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 
[This comment from Richard has been edited because it quoted extensively from early comments.]
I don’t want to dismiss their complaints Mikey; if I lived there I’d take their position too. My point was they are not Leasiders and I don’t know why they LPOA was pushing their position so much and saying that it benefits Leaside – it doesn’t. They are a small group and while I don’t blame them for trying, I just don’t think they should have so much influence.
Steve: Actually, I think the Leasiders’ greater concern was the shift of the stop east from Laird to Brentcliffe, and they were making common cause with the Leslie stop advocates. But, yes, Leslie isn’t exactly a “Leaside” stop.
Good point Mikey.
[Michael Forest’s description of an eastbound left turn lane for Leslie located north of the LRT, Moaz’ reply, and my comment have been snipped here. Readers can see them earlier in the comment thread.
The argument, in brief, is to keep the left turn traffic to and from Leslie north of the LRT right-of-way.]
Now why isn’t Metrolinx thinking like Michael Forest and Moaz above? I think something like this with re-jigging of traffic lanes on Eglinton might work. It won’t mess up the Leslie-Eglinton turns and more importantly it will keep the LRT free from traffic interference through to Don Mills. The bridge has to be widened anyway so just widen it a little bit more. Also eastbound traffic would NEVER have to stop at Leslie under Moaz’s plan except for the odd pedestrian crossing which could be controlled with a button and a long timer.
Steve: I refer you again to the drawings in the EPR. There isn’t enough room through the rail underpass for more than 6 lanes of traffic, and the proposed south to east left turn runoff lane would not fit. Moreover, the proposal that this merge back into the eastbound Eglinton flow beyond the portal at Don Mills Station means that traffic in this lane would not be able to access the Celestica turnoff ramp.
As for the west Don bridge, this widening is going to stir up issues with those who seek to protect the valley underneath. Adding an entire extra lane (3m) is not “a bit more”. The current proposed widening is 1m on either side. There may be structural issues if the LRT lanes are offset from the centre of the bridge.
With regards to Steve’s comments, are we sure that the new intersection at Scenic just east of Brentcliffe (and directly west of the portal) is actually going to be built as in the EA? Seems an odd place to put new signals.
Steve: We don’t know, but it’s in the plan, and it would be odd for the developer to make provision for this road if it were not going to be a full intersection.
And another question for Steve, just how much can things change (i.e. Don Mills Stn, design, which lanes on Eglinton are occupied by the LRT, etc.) before you need an amendment to the EA?
Steve: Don Mills Station is to be built more or less as in the EA. Anything that adds or deletes stations, or changes the vertical alignment (tunnel vs surface), or significantly changes traffic operations would require an EA amendment.
I still believe that is should be eminently doable to have the LRT completely separated from traffic through to Don Mills, AND leave traffic unaffected at Leslie AND have a Leslie stop. This shouldn’t require rocket scientists.
Steve: Council has painted itself into a corner here by acting in a way that suggests that any change triggering an amendment and the need for Council approval could delay the project. A south side alignment from Brentcliffe to Don Mills will affect the (potential) intersection at Scenic and at Celestica. In solving the problem of a Leslie stop, you will create issues elsewhere that won’t be settled with a short discussion.
LikeLike
Will changing the left-turn configuration from downstream left-turn (MUTIT) to conventional left-turns also require an EA amendment and council approval? Is this likely to happen?
Steve: Probably yes, and uncertain, in that order. See my remarks in a previous comment.
LikeLike
All this talk about surface operation supposedly limiting headways in the underground portion is completely spurious. The reason we have poor headways on, say, buses or streetcars is the lack of sufficient operating funding, combined to some extent with scheduling problems not unrelated to that funding issue.
In a city like Innsbruck, Austria – about the same size as St John’s – buses run in mixed-traffic at headways of 5 minutes or less at peak hours. It can be done, unless everyone’s missing the point of a ROW. It will need to be funded adequately to maintain the desired level of service. That’s all.
Steve: Yes, I am amused by comments about pedestrian interference with the LRT at a location where we know there is almost no demand for pedestrian crossings (north to south side of Eglinton Avenue) except the demand that is induced by transit. Today, it is pedestrians crossing to/from the eastbound bus stop, and in the future, the traffic will be to the LRT platform in the middle of Eglinton east of the intersection, a shorter and simpler crossing.
LikeLike
Also, 3 car trains at 2 minute headways yield a capacity of 11,880 pphpd, more that twice the forecast peak demand. I don’t think they will need to run that frequently if in 3-car trains. Every 4 minutes should be enough.
LikeLike
I have to agree with Andrew here. The cycle time for the lights along Eglinton has to be over 2 minutes. Trying to run a headway that is less than the cycle time will result in two 3 car trains trying to go through the light at the same time which will not work well eastbound with a far side stop. However I doubt that they will need that for quite a while.
