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 
Taking a look at Google Maps, the distance between the Building 9 and both Jane & Keele Streets is roughly the same. Considering they want to route just about everything in the area to the Mount Dennis Mobility Hub, what’s stopping them from rerouting the 32C and 41 buses there? Is there still a plan in the works to have a miniature bus terminal at Keele/Eglinton/Trethewey? Would this disappear to save them $n on property acquisitions?
And I will say this about the Jane bus: as someone who regularly rides counter-peak to work (rarely from) on it, the highest ridership on the 35 is from Finch to Lawrence (when service runs somewhat consistently) or Weston (on a bad day). Generally, I can go from a crush load at Wilson to a mostly seated bus by Weston. If they did run a Jane South bus, it would probably be fairly reliable, as it wouldn’t have to deal with the Highway 400 off-ramp. That said, making a 1km diversion each way from Jane to Mount Dennis station really is unnecessary.
LikeLike
From the Metrolinx website, it states that the LRT can be from 1 to 3 Trains long – up to 90 metres long! This is almost 100 yards!
Will the Eglinton LRT run 3 trains sets at all times? If this is the case, then how fast can a LRT go through an intersection from a standing start? Will traffic signals be forced to stay green to allow LRT’s to cross intersections safely?
Thanks George
Steve: I believe that the initial service level on Eglinton will be two-car trains (60m), but getting one across on a single green phase should not be daunting. They will move as a unit, not as separate cars with operators worried about running into each other. (Compare to Spadina running with single CLRVs.) As demand builds, they have the option of moving up to 3-car trains.
LikeLike
Michael Forest said:
That would certainly be an effective solution, but it would really depend on what passengers along Jane St. want.
I used to take the Jane bus to school, and I always loved getting the 35E because there was exactly 1 stop (at Woolner Ave.) between Dundas & Eglinton. Further north, of course, the bus stopped at every major road (Weston, Trethewey, Lawrence, etc.).
So methinks that the Jane corridor may be one of those roads that is naturally broken up into two different corridors (south of Eglinton, north of Weston) with different levels and types of demand.
In other words, we may end up with 2 different express buses running on Jane … a 19E as well as a 35E. Or, a totally new route (a Jane Rocket?) that serves both Jane and Mt. Dennis/Weston stations on the way up to, say, Finch Ave. or Black Creek Pioneer Village station (or whatever they end up calling it).
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: Don’t forget that travel patterns to York U will be affected by the opening of the Spadina extension. For some people, staying on the bus will be the best choice because the subway would be too far out of their way. For others, the subway will be the preferred choice.
LikeLike
This is great news that the LRT tunnel is being extended, and that we are losing a couple stops from the line. The stop just east of Don Mills that will be taken out, was not needed at all, and just took away from the rapid transit capability of the line.
LikeLike
With the LRT there will be no need for either the Leslie 51, Lawrence 54, or the Leaside 56 to travel west from Laird. The logical thing would be for the 54 to continue on Lawrence (via Post Road and Bayview to Lawrence Station, the Leslie and Leaside to merge into one route via Leslie, Eglinton, Laird, Millwood to Donlands or Pape Station (with a stop at the Laird/Eglinton LRT). I’d prefer the Leslie and Leaside buses to merge into one line so we can have a north-south line that doesn’t depend on the Yonge Subway. This would be the route closes to Yonge on the east side (but still farther than Bathurst is on the west). Eglinton East is going to get messier with construction of the LRT and things will be even slower than they are now. The Eglinton bus station requires the bus to make a series of awkward turns and is about as unpleasant as any place to wait. It’s a “temporary” site with no provision for improvement.
LikeLike
@Michael B
I wish they would take out the Ionview and Lebovic stops as well. Was there a overwhelming community demand for them? Or is a major development planned for the area?
Steve: The whole idea was to put the LRT in reasonable walking distance of areas that could have reasonable demand through mid-scale development. The further apart the stops, the more the line would encourage high density at those locations and little development of the space in between. It’s hard to convert suburban roads into pedestrian friendly places with shops along the street if the built form of parking lots, car dealerships and aged industrial buildings remains. For a pedestrian environment to grow, there have to be people who want to walk there and something for them to walk to.
Metrolinx on the other hand does not care about local development except as it might affect their “Mobility Hubs”, and thinks only of regional travel.
