather than taking the bare-bones “this is all we can afford” approach.
I was unable to attend the April 10 meeting, and welcome comments here from any reader who can give a sense of how this proposal was received by the community.
Updated December 13, 2012 at 8:45 am: Presentation materials from the public meetings are now available online. Links to them have been added to the article below along with my comments.
Metrolinx has announced two public meetings at which design changes to the Eglinton-Crosstown LRT project will be discussed.
Eglinton East — Leaside to Don Mills
Tuesday December 11, Ontario Science Centre (Telus Conference Room), Don Mills south of Eglinton, 7:00 to 9:00 pm
In the original plan, the LRT would have emerged onto the surface through a portal in the centre of Eglinton Avenue as it descended from Brentcliffe Road toward Leslie Street. This location would also have been the tunnel launch site, a twin of the structure near Black Creek Drive. This location conflicts with recent redevelopment of the area.
Metrolinx now proposes to continue the tunnel under the west branch of the Don River straight through to Don Mills Station. The tunnel launch site will now be in the parking lot of the Ontario Science Centre. The original design east of Don Mills remains with the line surfacing between Don Mills and the DVP. The east branch of the Don River will be crossed at street level because this would be a much more difficult piece of tunneling given the valley’s depth and the need to bore through bedrock. Leslie Station has been deleted from the plan.
Updated: Presentation materials are now available online.
Laird to Don Mills Addendum Page
Detailed PDFs are included showing the original and proposed alignments for the Eglinton line from Laird Station to the Don Valley Parkway.
Although some costing information was discussed at the public meeting according to some who attended, this is not included in the presentation materials. Among the benefits claimed for the revised plan:
- Relocation of the launch shaft to Don Mills will put it in a better location with less effect on local residents and simpler engineering and construction (soil conditions and stabilization, site access).
- No new or widened bridge is required for Eglinton Avenue and this eliminates effects on the river valley below.
- Operation between Laird and Don Mills will be faster because it is underground and because there is no stop at Leslie.
Another stop to be removed is at Ferrand Drive between Don Mills and the DVP. This stop is no longer physically possible as it conflicts with the exit ramp location that has shifted because a pocket track has been added east of Don Mills station.
What we are seeing here is a move away from surface construction and a return to the original Metrolinx view (dating back to the launch of Transit City) that Eglinton should be a high-speed “regional” line, not a local service. Whether the surface design east from Don Mills and west from Weston will survive, especially if there is a political change at Queen’s Park to an anti-LRT administration, remains to be seen.
Metrolinx plans to have a revised Environmental Project Report completed in March 2013 for approval by May in time for tendering of the tunnel work. The web page linked above includes provision for feedback which should be submitted by January 4, 2013.
Wednesday December 12, York Memorial Collegiate, northwest corner of Keele & Eglinton, 6:30 to 9:30 pm
A revised alignment places the Weston Station underground on the northeast quadrant of the Weston-Eglinton intersection with an improved connection to the rail corridor as compared to previous plans.
A Metrolinx “mobility hub” is planned for this location, and part of the meeting will be devoted to working through community preferences for its design. Also up for discussion are the preliminary plans for the Maintenance Facility on the former Kodak lands.
The original plan called for a wide box tunnel section west of Weston Road that would have required demolition of several houses. My understanding is that this will no longer be required, but await confirmation of this when Metrolinx publishes detailed designs.
One almost certain victim of changes to the plans will be the segment from Weston to Jane. Neither the Jane LRT nor the Eglinton West extension to the airport are part of the recently-announced Phase 2 of “Big Move” projects, and a mobility hub at Weston suggests that it will be the western terminal for some years to come.
This is made quite clear in the project description on the Metrolinx Crosstown Project page where the line is described as running from “Black Creek to Kennedy Station” and the map shows the western end at Mt. Dennis. The map has not yet been updated to reflect underground construction east to Don Mills.
Updated: Presentation materials are now available online.
Mount Dennis Mobility Hub Page
The new design confirms that Weston Station has been redesigned to lie further east than its original site and with a good connection to a future GO station because the LRT station platform will now be partly under the rail corridor. The planned three-track section west of the station has been eliminated and this resolved problems with property conflicts along the north side of Eglinton Avenue.
The section west to Jane Street is now clearly shown as being part of “Phase 2” of the project, and it would not be built until the western extension to Pearson Airport occurs, if ever.
The transition out of the tunnel at Black Creek drive has been modified so that Eglinton Avenue would now swing south of the portal, and the LRT would cross Black Creek on a bridge dipping back underground after an at-grade junction with access tracks to the maintenance facility on the former Kodak lands.
