Jump to content

Eglinton Crosstown line


Recommended Posts

On 2/19/2022 at 5:43 AM, STC125 said:

WhatsApp Image 2022-02-17 at 18.09.34.jpeg

I appreciate how the TTC has decided to title the Eglinton Maintenance and Storage Facility (EMSF) as a unique name instead!

I feel Black Creek Division is a far better suited name than EMSF, which could be confused with Comstock Division or Old Egli.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2022 at 2:13 PM, Xtrazsteve said:

Trains are only 60m long for Line 5 and 48m streetcars for Line 6. I don't see this is as big as an issue compare to those 140m TR trains.

Not to mention the 330 metre long GO trains - which is quite frustrating after they miss the platform at Union, and you have to wait 5 minutes for them to reverse 10 feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MRD10 said:

I appreciate how the TTC has decided to title the Eglinton Maintenance and Storage Facility (EMSF) as a unique name instead!

I feel Black Creek Division is a far better suited name than EMSF, which could be confused with Comstock Division or Old Egli.

They are following suit with naming it with the cross street. It’s Greenwood not Danforth. Wilson not Allen or Spadina. McCowan not Scarborough. Davisville not Yonge. 
 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2022 at 8:13 PM, Xtrazsteve said:

Trains are only 60m long for Line 5 and 48m streetcars for Line 6. I don't see this is as big as an issue compare to those 140m TR trains.

There’s no issue with a 140m or 220m train either. Trams are regularly run in MU configuration with one person.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/20/2022 at 7:28 PM, Xtrazsteve said:

They are following suit with naming it with the cross street. It’s Greenwood not Danforth. Wilson not Allen or Spadina. McCowan not Scarborough. Davisville not Yonge.

Most subway stations use the same naming convention, and rightfully so (i.e. Bloor, Yonge). Meanwhile a lot of GO stations are named using the opposite convention (specifically Danforth, Eglinton & Kennedy come to mind, since the alignment of those stations is pretty much parallel to the streets they're named after; it would be as if a station on the Yonge line were named Yonge).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 81-717 said:

Most subway stations use the same naming convention, and rightfully so (i.e. Bloor, Yonge). Meanwhile a lot of GO stations are named using the opposite convention (specifically Danforth, Eglinton & Kennedy come to mind, since the alignment of those stations is pretty much parallel to the streets they're named after; it would be as if a station on the Yonge line was named Yonge).

The Lakeshore East line runs at an angle though. It's not like there are any other stations on that line along Danforth or Eglinton Avenues.

Kennedy I'm assuming was chosen because of its proximity to Kennedy station being a much more useful point of navigation than Eglinton Avenue. Besides, what else would they have called it, Eglinton West?

That being said, the existence of Scarborough as the name of one station out of 7 in the borough makes me wonder if there was any kind of naming convention at all...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2022 at 9:19 PM, T3G said:

The Lakeshore East line runs at an angle though. It's not like there are any other stations on that line along Danforth or Eglinton Avenues.

That is true, although it still crosses Danforth & Eglinton at a much shallower angle than it crosses Main st or McCowan rd, so while it does make some sense to name the stations Danforth & Eglinton, it would've made more sense to name them Main & McCowan (though I suppose one could make the argument, at least in the case of Danforth, that it should be named after the nearest busiest street, which would be Danforth rather than Main).

On 2/21/2022 at 9:19 PM, T3G said:

Kennedy I'm assuming was chosen because of its proximity to Kennedy station being a much more useful point of navigation than Eglinton Avenue.

True, but it's also important to keep in mind that that stretch of the GO line runs exactly parallel to Kennedy rd, so calling any station along that portion of the line Kennedy would be akin to having a Yonge station on the Yonge line (or a Bloor station on the Bloor line). Especially if & when they build additional stations at Kennedy/Lawrence & Kennedy/Finch with the intent of naming them Lawrence-Kennedy & Finch-Kennedy, it will make most sense to rename the existing Kennedy station to Eglinton-Kennedy.

On 2/21/2022 at 9:19 PM, T3G said:

Besides, what else would they have called it, Eglinton West?

The way I see it, Kennedy would've been called Eglinton, or Eglinton-Kennedy (see above), whereas the current Eglinton station would be called either McCowan or perhaps Eglinton East to emphasize how far east along Eglinton it is located (see also: Etobicoke North & Barrie South, both of which have North or South in their names despite there not being any other stations called Etobicoke or Barrie).

On 2/21/2022 at 9:19 PM, T3G said:

That being said, the existence of Scarborough as the name of one station out of 7 in the borough makes me wonder if there was any kind of naming convention at all...

I agree with you on that, that's another one that's been somewhat unsettling to me. I always thought that, if the preceding & following stations were called Danforth & Eglinton respectively, then Scarborough should've been called St. Clair. And indeed, there are several other GO stations in Scarborough, and if one of them were to be named after the borough itself, it should've been one closest to the core of Scarborough (STC), which would be Agincourt since only GO buses go directly to STC. Hell, I'd sooner if Kennedy were named Scarborough rather than the station in the St. Clair / Midland area, since Kennedy is 1 of 2 major transportation hubs in Scarborough (the other being STC), whereas St. Clair / Midland is kind-of "in the middle of nowhere".

Edited by 81-717
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, T3G said:

That being said, the existence of Scarborough as the name of one station out of 7 in the borough makes me wonder if there was any kind of naming convention at all...

