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 
Glad to know that someone else shares the same suspicions as I do about Metrolinx and surface LRT/Leslie Station.
Also, I resent the argument that Leslie is 100% parkland as a way to justify the Leslie Station omission (66-75% parkland would be more accurate). Anyone who would rely on a Leslie Station should be greatly offended by this statement. Also, remember the hotel that used to be on the northeast corner of the intersection?
There’s one other thing I was thinking about: Could Metrolinx be tunneling to Don Mills just because it’s easier to administer an AFP contract that way? If that’s the case, then it’s like trying to use a butterknife to make furniture – it’s the wrong tool for the job, and choosing butter instead of wood as material for your furniture just so that the butterknife is easier to work with is not the solution.
Steve: The tunnel has to end somewhere. Don’t forget that this is a separate contract from the station construction and line outfitting that will be done by the AFP bidder. Surely the private sector is capable of building a right-of-way and laying track in the middle of Eglinton Avenue.
LikeLike
Hahaha I agree … I’m just thinking from the current environment where hourly all-day rail service is a dream and 30 minute GO train service on one line is (according to some) the greatest thing to hit GO Transit since … well, ever.
Right now 20 minute service is beyond my dreams and 5 minutes is beyond my wildest dreams. If it can happen along the Kitchener line (and ideally along parts of the Milton Line over to Kipling or Cooksville) … well, there is our DRL west.
Cheers, Moaz
PS. When I moved to Malaysia and experienced EMU service every 12 minutes on the KTM Komuter … I was truly amazed … and when service dropped to every 30 minutes and trains were frequently late (because of insufficient trains and poor maintenance) I would tell people that it was still better than most of the world.
LikeLike
Seems to me that running from the Renforth Gateway north to the airport offers Silver Dart Drive as the ideal route for the Eglinton LRT … but how does the plan for the extension of the Finch West LRT fit in?
I’m thinking that it would run along Highway 27 to reach Dixon Road, then follow Dixon/Airport Road to the Airport. Alternatively, if there was a Woodbine GO station (whether serving a Woodbine casino complex or not) then it could run from Highway 27 to Queen’s Plate Drive then along the west end of the racetrack (those lands being ripe for redevelopment) to meet Carlingview. Then straight down Carlingview to Dixon/Airport Road and on to the Airport.
I understand the need for the direct rail link to terminate directly at the airport terminal but it necessary to build a stacked super hub at the airport for all 3 rail modes (and don’t forget the buses at ground level)? Perhaps shifting the LRT lines to Terminal 3 instead would leave room for Finch West and Eglinton and (who knows) perhaps a future link to the Bloor-Danforth line as well.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
About TTC bus service changes, I did speak to a Metrolinx person (David, who was later at the head table). I asked him if off-hour service along Leslie would be increased and if 162 service would be restored evenings, week-ends and holidays given that rerouting the 54 bus would cause service cuts between Don Mills and Leslie and Leslie and Eglinton. He said the TTC would make Leslie off-hour service more frequent than the current 30 minute frequency. But how much more frequent, the TTC wouldn’t say. He said the TTC wanted to observe ridership first. He also said there was no plan to modify the 162 routing, and any restoration of service would also depend on TTC ridership observations.
Steve: Aside from this sounding at least partly made up on the spot, the more basic issue is that Metrolinx cannot present plans to the public as if the TTC were some agency on another planet. This is one transit system regardless of the colour of the vehicles. If, in fact, the TTC has a “wait and see” attitude about ridership on Lawrence west of Don Mills and on Leslie, that doesn’t say much about their planning skills. Considering that there is a full routing/service plan in the EA amendment for Mt. Dennis Station, they must have something comparable for the east end, and this material should be included in the public meetings.
LikeLike
My thoughts regarding the eastern section:
1) The distance between Brentcliffe and Bayview is more than 1,400 m; this is too much to provide reasonable service to the Leaside community. If they want a station at Brentcliffe, then another station should be added halfway to Bayview (i.e. at Rumsey or Sutherland). If Metrolinx can afford only one station in Leaside, then it should be at Laird.
The convenience of transfers from the 51/56 bus route should not trump the convenience of walk-in riders, the majority of whom will have to make longer trips on foot if the station is at Brentcliffe.
2) The removal of Leslie station makes sense, if they rule out the south-of-the road option. An underground Leslie station for $80 million cannot be justified, given the area’s low density and lack of potential. A much cheaper surface Leslie stop would be possible with the street-median alignment, but such alignment would reduce the capacity of the busiest LRT segment between Yonge and Don Mills.
3) It would be nice to have both the Ferrand stop, and the pocket track east of Don Mills station. Is it possible to extend the tunnel for 120-150 m east of the Don Mills station and place a level pocket track there, while allowing the two main revenue tracks to start their ascent to the surface before the pocket track ends?
Steve: Re the pocket track, I suppose that might be possible. I am waiting for a response from Metrolinx about the geometry of Don Mills Station and other matters.
