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 
Speaking of “done deals”, my brother was at the Green Living Show this weekend and was rather surpised to discover Metrolinx presenting the Crosstown and associated projects. Any lingering doubts about vehicles might be laid to rest by the fact that they were displaying a lit final-version mock-up of the other new LFLRV in all its green glory and were even handing out cardboard models. It would have been nice if there’d been a little more promotion about this event. I will send you the photo my brother took of the mockup when he gets it to me. (The cardboard models will remain on my shelf however.)
[This comment has been moved from the Leslie Barns thread.]
LikeLike
Transit Toronto now posted on the Metrolinx display.
LikeLike
I attended a roundtable recently where it was suggested that Metrolinx get both of the LFLRV mockups, put them on low flatbed trucks, and drive them along Finch West, Sheppard East, Eglinton and Hurontario for some mobile marketing.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Have to say that I was impressed by the Mt Dennis slide deck. I am new to discussing this type of planning, but like the idea that they considered the 5 adjacent areas and opening day and long term plan options for the area and how to intensify.
Makes me very excited for the Crosstown.. is anyone else worried/skeptical that a CON or NDP winning gov’t could scrap this and the other 3 LRT projects? Are any of them in stone until they open or what is the pt of no return?
Steve: Sheppard and Finch have not even started beyond some preliminary work. The underground portion of Eglinton will probably survive a change of government, but forget about the piece east of Don Mills. As for the SRT rebuild, it will be shut down because of technological failure, but there will be no money to extend the “Scarborough Subway”.
LikeLike
About the last remark from Moaz. I think that many citizens would take rotten tomatoes and eggs in their hands and throw them at the flat beds. Most citizens around the surface route do not know, what is in store for them. (90m length of the trains plus length and width of required platforms were never fully explained) – and I really like rail vehicles and traffic.
LikeLike
That’s exactly what I think is going to happen. And you can probably rule out the Downtown Relief Line as well.
LikeLike
hmmm…
I guess I’m not sure what to think or say about the DRL. The first thing that has to go is the name because it’s really an East York/Scarborough express/relied/increased capacity line….
I really am trying to “understand” and approach the viewpoints of all councillors in an open-minded fashion as I learn more about urban & transportation planning alongside politics. I get that the people north (Richmond Hill) and east (Scarberia/Markham) feel that they don’t get the same amount of transit investment. From a completely blind and ignorant perspective, the $s don’t equate to the portion of their population, and they are underserved by both TTC & GO, whereas Etobicoke, has few higher-order transit options, but at least has more frequent GO lines etc.
That being said, I just can’t understand how the logic is not understood that the Yonge line can’t handle any more passengers. Full stop. there isn’t a debate on this. Any councillor who rides the Yonge line during daylight hours (beyond rush hour), should see this is OBVIOUS.
Although, perhaps it’s not obvious because at the Yonge/Shep Line connection point, there isn’t a capacity issue so the issue appears downstream of this?
I just moved back to TO after a decade abroad, living in Waterloo, Manchester UK, Austin TX & Calgary AB. It’s nice to see open and [relatively] intelligent debate from across the spectrum vs. the latent bias on the overly left or right like some of the other places I’ve lived, but we are constantly shooting ourselves in the foot by rejigging transit plans every year.
Finally, I missed this, but can someone v. quickly summarize how RFord was able to kill TransitCity on his first day in office?? Wouldn’t this have to go through a council vote first? It seems like there would easily be the majority on council to keep any transit plans in place?
Steve: The reason “any councillor” didn’t see the problem with the Yonge line is that for years, the TTC maintained the fiction that they did not need the DRL, and that future growth could be accommodated with extra capacity on the existing route. This attitude was closely linked to political pressure to focus on suburban expansion, not on another “downtown” subway. If they had called it the “Don Mills” line, half the problem would have been solved up front. The TTC was able to put off the crisis with subway capacity only because of the big drop in riding during the 1990s. If this had not happened, we would have continued the situation from the late 80s when the system was bursting at the seams, and more capacity would have been an absolute requirement. The TTC’s anti-DRL stance through all of this did major harm to Toronto’s transit network that will take at least a decade to repair.
As for Rob Ford, he did not have the authority to cancel Transit City, but got away with it through sheer bull-headedness and the spineless “mushy middle” on Council who tried to placate him. His strategic flaw was that he never asked Council to confirm this position, and when the tide turned, a pro-transit city stance was still the official position. It was reaffirmed by Council last year during the transit coup that saw Ford lose control of the agenda on that file. Queen’s Park didn’t help by playing along with Ford even though Council had not passed a motion supporting him. I suspect they were hoping to get out of having to build at least some of the planned LRT network to which they had “committed”.
LikeLike
Last I looked Richmond Hill was not part of Toronto so the TTC does not provide service for them. If the good burghers of York region want a subway then let them pay for it, not Toronto. The Yonge subway is standing room only from Finch. It is impossible to get a seat after Finch and most are taken by riders from York. Every 905 rider is being subsidized by the residents of Toronto to the tune of $0.70 per ride. The Yonge Subway should be extended to Steeles only to get the herds of buses off Yonge. Until the province is willing to subsidize transit service in all municipalities the TTC should not offer any special fare reduction to those from 905. Let the 905 municipalities reduce their fare to give their citizens a break.
Etobicoke has 3 GO lines but I would not call it frequent service or higher order. The Kitchener Line has one stop, Etobicoke North, and Milton has one, Kipling, which is at the subway station. Both of these lines are rush hour only. Lakeshore West has 2 stations, Mimico and Long Branch with the latter just barely inside Etobicoke. Scarborough has 4 stations on Lakeshore East, Scarborough, Eglinton, Guildwood and Rouge Hill with all day service and the Uxbridge line has 4 stations with limited service, Kennedy, Agincourt, Milliken and Unionville.