LikeLike
I would be okay with the arrangement as long as nothing with the engineering and design precludes future grade separation between Leaside and Don Mills if demand would warrant it.
LikeLike
That’s what I thought, though I was hoping it might be different. I’m curious to know how the SB Leslie to EB Eglinton turn will be made to work with LRV trains entering the station every 2 minutes in each direction.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Just to clarify, the suggestion I was making was from the perspective of ensuring that left turning vehicles don’t interfere with LRT operations; not throwing a bone to drivers. So if the LRT right of way is not going to be built with this in mind, is there any changes to the intersection that can achieve the same thing; albeit not for the lowest dollar.
LikeLike
There are a number of majour problem between Laird and Don Mills, no Victoria Park.
Basically the “Transit City Plan” was not thought out thoroughly and had many problems , in more than one area.
Issues east of Laird ;
Eglinton East bound
– only one left turn lane at Leslie. EB Cars will be backed up to Laird any westsward
Leslie south bound
– left turn onto Eglinton with trains at 2 min separation
CPR Overpass
– six lanes to four lanes
Don Valley Overpass
– six lanes to four lanes
DVP Southbound Exiting and wanting to do a left turn onto Eglinton east bound
– when trains are every 2 minutes,
DVP Northbound Exiting and wanting to do a left turn onto Eglinton west bound
– when trains are every 2 minutes.
The St. Clair Street Car line at Keele is a Mickey Mouse issue .
LikeLike
People, there is no plan to operate 3 car trains at a 2 minute headway. Don’t bring up non-existing problems; it only muddies the water. Hopefully before the loading gets anywhere near that high the DRL will bleed off some riders. Taking 11,000 pphpd on to Yonge is not possible.
LikeLike
You do not need to travel to Innsbruck to observe mixed-traffic buses running at headways less than 5 min. All major bus routes in Toronto run at such headways during the peak.
Operation of a major light rail line like Eglinton will bear little resemblance to the operation of regular bus routes. First of all, “less than 5 min” is not good enough; we are talking about headways in the 2′ to 3′ range. Naturally, a design that allows 2′ headways can provide 50% more capacity than the one that allows 3′.
Light rail trains will not be able to use multiple lanes and leap-frog each other, like regular buses. Furthermore, two or even three buses often can serve the same busy stop simultaneously. Not a chance of that for LRT, as all platforms in both the underground and surface sections will be designed to serve one train at a time.
To put this into perspective, TTC cannot run Yonge subway trains at a headway less than 2’20” without ATO. Even with ATO, they expect to get to 1’45” or 1’50”.
Now, it is debatable if we will ever need to go below 3′ on Eglinton. The ridership projections show great sensitivity to the design details. For a mixed underground / in-median line, the peak projections were in the 5,500 to 7,000 pphpd range. But for the fully underground line integrated with SRT, the number grows to 13,000 pphpd.
Even for the line that is not fully underground and not fully integrated with SRT, it cannot be ruled out that some other factors, not included in the model, will boost the ridership above 7,000. The 3′ headway (20 trains per hour) can handle about 10,000 pphpd. Most likely this is enough, but without warranty.
For a number of reasons, Don Mills to Yonge will be the highest demand section on the line. Demand east of Don Mills will be significantly lower.
In my opinion, it is very appalling that we are losing a change to boost the capacity limit by 50% without any extra cost; simply because Metrolinx cannot be bothered to write to the City Council, and the City Council has become a nuisance in transit-related matters.
LikeLike
I agree with the above. And I believe Steve said earlier that despite all the credit being given to “local” residents for restoring the Leslie stop, the real reason Metrolinx is going back to the original EA is that they are loath to have to re-open the agreement because they don’t want to have to deal with the dysfunctional city council.
Metrolinx is spinning this as “See, you have concerns and now we’ve listened”. Spare me. I think Steve’s right and they simply want to go for the bird in the hand as opposed to going for 2 (or 3) in the bush by dealing with council again.
So now that we are back to the original 2010 EA that’s been agreed to and approved, I assume that means that all the proposed EA amendments at Mount Dennis are also out the window. Looks like the good people at Mt. Dennis won’t be getting their underground station, just two surface stops (at Black Creek and west of Weston Road) and the LRTs will be crossing traffic to enter and exit Black Creek Yard.
Steve: Actually, the amendments for Mt. Dennis were approved later in the same council meeting.
LikeLike
Regarding the Leslie and Eglinton intersection:
Why not build a roundabout (traffic circle) at Eglinton and Leslie? The LRT will pass through the middle of the roundabout. The LRT station will remain on the east side of the intersection.