LikeLike
I was at the Tues April 23rd meeting. Full disclosure, I was asked the first question about Brentcliffe station.
The outcry that people would lose access to the park was the catalyst to move the LRT station from Laird to Brentcliffe. I guess regional park visitors trumped the local residents in this situation. However, I think this is a fair compromise given the challenges with the Leslie and Eglinton intersection.
The inconvenience to the Laird area residents is overstated. Since the 51/56 bus will run at 10 minute intervals east of Laird, I see the part of Eglinton east of Brentcliffe as a virtual extension of Leslie Street. This segment of Eglinton east of Brentcliffe is functionally a feeder route to the LRT. As with other feeder routes, people have the option of taking the bus instead of walking.
I believe that people living west of Laird will not walk to Brentcliffe station to board the LRT. Instead, they will walk to Laird and wait for the Leslie bus to take them to Brentcliffe. If they choose to walk the 400 metres from Laird to Brentcliffe, it will take approximately 4 minutes for a healthy adult. Therefore there is a 40% chance that a bus will zoom by them before they reached Brentcliffe. If they started to walk to Brentcliffe, after 2 minutes or 200 metres, they would have another opportunity to catch the Leslie bus at the Don Avon Dr bus stop, in between Laird and Brentcliffe.
With everyone having access to Nextbus GPS data, it is not a hardship to time your trip to coincide with the bus schedules. This is what I do when I take the Leslie bus from the Lawrence area to Eglinton station. The fact that the distance from Laird to Brentcliffe is very short, won’t discourage people from hopping on a bus when they have that option.
People forget that the Leslie to Laird section of Eglinton will be serviced by a regular bus schedule, just like any other feeder route to the LRT. Therefore, one doesn’t have to walk uphill to Brentcliffe station from the Leslie/Eglinton intersection if one doesn’t want to.
Everyone gets upset because they won’t be able to board the LRT at Leslie station, but the truth is that they will likely take the bus to the LRT. So if they are already on a bus, what difference will it make if they board at Leslie or Brentcliffe station?
Thanks Steve for your analysis. I can see your point of view. I think that if money was no object, we would love to see more stations on the Crosstown and the Sheppard Subway (talk about spacing of stations!).
I wonder if Metrolinx’s secret agenda is to run the LRT between Don Mills and Mount Dennis without drivers. Is this the real reason that they don’t want this section to run on the surface?
Thanks, George
Steve: The point that is missed in shifting the station “only” 400m is that people already face a longer walk even to Laird or Bayview station compared to their present-day bus stops. We are not talking about just walking between one station site and another, but adding to the length of a walk for already widely-spaced stations.
Yes, there will be bus service on Eglinton (likely a vestigial 34 Eglinton bus as well as the 51/56 but only if it actually runs via Eglinton from Laird, an option that seems to have been rejected just to keep those worried about “traffic congestion” at Laird happy.
I cannot help feeling that design changes have been made to pander to just about everybody but the transit riders who, after all, are the reason we are building the LRT line in the first place.
If you want an example of the “convenience” of a surface bus above widely spaced stations, just visit Sheppard Avenue East or Yonge north of Eglinton. The service is infrequent, erratic, and not very attractive.
LikeLike
I would rather call that a difference of opinion. Metrolinx has a vision of it as a more regional transit option, rather than local travel.
It is after all one of the most expensive transit projects underway at the tune of several billion dollars. That alone probably has them wanting to make it more regional. Toronto is also so big, that ‘regional’ travel has a different meaning. Just imagine trying to travel from Scarborough to Keele and Eglinton. Call it what you want, but that is a pretty far trip and you want to cut down the time it takes as much as possible.
The last thing you want is for billions of dollars to be spent on the Eglinton Crosstown to offer little difference in speed compared to the existing bus service. And yes, the extra 400M walk here or there is annoying, but must be taken into account with the transit system as a whole.
Eventually the LRT will connect with the Mississauga BRT, and we will finally have an EAST-WEST transit corridor that parallels the 401. Like it or not, not everyone works downtown. I currently for example do the reverse commute from Toronto to Mississauga for work. There are many many many people who do this commute from downtown, Scarborough, Toronto… all across Toronto to Mississauga. My work place is close to the BRT, so I could definitely see myself and countless others taking the LRT and BRT to get to work… assuming the LRT is fast enough to offer some regional capacity. The BRT is definitely going to be faster in Mississauga than driving because it is on its separate roadway. No lights. No traffic.
Given our lack of transit investment in the GTA, the Eglinton CrossTown represents people’s hope for both local and regional transit. They’re not going to build another dedicated EAST-WEST close to the 401 anytime soon, so the LRT is it.
I for one, welcome that they are trying to make some regional use out of it.
It’s not enough in my view as the connection to Mississauga BRT should have been much higher. Mississauga is a pretty major employed and residential area. I’ll admit my bias here as I would use it, but we need to focus on connecting these systems. Peel region as a whole has done a very good job here cooperating with rapid bus in terms of Mississauga and YRT and Zum. It is what makes it a transit network.