The province and Metrolynx need to improve the subsidy levels to all transit services before there can be any serious talk of fare integration that actually reduces the cost for people who ride from 905 into 416. The people don’t want higher taxes yet they want better and cheaper transit. This is only possible in Ford’s fantasy land,or maybe it’s also possible in Hudak’s version of reality.
LikeLike
Aren’t most of the subways (with the exception of Sheppard) revenue positive? I was under the impression that the transit subsidy is going towards bus routes which are not revenue neutral, as well as the Sheppard line.
Steve: There is no reliable data on the profitability of individual lines in a flat fare system like Toronto’s. Years ago, the TTC attempted to allocate revenue to routes, but this produced all manner of distortion. Here are two examples of what they did:
If revenue is allocated per passenger mile, then a trip contributes “revenue” to routes based on how far someone travels, not on how much they actually paid. The effect was that long trips “paid” more than the riders actually did, and short trips paid far less. Revenue was disproportionately allocated to long route segments and especially to the subway.
Then the TTC modified this scheme to attempt to take into account the one-seat rides, and allocated a full fare for each of those with the rest being divided between the routes. This didn’t work well either because the method of division was based on “boardings” — every time you change vehicles, you count as a new boarding. The average TTC trip (trust me on this) involves two boardings, but many involve three or more (again typically the long ones), and revenue was overallocated to the longer trips.
Things get even more complex with the inclusion of monthly passes where the number of trips taken can be quite high, but the revenue is fixed. Any model that allocates revenue to individual trips on an average basis will probably overstate the revenue due to passholders like me who take many more trips than we “pay for” based on the token fare. As passholders now account for half of all adult travel, this is not a trivial problem.
In the latter days when P&L figures were still published, there was a phenomenon that short routes, or routes that effectively were two or more independent route segments pasted together, were always hugely profitable. The reason was that the average trip taken on any of them was always only a few km, and so the cost per trip was very low. However, if a “boarding” worth of fare was allocated, the route made money on paper. Oddly enough this did not prompt the TTC to run better service as they based frequency on demand, not on fictional P&L numbers.
Returning to the subway, it has zillions of riders all day long on the main parts of the routes, and this generally “pays for itself”. The situation is much different on the outer parts of the network where riding density, especially off peak, is much lower and unidirectional. The Spadina extension poses a particular challenge because many of its future riders are already on the TTC and will not contribute net new revenue. The situation will be even more difficult if, by 2016, Presto has been implemented together with some sort of blended cross-border fare. The TTC could wind up with even less new revenue than they are currently projecting.
That’s a long answer, I know, but I thought it worthwhile to get the basics of route economics back out on the table again.
LikeLike
Although there is no all-day or two-way GO Train service on these lines, there is all-day and two way bus service. That service has (presumably) been determined by GO to be adequate for the existing level of demand and the existing subsidy.
I understand that GO buses do not come close to the service that GO trains offer, but we have to ask whether it would be better to have GO buses running two way, all-day service every 15-20 minutes or a 4-6 car GO train every hour.
If there are trains every hour, we cannot expect GO stations to become serious connection points for local transit or densely developed ‘mobility hubs’ in the way Metrolinx is looking. We will be limited to massive parking lots and parking structures instead. But if we can have frequent buses, that can motivate that development and change that the GTHA needs.
We will have to wait some years until 2-way all-day GO service reaches the GTHA. Should we not do something in the meantime to build confidence in regional and local transit?
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
thanks for all the great comments and discussion. I am glad that i am now subscribed to this blog, and happy I got to meet Steve briefly at the downtown TO Metrolinx roundtable a few months back and hopefully will interact with more of you going forward… tho as soon as they release Sim City 5 for the Mac, I may become a hermit in my fantasy land for a few months 🙂
My above comment was not that I support the anti-DRL opinion but to understand further the drive and need to placate Scarborough/Richmond Hill before what makes logical sense.
I personally feel that a Toronto/TTC-centric stance does more harm than good and as we know, Toronto is the place most Canadians love to hate (even in this region which depends so much on the city). So YES, we need to consider the needs of the adjacent suburbs if we want to solve the regional congestion issue. The whole Toronto-Hamilton CMA is approaching 7M people, and most people venture outside their municipality often and we all benefit as a region from any growth.
The other thing unique about our region is that GTHA has a transit SUPPLY issue whereas most North American cities have a demand issue, and need to convince/justify people that investing in transit is good AND to try and get them on it. I don’t remember where I read it, but I thought that with the new record for TTC riders in 2012, the TTC was running an operating surplus through the farebox? (i’ll have to figure out where i read that, could swear it went to council and they had to discuss/request what to do with the extra funds).
Steve: No, the TTC did not run a surplus. What happened was that ridership was stronger than projected and so fare revenue was up, while service was based mainly on the original lower projection. Also, some expenses such as diesel fuel came in lower than projected. The TTC as a result required less subsidy than projected, but still needed about $400m to make up the difference between expenses and revenues. The “surplus” was a reduction in the expected spending by the city to subsidize the TTC.
For regional extension to the TTC, it was my understanding that the Spadina/Vaughan extension was being paid 60% by Toronto, and 40% by York region? (not sure how the prov/fed funds play into this weighting).
Steve: The split is 1/3 from Ottawa, 1/3 from Queen’s Park and 1/3 from the municipalities. Of that last share, Toronto pays 60% and York 40% based on the relative length of the extension within their borders. However, Toronto will take all of the revenue and bear all of the cost of the entire extension’s operation, and this is expected to add $14m annually to the TTC’s deficit.
For the DRL, I have heard rumours that Minister Murray is going to put some budget aside in the 2013 budget for this project, and that the Metrolinx suggested tools due out this summer will only play into the 2014 budget. I wonder if this grand plan of the Liberals is to save some face and push out as many contentious issues as possible so they can rebuild credibility and confidence with the public in their minority stance.