There are so many ways to customize a roundabout using signal lights, warning lights, or even gates, so that the LRT will have the right of way. Traffic will stop only to allow LRT’s and pedestrians to pass through the intersection. Even with high frequency LRT traffic, cars will be better off since they will stop for shorter periods.
LRT’s will not need to stop for red lights, since they will control traffic signals. This will result in a seamless LRT run between Laird and Don Mills.
The only concern with a roundabout is how to make it safe for pedestrians. Currently, this is not a pedestrian friendly intersection. I am not a traffic expert, but a roundabout has an advantage of providing a safe island for pedestrians crossing through the middle of an intersection. Metrolinx can look to Europe to see how they have integrated LRT’s with roundabouts in urban settings.
A roundabout will also have a traffic calming effect. Currently, cars accelerate to high speeds as they travel downhill into the valley. A roundabout will force cars to slow down as they wrap around the intersection, making it safer for bicycles and pedestrians.
This is an opportunity to apply new ideas to old problems. I hope the engineers at Metrolinx consider a roundabout, or other innovations for Leslie and Eglinton.
LikeLike
Wow! So what’s all the Metrolinx talk of avoiding going to council then? They can give the west end a much needed improvement which makes Mt. Dennis the end of the LRT right-of-way as it should be, but they won’t bother to improve the east end to make Don Mills the eastern end of the right-of-way. Mind you now I guess they have to start the formal EA amendment process and get formal Ministerial approval which will take months – months the Liberal govt. may not have. If Hudak wins, then we’re back to square one anyway and the last 6 years of work, re-work, planning, meeting, and designing will be out the window.
Also, regarding earlier posts (mine and others’) about putting the LRT in between the Leslie left turn lanes and the regular eastbound lanes on Eglinton between Brentcliffe portal and Don Mills: How much traffic uses the Celestica entrance off eastbound Eglinton? If we look again at the Michael Forest/Moaz idea of putting the Leslie left-turn lane(s) north of the LRT then the only issue would be traffic coming south on Leslie, turning east on Eglinton and then turning into Celestica. This doesn’t seem like too many vehicles to me.
And re: the new intersection just west of the Brentcliffe portal, because it is just that, WEST of the portal, then even turns from that new Scenic street could either go east on Eglinton or turn into the Leslie left turn lane on the north side of the LRT.
If they don’t come up with something the service to Laird will be adequate but the bus terminal at Don Mills will be served by half the trains.
Steve: Re the left turn lane north of the LRT: you continue to forget that there isn’t room for this extra lane either on the Don River bridge or under the CPR overpass. The real problem in all of this is the Celestica ramp which is the only significant impediment to an LRT alignment along the south side of the street, although shifting the LRT to the south side of the Don Bridge might bring structural issues as well as potential problems with pedestrian traffic on that side of Eglinton.
LikeLike
Where do these 2″, 3″ headways that everybody above is referring to actually come from? And what decade do they expect that that many people will use these trains?
Rather than run 1/2 empty trains every 2 minutes isn’t the idea to run full trains every 4 or 5 minutes? Even 10min apart (that actually ran on time)on the weekends would do fine . Still more reliable than you get today on Eglinton.
Steve: They come from info about the maximum capacity of the line, something that comes up every time someone says “build a subway, we will need it eventually”.
Even IF the trains connect at Kennedy not many people will take the Eglinton route. They will still transfer to BD subway. Why would people take the Eglinton LRT all the way from Kennedy over to Yonge just to go south? If they want to go north on Yonge, why wouldn’t they just use the 95 or whatever straight across as it would be far more convenient. I do ride the 34 a lot and it’s not that full all of the time, you still get the crammed bus with 2 empty on it’s tail all the time.
BTW I have heard 34 people talking and are they going to get a bus service still? The busiest stops are Kennedy & Eg still(this won’t change with either sub or LRT- it’s a very pedestrian un-friendly walk to Kennedy Station) and primarily each and every stop from Birchmount west to LeBovic is heavy industrial rush hour worker use. Again either sub or LRT will miss these stops. Or will these people have to get use to really long walks?
Steve: If you look at the EA amendment for the west end of the line, the TTC plans to run a “34” bus on a 15 minute headway east from Mt. Dennis station, presumably to Kennedy. How much traffic it will get remains to be seen, and on that headway, it won’t attract much.
Same deal with new streetcars – I’m at Neville, yes it’s spotty at best but there is never a need for huge streetcars on a 2 or even 4 min headway thru the beach. First off I saw the new one that came to Neville weeks ago in the night and it barely even fit into the loop … I would say technically it did not fit, and there is no room on Queen to hold another 1 or 2 and at even 4 min hdwy they would all run 3/4 empty rather than a one or two full ones. I keep reading about really frequent service yet all of the Russell drivers have already been told that service will be curtailed and there will not be as many crews needed on Queen specifically. What’s the real story on this Steve? Are we getting the 1:1 or does bigger cars = less frequent?