LikeLike
I can see a case for eliminating Lebovic, given that it’s only 800 metres from Warden to Pharmacy. For comparison, Coxwell to Woodbine and Woodbine to Main are 900 metres which seem reasonable, and Main to Victoria Park is 1,100 metres (which always seems a bit far to me).
Ionview however might well be close to Kennedy Road, but it’s 550 metres from Kennedy station and another 550 metres to Birchmount Road. A station here seems reasonable, given there’s no plan of putting a platform at Kennedy Road, where the line will be underground.
Now that Leslie and Ferrand have been eliminated, and there’s 2.2 km from Laird station to Don Mills/Eglinton station and 1.2 km from Don Mills/Eglinton to Wynford, Metrolinx are in danger of making Eglinton/Yonge a faster line than Danforth to get from Kennedy station to Bloor/Yonge station – which might have some interesting ramifications when they start running it!
LikeLike
Did Metrolinx ever consider building an Old Mill or Keele-type station at Leslie/Eglinton whereby the ROW emerges out of a portal east of Brentcliffe and runs elevated into an open air station box on one end, entering the tunnel on the other (underneath the CP tracks/Celestica ramps)?
I still see a lot of ridership potential for a Leslie Stn. A lot of townhouses have gone up on the hill east of Brentcliffe, southwest of Leslie which could be accessible to such a stop via a bridge crossing. The Inn on the Park lands can be redeveloped. The 51 and 54 could also terminate here were an investment in a 4-bay bus terminal made just south of Eglinton in the parkland. What’s the point to building a large terminal at Don Mills that’ll be largely unneeded within the foreseeable future, when a more direct connection can be made for Lawrence East and Leslie customers? To not build a stop here just to save $80 million would be a pity.
Steve: The first problem with your proposal is the word “parkland”. Next, I am not convinced that residents of the new housing would prefer to walk down into the valley at Leslie as opposed to west to Laird Station, especially in bad weather.
All that said, I am concerned that Metrolinx is reverting to its originally preferred setup with widely spaced stations. I fear that we will never see the surface sections of the Eglinton line. This will either soak up millions in higher cost, or reduce the line to the central part of Toronto rendering its so-called regional role as a Metrolinx project dubious at best.
LikeLike
Does anyone else think dropping Leslie station is a bad idea, just because Metrolinx wants to go underground? What will those new condo residents up Leslie say?
Steve: See my remarks in a previous comment.
LikeLike
I suppose if you need to buy a Lexus or Toyota and don’t have a trade-in, the station at Leslie might have saved a few minutes on your trip to the car dealer. For those in the new residential developments, there are and will be convenient bus stops and quick rides to the future stations up the hill. Sparing the valley from construction and intrusion is a fringe benefit but is an important feature in the new proposal. Not having a stop where there is no need for one is a neutral statement with regard to overall policy about station frequnecy.
LikeLike
Steve said,
Does this mean you foresee Metrolinx dropping the eastern portion as well? I agree that Metrolinx statements about the “regional role” Eglinton is supposed to play seems far-fetched to me, given that they refuse to take the western surface section seriously. Yet that would see connections to the Airport and the Mississauga Transitway and would be far more “regional” in scope then the currently envisioned, truncated Pre-metro.
Also now that the Auditor-General has revealed the existence of a “secret” BCA for the Eglinton line, any chance that someone like yourself can FOI it? Christmas is coming and it would be great to see that document picked apart … just saying.
Steve: One big problem with Metrolinx estimates is that their demand model is very focused on “regional” travel and tends to force-feed routes with high speeds. That’s why they have always preferred to have Eglinton completely grade-separated because this juices the demand numbers. Whether the line serves its originally intended purpose for local transit and guiding development is quite another matter.
LikeLike
Even with Lebovic and Ionview stops in place, the average stop spacing on Eglinton East between Yonge and Kennedy will be favorable for long trips. I counted 12 remaining stops (13 intervals) on an 11.3 km route; that gives average stop spacing of 870 m. Those inexpensive surface stops can be retained, and will have a very minor effect on the travel time.
On the other hand, it would be hard to justify spending $80 million on the underground Leslie station. The location will not see much development, as the West Don ravine is not going to disappear. The Leslie bus can easily connect to LRT at Laird or at Don Mills.
It is possible to buy 4 additional buses for $3 million and add them to the Leslie route. That would substantially improve transit service along the whole length of Leslie up to Steeles, rather than for a few users at the north-eastern corner of Leslie and Eglinton.