Steve: I have not heard this, but at any rate funding at this early stage would only be for detailed engineering studies which certainly would be worthwhile. The budget will be out in the next few months, and then we will know for sure. Murray has been a strong supporter of the DRL.
I haven’t lived in ON much during Dalton’s tenure, but it sounds like he did a lot of good (contrary to popular opinion) but the last couple years really fell apart. Sounds like the new team is pretty awesome.
Last thing, I would love to hear thoughts from anyone regarding Hudak’s suggestion to amalgamate all 11 transit agencies into one super regional agency. This is something that NYC has.. London too (I think, tho not sure of same definition), and to me sounds like a good way of aligning all the regional priorities. Of course, as with the mega-city, bigger isn’t always better when it comes to allocating funds, but right now I see some merit in that…
that was alot. I’m sorry, but I’m excited to discuss with all you smart urban dev/transit people 🙂
Steve: A super agency is the last thing we need. In fact even some large systems like NYC and London have component parts. The big difference here is that the TTC is huge compared to all of the other systems including GO Transit. If there were an amalgamation without some mechanism for a “local option” about service quality, Toronto could see drastic cuts in service if the regional agency didn’t want to have higher standards for transit in the 416 than elsewhere. Amalgamation proposals from the Tories are nothing more than pandering to “Ford Nation” who would love to unload the TTC on Queen’s Park to get rid of the subsidy cost, and in the process undermine the local support and political base for good transit throughout the city.
When Queen’s Park and the regions start to talk seriously about funding good transit in the 905, then we might, and only might, have a basis for discussion. However, in the meantime, the biggest barrier to better regional service is the lack of support for transit funding and a region built around travel by automobile.
LikeLike
This service is great if you wish to get to Union Station from but it does not provide much in the way of local service along the train line, try getting from Mount Pleasant to Etobicoke North or Weston. I have use the express bus service from Brampton to Toronto and it is good but my daughter worked at Humber River Regional Hospital in Weston and could take the GO train when it ran but when she worked weekends or weird shifts she had to drive. GO’s off peak service, “Train Bus,” ignores the market that does not have one end of its trip at Union. Perhaps it is time that they learned the meaning of “NETWORK”.
LikeLike
Steve notes: Rick is a member of the community group in Weston/Mount Dennis who have been wrestling with GO/Metrolinx over various issues in the rail and LRT corridors for many years.
The MSF being planned for 165+/- vehicles, but Crosstown only uses 97 and the rest are Jane LRT and Airport extension. In our understanding the latter are not on anyone’s priority list for the next 34 Billion $ in transit expansion, or next 30 years, if they ever will be. This means track siting should be more flexible that Metrolinx says it is. We asked for them to arc the route from the Black Creek tunnel exit to the north side the Kodak Employees Building to make more room for avenues development along the frontage of the Kodak lands, and to intensify the MSF site with other transit related industry of institutional uses like a campus.
Besides responding that altering the route would add unnecessary travel time (laughable) they said they are doing the reference design to accommodate all the trains, and terrain does not permit them to bridge across the Black Creek, spur up to the Kodak yards and run the main line under the Georgetown Corridor given the assumption they need such a land commitment for storage. No one on the design team gives a hoot that it is pure speculation and an abomination to intentionally let employment lands sit idle beside a priority neighbourhood when they used to be a workplace for 2500 people.
We think distant future storage requirements for distant future trains can be dealt with in someone else’s industrial back yard once the need becomes real. It is more important to plan for leveraging the quarter Billion $ transit investment in the yards for economic revitalization for Mount Dennis.
Next, the Kodak Employees Building … Last time around on the Kodak Lands, the previous owner Metrus Properties announced they were giving the Kodak Employees Building to the City for community purposes. Metrolinx seems to have overlooked this history, and is planning 50 % of the building to be devoted to a transit station, and have considered marketing the balance commercially. This, frankly put, is incredibly poor public relations in a have-not community.
As to setting back the retaining wall which you described as an advancement, I have a different take on it. In December, Metrolinx had artists renderings of a wonderful glass gallery for the western station entrance that engaged at street level. It would appear they forgot to consider how much room the trains would need.
Now they have shifted the end of the station box so it sits blocking street level entry at the west side, and the 2012 glass gallery has magically transformed this year into an enclosed elevator to enable people to get over the box into an entrance from above. Instead of the Eglinton Corridor having multi lanes of traffic and a retaining wall, we now have multi lanes of traffic plus 3 and at one point 4 sets of parallel tracks (yes, count them) and a retaining wall. Despite the dedicated bike path and green wall/art installations (for me, lipstick on a pig comes to mind when you consider what could be designed for the hub by shifting the tracks north), this plan reinforces the Eglinton corridor as an inhospitable concrete canyon between Mount Dennis and Black Creek Drive .
One last point for now: Energy planning anyone? Gee, with running electric trains and having both a station and an MSF, perhaps some sensitivity toward sustainable transportation design might be devoted to — dare we say it — putting a solar farm on the MSF roof top and across the massive storage yard. There are 40 acres of power generating opportunity here, and people at Metrolinx seem happy to repetitively state “LEED Silver” as the panacea. Maybe the good folks at Ryerson Building Sciences and Centre for Urban Energy can help us?
LikeLike
This was alluded to earlier and I’ve heard a number of times that Toronto is subsidizing transit locally in the region.
Someone mentioned above “Every 905 rider is being subsidized by the residents of Toronto to the tune of $0.70 per ride.”
Someone also mentioned the tune of $20m (or was it $40m) is given from Toronto the the other regions for transit? How is it that Ford nation hasn’t lost their mind over this?
Can someone please explain this, point me to a link or provide a little bit more background…
Steve: The 70-cent figure is easy. In round numbers, the TTC collects $1-billion in fares and carries 500m riders. This means that the average fare paid by a rider is $2. However, the total cost of operating the system includes roughly $400m worth of subsidy or 70 cents per rider spread over that 500m. The money comes mainly from the Toronto tax base with a small contribution from provincial gas tax.