The Mobility Hub study is in some ways much more ambitious than the LRT plan because it foresees a much revised and revived set of neighbourhoods around the future LRT and GO station. The challenge here will be to maintain this vision through changing political and economic climates over the next decade until the LRT line is in operation and acting as an anchor for Mount Dennis.
Steve Munro 
Steve wrote
I’m assuming your privy to something more than the meeting announcement to be aware of this.
Metrolinx better be careful, if they speed up the travel time between Kennedy and Eglinton/Yonge too much, they are going to inadvertently move a lot of traffic from the Bloor-Danforth line to the Eglinton line! 🙂
Steve: I am reliably advised that Leslie Station is no longer in the plan. It was always going to be a low-volume station anyhow, the mechanics of building one underground here are complex, and the passenger volume doesn’t justify this. From previous plans, I do recall that the TTC plans to reroute some surface routes that now operate to Eglinton Station into the new terminal at Don Mills.
LikeLike
There seems to be somewhat empty land on the south side of Eglinton. I don’t see a conflict there with recent development other than at the top of the hill on the west side of the valley. Wouldn’t a bridge over the valley be cheaper than tunneling under the river? One could have tunnel portals at each end of the bridge to go under obstructions.
Steve: The problem is not the running structure per se (which was going to be in the middle of Eglinton), but the work site for the launch of the tunnel boring machines and for the ongoing removal of spoil from the tunnel work west to Yonge. This has to be far enough west of the valley to be on a usable site, and that gets over to the location of the new development. What amazes me is that those buildings were proposed quite some time ago (they even feature pictures of LRT vehicles in their publicity). It is astounding that nobody on the project team noticed this and thought through the implications.
LikeLike
Is digging beneath the west branch of the Don really more cost effective than building a bridge south of Eglinton Avenue? Maybe I should have a look at the area, but my impression was that the west branch was pretty deep.
Disappointing to hear about the lack of an extension west to the airport, but I guess there’s always the Air Rail link, which should connect at Mount Dennis, correct? Fingers crossed that this won’t be too expensive a trip.
Steve: The bridge was not going south of Eglinton, but rather a widened Eglinton bridge with the LRT in the middle. There never was a detailed public review of the side-of-road option which would have had two problems of its own — punching under the CPR at Leslie, and avoiding conflict with the private interchange built for the IBM/Celestica site.
LikeLike
Would you have any idea if they are looking to a GO and/or UPE station at Eglinton and Weston? I understand that the lines are supposed to be express, but it makes so much sense to have them connect to the Crosstown line. And it certainly makes more sense than to have the UPE stop at Weston, where there is no rapid transit connection whatsoever.
Steve: Yes, the LRT station is moved east from its originally proposed location so that it can make a good connection with a future GO/UPE station. What will happen to Weston GO Station (up at Lawrence) remains to be seen, but I suspect it will vanish.
LikeLike
I guess deleting Leslie station isn’t the end of the world. That intersection is kind of nowheresville anyway.
I realize this might be a bit far off, but is there any idea what the plan for the 51 Leslie would be?
Steve: It will probably be routed east to Don Mills and Eglinton, although another option would be west to Laird (connecting at that station to the LRT) and then south replacing 56 Leaside. This is all years away, and I doubt the TTC will publish anything definitive for a while. A related issue is the need for a local surface bus to cover the line at least from Yonge to Don Mills.
LikeLike
Is there any chance that the extension of the tunnel to Don Mills will encourage Metrolinx to reconsider their decision not to have the Scarborough RT and Eglinton LRT run as one line?
Steve: That’s actually a TTC decision. They foresee the demand north of Kennedy as much higher than on Eglinton and want to keep the routes separate. The only way you would see them integrated would be if the tunnel went all the way east to Kennedy.
LikeLike
Maybe it’s a minor thing in the grande scheme, but having the Jane buses terminate at the Weston Mobility Hub would eliminate the express nature of the current route. Is the thought that most coming South will want to get to Rapid Transit faster than BD line?
Steve: This is an interesting problem akin to what happened when the BD subway opened. The TTC assumed everyone would ride the subway, and found out that some trips preferred to stay on surface routes. Don’t forget also that riders originating further north will have the option of travelling east to the subway at Finch and Steeles, and this may divert some of the traffic now heading south on the Jane bus.
LikeLike
I was wondering why Chris Hume’s column in The Star today was decrying the proposal to build Eglinton underground between Black Creek and Laird.
The way he wrote the column made it seem as if Ford was responsible for putting the line underground and that was somehow going to deny Eglinton the chance for a renaissance.
He also quotes Antoine Grumbach:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the reason for the tunneling under the central portion of Eglinton because the street has a width equivalent to 5 traffic+parking lanes, as well as a hilly topography that would make it challenging for LRVs to climb up & down the hills?