Steve: Definitely you will not get 1:1, and the TTC’s fleet plan has varying allocations of new cars to routes that bump capacity on some more than others. The headway on Queen, if they follow this plan (which is still subject to the usual budget issues), the effect is not as great as on other routes because the ALRVs and LFLRVs are closer together in capacity.
There is supposed to be an update on the streetcar fleet as part of the May 2013 TTC meeting agenda, and we should know more then.
LikeLike
I’m curious because of Robert’s comments … if we’re not going to run the Eglinton Crosstown trains at 2 minute frequencies and the line will have a surface segment between Laird and Don Mills station … then why pay for ATC? Indeed, why pay for ATC when the line will need to have human operators. It’s going to end up like the SRT.
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: Don’t get me started about this fetish for ATC on an LRT line of all things. The argument probably goes roughly that with modern signalling, a conventional block system and ATC are not that different in cost. All the same, it’s unusual, and adds to the cost of what is supposed to be a “light” rail network.
LikeLike
Sounds a lot like the Colborne Lodge stop on The Queensway where there is nothing but parkland for several hundred meters in every direction. I doubt the stop at Leslie would be much more elaborate then the recently rebuilt stop at Colborne Lodge.
LikeLike
This is pish posh! Metrolinx caved to stupidity from some local developers banking on increased property value (hence higher sale price) by begging for Leslie to remain.
These nincompoops are too blind (no offense to blind people who are more intelligent than these non-visually impared fools) to see that going above ground and then back under for one measly useless stop (with probably a LOT lower usage than a stop like Bessarion) makes no “traffic” sense. My belief is you IMPROVE transit but not if you make the mobility of any non-ROW vehicle even worse!
They are so lucky I am not in charge because if I was, I would’ve taken the cost to bury it all the way to Don Mills as originally planned in the newer plan that just got scrapped. I HATE Rob Ford but I hope he convinces council to force Metrolinx to revert back to the “tunnel to Don Mills” plan.
Steve: Council has no power to force the underground option on Metrolinx. Also, as has been pointed out in other posts here, the issue of LRT/traffic interaction at Leslie may be overstated.
LikeLike
Ok, I’m going to take another stab at the Leslie/Eglinton problem.
Would it be fair to say that ideally the vast majority would like to have
a) a Leslie stop
and
b) separate right-of-way for the LRT through to the hub at Don Mills
and
c) the maintenance of the present intersection for car traffic at Leslie and Eglinton to keep traffic flowing and to prevent massive back-ups of cars waiting to turn left from EB Eglinton and SB Leslie?
Constraints are:
1) bridge over West Don River can only accommodate 2 LRT lanes and 4 lanes of traffic.
2) Eglinton under the CPR bridge can only accommodate 2 LRT lanes and 4 lanes of traffic.
3) Celestica access road just east of CPR line must be accessible to all traffic on EB Eglinton.
So here’s what we do:
The LRT portal remains directly east of the new road that is coming down from the Scenic condos but instead of emerging in the centre 2 lanes of Eglinton (as in EA), it emerges in the 2 southernmost lanes. 4 lanes of car traffic to the north.
After going over the West Don bridge the road widens (as it does already now) so there is room for 2 left turn lanes to northbound Leslie from EB Eglinton (just as there is now). Just east of the Leslie intersection the road will pinch in to the same size as in the EA plates, but the Leslie stop will be south of traffic instead of in the middle. The 4 traffic 2 LRT arrangement proceeds under the CPR bridge and over the Celestica access road bridge (which I believe is already 7 lanes wide – not 6 – at present). The Celestica access road is modified slightly so that after it comes under the Eglinton bridge and turns east, instead of immediately splitting into a wye, both directions continue east (parallel and south of the LRT lanes) until east of the Don Mills Station portal. At that point the Celestica access road splits to a wye and merges with Eglinton eastbound (just like now but further east.)
(Pedestrian) access to Leslie stop would be by a pedestrian signal to cross the WB track at the western end of the platform. You could potentially have the pedestrian walkway also cross the EB track to access stairs to the park. The pedestrian signals could be controlled by the trains so pedestrian crossings wouldn’t affect the LRT schedule.
What do you guys think? Everybody wins?
Steve: The “how to design an alternative alignment” issue here is getting almost as bad as some of the threads on the DRL.
You propose that the Celestica road merge into Eglinton just east of the Don Mills west portal. This would place it in conflict with the east-to-south right turn queue lane for the intersection at Don Mills Road, and would not give proper merging space. Also, the curves would likely be tighter because of the limited distance between the portal and the intersection, and this would not allow as smooth a transition for traffic at the interchange.