LikeLike
Steve said:
Ah, but Steve, I’m sure that in Metrolinx’s way of thinking, Eglinton-Crosstown is still a “regional” service because:
a) It crosses the ‘region’ that is Toronto
b) It connects to at least 1 real GO line (Kitchener) and potentially to others (Bradford, Richmond Hill). Who knows, Metrolinx might actually build stations there, so passengers at those “Mobility Hubs” don’t have to catch trains the hard way.
c) Finally, because the westward extension to the Airport area (well, to Renforth & Eglinton, they probably don’t want to make it too easy to get to the airport so it won’t compete with the UPex) … it’s still in the wish-list. It’s really, really far down, behind even the Dundas BRT, but it is there.
Cheers, Moaz
PS. on the topic of the Dundas BRT … Dundas (HWY/RR5) is being widened to 6 lanes through North Oakville. Methinks that they better get that BRT (or at least a BRT-Lite) in place ASAP, because once drivers start using those new lanes, they will not be interested in ‘giving them up’ for public transit.
LikeLike
If Metrolinx wanted to keep it regional would they not have to extend the line one more station to the east past the DVP to connect with the Richmond Hill line?
Steve: That’s an extremely difficult connection given the location of the railway line in the Don Valley, and it would still be a stretch to call this “regional”. By the same argument, the downtown streetcar lines could be “regional” if GO stations were added in various locations.
LikeLike
The 501 connects with both Mississauga Transit and GO at Long Branch loop. So I guess it’s regional.
Actually, there certainly are people transferring to and from the 501 from these other modes. A lot seem to be students at Humber College coming from the west.
LikeLike
The pessimist in me is seeing the Eglinton LRT driven underground for more and more of its length, regardless of whether the situation demands it or not. I can see the Sheppard East LRT and Finch LRT being sacrificed to the almighty god of fighting the deficit, and if the PCs get into power next time, all bets are off on all transit lines.
LikeLike
My question is why the Mt. Dennis proposal involves a massive addition of road lanes on Eglinton, making it into a pedestrian nightmare. This seems to serve no purpose whatsoever.
LikeLike
Nathanael says:
Unless I am misreading the maps the only place where there seems to be an increase in the number of traffic lanes on Eglinton appears to be between the railway bridge and the portal to the tunneled sections. This section will always be dangerous for pedestrians because of its width and the speed of traffic through the area.
What is needed here are pedestrian overpasses. There should be one that goes from Kodak building 9 to whatever goes in on the south west corner of Eglinton and Black Creek, one from this building to the rec centre on the south east corner and one from the Kodak building to the north west corner. There should also eventually be one from the south side of Eglinton to the north on the east side of Black creek.
These overpasses would need ramps to provide proper access for people with disabilities and they would require fences to prevent people from dropping items off the bridges on to automobiles.
LikeLike
To paraphrase Jarrett Walker:
Design the infrastructure to serve the needs best, not to maximise the use of a particular tool. AFP is only a tool to build the line. Don’t design the line just to maximise the AFP tool.
LikeLike
Metrolinx could keep the original plan to place the station at Brentcliffe instead of Laird. The problem with the current plan is that Bayview and Laird are very close and from Laird to Don Mills is more than 2 km. A station at Brentcliffe would make the distance between stations more even.
Steve: Tell that to the people living between Bayview and Laird. The station was originally going to be closer to Brentcliffe but was moved west for closer access. You seem to want even spacing without acknowledging that most of the area from Brentcliffe to Don Mills is parkland.
LikeLike
Laird is also the farthest west direct connecting point for bus service to the Danforth subway east of Yonge. All the service on Bayview goes to the Yonge line. The spacing of stations on the Eglinton LRT will still require local bus service on Eglinton anyway for those who aren’t served well by the LRT station.
LikeLike
Steve,
Would it be technically possible, in terms of turning radii, et cetera, for the following scenario… Not to be confused with “Is this the perfect solution?” Just, “Is something similar to this potentially feasible?”
1. Move Laird Station (even) further west toward Sutherland,
2. Tunnel south under Laird and then east under Vanderhoof,
3. Construct a “Brentcliffe Station” at the intersection of Brentcliffe and Vanderhoof and, possibly, a bus terminal for routes 54 (maintaining service along Leslie), 51 / 56 (merged or not), and 88 (existing route, just improved with access to new rapid transit).