Steve: My concern about station locations is based on two simple points. First, where do people live. There is a larger population to be served by a Laird station than a Brentcliffe one. The same sort of consideration would apply to BRT stops — they would (or should) be placed where there will be demand and convenience for riders. Second, the quality of parallel bus service for people between the widely-spaced stations. This is not just a question of pandering to the good folks of Leaside, but an accessibility issue. The TTC keeps talking about having as many people as possible on the “conventional” system, but if riders face long walks and waits for service, this could effectively bar some riders who have transit service today. The Bloor-Danforth line would be a very different place today if decades ago we had subscribed to a “regional” view of its purpose and placed stations at best once per kilometer.
LikeLike
Steve, Thanks for the great piece explaining this project’s intricate nature clarity is a refreshing thing to see with regards to Metrolinx.
Metrolinx has time and again failed to properly inform the public of what their plans are and quite frankly I can see why. When Metrolinx introduces alterations to their plans people become understandably angered because they are not getting what they were told. Politicians then seem to swoop in and politicize the matter in an act of embarrassing the agency for its inconsistent message and plan delivery. As a result I can understand why they may offer less informative discussion. By simply not including as many arguments and nuances they leave themselves less open to an attack on their inconsistent proposals and ideas and discreditation by opposing politicians. The issue is that by not divulging more information they exacerbate this problem.
If politicians took up less partisan and more constructive roles while the agency was conducting its business and consultations, Metrolinx may be more forthcoming with information due to less risk of being discredited a half stroke into a project. Once the agency had presented a completed policy or project proposal I think then it would be best for politicians to comment and critique. Metrolinx having gathered community, business and non-partisan input could then defend its plans on its merits and the will of the populace as they observed. Politicians would be forced to produce credible fact based critiques and counter proposals based on fact and rationale rather the the common fear mongering and rhetoric slugged about at QP and City Hall daily.
In short I am attempting to propose a system as follows:
1. Political debate, stakeholder input and contextual circumstance informs a mandate for the agency.
2. The agency produces to the best of its ability, and with extensive input from the public, business and non-partisans, a costed and highly detailed proposal/policy to fulfill that mandate. A proposal/policy at this stage would simply require a majority legislature vote and the signing off of a responsible minister to get underway.
3. The agency presents its proposals and policy best filling their mandates for critique and questioning. Once the agency has addressed any legislature concerns expressed based on a majority supported motion. The revised proposal/policy is re-tabled for debate and anticipation of approval.
In this model a bureaucratic agency is less bogged down by politicking and nonsense and is better able to achieve its goals without the present day constant alterations and foolishness seen all to often. E.g. LRT —> Subway —->LRT on Eglinton or the movement of gas plants which could easily have been avoided if the matter was not subject to political alteration.
A bureaucracy is only as effective its mandate and government allows it to be.
LikeLike
Firstly, Steve thanks so much for this site and all your work on it. I’ve enjoyed it and learned a lot over the last few years as a reader. Regarding the combined 51/56 bus route: I believe the plan is still to have it go west on Eglinton then turn south on Laird. The difference now (from January’s plan) is that there should be less congestion at the Laird stop because bus-LRT transfers will be taking place at the Brentcliffe stop (by the Brentcliffe Stn.) but the buses won’t be turning down Brentcliffe.
Also according to the latest plan, the Don Mills station will have 2 platforms and 3 tracks. So it will be like having the pocket track in the middle of the station. South platform will be for eastbound, north platform for westbound. A train that is short turning (from either direction but most likely the west), goes into the centre track and opens whichever side doors is appropriate for the direction it’s going (back) to.
Finally, I believe they want driverless trains between Mt. Dennis and Don Mills. For this and the mess that centre median LRT would create at Leslie and Eglinton they have to have the LRT completely separate from car traffic to Don Mills.
Steve: Having the 51/56 bus drop its transfer passengers westbound at Brentcliffe would put them beside the secondary entrance of the station that will be (a) deep and (b) have no accessibility features such as elevators and escalators. Those will only be in the main entrance on the southwest corner. This is a generic problem with many of the station designs such as at Dufferin where the southbound bus stop is served only by a secondary entrance with stairs. In an era when we are supposed to be making stations easier to use, this is counterproductive.
Looking again at the design of Don Mills Station on the plans displayed at the recent meeting, yes, there are two platforms. I have asked Metrolinx to confirm what they will be doing at this location. What you describe certainly sounds reasonable. As for unmanned operation, we shall see. I suspect we may get ATC but with an onboard operator much as is proposed for the Yonge subway once its new signal system and fleet are in place.
That said, this would be another example of Metrolinx concocting dubious excuses about construction issues if their real agenda is to move to completely automated operation.
LikeLike
It appears what Mikey and I are saying is that the decision to build the line underground is NOT due to complexity or higher cost. I thought even you Steve, may suspect this. It may be because it is the easiest and fastest to design.