Steve: Yes. The decision to go underground was taken as part of the original Transit City plan for precisely the reason you describe. The road is narrow and could not possibly support an LRT right-of-way let alone the extra space needed for platforms, and the traffic interference of pedestrian volumes at major stations. I cannot help feeling that we are seeing the “benefit” of a visiting expert who has not been well-briefed or visited the places in question.
As for the planned extension of the tunnel from Laird to Don Mills … it makes sense if it would make the project quicker & easier, and can encourage additional development in the area … It certainly seems that the redesign will allow staging to be easier and less costly. I suppose the Metrolinx can also work with the Science Centre to set an exhibit about public transit & construction technology, maybe bus school kids in to visit the site 🙂
The change at Mount Dennis sounds a lot more sensible than the original plan. Let’s hope that the redeveloped Mobility Hub will encourage growth in the area, not suck more commercial life out of Weston Road. If the Scotiabank on the NE corner is willing to move out for the construction, maybe even incorporate the bank into the station … that might help anchor the commercial area.
One has to wonder what will happen to the Eglinton West 32 routes. 32 C & D already branch off Eglinton but perhaps they would be converted to more local bus routes, or cut back and replaced with a rerouted 32 A and a revived & rerouted 32 B.
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: If you look at the consultation materials for a previous public meeting on the Eglinton line, you will see that there are many separate bus routes listed for the terminal at Weston. These include 19 Jane South (a new route broken off of 35 Jane) and 170 Emmett.
LikeLike
I thought that this proposal had been an easy target for LRT-advocates to bash Rob Ford’s all-underground plan over, due to its prohibitive costs. A few councillors, including John Parker, clearly lost patience with the subways-only plan at this point.
Steve: I am looking forward to cost and design comparisons at the public meeting. This line is nibbling its way underground and threatens to become a full-scale subway if we are not careful.
LikeLike
Does the lack of a station at Leslie prevent a good interchange with any possible station on the Richmond Hill line?
Steve: The Richmond Hill line does not cross at Leslie, but at the East Don crossing beyond the DVP. The line at Leslie is the CPR subdivision on which might in the future have service into northeastern Scarborough and Durham, not to mention Havelock/Peterborough beyond. If you look at Google Maps, you will see that this would be a difficult location for a station, and a better site would be at the Don Mills Road crossing which could conceivably be a station on a Don Mills north-south route. Tricky either way, but less so at Don Mills.
LikeLike
Given more than 50 percent of the line will now be below grade, it begs the question whether it worth using LRT technology to begin with. As mentioned already, the western portion of the line will most likely never be built, at least not in the foreseeable future, and even if built it will most likely be elevate through the Richview corridor. Interlining, another benefit to using LRT technology will most likely never happen given that Metrolinx has already ruled out connecting it with the SLRT, and the Jane, Don Mills, and Scarborough/Malvern LRT are pretty much dead projects. I will not be surprised if we end up with a shortened subway or ICTS proposal when the dust has settle and the political winds shift. In fact I think the latter is most likely take place considering Metrolinx is already in hot waters with proposed duration of the closure of the SRT.
On a side note I wonder if Metrolinx will rough in a DRL station at Don Mills to save on cost; to me it would only make sense. It would be sad to see them rip up a new station when they could have done it all at once. Pape station is a good example. I’m sure all the upgrades they’re doing to that station will have to be torn up if they choose Pape as DRL station.
Steve: This sort of thing is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we say Eglinton may as well be ICTS, then we are condemned to a higher-cost implementation forever. Governments change, that is true, but we can just as easily be back to an LRT-friendly administration within the timeframe of 2020-decade projects.
As for Pape, I think that there are other advantages to making the connection elsewhere including a simpler connection via Greenwood Yard rather than building a full wye at Pape and Danforth.
The shutdown of the SRT should only take three years, tops, not five, and Metrolinx has said as much. However, they are stuck with a Ministerial Pronouncement about the dates. Until the Minister gets around to announcing “good news” that they can do it in less, we are left with that ridiculous shutdown period as the official story. One might almost think someone is trying to sabotage the LRT project.
LikeLike
Ben Smith says:
GO has plans for a future Eglinton Station. From the ARL EA, “Metrolinx and GO Transit are committed to the Weston GO Station. The status of this station will not be impacted by the proposed Eglinton Station in the future.”
GO also has plans for a direct tunnel access from Bloor GO Station to TTC Dundas West Station, but so far the TTC hasn’t desired to contribute to its funding, so it remains only provisioned for (knock-out walls, etc).