4. Continue past Vanderhoof (as it eventually curves) and cross the West Don River on a new transit-only bridge,
5. Travel on surface alongside eastbound Don Mills Road (Celestica ramps may require a bridge if they are not removed).
6. Cut and cover into, and including, Don Mills Station. Smaller bus terminal for routes 25, 100, and possibly 162 only.
Steve: You are going some distance out of the way just to create a Brentcliffe Station. Some of the curves you imply are probably rather tight for the standard Flexity vehicles, especially to turn south from Eglinton onto Laird and then east onto Vanderhoof.
LikeLike
Do you know if what Metrolinx “proposes” is a done deal?
Steve: They are conducting public meetings now for a revised EA. Although it’s not absolutely a “done deal”, they are well down that path. Metrolinx has mentioned that an alternative design at Don Mills may allow the Ferrand Drive stop to be retained. This probably involves shifting the Don Mills Station slightly so that there is enough room to ramp back to the surface in time for a Ferrand stop. There is a public meeting at the Science Centre on January 31.
LikeLike
At the January 31 public meeting at the Science Centre, Metrolinx announced that the Ferrand Drive stop would be retained and that there would be no Leslie/Eglinton station. Metrolinx said that surface construction at Leslie would be more expensive than tunneling. The problem was the new high-rise condos being built close to the edge of the valley.
One resident had proposed in December that Metrolinx should push the boring machines across the valley on a viaduct at Leslie to avoid the staging site problem near Brentcliffe. The boring waste would travel back to Don Mills over the viaduct and the viaduct would be part of a surface Leslie LRT station. Metrolinx dismissed the idea. I wonder whether something like this was done at the High Park surface section on the Bloor Danforth line.
Steve: That section of the line was built cut-and-cover and so removing the spoil was not an issue.
Residents in condos on Leslie north of Eglinton would get a combined Leslie/Leaside/Laird bus service via Laird Station with 10 minute frequency in rush hours. There was no mention of the 54 Lawrence East bus running by Leslie & Eglinton. Perhaps people living on Lawrence between Don Mills and Lawrence might also get reduced bus service.
Steve: I have always suspected that the 54 Lawrence East would head directly south on Don Mills, and a new service would handle the area to the west.
The Ward 26 councilor John Parker was at the meeting but not the Ward 25 councillor Jaye Robinson. The Ferrand station is in Ward 25 and the not-to-be-built Leslie station is near the Leslie/Eglinton condos in Ward 25. John Parker said he was happy that the LRT would be all underground from Brentcliffe to Don Mills to avoid traffic congestion there due to construction.
LikeLike
The 162 Donway bus already runs east-west between Don Mills/Lawrence to Yonge/Lawrence by a woefully indirect route (via Park Lane Circle) if they do decide to turn the 54 (Lawrence East) south at Don Mills but the 162 would be very slow. Instead, I think the 54 Lawrence could continue on its current route to the Laird/Eglinton station from westbound on Eglinton via Brentcliffe(S)-Vanderhoof(W)-Laird(N)-Eglinton(E), eliminating any need for a significant new role for the 162.
Steve: That’s another alternative, but the problem is that there is no offstreet loop at Laird Station. Any transfer connection from the LRT to a surface bus would not be very comfortable and would discourage use. Lawrence East is too heavy a bus route for that arrangement.
LikeLike
Addendum to Richard L’s review of the Jan 31 meeting.
1. Metrolinx estimates the cost of adding the Leslie underground station at $80 million. The potential for future development will be only on the north-east corner, so rider-ship will not significantly increase in the future. There were several upset residents of of the Leslie St. condos located at the first bus stop north of Eglinton. These were their comments:
a) The loss of the Leslie stop will be an inconvenience to anyone who wants to visit Wilket Creek Park. Metrolinx is diminishing the social value of people visiting the Park, treating them like second class citizens. It will also be more inconvenient to take bikes to the park with the loss of the LRT station.
b) A bag tax could be imposed in Toronto to make up the $80 million shortfall to add the Leslie underground station.
c) Leslie St condo residents will be worse off since they will lose the overlapping Leslie 51 and Lawrence 54 bus routes running on Leslie St.
The sense of entitlement that these “prima donna” condo owners displayed was appalling! How on earth can they expect all of Toronto to foot the $80 million bill so that they can be one bus stop away from a Leslie underground station?
I ride the Leslie 51 bus every morning from just north of Lawrence to Eglinton station, and then return back in the evening on the Leslie 51 or Lawrence 54. I can count on one hand the number of condo residents that I see getting on, or off at that condo bus stop… in a WEEK!