The real question, in the timeframe of the Eglinton project, is the future of the Celestica site and whether the ramps to/from Eglinton eastbound will even be needed in the future. Sadly, we are unlikely to get any significant discussion on the matter as the design will be locked in for bidding and construction fairly soon.
LikeLike
Now that Metrolinx has gone back to previous plans for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT regarding Brentcliffe and Leslie, is there any chance that Metrolinx could reinstate the stop at Swift/Credit Union? The reason given to remove this stop was the slope of Eglinton Avenue. The next nearest stop at Bermondsey Road is 400 meters, and Wynford Drive is 750 meters. This full intersection will obviously remain after building the LRT, and the LRV-streetcar will have to stop for red lights. My point is, this is not a subway or other rapid transit where you must have a certain distance between stops, rather one would desire to service the community as best as possible. (I mentioned about three weeks ago that Roncesvalles Village would not want the DRL, because their streetcar stops just about at every other street.) How about free taxis for seniors to get to the next LRT stop?
Steve: The fundamental problem is that the intersection is at a sustained 5% downgrade, and this would need to be “flattened” for the length of a station to no more than 1%. This is impossible west of the intersection, and difficult to the east where, also, the stop gets closer to Bermondsey.
As a side note, if this section were underground, there would be at best one station serving this area, possibly none.
LikeLike
Scarborough is going to continue to push for a subway, regardless of whether or not it makes sense. Even Karen Stintz has recognized that fact, which is why she is now pushing for extending the Bloor line.
I know that the current plan is the best one, there is no question about that. However, if Metrolinx does end up being forced to come up with a subway plan for Scarborough, which would be better: extending the Bloor line or burying the rest of Eglinton and having it merge with the rebuilt SRT? Obviously the ideal answer would be “neither” but I’m just curious.
Steve: This is a real Hobson’s choice because each option has its disadvantages. If Eglinton goes entirely underground, we would be continuing the practice of total grade separation even where it isn’t justified, and we would also lose several of the surface alignment’s stations. In the case of the Bloor extension, there are the questions of the pros and cons of fewer stations, the catchment area, and the future extendibility of the line which have been discussed here already at length.
A more subtle problem is that the money needed for either option, especially Eglinton, would almost certainly come from other projects. How much would this delay the DRL, especially the section north from Danforth to Eglinton? Would Finch West fall off of the table? The UTSC extension of Sheppard (assuming this line survives continued pro-subway pressure)?
If the LRT network unravels, one piece at a time, we lose the chance to make greater progress on a suburban network, not just single lines here and there. If one’s outlook is that LRT is the devil’s work and should be opposed at all costs, then this isn’t a problem (although such advocates will have to answer for all of the unserved areas in years to come). If one’s outlook is that network planning and coverage should rule, then incremental “nibbling” by subways is a serious threat.
Having said that, I must also note that the sooner we see progress on the claimed BRT-to-LRT conversion of VIVA (or even simply intensification of that network), the happier I will be. Every time someone proposes pushing subway lines only “a few” km further north, transit spending continues to be skewed to the highest cost option, and less in total gets built.
LikeLike
If walk-in/walk-out demand at Leslie and Eglinton is that low, perhaps George N.’s roundabout proposal warrants attention. It would certainly be interesting to see.
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: The problem with a roundabout is that to get decent speed through the intersection, the circle would have to be larger than the land available at Leslie and Eglinton. Moreover, this would still leave the LRT crossing the traffic lanes (twice), something everybody here seems to be trying to avoid.
LikeLike
Your concerns Steve, as outlined above are nit-picking to say the least. The merging lane from Celestica simply continues and becomes the right turn lane at Don Mills. There’s plenty of room. And how many cars use the Celestica ramps anyway? The odd car here or there can negotiate the merge. You yourself admit (below) that they may not even be needed at all but they’re going to affect the design of Eglinton? Come on!
I’m not sure what to make of your last comment (above). I’ve tried to present reasonable options and you argue (valid) concerns. I answer them then you bring up other ones. Then you say this alternative design discussion is getting bad. I get that you wanted the Leslie stop, but it seems you also want to inconvenience drivers as much as possible. You don’t want to waste too much time worrying about inconveniencing drivers at Leslie and Eglinton but you seem very concerned about the occasional car from Celestica being able to merge smoothly.
Then you finish by saying “Sadly …”. So we give up? Why not say in January, “sadly this design will be locked in and there will be no Leslie stop. What a shame, oh well nothing we can do”. There was time to keep things fluid to fight the EA amendment but now all of sudden we’ve got to lock things in? My plan might not even require and EA amendment, I don’t know. It doesn’t lose stations or stops, or move any. It doesn’t move the alignment to underground where it was above in the EA. I’m not sure why you are so intent on making sure that the LRT is in middle of the road from Brentcliffe to Don Mills. With every concern I address, you don’t so much argue but instead bring up another problem.