As a condition of receiving that gas tax, Toronto is required to contribute to GO Transit’s capital program, and did so in 2013 at a cost of $20m. So on one hand, Queen’s Park gives the city money to support local transit, and then claws some of it back to pay for its own regional system.
LikeLike
I have been counting them, albeit from the low resolution drawing and I cannot find the third and fourth track.
Many times in the past we have complained that agencies have not made adequate provisions for the future. The TTC is running into storage problems for its subways because they do not have yard capacity where it is needed. If they had kept the Six points land they would not be in as much difficulty as they are. It will be difficult to get vacant land in the future near one of the transit corridors. I cannot find fault with planning ahead. The problem you will have in the future is keeping the existing industrial lands for industries. Having a hub where 2 major transit facilities meet will eventually put pressure on these lands for more development. I realize that this area is in need of more jobs but I don’t think shrinking the MSF is the answer.
I have major problems with plans to install solar panels. They are expensive and do not generate power when it is most needed and electricity is not easily stored. The province’s current feed in tariffs are not sustainable in the long run. Solar electricity is good for stand alone applications such as flashing light at remote locations.
Steve: The TTC gave up its land at the Six Points so that Etobicoke could fulfill its manifest destiny with a “downtown” to rival the other suburbs. You may have noticed that nothing has happened there, although the upcoming reconfiguration of the Bloor-Dundas-Kipling interchange back to a level road junction may finally jump start this redevelopment.
Weston and Mount Dennis have bigger problems than will be solved by artificially constraining the size of the MSF.
LikeLike
Exactly … and one wonders why Metrolinx seems to have overlooked this area of their scope in the face of the need to build more infrastructure (First Wave) and secure more revenue tools in order to build more infrastructure (Next Wave).
There should be a huge department in Metrolinx focusing on streamlining fares, getting rid of double-fare boundaries and other artificial barriers to service, and enhancing short-distance local and building that network of long distance regional service.
I am sure that there are some people who are working on this but they need to have a higher profile.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Blast from the past! I remember attending the public meeting about the options for the reconfiguration. It was 10 years ago.
How ‘upcoming’ is the reconfiguration?
Frankly, I cannot believe that the current Executive will be interested in moving forward on that reconfiguration project.
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: As far as I can tell, it’s not moving along particularly quickly. One problem may lie in getting developers’ interest in building on the new land parcels to be created.
LikeLike
How do you go from 2′ headways to 3′ headways at Don Mills station?
You’d have to turn 2 trains out of every 3, and also run 50% of the trains between Don Mills and Kennedy, so they only run between those two.
Or you short-turn every third train, and then let a train sit somewhere for 1-minute to adjust service.
I’m surprised they don’t plan for 4-minute service between Kennedy and Don Mills, and see if they can get away with that …
Please tell me they thought about this enough to have put a third platform in Don Mills … or is going to be yet another disaster like Downsview, Finch, Kennedy and Kipling currently are.
Steve: The detailed design for the east end of the line are not out yet, but I suspect there is a pocket track at Don Mills.
A 2′ headway (30 trains per hour) needs a turnback of one train in three to reduce it to 3′ (20 trains per hour). Such a scheme means that there will be uneven headways outbound from Don Mills to Kennedy. Inbound, there will probably be some shuffling if a steady 3′ westbound headway from Kennedy shifts to alternating 2’/4′ to fit in that third train.
TTC terminal operations are a mess because most of the time the trains have too much running time, and they back up at the approaches to terminals. Oddly enough, there are periods when they seem to not have enough time because of all the across-the-platform crew changes that happen after the peak periods. The whole thing cries out for a detailed operational review and simulation of alternative strategies.
LikeLike
According to an ad in today’s Metro newspaper there will be another Metrolinx
Steve: Thanks for picking up on this. The announcement is not yet on the Crosstown project’s site.
In December, Metrolinx announced that the both the Ferrand and Leslie LRT stations would be eliminated. In January, Metrolinx restored the Ferrand Station but still eliminated the Leslie Station. The line would be tunneled from Laird to Don Mills.
However in February, the City of Toronto had a public meeting about the redesign of Eglinton Avenue after the construction of the LRT. On one of the slides at the meeting was an artist’s rendition of an LRT emerging from the Brentcliffe tunnel portal in the Leslie Street valley. I asked the consultants: Hadn’t Metrolinx already decided on a tunnel there? Two consultants said it had not yet been decided. Could it be that it was technically decided but not yet politically decided???
In a newsletter, Ward 25 Councillor Jaye Robinson says she wants an underground Leslie LRT Station because:
Considering how the station would be mostly surrounded by parkland, this sounds like a substantial political embellishment.
Steve: A “political embellishment” is a good way to put this. I think that the disappearance of Leslie Station is more or less decided, although as you note there is a difference between “technical” and “political” decisions. That said, it is an excellent object lesson in the effect on station viability that underground construction triggers. Metrolinx, faced with issues about using the Brentcliffe launch site, made virtue of necessity by staying underground to Don Mills. This gives them the option of never building the line further east if the political winds change at Queen’s Park.
LikeLike
I think this reflects a feeling that many have with Metrolinx … that they’re building ‘ways out’ into their planning.
It would not too much of a surprise if Metrolinx were considering the possibility of not building east beyond Don Mills and being prepared for such a scenario. If that were to happen, then it would (presumably) require changes to the design of the station concourse and bus bays to accommodate transfers to buses … including, hopefully, an Eglinton East ‘Rocket’ service … hopefully using artic buses.
If, somehow, the PCs win a future election and decide to convert the LRT to subway and not build East of Don Mills … could it be done? I know the tunnels will be larger than a subway needs, so that is not an issue … and platform designs would need changing but construction has not started …
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: Don Mills Station (on Eglinton) will have a multi-bay terminal on the northeast corner according to plans in the EA. I suspect this could be pushed to handle the services that would feed into a line terminating here. Converting the LRT to subway really is a waste of time, in the sense of a technology change, but they might opt to stay underground to Kennedy. However, that’s very expensive for a section of the route that will have lighter ridership especially without through-routed service from the SRT.