I would guess that with a south side alignment, a bridge over the East Don would be $20-30M, the twin tunnels through the railway embankment on the south side would be $50-80M, and the relocation of the Celestica ramps would be about $10M. And what would the extra tunnel cost – maybe $200M?
I understand this tunnelling contract would not be part of the P3, but would be a conventional contract. My question is would the contract have some allowance for the Contractor to propose a less expensive alternative (i.e. side of road) and split the savings with the owner? This is common with many other owners. The other question is whether there would be enough time between award of contract and completion to allow the Contractor time to do the required re-design.
Steve: However, the original surface design was centre-of-the-road. It did require widening of the West Don bridge, but had no effect on the Celestica ramps nor any requirement to burrow through the embankment at the CPR. That is what should be the point of reference for cost comparison.
This would introduce a problem with traffic at Leslie and Eglinton because the LRT right-of-way would be crossed by traffic turning between eastbound Eglinton and Leslie Street at a point where LRT service would be every two minutes in both directions. It would also require manual operation through this segment, but that would not be the end of the world.
What has been annoying through this is the shifting reference point against which the all-underground option is compared in order to make it look less of a change than it really is.
LikeLike
The idea that there are more people near Laird is based on what? That area is mostly single detached homes whereas east of Brentcliffe there is the the Aspen Ridge development – highrises and town homes with more to come. The apartments on Eglinton are all east of Laird. I met one of the MetroLinx planners and he made it clear that they observe that the TTC bus stops are much too close. A walk of considerably less than a kilometer to a faster system is more attractive and efficient for the system. The LRT is not supposed to be a streetcar. The way that now every bus on Eglinton stops at every corner in Leaside is frustrating for passengers. The LRT plan is should be a better and faster way.
Steve: The spacing of the bus stops has nothing to do with the eventual walking distance to the new LRT station. I repeat my earlier point that Metrolinx seems to ignore the issue of accessibility that long access distances produce. As I have mentioned elsewhere, their station designs make no provision for vertical access at secondary entrances, and yet those entrances are used as the basis for calculation of distances to a station for prospective riders.
If the TTC proposed something like this, there would be screams about backing off on making the system fully accessible, but Metrolinx gets away with a less generous definition of the term.
LikeLike
Regarding the Don Mills station layout and pocket tracks, the current documents depict a double-island platform with three tracks so that the centre track can be used for the turnback operation. There is also a pocket track on the surface just east of the DVP although oddly it is to the north of the mainline which would make it mostly useful for emergencies/disabled storage/gap-filler spare.
LikeLike
I’m a little confused as to how ATC factors into a decision about how far to tunnel. If it goes above-ground for Leslie through Don Mills, just change the driver pickup/dropoff point to Laird/Brentcliffe/Whatever.
Also, sorry if I missed this in the post, but is above-ground option still on the table at all, or is it now officially and irrevocably a choice between underground options?
Steve: I think that Metrolinx has made up its mind on the underground option, and it will take something fairly serious to change this. As for ATC, it is unclear whether the trains would be unmanned or simply run the way the SRT is with computer control, but manual station ops. There is a fetish for ATC and it seems to be driving design decisions.
LikeLike
In a recent Star article about eliminating the Leslie LRT stop, you were quoted as saying Metrolinx “simply does not understand this line is not ‘regional’ but local”.
However, the restoration of the Ferrand LRT surface stop (mentioned in the article) seems to contradict that argument as the Ferrand stop is roughly just 400 meters from the Don Mills stop.
Were you quoted out of context?
Steve: Ever since Metrolinx and the City of Toronto started wrangling about the Eglinton line (and this goes back to Transit City days), Metrolinx was always for faster operation with fewer stops because their demand model was particularly sensitive to speed. Make a line faster, and more trips are assigned to it. The problem is that these tended to be the long haul trips for which the time difference is more important, and for a time, Eglinton was being pushed as a fast crosstown route.
Metrolinx dug themselves into a hole, quite literally, with the decision to extend the tunnel through to Don Mills triggered initially the disappearance of Leslie and Ferrand stations and the shift of Laird Station back east to Brentcliffe with a cavalier attitude that this would “balance” station spacing east of Bayview despite the 1.4km gap.
The locals were restless, although not quite to pitchforks and flaming torches level, and political pressure resurrect Ferrand. Also, it was a stop that had been there on the plans all along, and was sacrificed only because of the extended tunnelling.
Metrolinx also wanted to get rid of Oakwood Station, and almost succeeded but for a Ministerial tweet along the lines of “My Eglinton includes Oakwood Station”. Well, if the Minister said it, then it’s true, and Oakwood Station was saved.
It is fascinating to compare the Eglinton project where there is a lot of discussion about potential development around station sites with some of the comments regarding a Scarborough subway where the idea of “walk in trade” and the development this would represent is almost laughingly dismissed as something people only do on Mars. The whole question of station spacing and location seems to be adjusted to suit whatever argument someone is making at the time.