How many condo owners currently use a Metropass, or at least take transit? Almost none from my observation. Do they expect us to believe that they will walk 450m away (or 5 minutes) to the LRT station? Ok, perhaps they MAY walk downhill, but never uphill. The south end of Leslie is a steep downward slope! Residents are more likely to catch the Leslie/Leaside 51/56 bus which stops in front of their condo. They will use their smartphones to know the next bus’s arrival time . It’s just human nature to be lazy.
A good point that the Metrolinx representative said was that even if the Leslie condo residents have to wait a little longer for the Leslie bus, they will still connect to the rapid transit line much sooner at Laird, rather than waiting until Eglinton station. Therefore, they will be BETTER OFF, not worse off.
Another idea was to place the Leslie Station on an overpass sandwiched between the underground Laird and Leslie stations. I imagine something looking like Yorkdale station. However, I don’t think that even the cost of this project is worthwhile considering the rest of Toronto is begging for transit.
I would hate to see $80 million spent on a white elephant Leslie underground station when there is no money allocated for a connection to the airport. That money would also be better spent on extending the planned Sheppard LRT further east.
I asked how many cars will be run on Eglinton. The Metolinx person said that it “can” run 2 to 3 cars. Each car is 30m long.
I asked whether any accommodation will be made at the Don Mills station for a future connection to a Downtown Relief Line (DRL). The spokesperson said that the DRL was a priority for Metrolinx and they are working closely with the TTC. Without giving us a clear yes or no answer, it sounds to me like a yes, so long as it doesn’t cost a lot of money.
Thanks George N
Steve: Thanks to those who attended this meeting for the update. I was otherwise occupied that evening. The presentation is not yet up on the Crosstown site.
LikeLike
George N – Your comments are spot on. Metrolinx agrees from what I heard at the meeting – informally.
LikeLike
Hi Steve:
I sent an email to Metrolinx asking why the extension to the airport has been cancelled. This is the response I received… hope you find it interesting!
I found that rather amusing seeing as the airport itself is not mentioned… which would probably increase ridership a fair bit given that a TTC ride currently costs $3.00.
I contacted them a second time regarding this, and ended up receiving a phone call from a representative. The representative explicitly told me that the extension was no longer being considered due to the airport rail link being built (I wish I had recorded that conversation!)
Steve: I am going to follow up this issue with Metrolinx. If it is true, it is a damning indictment of their “commitment” to finishing the Transit City projects.
LikeLike
Ron 25 says:
I find the 162 bus to be the fastest way to go between Lawrence Station and Don Mills Centre (about 20-25 minutes). The same trip via the 54 bus and subway takes about twice the time. Although it has only a 30 minute frequency, 162 service is fairly reliable and predictable. Unfortunately, there is no evening, week-end or holiday service.
Steve: And if the TTC had its way, there would be no service at all on that route. Only special pleadings from the school for special needs children kept it running during weekday hours. Otherwise, it would be yet another victim of Ford/Stintz cutbacks.
LikeLike
I had some doubts about the decision to build the line all underground at Leslie. Metrolinx emailed me a reply today that seemed to have details not presented at the public meeting.
I would favour a Leslie LRT station if it could be built cheaply on the surface. But I think spending $80 million for a lightly used underground station is rather difficult to justify.
The rest of this post is the reply from Metrolinx:
LikeLike
Regarding Metrolinx Functional Design Presentation At-Grade Section: Don Mills to Ionview Online Consultation for February 26, 2013
The Wynford LRT platforms are located on opposite sides of a new pedestrian signalized crossing. I believe that the LRT platforms should be reversed so that the FRONT of the trains stop closest to the pedestrian crossing.
This will prevent passengers having to run 30 metres to catch the last train car when there are only 2 cars sets running (instead of 3). Also, the driver will be able to see late arriving passengers on the crossing and can choose to wait for them to board. This change should not cost any more, but will improve convenience for riders.
It is interesting that there are 2 drawings for the Wynford stop. There is the Functional Design drawing, which looks like the existing road configuration. The second drawing shows an “EA” configuration with new DVP on-off ramps. I suppose that the EA option allows for more development in the area? I assume that the EA option will not be built at this time?