LikeLike
@Steve
Thanks for the comment! I appreciate the long response, it was both informative and helpful.
Steve: You’re welcome!
LikeLike
The pessimist in me sees them scrapping the whole Eglinton LRT and replacing it with a subway starting at Eglinton West station and going all the way to Pearson. It’s almost the same distance, and they can then cram the avenue with condos, same price tag far greater return on investment.
Steve: Actually, a subway would likely have widely-spaced stations, and “cramming” would occur only at those nodes, at best. A surface LRT from Jane to the airport will be much less expensive than a subway.
LikeLike
A couple of months ago, I asked Metrolinx why phase 2 (the extension from Jane to the airport) no longer appears on the official website. Here was their response:
What do you guys think?
Steve: The airport deserves hundreds of millions spent on a premium fare shuttle service to downtown, but not an LRT line that would connect the entire central portion of the city for a regular fare. Such are Metrolinx’ priorities.
LikeLike
I think Metrolinx needs to completely rethink their reluctance to the extension of Eglinton to the Airport:
1. The area SOUTH of the airport is a huge employment area, being served by the shiny new Mississauga BRT. Reverse commuting will continue to grow with residential growth in Toronto.
2. The original Big Move report makes a very good point about the lack of overall E-W capacity. Nothing in their current plans addresses this: no Eglinton based Mississauga connection, abandonment of any connections between Yonge and Spadina Subway lines north of Eglinton (no Downsview extension of Sheppard subway and Finch is truncated at Dufferin).
3. GO Transit won’t be able to address this need – even if using CP rail through mid-town was possible (it won’t be), no alternatives are being offered except way up on the 407.
Standing on the site of the much needed Renforth transit hub 10 years from now, all you will hear are crickets and slow moving traffic on a very congested 401.
LikeLike
I know that extending the LRT to the airport is by far the best solution. I was wondering how feasible is it to run a Bus Rapid Transit route from Weston road to the airport? Would it be cheaper than the LRT? Could it be used to build up the ridership, which is what Metrolinx seems to be concerned with?
Steve: It would be possible, but the whole question of airport access has been to make it easy. A forced transfer at Weston to a bus route just adds to the annoyance.
Metrolinx talks a good game with their “Mobility Hubs” but is strangely reluctant to serve what they describe as one of the most important in the region. Either it’s an important location, or it’s not. I wish they would make up their minds.
LikeLike
Moaz:
Metrolinx has made it clear that they are committed to offering UPEx as a premium express service but not saying much about offering a parallel non-express rail service. Even in Kuala Lumpur their KLIA Airport Express was designed to offer both an Express and Transit train service … sharing the same tracks with bypass tracks at stations.
It goes without saying that there needs to be a frequent GO train service running 2-way+all day on the Kitchener line and a station at Eglinton. Can the UPex line be designed to include a “transit” service along with the express? If not, then build a service to connect the airport to Woodbine and build a station there.
Moaz: The irony here is that the Renforth Gateway report described the site as ‘fully urbanized’…
If anything, Metrolinx should be expected to cover the extra cost of offering a ‘quality bus’ service on Eglinton west of Weston Road … if not an LRT but something better than buses operating in mixed traffic. Building the Renforth Gateway and extending the LRT to Jane as soon as possible are obvious expectations.
Perhaps GO Transit can be compelled to offer a limited-stop GO bus as a branch of the 403 bus service service along Eglinton to reach a future GO station at Eglinton and Black Creek … but this pre-supposes a frequent 2-way all-day GO service on the Kitchener line.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
I know that this isn’t set in stone but doesn’t the recent Mt. Dennis slide set indicate a long term plan for a new GO station at end of Eg LRT?
Also, I get that we need more/easier access to the airport but I really don’t find the BD line to 192 that bad even in rush hour. Can easily get from Donlands station to Pearson in about an hour reliably. Never seen a busy bus and usually minimal wait times/headway in my exp. How does it rate?
Are we at the point where there is a justified need for LRT to replace through Etobicoke? Is there an express service from the U-S line or you have to go via BD line? Will new Finch LRT also have a connector to airport?
Steve: The issues with the airport are not just that there are many passengers travelling through it, but a large employment node at the airport and the immediate vicinity. Access from a wide range is needed, not just from downtown. Yes, there is provision for a future GO Mt. Dennis Station, but that is separate from the airport service especially if the GO operation continues to be a low-capacity, premium fare service.
The Finch LRT line in a future extension was to enter the airport from the northeast, and would provide a link to the northwest part of Toronto.
A bus now and then from Kipling Station is not the sort of airport access we are told so many times we need, but all that is actually on the table right now is a needlessly expensive shuttle service to downtown.
LikeLike
@Steve
I agree 100% that the LRT is by far the better option, and the transfer is certainly an annoyance. As it stands now though the LRT not likely to be built in the near future, and people are going to have to transfer to buses that operate in mixed traffic.
If we had to choose between having the buses operate in mixed traffic from Weston road to the airport and building a BRT as an intern solution, which would be preferable?
Are the costs associated with building a BRT along this route cheaper than extending the LRT, or are they comparable to each other? What would be the timeframe for building BRT, compared to extending the LRT? How much financial support would the City of Toronto need in order to get it built?
Steve: Actually, the question needs to be reframed slightly. One of the big problems LRT schemes run into with suburban politicians is that they will take road space. Inevitably, proposals for “BRT” morph into “BRT Lite” which means buses get priority, sometimes, maybe, if we can spare a lane now and then, but don’t count on it. This is only marginally better than mixed traffic. That is also an issue for the airport access because I have not seen any comparison of actual access times for riders to the airport itself or to surrounding employment nodes for the various schemes that have been proposed.