LikeLike
Please place me on your e-mail list for new postings.
Thanks,
Paul
Steve: You can subscribe via RSS. The link is on the right hand side of the page under “Meta”.
LikeLike
I have been advocating this, more or less, since the early designs of the Eglinton line. I don’t believe that the Celestica ramps would need relocation as the LRT right of way could swing just south of them.
A portion of the extra costs (the separate bridge and the new CPR underpass) could have come from the savings of building a side-of-the-road right of way (about $30 million/km) instead of a concrete-encased median right of way (about $50-60 million /km). We are talking about roughly 1.5 km, so the savings is not huge, but the net cost would likely be half of continuing the tunnel to Don Mills.
I understand there may be issues with the launch site on the hill on the south side of Eglinton, but I have my doubts about this being so insurmountable that $200 million needs to be spent to tunnel all the way to Don Mills.
Steve: I will go one further and ask why the Celestica ramps need to be maintained.
LikeLike
1. Do you think Minister Murray’s involvement has anything to do with Metrolinx’s new proposal to skip Leslie Station?
Although Murray insists the changes he would like to see are minor, tweaking the purpose of a project from one that serves local needs to one that serves regional needs can result in something as drastic as stations being dropped. Murray doesn’t specifically talk about station-dropping, but we’ve seen Metrolinx use this argument during the Ford-MoU era, that full grade-separation and fewer stations provide an overall greater benefit for regional travellers along the corridor.
It is so hard not to jump to conclusions here, but alarm bells are going off in my head.
Steve: No. Metrolinx had been muttering about Leslie for some time, before Murray was even the Minister, as part of the extended undergrounding of the route.
2. I had the impression that building using AFP would be easier with only one subway-surface portal, rather than three subway-surface portals. I figured it was because the latter option has more potential to interfere with more stakeholders and utilities.
Steve: There have always multiple been access points, even if not portals. This is necessary because one cannot tunnel under the existing subway just by running through with a boring machine. Moreover, every station involves an excavation down to tunnel level.
AFP had damned well be able to handle any condition we throw at it. If the vaunted private sector cannot build what is basically a subway tunnel in comparatively benign conditions, then there is something very wrong with the “private sector”. I happen to regard the whole AFP business as a right-wing fetish, and explanations of how it will save money far-fetched at best. However, it’s an orthodoxy most politicians adhere to these days, and attacking AFP is almost sacrilegious.
LikeLike
The Globe and Mail article I posted suggests that Murray advocated for “… rethinking the Big Move even before he became Transportation Minister …”. That’s why I was intrigued.
LikeLike
The Celestica ramps are also, informally, part of the plan to connect the south end of the Don Mills (Leaside Spur) Rail Trail to ET Seton Park – it will require a crossing of the CP line – but we can hope. Building anything south of the Celestica ramps puts construction into wooded parkland that should not be taken away at any price. The current Metrolinx slides show a multiuse trail from the south side of Don Mills/Eglinton to the bottom of the Celestica ramps and then turning south to connect into the Don Trail network. The latter part is the same as the connection from the DMRT. Having the LRT in a tunnel in the Don River parklands is the second best thing for the parklands. The first best is putting the roads in a tunnel too.
Steve: Thanks for clarifying the status of that area.
LikeLike
When is Tunnelling supposed to start?
Could Tim Hudak still cancel the Eglinton LRT Line?
Steve: The tunnel boring machines are being assembled at the launch site, and actual mining is to begin in June.
I am quite convinced that Tim Hudak is such a doctrinaire fool he could cancel anything, even a subway, and sacrifice it on the altar of a balanced budget.
LikeLike
Karen Stintz has just announced (at 3:32 today) that Metrolinx will stick with the 2010 EA and retain the Crosstown station at Leslie.
I’m curious how this could work, since that EA would have been for an above ground station. Doesn’t building an underground station require a different or updated EA?
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: Other tweets in related threads make it clear that the surface alignment will be used east of Laird Station as originally planned.
LikeLike
Ok Tess Kalinowski at The Star has confirmed that Metrolinx is dropping the proposal to extend the tunnel to Don Mills
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Well, that’s an optimistic sign from Metrolinx. How do you read this in terms of future relations with citizens?
Steve: They are responding to a lot of criticism received from the community and local pols, but have two added incentives. One is the simple fact that the two options cost roughly the same and although there were engineering issues, they are not insurmountable. The other, and more important one, is that by returning to an already-approved configuration they avoid revisiting the issue at City Council. A related point is that this allows Queen’s Park to get the project moving as quickly as possible making it harder to cancel. Sadly, this is something many advocates have been saying about the entire Big Move package ever since McGuinty stretched out the implementation plans.
LikeLike
Guys, I know I must be stupid because I cannot for the life of me see why anyone would bother wasting $$ for any kind of station at Leslie & Eglinton. If you could please explain why? Please & Thank you.