Steve: Alternately, trains could stop such that the rear end of the train is close to the crossing. The choice of nearside or farside stops is affected by available road space. As for the new design for Wynford, this eliminates the need to restructure the ramps. Metrolinx has been shaving costs on the line wherever it can. Once it is built, that’s the layout that will remain unless someone decides to restructure the interchange. That would almost certainly be a City project.
LikeLike
Hi Steve,
Regarding: Mount Dennis Mobility Hub Update and Station Design Review (April 10, 2013)
I noticed on page 14 of the pdf presentation that the Eglinton LRT has added a new connection to the GO line intersecting near Leslie. Does this mean that there is a change in plans for a Leslie station?
At the Jan 31 meeting at the Science Centre, Metrolinx removed the Leslie Station because it would be too costly ($80 million) to build. The revised plan is to run the LRT underground between Laird and Don Mills Rd.
In the short term I believe that the Leslie Station is definitely out. However, is there a concrete plan to build an underground Leslie station to connect to the Go line in the future?
What do you think?
Steve: The junction shown on the map is between the Richmond Hill GO line and Eglinton. This crossing occurs east of the DVP in the east branch of the Don River, not at Leslie. Therefore this map does not imply that the Leslie station has been added back to the plan.
LikeLike
Hi Steve,
Looking a bit closer to the map, the Go line intersects the Eglinton LRT east of the DVP… so it can’t be Leslie. I don’t know which LRT station will be accommodating this Go line.
thanks
George
LikeLike
Noticed that Kodak Building No. 9 will be “re-purposed” and the Mount Dennis Mobility Hub has an objective of “enhanced pedestrian/cyclist connectivity”. On hearing of the news that City Hall will be spending $2 million on a bicycle station (that includes lockers, showers, repair shop, etc.), compared with Chicago’s bicycle station that cost $3 million years ago, it got me thinking.
Why not “re-purpose” one or two floors of the Kodak building into a bicycle station?
In fact, why not add a bicycle station at the east end near the Kennedy Station? Maybe York Region could add a bicycle station on one of their Spadina Subway extension stations.
They want “enhanced pedestrian/cyclist connectivity”, so adding bicycle stations may help.
Steve: Page 69 shows a considerable amount of storage for bicycles inside the main station entrance building. I am not so sure about dedicating a few floors of the Kodak building to what would be, effectively, a parking lot for bicycles. Far better that there be uses within this space that encourage all-day pedestrian activity as part of other surrounding new development.
LikeLike
I think this plan is an excellent example of city building led by transit development. I’m hoping a similar revelation occurs at Allen road. Unfortunately that’s a city “asset”.
Steve: There has long been a proposal to deck over the Allen Road and develop above the subway. This should be included in any plans for a future hub at Allen Road.
LikeLike
Vaughan Metropolitan Centre station and Richmond Hill, certainly. Perhaps Black Creek Pioneer Village and definitely York University.
I’m hoping they won’t be building one at 407 station though.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
I’m a cyclist who is enjoying the trails. Perhaps I’m commuting by bicycle to the station. I want to take my bicycle up to the level of Kodak Building No. 9 (and the plaza that will be there) without having to carry my bicycle up three flights of stairs or use the elevator (which I’d prefer to leave for those who really need it).
If a small ramps can be built into the staircase (either a bike staircase to one side or ramps at the outside near the bannisters) … then I can take my bicycle up and down without a problem.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Re: the Mount Dennis mobility hub study: I don’t think that the road narrowing of Eglinton proposed at Black Creek station is a good idea. There are going to be a large number of buses exiting the station there and this proposal will cause them to get stuck in traffic.
LikeLike
At last it appears that Metrolynx is willing to listen to public concerns and modify their plans unlike the TTC. I like the changes that have been made to Weston Station. If this were still the TTC’s project it would be on the surface on the west side of Weston Road.
If Ferrand station is built then will show more willingness to listen to community concerns. To bad they did not demonstrate this with the folks of the Junction. One can only hope that they will build all the lines eventually.
LikeLike
I’m assuming that there still is a shaft for an elevator at the Kodak Plant No. 9. Likely the elevator is no condition to run and would need replacement. Don’t know the condition of the basement, but likely part of that would connect with the underground walkway system at the Mount Dennis Station and Mobility Hub.
I can imagine different levels of the bicycle parking over a couple of floors (two levels of bikes on each floor?) in the building, with maybe showers (to rinse off the film from cycling) and lockers on top level out of sight of commuters with their Kodak Brownies.
We’ll see what develops.
LikeLike