Steve: Another problem at Bloor is that the owner of the mall sitting just west of Bloor GO station is none too happy about hosting a subway connection. No doubt the application of sufficient inducement will get around this. As for a TTC contribution, the TTC has no money to contribute. Capital all comes from city debt, various provincial and federal funding programs, and the occasional contribution by other agencies like Waterfront Toronto which are, themself, government bodies. If Metrolinx wants to build a connection, they will have to pay for it.
This is an example of a facility that is regional in application, but with a local component. If we expect municipalities to shell out for part of whatever Metrolinx needs to improve the GO system, a lot of things just won’t get built.
LikeLike
Not to be advocating a full subway under Eglinton but it does seem like the LRT tunnel under that street can almost be called a subway. Some would even call the streetcar tunnel under Bay a subway. From what you’ve said it sounds to me like it wouldn’t take too terribly much for the Eglinton LRT to evolve into a full subway anyhow. It’s aok with me if it stays LRT although I won’t be the eensiest bit surprised if that line winds up getting enough ridership to make some people say a subway should’ve been built. That’s something that’s going to be very interesting to say the least.
Steve: Actually the demand projections are way, way below the level needed to justify a full-blown subway. One important point is that Eglinton is a corridor with a lot of overlapping demands. There are many riders but they are not all travelling over the same segment of the line. This reduces the peak point demand.
LikeLike
Thanks, Steve. It will certainly be interesting to see how things change with the arrival of this new terminal. I just wonder if the number of buses will end up creating a situation like the one in the village of Islington (on Dundas) where there are so many buses bound for Islington station that there ends up being a lot of traffic congestion and less street life than there ought to be. On the other hand, I am confident that the increased number of jobs in the area will make a difference.
Does it make more sense to keep the 89 on Weston and service the west entrance or run it directly into the bus terminal? Will the Jane 35 buses run down to the Jane & Eglinton intersection and then run east to Weston Road, or will some of them (35E perhaps) run along Weston for a faster trip into the station?
LikeLike
The tunnel all the way to Don Mills will have an added benefit of allowing more frequent service on the busiest segment of the line. I hope that a crossover, or perhaps a third track, will be built east of Don Mills station.
I am a bit concerned about the grades mandated by the new alignment. Now the line will have to be deep enough west of Don Mills station to go under West Don, but will have to raise above surface east of Don Mills to cross DVP and East Don. Hopefully the engineering staff checked the required grades before this announcement was made.
The loss of Leslie station is not a big problem, as the location has no development potential and few existing users, and connection to Leslie bus can be made in a number of other ways. I’d rather preserve Oakwood station in the west. Oakwood station may not host much new development, but would serve a fair number of existing customers.
I agree that a supplemental local bus may be needed between Don Mills and Yonge. Such bus will not only serve the Leslie intersection, but will be useful further west. The distances from Laird station to Bayview, and from Bayview station to Mount Pleasant, are both greater than 1 km; that’s a bit too much for a good local coverage.
Steve: One effect of the grade at the Don Valley will likely be to push Laird Station a bit further west, but we will see when the plans come out. To the east, the line does not have to get all the way back to the surface because Don Mills Station will be underground. The remaining climb will be east of the station. As for a crossover and/or tail track, I believe that this will be included as the transition to surface running is an obvious place to allow for a short turn and more intensive service on the underground segment of the route.
LikeLike
Is the decision to tunnel all the way to Don Mills also partly because of the proposed DRL line? Perhaps they will lay the ground work for a possible station there one day, so might as well start digging and designing a place for the subway to stop?
Steve: I don’t think the DRL has much to do with this decision, but now it’s in play, the design of the station at Don Mills will be affected. At the point the Eglinton EA was done, the assumption was that a surface LRT on Don Mills would connect with an underground LRT on Eglinton.
LikeLike
I think that these to extra tunnel sections are a move in the right direction. If people think that Leslie was a low demand are what are the Humber River Flats at Jane and Eglinton? Is the line still going to cross the Black Creek river and road on an elevated structure?
Steve: Yes.
I think that when (if) they electrify the Georgetown UPE line that they could leave in both Weston and Mt. Dennis stations as the electric equipment (if EMU) would be able to handle the extra stop, not to mention one at Weston Road, St. Clair, and maybe another but I get ahead.
LikeLike
As noted by Steve and someone else, it is interesting how the Downtown Relief Line east-west alignment seems to be along Queen Street in this new report whereas in the TTC report a few weeks ago it was calling for King Street in the core but curving up to Queen Street where King does as such near the Don River east of the core and using the Georgetown railway corridor for it to curve up to Queen between Ossington and Dufferin to the west. I think the reason why TTC preferred the King Street alignment in the core is that if it uses Queen too many workers in the Financial District may be tempted to still take the Yonge line and get off at King Station as they do now, because they are too lazy to walk from a Queen/Yonge Station on the DRL down to the Financial District. I personally think having subway or other rapid transit follow one or two specific roads for most of their routing is good both for naming and for people to know for sure where the route is and where its stops are. It’s pretty confusing in some other cities figuring out from a transit map where exactly certain subway stops are as the lines don’t follow one or two main roads.