I lived on Leslie before either Eg or Leslie existed(between Lawrence & Eglinton) They connected the roadway in 1958. Housing got built, DON MILLS 25A ruled the world until 1966 when LESLIE 51 began and ran up to Sheppard. More building LESLIE 51A ran up to McNicoll. More building then in 1972 LESLIE extended up to Steeles and across to Don Mills (only because there was no other place to turn around). This became a mature route around 1976 and since all the townhouses were built in the late 70’s (west side north of Shep) there is no room for any kind of new building anywhere on route (except if high rise replace the commercial just north of Eglinton.) So, in 1973 midday 51 buses ran every 30min, in 1980 they ran every 30min, and still in 2013 they run every 30min. In 1975 LESLIE carried approx 8000 per day, in the 80’s this dropped to 62-6800 per day, in the 90’s it dropped further to 44-4500 per day and in the 00’s, we are down to around 3500 per day. Hard to see this figure rising. After 50 years, the folks stuck in the Banbury area have yet to see transit of any kind so it is doubtful that they even want it … and so on.
My point is, no one would miss this station, be it subway or LRT. Outside of weekends in the summer, no one is seen waiting (in any kind of meaningful numbers) for any of the 4 or 5 bus routes that pass here in any direction. Looking at Mtlx fancy catchment area map they show that the good folks up on Rykert Cres and Thursfield could use Leslie Station. Well except for the fact that these people would have to climb down through a hundred foot drop through raw bush, ford a river (there is no path here) and then climb back up to Eglinton I think they would prefer to use the only out at Brentcliffe. Nobody from the Vanderhoof side will walk up or down here either. As with Steeles and Leslie, and Sheppard and Leslie, this whole area (including east on Eg thru the old IBM to Don MIlls)is a mess of wetland/park/flood plain, whatever you want to call it, so there will never be new building there, and I cannot see why, for recreational weekend use, we would want to spend any money on any kind of station here.
Show us the demand! Look at the somewhat sparse usage on some of the riding counts for 100, 34, 51 and 54 at those specific 4 stops right at Eglinton & Leslie.
I have some of them from years back but nothing recent.
Do you have the recent data Steve on exactly how many people get on or off any of the bus routes specifically at these 4 bus stops?
Steve: No, I don’t have counts for the specific stops. In any event, the decision has nothing to do with Leslie stop, and everything to do with avoiding the approval process a new, underground design would involve. See my update this afternoon for details.
LikeLike
I just read your addendum and response from Mtlx and I say that their response is BS! They are telling me that the handful of people in the couple of new hi-rises would prefer to walk down(and back up) to the valley floor to catch an LRT rather than a nicer walk straight across a short block to Laird? I couldn’t care less either way, just seems a waste of time and money, and does nothing for the network whether there is a station there or not.
LikeLike
So we have come full circle again to where we started! At the end of the day there was no way to make everyone happy. The engineers wanted a faster route, but the public was not enthusiastic about sacrificing convenience. At the end of the day I think it was a good decision.
For the last 4 months Metrolinx led us to believe that it was so difficult to launch from the original site… but now we know that it was an exaggeration. The engineers were trying to bulldoze their solution on the community.
Now, if only Metrolinx would listen to the Scarborough community (and the rest of Toronto) and build a subway to replace the SRT!
Steve: There is a big difference between choosing between two options of roughly equal cost, and two that are at least $1-billion apart. It has always been a myth that the difference is only $500m thanks to that erroneous January 2013 report from the TTC (one I have a lot of trouble believing was only “accidentally” overstating the LRT cost).
It is ironic that on Eglinton, the “neighbourhood” wants surface operation to regain their station (LRT), but in Scarborough, the pressure is to put the whole thing underground. A lot of this is a function of local pols and pro/anti Ford groups stirring the pot for their own purposes. Oddly enough, I can muster far more justification for a Scarborough subway than I can for an underground stop at Leslie, and it is only with the return to the surface alignment that the Leslie stop is practical.
“The rest of Toronto” is not uniformly calling for subways, by the way, and you harm your argument by overstating this support.
The fundamental point is that we cannot afford and do not need to build subways everywhere, but the “just one more station” argument keeps us looking at subway extensions.
LikeLike
This is excellent news! I’m very glad that Metrolinx has finally acknowledged that their preferred underground plan may not result in the savings they hoped for. Good on everyone, including Steve, to hold Metrolinx accountable for a careful cost comparison and analysis.
I’m happy to know that Metrolinx isn’t as hell-bent as I had originally thought on the less-stations-faster-regional-service philosophy. That’s not to say that we won’t be keeping an eye out on them still.
LikeLike
Is there any thought of building the LRT on the south side of the road, rather than the middle? This would eliminate the grade crossing at Leslie, while still having a stop there, and would make it possible to short turn LRVs at Don Mills, and run LRVs more frequently west of there (a major benefit of the underground proposal).
Steve: No, the south side alignment is not part of the plan, and it would require an EA amendment to make it so. This is not going to happen. There have always been plans to short turn trains at Don Mills Station (which will be underground).