To answer your question, it depends on what you want to build. If a BRT infrastructure were designed for easy conversion to LRT, then it might be a workable interim arrangement. Otherwise, we will wind up with a half-baked airport service and people will wonder for years to come why there is a transfer connection in such an out-of-the-way location as Mt. Dennis.
LikeLike
Steve, I was just on the Crosstown website and noted they now want to move Laird Station back to Brentcliffe!?!? I work at Brencliffe and Vanderhoof and they may want to check out the fact that a huge development is planned for that corner-very soon. But more to the point are they just constantly amending the EA to show a facade of activity? Have you spoken to anyone at Metrolinx about this dog and pony show? Changing left turns from the original proposal would be nice, but I feel they are obsessed with the subway portion to the exclusion of all else.
I would like to place my bet on the Toronto Transit Fantasy Pool – 2023 we have a private consortium led by Bombardier running ART on Eglinton and we are on the hook for the subsidy, with no say over contract management. I really wish we had pro-transit, anti-metrolinx candidates – but I guess if you are anti-metrolinx you would be pro-transit.
Steve: I was at last night’s community meeting and will be updating this article later today with my observations on the latest scheme.
LikeLike
I was at the Crosstown presentation about the change from Laird to Brentcliffe, which makes sense to me but a lot of what presented were bike lanes and park trails that have not been considered at all and there was no real plan for them. The continued absence of a Leslie Station on the new plan brought out the most questions and statements from the public with a general hypothesis being that development will happen so a station should be there.
Metrolinx personnel pointed out that station placement is not based on what might be but on what can be justified. In this case, the key station is at Don Mills and Eglinton and there is a lot of space for development where the ultimate extension of the DRL should meet the Crosstown – and it’s not park land. Leslie and Eglinton is 3/4 park land and development should be discouraged.
As for transit, the plan to have the 54 Lawrence turn at Don Mills instead of Leslie should be reconsidered – and will be eventually. The simple solution is to have the westbound 54 go south on Leslie then east on Eglinton to Don Mills Station. Then the condo dwellers, local residents, park users and commuters of the future will get frequent service and connection to the Don Mills station without a significant travel time penalty to through passengers on the 54 from Scarborough. Don Mills Road is well-seved by the 25 already. And those who want the Leslie station will have a bus at their doorstep.
LikeLike
Ok, so just for comparison’s sake, how would a full BRT route from Weston Road to the airport compare with the LRT in terms of cost, speed, construction time, routing etc.?
Steve: I’m not going to work up a detailed costing here, but the back of a very small envelope would have to answer a few questions. How much road space are you willing to give over to a BRT right-of-way, as opposed to widening the whole road where possible? How to you plan to provide a priority route into the airport (the LRT involves an elevated structure)?
For what it’s worth:
The Mississauga BRT is 18km long and was costed at $259-million (2006$) ($14m/km).
The York-VIVA Rapidways are 41km for $1.4-billion (2008$) ($34m/km).
The Dundas BRT is 40km long and is projected to cost $600m (2014$) ($15m/km).
The Durham-Scarborough BRT is 36km long and is projected to cost $500m (2014$) ($13.9m/km).
Those are only capital costs. The operating costs, however, become a problem when we project this out to a peak ridership of several thousand, and depending on the service pattern through Etobicoke. If the line develops a great deal of nearby residential density, then it won’t just be providing an express, line-haul function from the airport to Mt. Dennis. This affects service frequency, peak vehicle requirements and station designs.
LRT, with larger trains, can carry more people than BRT, assuming that the demand is there in the first place. There is also the benefit of eliminating the transfer connection. As an observation, I am always amused how advocates of subway extensions always talk about the convenience of an avoided transfer, but oddly LRT projects are supposed to stop dead in their tracks at the first whiff of a BRT option.
All figures taken from the website for The Big Move.
LikeLike
I thought the switch to tunnelling to Don Mills was made because it was the easiest option to design – requiring simply extending the tunnel. A few of Metrolinx’s reasons for changing were stability north of Eglinton, and long-term traffic disruptions during construction – both of which would not be a concern if a south side alignment was chosen. It is also interesting that they put an estimate on the cost to build a deep station at Leslie, but did not quantify the amount or cost or removing contaminated soil. By having the LRT at-grade would require some removal of contaminated soil, bridge work, tunnels through CPR embankment, and relocation of Celestica ramps – a lot of extra design effort, but I still think it would be a cheaper since these are less unique construction activities and a faster option because several contractors with different skills could work simultaneously.
Steve: The LRT at grade would run in the middle of Eglinton. The reference to a tunnel at the CPR and relocation of the Celestica ramps was for an elevated alignment along the south side of Eglinton, an option suggested at an earlier meeting but rejected because of its complexity.
LikeLike
I find the whole BRT vs BRT lite discussion one of the most frustrating issues relating to transit in general, let alone Toronto. I’ve had variants of this numerous times, but I recall a recent discussion with Waterfront Toronto staff who were somewhere between unwilling and unable to even vaguely articulate what they meant by BRT in reference to Queens Quay and the Port Lands, or where they expected to gain significant savings compared to light rail (fair enough that there are, at least on Queens Quay with BRT delaying the tunnel portal, but the point is what the planners were actually able to discuss at the time the BRT option became public). The lack of understanding is one thing, and is quite obvious in other areas (LRT vs streetcars vs whatever you want to call Buffalo’s line anyone?) but with BRT there is a whole new level of damage being done, between the extremely limited versions of it that get promoted and the adoption of it as the one size fits all system by certain groups who end up seeming more transit averse than financially responsible.
In terms of solutions there really aren’t any, but I would like to get in a plug for the term rapid bus being a better descriptor of BRT lite. Most of all though I’d call on Steve (who’s pretty good about it) and his readers to ALWAYS specify what they mean when they talk about BRT. If talking about light rail is problematic without specificity BRT is utterly meaningless (other, I suppose, than to say that it is, in some way, more than a local bus).