As well, is there really more justification (i.e. potential long-term ridership) for extending a subway up Yonge from Finch than there was for extending the Sheppard Subway eastward or making the Eglinton LRT underground from Leaside to Kennedy? I really wonder.
LikeLike
Is the width of the central part of Eglinton the same as most of the streets that presently or used to have streetcar service on them? I once read that most, if not all, streets in the old city of Toronto were laid out to a width of one chain, or 66 feet. St. Clair, Spadina, Lake Shore, and possibly Bathurst are at least a little wider than that, aren’t they?
Steve: The map of the street widths in Toronto (part of the Official Plan) shows that Eglinton from Keele to Bayview is 27m wide, from Bayview to Laird 23m. The old streets downtown are 20m (66ft). Yes, the old streets were laid out to 1 chain. However, part of the central section of Eglinton was widened back in the 20s (there are photos on the City’s archives site). Don’t forget that this road passes through four former municipalities: Leaside, Toronto, Forest Hill and York. That’s why the section east of Bayview is narrower.
LikeLike
Is there any chance that the next design segment will be for the DVP and it will be determined that grade-separated LRT is needed to avoid a large bottleneck at the DVP interchange ramps?
Steve: The LRT only interferes with the left turns (south to east, north to west) from the DVP onto Eglinton. These are already signal controlled intersections and will remain so after the LRT is in place.
It appears that now there is just over 5km of in-median LRT. What would this number have to reduce to in order for them to consider fully grade-separating the remaining portion?
Could they not save a bit of money at the Kennedy Station if the ECLRT and SRT were joined? Then the station would not have to be built as deep (or maybe not replaced at all, just improving the curve going to SRT) since much fewer passengers would be transferring.
Steve: The problem with grade separation is that the stops would have to be further apart to save on construction costs, and the operating cost would be higher both for the remaining stations and for the surface bus service that would almost certainly be required to supplement the LRT subway. As a rough guess, converting 5km from surface to subway would add at least $1b to the project cost (using a marginal cost of $200m/km).
At Kennedy, the problem is that the Scarborough line is projected to have much higher demand than the Eglinton line, and the TTC wants to maintain two separate operations with service levels appropriate to the demand. There is an argument to be made for through-routing, especially if Eglinton connected to a line on Don Mills, but I think that fight is more or less a lost cause because the layout of Kennedy has been changed to act as a terminal for each line separately with a connection track only for carhouse moves.
LikeLike
Steve,
Will there be bus service on Eglinton. It seems station between Dufferin and Yonge are about 700m apart, between Yonge and Laird (and Jane and Dufferin), they are 1000m apart. In Scarborough, the major roads are generally 800m apart. All these distances are about the same to me. I would say if you need bus service in Scarborough, with an elevated LRT above, you would need bus service along the entire length.
Steve: The TTC was rather coy about this during the EA for the Eglinton line, but seemed to prefer no surface bus. They softened on the point as time went on, but nothing has been heard from them recently. The situation is a bit more complex now that the LRT is a Metrolinx show, but any parallel bus route would be the TTC’s. By analogy to Yonge north of Eglinton, or Sheppard west from Don Mills to Yonge, we may get a surface bus now and then, but certainly not frequently.
LikeLike
Steve, I recall that the most detailed plan for the Kennedy “Mobility Hub” had …
– A centre-platform Eglinton Line terminus directly beside the existing B-D tunnel
– The “RT” being on a loop with a single platform directly above that of Eglinton’s
– Through tracks off the end of the Eglinton platform, connecting both lines to permit not only carhouse moves, but through running during “off peak” or “late evening” service.
Is this still the same plan that is in place, or have they revised it again?
Steve: This sounds plausible, but I have not seen a recent version of the design. I will chase this with Metrolinx.
LikeLike
Hi Steve,
With the building of the “mobility hub” at Weston, do you know if this may ultimately lead to the closing of the Weston GO Station and planned ARL station at Weston Rd and Lawrence? I can see the ARL station eventually closing, but it concerns me greatly if they were to close the GO Station.
Steve: At this point, Metrolinx is talking as if the Weston Station is staying. With the electrification of the line, having two stations only a few Kilometres apart should not be a problem. Whether the ARL/UP will stop at both is another matter.