Steve: I happen to prefer the south side alignment, but every time it is discussed, the engineers throw up yet another roadblock. Once Metrolinx came out with the underground option (one they had favoured privately for years before this debate), they were barrelling ahead with little sign they could be stopped. I was extremely annoyed that the local Councillor fretted more about the Leslie stop and park access than about the improvements design changes to a south-side surface route could achieve. As recently as the public meeting a few weeks ago, it was clear that Metrolinx was not “listening”, and only recent upheavals at City Hall have refocussed their attention. Talking about what might have been a few months ago ignores this context.
Frankly I don’t give a damn about the Celestica ramp users, and that site should have its access from Eglinton westbound and Don Mills like any other development block in the city. However, the arguments I am raising are precisely the ones we will hear from the traffic engineers about your proposed relocation. If we are going to deal with these ramps, they must be removed, not preserved in a less-than-ideal configuration. You yourself say that the usage is low, so why go to such lengths to provide an alternative route? You’re the one who proposed moving the ramps rather than just demolishing them, and I was responding to your proposal.
We need to be talking about other design issues on this section, including the lack of provision for connection to a Don Mills (DRL) subway station from the LRT. It’s not as if this isn’t part of Metrolinx plans, but the Eglinton design seems to be ignoring it.
LikeLike
The Celestica ramps are an artifact of the IBM head office that moved away years ago. The main entrance is on Don Mills. I would love to keep the underpass and access to the north and south as a bike route to connect on the north with the Don Mills (Leaside Spur) Trail with a crossing of the CP track – and on the south through the bush and into ET Seton Park to connect with the main Don Bike Trail. If the ramps remain they could provide a bike interchange with the new lanes promised on Eglinton. I would have preferred the tunnel option for the LRT as there would be no disruption of park lands. BTW – Those who campaigned for the Eglinton/Leslie station seemed to want to predict future development at that intersection, which I had hoped with the lack of a station would be less likely. The intersection is in the middle of some of the finest park land in Toronto and the presence of the LRT above ground will further degrade it.
LikeLike
The only reason I included the ramps in my (latest) proposal was in response to your response to an earlier proposal of mine, see below.
“Steve: …Moreover, the proposal that this merge back into the eastbound Eglinton flow beyond the portal at Don Mills Station means that traffic in this lane would not be able to access the Celestica turnoff ramp.”
We’re going in circles here.
I’d be quite happy to demolish the Celestica ramps completely as well, but it just seems silly to give up on south side alignment completely because Metrolinx clumsily failed to ram through the tunnel extension. Yes months were wasted but realistically there are still months before they get close to even building the TBM launch shaft. They are supposedly going to start tunneling in the west this month and yet they just got council approval (but net yet Ministerial approval) for their EA amendment last Friday. Why the sudden rush to lock in the east with a bad plan?
LikeLike
Doesn’t a change to a south-side right-of-way necessitate a change to the design of Don Mills Station, or the approach to the station?
Steve: Yes, it would require the portal to be shifted south, and could affect the layout of special work (crossover west of the station, centre track to the east) depending on the revised alignment and location of curves to bring the line back into the centre of the road.
LikeLike
If the only obstacle to south side running is the Celestica access, and if south side running would have substantial benefits for transit and for general traffic, there is another option that I haven’t seen mentioned yet: run the LRT through the two ramps, controlled by gates. That’s what would be done in many other cities (including Calgary, which everyone likes to hold aloft as the epitome of LRT).
LikeLike
Sadly, Toronto doesn’t like to do what other cities that have rapid LRT have done.
Close spacing in high density downtown like areas for convenience… far spacing as you head into the burbs to improve speed.
Separate the LRT traffic via gates or other mechanisms.
Rather they seem more obsessed with using transit to transform communities in 50 years time.
LikeLike
The south side of Eglinton east of Leslie is in the ET Seton Park. The north side is on the land reserved for the LRT right of way. There would be opposition to using the park for tracks. I don’t know how IBM got to build its road in the park but the ramps are the only land west of the intersection with Don Mills that is not in the park.
Steve: There is no proposal to widen Eglinton into the park, only to rearrange the lane allocation so that instead of being in the middle, the LRT runs along the southernmost two existing lanes.
LikeLike
If that is the case, then what will it take to ram through the tunnel option again? Who is the primary irresponsible politician who caved to silly demands to restore the original above-grade option?
Steve: It was not a political decision. Metrolinx already has approval for the surface option, and would have needed political approval to change to the tunnel. Going back to the original scheme is not, at least overtly, a political decision.
If my Liberal party is willing to blow 600 million on cancelled powerplants, I am sure that they could afford a million to redo the EA for the underground option.