Steve: Yes, “BRT” is a slippery term that seems to mean whatever the speaker wants it to. It is common to hear references to BRT success stories elsewhere that are taken completely out of context with implementations that are totally different from whatever might be under discussion.
The situation of Queens Quay basically is that the cost of upgrading Union Loop and building the connecting tunnel from Bay to Freeland street now exceed Waterfront Toronto’s available budget. However, a Queens Quay east “BRT” cannot be easily connected north to Union Station because of road limitations. What was particularly galling was that some at Waterfront Toronto and TTC seemed quite content to leave Queens Quay East with little better than the Bay bus in an area that was supposed to be a showcase for transit oriented development.
This is what happens when we lose the impetus and focus of a Mayor who won’t accept second or third rate transit “solutions”.
LikeLike
The only sentiment that I can write tonight is that I am sickened and offended by Metrolinx’s continued nonsense regarding the station spacing and locations east of Yonge Street.
I have no confidence in Metrolinx’s so-called professional judgement to construct a rapid transit line along Eglinton, or anywhere else for that matter.
It particularly concerns me that Premier Wynne now, and in her former capacity as Minister of Transportation, has allowed rapid transit through her own riding to be designed without any true consideration for the needs of her constituents. If she has ever raised any concerns, clearly she has done so very quietly and without any sense of immediacy.
I think that the political representatives of Don Valley West: municipal, provincial, and federal (ha!) are nearly completely absent on the transit file as it impacts Leasiders and the residents of the Leslie Street condos, except for pandering to the needs of a minority of higher income Flemingdon Park residents living on the island that is Ferrand Drive.
This is a sad stewardship of the public interest and of public funds. I now have no doubt in my mind that our area will be getting an almost useless Eglinton Crosstown Line in 2020. I’d rather nothing be built east of Yonge than to throw good money after bad to fund construction of this nonsense.
LikeLike
Moaz: The plan exists but as Steve has pointed out, there isn’t enough detail and timelines for the Mt. Dennis (presumably that will be the name) station and mobility hub.
The other issue is the type of service that will be provided. Residents in the area wanted something that is closer to a surface subway, but Metrolinx has made it clear that they want to have that premier rail link.
Perhaps residents need to push for a parallel rail service that will take the place of the proposed DRL west lines.
Moaz: The lands south and NE of the Airport and highway 401 are very important nodes that need service from both east and west. TTC, MiWay and Brampton Transit need to build up service in the area with strong links to both rapid transit and local transit. MiWay and Brampton have expansion plans but TTC has to offer something too. They need to announce something for Eglinton West of Weston very soon, especially when the Mississauga BRT/transitway opens up.
Moaz: Steve, I’m presuming that you meant “especially if the *UPEx* operation continues to be a low-capacity, premium fare service.”
Can GO offer a high-frequency (better than 20 minute) rapid transit service on the Kitchener line to parallel the UPEx?
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: Metrolinx plans call for very frequent (5 minute!) headways eventually to Mt. Pleasant Station. With all of the new track capacity, running only a 20 minute headway would be laughable.
LikeLike
Steve, by the way, your comments on the April 23rd meeting (especially with no TTC presence) suggest that Metrolinx is not working as well behind the scenes or communicating with the public as well as they could be.
First, having the launch site in the OSC parking lot is an educator’s dream (especially if it can be visible to observers from above, perhaps also having a videolink to the OSC & Metrolinx websites).
Second, the importance of Don Mills as a mobility hub connecting 2 rapid transit lines (and the potential GO connection) cannot be overlooked.
Third, it seems that Metrolinx is still undecided on the Eglinton Crosstown (especially whether it is to be local or ‘regional’ when it is, as you say, meant to be local … especially with that potential for a Crosstown GO line to provide the regional service option one day).
Last … why is Metrolinx backing away from adding service on the CP rail line? First they push Milton down the timeline and then the Crosstown GO line disappears. Has CP said something to change the way Metrolinx thinks?
I understand CP’s position (with the subdivisions being their main line through the GTA) and I know that there are issues with the potential service a Crosstown GO can offer (I see it more as a regional east-west line rather than a connector to the subway) … but this is something that Metrolinx should be supporting.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Service on the Kitchener line was first announced as being two-way, all-day as of Opening day 2015. Then, that plan was delayed to 2018-2020 and scaled back to “Doubling of # of trips in the interim.” (14 now to about 28-30). Now I’m hearing about 10 extra trips, maybe even fewer and timelines continuing to stretch into who-knows-when. By the way congratulations to the Lakeshore lines on the announcement of all-day 30 minute trains 7 days a week. Really. Just wish we on the non-Lakeshore lines could get a little of that love too.
But I digress. 2 questions: 1) Would Metrolinx be able to shove these changes down residents throats so easily if Toronto had come up with some financial stake in this project as well? Hasn’t the city abdicated its role in ensuring that their view of somewhat more localized transit is recognized?
And 2) Would it be possible (in a post Rob Ford City, of course) for the TTC to somehow come to the table to extend the Eglinton LRT, a provincial project, to the airport with its own (municipal) funding?
Thanks.
Steve: To your first question, yes, in abdicating full funding not only of the “regional” network, but of routes that were planned as local services (Transit City) to Queen’s Park, Toronto has ceded the influence it might have. That said, the TTC until recently had community relations tactics only slightly less galling than GO Transit — plan what we want to do and then “ask” the community to ratify the decision, and maybe to choose the colour of station tiles.
As to your second question, I posed that to folks at Metrolinx around the time the “new deal” with Toronto was struck. If the city wants to build an extension, or contribute to its cost to bring provincial subsidies down to a level they can live with, how would this work. I don’t think Metrolinx has ever addressed this problem, and it gets messier when we consider factors such as the PPP partner who will be building and maintaining the “original” part of the line. A related issue has been the shifting attitudes at City Hall where Rob Ford would just like to unload the TTC, or at least its major components, to the province and completely hand over control of whatever transit Toronto will get to Queen’s Park. Without a strong advocate for local transit in the Mayor’s office, many transit riders lack a voice for the type of service and routes they need.