LikeLike
@Josh,
It seems that the proposal you outline is spending extra money by having separate ECLRT and SRT stations at Kennedy instead of just one station. More is also spent to have an underground loop instead of a simple linear connection, with cross overs at-grade on either side of the the station. Does it really make sense to spend more money to NOT have a continuous line.
LikeLike
@Walter:
The argument put forward for the Kennedy design was that a loop will allow more reliable headways. That would be true if they had a loop at the opposite end of the line or a staggered turnback operation. I have not seen any proposals for either.
Steve: However, a loop would allow, but not guarantee, cars to reverse without the inevitable delay as operators change ends. This would be offset by the time needed to traverse the loop. So nice to know that Metrolinx, of all folks, have been talked into this design when everything else on their rail network runs with double-ended equipment and that wonderful invention, the crossover. Imagine how much time we could save at Union Station with a myriad of loops!
LikeLike
According to Metrolinx at the meeting on the Eglinton East, Leaside to Don Mills section, the station at Leslie would be eliminated because the line would being tunneled under the river, a station would cost $80 million to build and there would be insufficient usage over the next 30 years to justify it.
Metrolinx said it would be cheaper to tunnel under the river at Leslie than to build on the surface. To be cheaper there would be no Leslie station nor any special provision to build one in the future.
The existing width of the CP Rail bridge was a problem for a surface LRT according to Metrolinx. Also building 2 extra portals to remove and insert the tunnel boring machines at each end of the valley for a surface or bridge section would add $10 million to the cost. Metrolinx seemed to imply that the extra $10 million was a significant cost or effort.
Metrolinx said the stop at Ferrand Drive would be eliminated as there is a need to build an underground siding (third track) between Don Mills Road and the DVP and there would not be enough length for the line to rise to the surface for a level station stop.
Steve: The business about an extra tunnel launch site sounds rather odd. Considering the length of the Don Mills Station structure and the fact it’s a station, not a tunnel, it is unclear where the “extra” launch site would have been. I will follow up with Metrolinx on this.
LikeLike
Steve said:
From the public discussion, I understand that Metrolinx wants to insert the TBMs at Yonge (east side) and extract them from the ground between Don Mills Road and the DVP. (Metrolinx says they cannot use the TBMs under the subway at Eglinton and Eglinton West stations. Instead they must extract and relaunch at these 2 locations.)
Steve: I think you have this backwards. The intention is to build the launch site (which also is used to remove spoil from the tunneling process and to deliver supplies) at Don Mills, and they would tunnel west from there to Yonge. A related problem is that a “launch site” isn’t just a hole in the ground for the tunnel boring equipment, but also an access site for materials to come and go.
Several people at the meeting expressed displeasure at the loss of an LRT station at Leslie. To recover this station, a couple of people suggested building a bridge or viaduct over the valley presumably on the south side of Eglinton. Metrolinx did not like this idea as it would involve a $10 million cost to extract the TBM’s just east of Brentcliffe and to relaunch them presumably under the CP Rail embankment. It seems that Metrolinx did not anticipate this suggestion from the audience.
Steve: I agree that the implications of a south-side route have not been adequately examined by Metrolinx. The problem remains that if the line emerges to the surface east of Brentcliffe, the conditions around the portal are not suitable for a launch site (although it would not surprise me if Metrolinx makes the problems worse than they actually might be in order to support tunneling to Don Mills).
In hindsight, the $10 million seems insignificant when it costs about $300 million / km to tunnel only $75 million / km on the surface. I think there is at least 500 m between that could be put above ground. The unknown cost element would be the bridge.
On the other hand, some people don’t want to wait for a 54 bus to the Don Mills LRT station. They want to walk directly to the Leslie LRT station. I think the 54 service is currently fairly good. At the meeting, I heard a fear of cuts to 54 service.
Steve: For the suspicious among us, the problem remains that this would mean a continuous tunnel from Weston to Don Mills, and the possibility that the surface parts of the line will never actually be built, or would be converted to some undoubtedly more expensive technology.
The degree to which the 54 Lawrence East service is cut back depends on whether traffic shifts down to Eglinton from Lawrence. There is not a huge amount of potential demand to walk into Leslie Station in the first place.
LikeLike
Any word on whether Metrolinx expects the extended tunneling plan to actually be cheaper than the original plan? After all, that’s the whole point of going for P3’s, to reduce the cost where possible, not necessarily to reduce the number of contracts.
Steve: I believe that they are expecting to save on some aspects of construction (although this will be offset by the longer tunnel), as well as on vehicles and future operating costs due to the faster run from Laird to Don Mills Station.
LikeLike
Attended the open house. Talked to a Metrolinx representative who did not know the TTC bus routes! He speculated that the 54 Lawrence bus will now go to the Don Mills LRT Station at Eglinton! However, he wasn’t sure! Scary!