One final comment: I did not vote for John Parker and some of his flip-flopping on transit issues since election has proven I made the right choice. He is an idiot who blows where the wind blows. Unfortunately, sometimes that wind blows in the direction of individuals and groups who lack proper transit and traffic intelligence.
The Crosstown line should have been and always should be buried up to Don Mills – it makes little logical sense to bring it above ground for one stop (albeit under-used because it is STILL a long walk UPHILL for those exiting at Leslie and proceeding to the condos by the Toyota dealership) when there are many more tangible benefits over time to leaving it underground – ATC included.
Does anyone agree?
LikeLike
Sjors said:
Yes, I agree — see all my posts above in this thread over the last 5 days. At the very least it should be south-side alignment and separated from traffic all the way to Don Mills. They made sensible changes to the west end at Mt. Dennis. But Leaside (if this stands) will be screwed by appeasing a few condo-dwellers on Leslie who, I agree, will never walk half a kilometre down the hill on Leslie to an open Leslie Stop, especially in winter.
LikeLike
Getting back to the Roundabout solution, a 2 lane roundabout will need to be between 200 – 250 feet in diameter (inscribed circle diameter). The northeast corner of Leslie and Lawrence is currently vacant land and is should be large enough to be contain most of the traffic circle. Therefore, the centre of the intersection will need to be repositioned further north and east.
Even though the LRT will intersect the traffic circle at 2 points (west and east), the vast majority of traffic will cross the tracks only at the eastern point. If a light is added to the roundabout, it will not be much different than the proposed design where the eastbound left turn lane will force cars to cross over the tracks to go northbound on Leslie.
The proposed design only has one eastbound left turn lane to go northbound on Leslie. This will result in a longer backlog of traffic than is experienced today. The roundabout design will minimize backlogs and result in a better flow of traffic, even if it is at a reduced speed.
With the relocation of the centre of the intersection, the LRT station may need to be repositioned further east. I don’t think that should be a problem.
I agree that this may be a unconventional for North America, but it has been done elsewhere in the world.
LikeLike
George N must mean Leslie and Eglinton not Leslie and Lawrence. Traffic circles are not going to be put in place and they are not appropriate for a T-intersection. The tunnel option to Don Mills made sense and the sad governmental and political excuses and claims from the Robinson twins (Jamie and Jaye) show that decisions are being made by the application of pressures that no one will disclose. The idea that misinformed condo owners have over-ridden major engineering and financial decisions of a government agency is smoke and mirrors. And the main operational reason not to have a station at Leslie when the tunnel option was in place is equally valid for the surface option and then some – a lack of users and now with the added complexity of traffic issues.
LikeLike
Yes Ron, thanks for the correction. I did mean Leslie and Eglinton. It was late 🙂
LikeLike
@Ron, Sjors, and Richard
The 512 St Clair and 510 Spadina LRT lines are compromised because they interfere with traffic. So why aren’t you advocating for these lines to be put underground? Think of the operational benefits and the higher speeds this would achieve. Let’s not let the locals get in the way of regional goals, right?
LikeLike
I agree. There’s a lot more going on here than meets the eye. From when the tunnel option was first proposed, to the variation of moving Laird to Brentcliffe and now back to square one, things don’t add up. While we may agree or disagree with various options, the rationale being presented at each change is weak at best. I happened to like the tunnel, so that traffic would flow better at Leslie, short-turns could be at Don Mills and traffic would not back all the way up past Brentcliffe waiting to turn north on Leslie. Also the mess have having Eglinton down to possibly one lane in each direction at the launch site for 3-5 years, doesn’t thrill me. But Metrolinx said in December 2012 that the main reason to tunnel was that they could NOT launch east of Brentcliffe.
Turns out they can, it will just be tougher. Now they go back to square one instead of looking at a south-side alignment.
I figure Ron25 was joking about “the Robinson twins” but I’ve wondered since last Friday: are Jamie Robinson and Councillor Jaye Robinson related? Just curious.
Steve: They certainly don’t act as if they are when they are in the same place.
LikeLike
I think those advocating for the underground option need a bit of perspective here. Yes, staying on surface decreases the speed and capacity, precludes ATO (and messes with the minds of car-drivers, of course). But to what degree are these perks even necessary?
There’s a reason why this logic doesn’t apply to every single bus and streetcar line we plan – Many routes don’t need grade-separation to operate effectively. The Eglinton LRT is one of these lines, because the peak point ridership is already within the capacity of surface LRT (even though the peak point happens somewhere in the central underground portion).
Furthermore, how can anyone possibly believe that a little-used surface LRT stop is as big of a money-sinkhole as a little-used underground station? Are you going to decry all the bus and streetcar stops that see very little usage?
Also, did underground advocates consider that the omission of Leslie Station may require more bus-service to compensate for the loss of access, offsetting the operating savings?