LikeLike
Does this mean the ATC will have its eastern terminal at Laird? Or will the Leslie stop/station be segregated from motor traffic somehow (elevated? railway arms? allegedly transit priority?) to still have ATC until Don Mills?
Steve: Yes, there is provision for a turnback point at Laird and that is the end of the ATC in the original design.
LikeLike
The timing of this announcement is quite odd as well. While many decried Councillors for wanting to change existing plans (Debaeremaeker with the Scarborough Subway, Pasternak with the more-grade-separations), we haven’t heard any officials decry Metrolinx of doing the same to the Eglinton LRT alignment.
I know everyone thinks Debaeremaeker was just being a jackass, but I wonder if he was just trying to prove a point?
LikeLike
While Metrolinx may be in a better position to propose changes to the plan than City Council is, it makes no difference to transit riders whether it’s Council, Queen’s Park, or Metrolinx who want to change something.
LikeLike
Well there’s the first fall out from the latest show of ineptitude by council – Metrolinx admitting they don’t want to have to deal with that lot right now.
Talk about your declining relevancy.
Steve: The irony in all of this is that Council’s action had exactly the opposite effect to what they intended — Metrolinx has all the approvals it needs to build the original plan, and they can wait out a change in Council’s makeup while ignoring all of the ludicrous requests. The wild card in this would be the outcome of the next provincial election. The Fords are living in a fantasy land where Doug becomes Premier and Metrolinx takes over the TTC, an “alternative future” that Doug has talked about from time to time.
LikeLike
Regrettably, the capacity of the critical route section between Yonge and Don Mills will now be limited by the maximum frequency that the surface section allows.
Local folks might be happy that the original design is restored … until they find that they cannot squeeze into the train during the peak hours. Several flows of riders heading to Yonge will converge at Don Mills: from Eglinton, from the Lawrence East bus that will terminate at Don Mills, from Flemington Park, and transfers from Don Mills bus.
Steve: Given the nature of Eglinton between Don Mills and Brentcliffe, nothing prevents a 2’00” headway from operating to Don Mills Station presuming that a pocket track is added there for turnbacks. There is already provision for a turnback at Laird in the original design, but Don Mills is a more logical location given the bus terminal and future north-south subway line there.
LikeLike
Looking at your two answers (above) to posters’ comments regarding the short-turning of trains I’m a little confused. I know that the original EA had a crossover west of Laird Stn. and a tailtrack east of Laird Stn. Because of that, and because it will now (again) be the end of the tunnel and the end of the separate right-of-way I would think that the short-turns will happen at Laird. That’s where ATC will end and so they won’t be short-turning at Laird AND Don Mills.
Steve: My appologies. You are correct, and I managed to confuse versions of Don Mills Station. However, it does not really make sense not to have a turnback at Don Mills even if it were manually operated (as if the TTC doesn’t do this already all over the subway system). Don Mills will have a bus terminal and, eventually, the DRL/Don Mills subway. I hope that Metrolinx and the TTC can get over their fetish for ATO on this line and sort out how to operate a turnback at Don Mills. This should not require a change to the EA as the basic structure would probably stay the same.
Another thing. All the talk on Twitter and in the papers about Leaside residents wanting the Leslie stop is hogwash. It was a few condo owners on Leslie who were frantic to keep it and for some reason the Leaside Property Owners Association supported them (Leslie and Eglinton is NOT in Leaside nor would anyone from Leaside ever walk down the hill to use a Leslie stop.)
Now the traffic situation will be a nightmare for 3-5 years between Leslie and Brentcliffe and the Leslie Eglinton intersection will be a disaster forever as they have lost one of the two left-turn lanes to Leslie northbound and traffic will have to cross the LRT.
Also the LPOA/Leslie condo-dwellers argued that buses would cause congestion at Laird Stn. under the revised underground plan. Newsflash: The interlining of the Leaside 56 and Leslie 51 buses is (was) in the original EA. So those buses will still be turning at Laird and Eglinton and stopping at Laird station. And I’ll bet on cold, windy winter days those Leslie condo people won’t walk down the hill to Eglinton to wait at an outdoor LRT stop. They’ll get on the bus at their front door and ride to Laird Stn. and Leslie stop will be as under-utilized as many people say.
At any rate, with the way all the parties keep changing positions, I’ll still believe it when I see any of this LRT built! Transit politics, always fun!
One final thing I picked up at one of the open-houses – The interchange at Yonge and Eglinton will NOT have a direct connection from subway to LRT. Because of the cost/complexity and the time constraints it won’t be following the EA. Instead passengers will get off the subway, go upstairs to the concourse, walk north then down (2 levels) to a new LRT concourse (below subway level) and then down again to LRT platform level which will be below the subway tunnel north of Eglinton subway platform. This should be fun. I believe they will try and allow for a future direct connection from the north end of Eglinton subway platform down to the LRT concourse if the money comes available. I don’t know if the connection at Eglinton West will be as equally messy.