It is unclear what will happen to the bus routes in this area. With so much at stake it is puzzling why Metrolinx would not at least do more to research the changes in bus service! Obviously engineers are more interested in building infrastructure than worrying about the real-world.
I have some questions:
1) Will the Lawrence 54 west bus turn south at Leslie, then turn west to terminate at Laird Station? i.e. Will it follow it’s present route, except that it will now terminate at Laird Station instead of at Yonge/Eglinton?
2) Will the Leslie 51 south bus follow it’s present route, except that it will now stop at Laird Station and then continue south on Laird?
3) If the Lawrence 54 west bus terminates at Laird Station, then how will it turn back east? Will the bus turn left into Laird station (south east corner of Laird/Eglinton), or will it go around a city block (which one)?
4) Will some Lawrence 54 buses go south on Don Mills to the Don Mills LRT station?
5) Will the new Don Mills Station allow for a future connection to a north-south LRT or Subway?
Thanks ! George
Steve: The idea that the 54 Lawrence East route would run east to Don Mills Station has been around for some time. The EA for the Eglinton line includes the following in the description of Don Mills Station:
The exact configuration of the “54” — directly down Don Mills to Eglinton, or roundabout via Leslie — remains to be seen, but there is no provision for a surface bus loop at Laird Station. Any service that turns west from Leslie would have to either continue west on Eglinton as it does now, or be routed south to the Danforth subway, for example by through routing with the existing 56 Leaside.
As for the Don Mills subway (DRL), its presence at Eglinton will certainly change the focus of transit in the area, but we won’t know the final configuration for years. Obviously provision should be made in the design at the new station for a north-south subway connection rather than the surface LRT that was presumed as part of the original Eglinton LRT plan. The design shown at the recent open house puts the Eglinton line’s station box fairly close to the surface, and so a Don Mills line would have to pass under it. Will Metrolinx prebuild a shell and include provision for vertical access?
LikeLike
I went to the meeting in York last night and learned the following:
1. The Weston Station will be east of Weston road so the east side of it can be east of the Rail corridor and connect with the regional transit hub that has 16 or 21 bays, I can’t remember which. The tunnel will be built out beyond the station up to the east side of Weston road so they will not have to dig up the area in front of the new entrance.
Steve: The detailed plan is available on the website (see link in the article) showing the new station location, the tunnels and the bus terminal.
2. They plan to run every bus that comes with in artillery range of the station into it. People were not to thrilled with the idea of having the Jane bus diverting along Eglinton to Black Creek, going south on Black Creek to the old road to the Kodak site and up it to the hub and then go back the reverse route. There was some expression that the bus station should be nearer to Weston Road. I can’t see the TTC being too happy with this.
Steve: It is the TTC’s decision to operate the Jane bus in this manner, but Metrolinx decision not to build the line to Jane Street as part of “Phase 1”. Who knows what the situation will be by the time the line actually operates. The real question, for which detailed origin-destination info is required, is what proportion of riders on the Jane bus even want to get to the Eglinton LRT at Weston as opposed to travelling straight through. The TTC has a bad habit of assuming that rapid transit stations have an irresistible attraction for transit riders (much as highways are an irresistible lure for motorists).
3. There will only be 4 properties expropriated including the Bank of Nova Scotia which will be the site of the station entrance, set back from the intersection to provide a beautiful square for community use.
4. The line will cross the Black Creek road, park and river on a “light and airy structure.” Eglinton will run south of the tunnel portal and elevated in both directions.
5. Three stations have been eliminated (so far), Black Creek, Leslie and Ferrand (sp?). With the elimination of these stations plus removing traffic signal interference at Black Creek, Leslie and perhaps another road in the east they can cut running time by 5 minutes.
6. The MSF will be able to hold 162 cars. There were some comments that it should be smaller so that industries that would provide more employment could use the lands. Access to it will be on an elevated structure that branches off near Black Creek Drive.
7. The plans west of Weston Station portal will stay the same if and when they are built. Does anyone remember how they were going to handle left turns off JANE street to Eglinton? The plan shows no left turn lanes and no one there had any idea how it would be accomplished.
Steve: This is one of the locations of the farside U turn scheme which has received well-deserved criticism. Again, I think this is a design that will be revised before anything is actually built.
8. They are working on plans to turn Eglinton into a pedestrian friendly street. One concept propose turning the retaining wall on the north side into a green wall; reminds me of the hanging gardens of Babylon.
The plan looks a lot better thought out than the TTC’s and causes a lot less negative impact on the community. It could use a few improvements but on the whole is not bad.