LikeLike
Come on Mikey, let’s not make this discussion completely absurd. The 510 and 512 have always been streetcar lines and are not underground at all (save for the subway connections at Spadina, Union and St. Clair West).
You can’t compare these lines with the Eglinton LRT. Eglinton has always been planned to be underground in the central core and I think most people support that. (Surely you don’t want LRT in the median through Leaside and Yonge and Eglinton where the street is already narrow.)
And I have no problem going centre median for the stretch from the DVP to Kennedy. In fact I personally thought it was a waste of money to bury it when Ford proposed that a year ago and McGuinty agreed. (Just as burying the Spadina subway is a waste up in Vaughan when an open-cut run would be fine through empty fields).
But the Brentcliffe-Don Mills stretch is a unique section with virtually no south-side entrances to Eglinton. When the 2010 EA was first approved, I thought it was generally good but could use some adjustments. They tweaked the west end at Mt. Dennis -ok great. I pushed them, through on-line consultations and at meetings to consider using the 2 southernmost lanes between Brentcliffe portal and Don Mills for all the reasons mentioned in many posts above. Suddenly, to my surprise, they announce in Dec. 2012 that they want to go underground to Don Mills. That was better than I expected and I thought a little excessive but I’m not about to complain.
Underground also has the added benefit of preserving the precious parkland far better than having more vehicles running through it adding to the noise etc.
When Metrolinx reversed course, instead of looking at other options to maintain a Leslie stop, they go right back to square one. If you have a mediocre plan that you later try and improve, but it turns out the improvement won’t fly, you don’t just give up. You try a different improvement. Unfortunately Metrolinx appears to have given up and settled for mediocrity. I still can’t understand why a south-side alignment isn’t supported by virtually everyone. You get your Leslie stop and we get separate right-of-way to Don Mills.
It seems like for some people who fought for the Leslie stop, it’s not good enough to win -others must also lose. South-side alignment should be the compromise that everyone can support but sadly it’s devolved into all or nothing and unfortunately what may happen in the end is that we all get nothing.
LikeLike
@Richard
I also prefer the side-of-the-road proposal for the reasons you’ve mentioned. I just think that it’s not absolutely critical for the Eglinton LRT to operate effectively. I also think that it’s wishful thinking to believe that Metrolinx would consider switching to the south-side option at this point in time.
I bring up the Spadina and St Clair LRT lines because their difficulty in providing a capacity of 11,880 pphpd (the equivalent of 3-car trains @ 2 minutes) with traffic crossing tracks at intersections is largely a non-issue. Same with the Eglinton LRT.
No, I’m not advocating for a surface alignment through central Eglinton, but providing higher capacity between Brentcliffe and Don Mills by further separating the right-of-way won’t be necessary.
The currently-approved median alignment across Leslie is less than ideal, but acceptable nonetheless. There are times where we do have to forgo the perfectly ideal option if it’s not realistic to achieve. I can point out numerous less-than-ideal situations and arrangements in our transit network that we will have to live with for a long time (but I guess I can complain about them anyways).
LikeLike
I would not be so quick to describe capacity and ATO-compatibility as “perks”. Two major factors in the area are the Flemington Park neighborhood with its high density, and the discontinuity of the Lawrence East avenue that causes bus #54 to shift from Lawrence to Eglinton in order to reach Yonge.
The present-time TTC bus route map reflects that situation. There is only one bus route on Eglinton east of DVP, but 5 east of Yonge (34, 54, 100, 51, 56). When the LRT is built, it is supposed to take passengers of all those routes who want to reach Yonge. I am quite surprised that proponents of the surface option between Brentcliffe and Don Mills choose to ignore those facts.
Decent frequency on the new combined route #51/56 will be needed anyway, to serve Leslie street and in particular to compensate for the loss of #54 service to Edwards Gardens at the corner of Leslie and Lawrence. Presence or absence of the Leslie LRT stop will not affect the frequency of bus route #51/56.
Steve: What is forgotten in this conversation is the eventual presence of a north-south subway at Don Mills and Eglinton. This will be the terminal for 54 Lawrence East and 100 Flemingdon Park, and the subway will provide a much more direct (and less crowded) route to downtown than the Eglinton LRT and the Yonge Subway. If we are going to talk about planning for future demand on Eglinton, we must also talk about the future network that will distribute demand differently from what might be the case today.
Although there are five routes on Eglinton east of Mt. Pleasant (you omitted that bus from your list), two of them run infrequently (51 Leslie and 56 Leaside). They are rarely heavily loaded on Eglinton unless they happen to operate in a gap in the other, frequent services. Their loading position at Eglinton Station guarantees that they will only get “local” Eglinton riders when there is nothing else on the platform.
LikeLike