LikeLike
Very interesting comments & analysis on the meeting Steve et al. Couple of thoughts/comments…
1) Aren’t we still another year or more away from the east of Yonge tunnels being dug? My understanding of the EA & design as it relates to this is that the grading/slope & exact alignment of the tunnel changes the design based on where the stops are?
Steve: Yes, stop locations can affect the grades as well as the complexity of the stations depending on local conditions.
2) It is my understand that technically the LRT tunnel itself is bigger than a tunnel for subway technology. It’s also my understanding that the Crosstown vehicles are the same vehicle as the new LF-LRV that will replace our streetcar fleet. In theory, I am curious if in the next few years, before the track is laid, station design is started, and before at-grade construction is past the point of no return (etc.), could the decision be made to change from LRT to subway technology, if the political winds (i.e. Tim Hudak becoming premier) change? I realize that subways cannot be used for the at-grade portions because of the electrical power design & the fact that subway vehicles unlike LRT are not designed nor reinforced to have multi-mode, non RoW interaction. What is the point of no return for that decision? In theory, the vehicles ordered would not be “wasted” as they could be used on streetcar lines?
Steve: Yes, the LRT tunnels are bigger and would accommodate subway cars, and in a Hudak/Ford world that’s exactly what would run through them. The line would probably only ever extend from Weston Road to Don Mills because the cost of tunnelling east to Kennedy and west to the airport would be hard to justify given potential demand. However, if Metrolinx is actively trying to protect for that option, then this begs the question of whether they have a hidden agenda, and are actively working against current LRT-based plans, or simply hedging their bets.
As for the cars, no they are not the same as those on the city system, although I am sure Bombardier would not object to simply building “x” cars to the slightly different design. If the Metrolinx LRT lines don’t open, Metrolinx will have a pile of spare cars on its hands because the city system doesn’t need the entire order even to supplement its current plans. Some could go to LRT lines elsewhere in the province (if those projects survived).
And in response to my earlier comments, yes I totally agree that the lands around the airport need WAY better linkages to the new BRT/LRT/Subways of the adjacent municipalities (Sauga, Brampton, TO).
LikeLike
@Steve
Again, thanks for the analysis! I agree with you ultimate goal is to get the LRT to the airport, I’m just thinking that it is better to have an interim solution rather than what Metrolinx is planning, which is to have no solution at all.
I’ll admit I have nowhere near the amount of knowledge that you do regarding transit matters, so please bear with any of my mistakes. I am under the assumption that a full BRT could follow the exact same route as the LRT, with a bit of additional space required to accommodate for the buses. I’m also under the assumption that much if not all of Eglinton could be widened to accommodate a BRT/LRT system with losing traffic lanes, especially as the Richview Expressway lands are still vacant. And while I can’t remember the exact presentation, I seem to recall that Eglinton would be shifted over and the LRT would be running beside it, rather than down the middle. If true, I presume that could be done for a full BRT as well.
Using the figures you provided, the average cost of the BRT should be around $19.2 million/km. The distance from Weston Road to Martin Grove is about 6.2 km, therefore the cost for that portion of a full BRT would be around $119 million. If my assumptions are correct I think that portion is certainly doable, and Toronto might be able to build it without support from Metrolinx.
For the portion west of Martin Grove Road I would definitely defer to your knowledge of the situation. I’m not sure what the best route would be after that point, and where the elevated structure would start. I’m assuming that the elevated portion would be the most expensive part of the route, and its location and length would be one of the main factors determining the final cost.
Again, I agree with you 100% that the LRT should be the ultimate goal, especially when it comes to long term ridership and operational costs. However, it seems to me like a full BRT is a doable interim solution, and Toronto might be able to build it without support from Metrolinx. Any additional thoughts or ideas of yours would be welcome.
Steve: You can get a good sense of the original LRT design from the Transit City EA document (which is still the approved version of the plan except where Metrolinx has amended it). The western portion of the line is in the first set of plates (a large pdf). The line follows the middle of Eglinton Avenue, but has a dedicated bridge over the 401. The design within the airport lands is not settled yet, but my understanding is that the LRT terminal would be well above grade, possible at the same location as the airport shuttle and the UPX terminal. A BRT would likely use ground level facilities instead as this would avoid engineering provision for larger spaces for bus stations and loops.
LikeLike
This was the original plan as proposed in Transit City, until it was changed to Laird and then back again. This seems logical, given that the cost of building an underground station at Leslie is too high to justify, and it would make it somewhat easier for people working in the office parks on the east side of Leslie to walk to the LRT station (though there is quite a bit of a hill there, and the sidewalks really ought to be widened during the construction to make that section of Eglinton more pedestrian friendly; the bike paths shown on the map seem mostly designed for recreational users). The major disadvantage is that if the CP line ever gets converted to passenger service, it would be a 500m walking transfer from Don Mills/Eglinton to a station along the CP line on Don Mills halfway between Wynford and Green Belt Dr.
Re the stop at Ferrand Drive east of Don Mills:
Is there enough room for a pocket track at Don Mills/Eglinton, if there are plans to short turn every other LRV here? It would seem to me that placing the portal between the east side of the DVP and Wynford would be more logical.
Steve: Given the gradients (which are visible in detail if you download the presentation pdf and zoom in to the map on page 5), it looks as if there is room for a crossover west of Don Mills Station, but not a pocket track. I will have to check on this with Metrolinx.
As for a portal east of the DVP, I don’t think there is room between the end of the DVP ramp structure and Wynford to fit in a ramp. Also, from a construction point of view, this would be a very difficult location for an extraction shaft for the tunnel boring machines because of interference with the DVP interchange.
LikeLike