Steve: Don’t forget that originally there was strong opposition to improving the alignment through Weston and going underground because Metrolinx didn’t want to pay for it. By scrimping and saving, they have made it possible to put the line underground after all, and could have avoided a lot of contentious relations with the community by being more flexible at the outset.
LikeLike
Nothing says “Phase 2 is a long way off” like a 15-bay bus terminal.
LikeLike
The TTC doesn’t have to decide how to operate the Jane bus for years, but they have to decide now if they are going to build the station to accommodate that possibility.
LikeLike
Silly question: The Crosstown is going to run standard gauge. It more or less intersects the tracks leading to the ARL spur. It is desirable in the future to electrify the ARL. Crosstown vehicles will be electric. Phase 2 of the Crosstown includes a connection with the Airport. Would there be any economic benefit to running crosstown vehicles on this spur to the airport, provided the electrical specs for both vehicle types are compatible, rather than constructing a new portion of track westwards from Weston? I realize that there may be some benefit to the communities west of Weston to have service from the crosstown, but am just wondering if this is an idea that has been considered.
Steve: The voltage of the electrification on GO will be much higher (25kv AC) than that used on the LRT lines (750v DC) leaving aside many other considerations.
LikeLike
I was looking at the plans for the MSF that supposedly has a capacity of 162 cars. The plans shows 18 occupied yard tracks with 9 cars each for 162 cars. In addition there are 7 through tracks in the barn that will hold at least 6 cars each for another 42. Each of these tracks could hold 3 cars out side, 2 west and 1 east for another 21 cars. This give 225 cars and does not use the 3 run around tracks, the leads to the heavy maintenance shops or the connection to the CPR. Either the cars in the diagram are the wrong size, Metrolinx can’t count, or they are lying through their teeth.
LikeLike
@Michael S
It could be a high-speed streetcar line that tops 80 km/hr. Hmm.
I wouldn’t support any connection between Transit City lines and GO lines. They provide very different types of services (one is local, the other is regional). But with Metrolinx, it’s unclear what kind of service the Eglinton LRT will end up providing.
LikeLike
I attended the meeting last night and from viewing the many panels understood that Jane Street would now be the west end rather than Black Creek. Am I wrong? No TTC staff present unlike the previous meeting. Everyone was wearing Ask Me tags and Metrolinx tags.
The bus terminal (15 bays) is a LONG walk (1000 feet+) to/from the LRT especially if your bus is at one of the far north bays. Not rider friendly. Clearly the people who design this stuff do NOT ride transit!
There was no clear drawing of the bus terminal nor any details about what buses would use the terminal unlike the previous meeting.
Steve: The drawing (which is available online) clearly shows the section west of Weston Road as “Phase 2”. The line will ends at Weston Station for the foreseeable future.
Yes, the bus terminal is a long walk. There are times I think that station designers would be happier working on airports than transit lines. Having said that, the real difficulty is that placing the terminal west of the rail corridor would require considerable demolition of existing buildings, something that’s not in the cards.
LikeLike
According to addendum page, the Leaside LRT station is being eliminated because tunneling would address concerns about noise, slope stability, traffic disruptions on Eglinton near Brentcliffe and soil contamination. I don’t recall these issues being mentioned in the public presentation. They were not raised in the Q&A period. I wonder if people missed this when reading the placard displays. (I arrived too late to read them before the presentation.)
Steve: Actually it is the Leslie Station that disappears as a side-effect of the line’s not returning to the surface east of Brentcliffe. The soil and noise issues relate to the tunnel launch shaft and side which would have been on the west side of the Don Valley and the south side of Eglinton. The “Leaside” station at Laird Drive remains.
LikeLike
Jane bus can have branches.
For example, local #35 (Jane) and #19 (Jane South) can run to Mt Dennis station; while #35E (Express) can run from Steeles / York U all the way to Jane station on Bloor.
LikeLike
With regards to yard capacity, the number of 162 cars is accurate. Yard capacity is calculated with the number of cars that can be fit onto storage tracks, ready for service. It does not include cars which might be in for maintenance or inspection, which is not a fixed number and is highly variable.
LikeLike
Josh says:
While you are technically correct there are always cars undergoing periodic maintenance which will be in the car house, not the storage yard. As well with double end cars it is easily possible to store cars on the outside tracks that provide access to the car house. While it may be correct to say the outside yard capacity is 162 cars, though it appears that there is easily room for an additional 10 cars in the yard, the total capacity of the yard and maintenance facility is over 200 cars. There was some concern brought up at meeting that the facility could be smaller leaving room for other uses that would provide more jobs for the area
I have no problem with Metrolinx building a facility that has room for expansion as ridership grows; I object to their using a misleading number at the meeting. Metrolinx could easily store all the cars that they presently have on order at this one MSF.
LikeLike