Should be interesting when more people become aware of this mess of a connection at Yonge and Eglinton.
Steve: Yes, the revised layout of Eglinton Station is in the consultation materials for that section of the line at pages 48-52. The EA design (starting at plate 57) connects into the unpaid area at the north end of the station (under the BMO entrance) and would deliver all of the transferring passengers at a constrained area. The new design appears to link in through the former bus transfer space to the central part of the subway mezzanine giving a better distribution of passengers.
I am going to check the details of this and other stations with Metrolinx.
LikeLike
If they won’t tunnel and won’t use south side of the road, then the third-best option is to split the Leslie-bound lane from the eastbound lanes just west of the point where the LRT emerges. The layout of Eglinton between Brentcliffe and Leslie will then be as follows, looking from the south:
Two eastbound through lanes
Two LRT lanes
One eastbound lane for cars that turn to Leslie
Two westbound lanes
Such design would eliminate the interference between the left turns to Leslie and the LRT movement. LRT will be able to use 2 out of 3 traffic phases at the Eglinton / Leslie intersection. The only phase that conflicts with LRT will be the eastbound turn from Leslie.
Let us hope that the 2’00” headway west of Don Mills can be accommodated with the median option. With either underground or south-of-the-road option, that would be much easier.
LikeLike
You may be correct that the number of people complaining were small, but their complaints about poor walk-in access to an underground LRT were perfectly valid. Not sure why you want to dismiss them, since accommodating their needs with a surface stop has almost the same cost as going underground.
Steve: No, the costs are only equal if there is no station in the underground option for Leslie. If you include that station, add about $80m to the underground option.
Partly agreed that construction will be a pain, but it would be so sad to see long-term benefits of accessibility (which will last the residents affected many decades) sacrificed to save us only 3-5 years of construction pain. Short-term construction impacts is only one of many factors to be considered.
No comment.
There’s a big difference between an underutilized surface stop and an underutilized grade-separated station, the latter having much higher operating costs. I don’t think it’s fair to paint a surface Leslie stop to be as big of a money-sinkhole as Bessarion or Ellesmere.
The important question in this debate is whether the construction inconvenience, slower LRT speeds, and costs associated with including a surface-Leslie station is outweighed by the benefits of local access.
Steve: The surface Leslie stop isn’t a money-sinkhole, and the difference in operating speed between Don Mills and Laird will be negligible for the surface option because the only point of traffic conflict is the Leslie intersection. Even buses today fly through this section until they get caught in traffic backlogs westbound to Brentcliffe and eastbound to Don Mills, both locations where the LRT will be completely segregated from traffic.
LikeLike
Of course that’s what I meant.
LikeLike
It sounds like how Fleet Street and Lakeshore run nicely parallel to each other.
If there is enough room for 5 traffic lanes until the portal to Don Mills I don’t see why their would be any interference. The eastbound lane on the north side of the tracks would be a no through traffic lane, and traffic from SB Leslie to EB Eglinton would just continue on until the LRT went underground at the Don Mills portal.
The only problem is whether there is enough room to run the 2 EB +LRT +1EB +2WB combination from portal to portal. If not, there will be some interesting signal timing and crossing over the LRT ROW … like what we will on Queen’s Quay West at Yo Yo-Ma Lane, but with higher speeds.
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: The lane design in the EA shows 3 lanes north of the portal and 2 south of it. The extra north side lane is a left turn into the new road into the condo development on the west bank of the Don River. There is also a left turn lane westbound at Brentcliffe. The problem with your scheme is that it would require the eastbound left turn for Leslie to extend back beyond the portal to Brentcliffe for the “crossover” where traffic bound for Leslie would shift to the north side of the right-of-way. It would also require an extra lane across the bridge at the river adding to the cost of widening that structure.
Please refer to plates 67 through 70 in the Environmental Project Report.
LikeLike
Operating this sort of headway with a grade crossing and accommodating left turns to/from Leslie and crossing pedestrians would be very unreliable, at best. The LRVs would be stopped at red lights frequently at this intersection, like the Spadina streetcar.
This means that LRVs will have to short turn at Laird and cannot reasonably do so at Don Mills, which means that there will be less capacity at Don Mills.
LikeLike
I’d say that the third best option would be to eliminate the lights at the intersection entirely and go with some sort of fly under arrangement allowing the east-north and south-east left turns to pass under Leslie station and use crosswalks for pedestrians to access the station and cross Leslie. The catch is that implementing such an arrangement will not be cheap.
Steve: Leslie Station is located between the intersection and the railway overpass. In any event, your scheme would require a ramp and tunnel structure to get the traffic under the LRT right-of-way, and, yes, it would not be cheap. Also, the portals to provide access to these ramps would intrude on road space in areas where it is at a premium, notably under the rail corridor, but also in the limited west approach to the intersection east of the bridge over the Don.
I hate to sound like a curmudgeonly anti-car person, but at some point we have to stop trying to cater to auto traffic at every opportunity.
LikeLike