I think it has something to do with historical name retention. For instance, this could've been the first and only station in Scarborough for a long period of time, so it makes sense to why it was denoted Scarborough instead of a particular road name, where at the time, may could not have been set.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, MRD10 said:

I think it has something to do with historical name retention. For instance, this could've been the first and only station in Scarborough for a long period of time, so it makes sense to why it was denoted Scarborough instead of a particular road name, where at the time, may could not have been set.

The name is a reference to the CN Scarborough Junction, where the former Uxbridge subdivision (today's Stouffville line) branches off. The station was originally located further northeast between St. Clair and Midland. However, the GO station itself was opened in its present location in May 1967 with the rest of the Toronto portion of the Lakeshore East line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2022 at 9:49 PM, Young said:

I was looking at the new map for line 5 and I was wondering which division would get 179 Castlefield but I assume it would be Mount Dennis I was thinking maybe Wilson but that wouldn’t make sense

Well, if we take in all the routes around Mount Dennis and Keelesdale Stations, we can assume this arrangement

27 Jane South (Queensway)

32 Eglinton West (Mount Dennis)

35 Jane (Mount Dennis)

34 Eglinton (Eglinton or Birchmount or Mount Dennis)

41 Keele (Mount Dennis)

71 Runnymede (Queensway)

89 Weston (Wilson)

158 Trethewey (Mount Dennis)

170 Emett (Mount Dennis)

171 Mount Dennis (Mount Dennis)

179 Castlefield (Mount Dennis)

935 Jane Express (Mount Dennis)

941 Keele Express (Mount Dennis)

989 Weston Express (Wilson)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, lifty4ever said:

Well, if we take in all the routes around Mount Dennis and Keelesdale Stations, we can assume this arrangement

27 Jane South (Queensway)

34 Eglinton (Eglinton or Birchmount or Mount Dennis)

71 Runnymede (Queensway)

89 Weston (Wilson)

989 Weston Express (Wilson)

Out of curiosity, why Wilson for 89 and 989 when they run right next to Mount Dennis (for 89/989) and Arrow (989)?  Arrow closer for 89 then Wilson also. Likewise, why Queensway for 27/71 when 71 literally ends at Mount Dennis and 27 also closer for dead-heads for Mt. Dennis then Queensway.

For 34 Eglinton and Mt. Dennis would make the most sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mike said:

Out of curiosity, why Wilson for 89 and 989 when they run right next to Mount Dennis (for 89/989) and Arrow (989)?  Arrow closer for 89 then Wilson also. Likewise, why Queensway for 27/71 when 71 literally ends at Mount Dennis and 27 also closer for dead-heads for Mt. Dennis then Queensway.

For 34 Eglinton and Mt. Dennis would make the most sense.

Wilson currently runs the 89/989 despite Mount Dennis already existing. Same goes for 71, currently operated by Queensway (which literally runs INTO MtD yet is operated by a different division).

TTC has to balance out work between each of the divisions, so there may be some "inefficiencies" where deadheads are a bit longer than from another division, if that division has too much work already.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2022 at 8:29 PM, Mike said:

Out of curiosity, why Wilson for 89 and 989 when they run right next to Mount Dennis (for 89/989) and Arrow (989)?  Arrow closer for 89 then Wilson also. Likewise, why Queensway for 27/71 when 71 literally ends at Mount Dennis and 27 also closer for dead-heads for Mt. Dennis then Queensway.

For 34 Eglinton and Mt. Dennis would make the most sense.

I agree 89 should of went to Arrow Rd rather than Wilson 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lifty4ever said:

They sort of did a triangle swap. 35 (Formerly Arrow) went to MtD. 52 (formerly Wilson) went to Arrow and 89 (formerly MtD went to Wilson. 

There’s also instances of triangle swap as well. When Davenport closed, 81 moved from Eglinton to Danforth, which in turn had the 67 moved from Danforth to Birchmount and some of the 54 runs moved from Birchmount to Eglinton. A similar pattern continued in 2008 that had the 21 (NewEg) went to Malvern, 102 (Mal) went to Birchmount and 68 (Bir) went to New Eglinton when Mount Dennis opened.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The presentation deck from the virtual open house for the Eglinton West Extension (I don't think I'll ever personally use Crosstown in the name of the line) held on March 30.

I'll include the station overview maps:

1648733130294-png.389080Martin Grove/Eglinton

1648733172811-png.389081 Kipling/Eglinton

1648733208515-png.389082Islington/Eglinton

1648733270372-png.389083Royal York-Eglinton

Is there any consistency with how the placeholder names are presented?!  I think I've seen hyphenated (-), slash (/), ampersand (&) and "and" used at the intersection name over the various Metrolinx projects.

My guess is the pipeline running along the south side of Eglinton is a hinderance to providing station access from the south side of Eglinton forcing passengers to potentially have to cross the street twice (at Kipling if you get off at the nearside northbound stop) to get to the station entrance.

image.thumb.png.d002bea55f1c2aa51811806361a08f46.png

The station template doesn't seem to allow for an additional entrance on the other side of the street (without greatly increasing the cost of each station).  I don't see a secondary/emergency exit in the template even though they are indicated on the maps.  I presume they come off of the Concourse Level from each station?  Having only one fare gate means unless they plan on automating the entrance, they'll only be emergency exits and not secondary accesses.  The Concourse Level may be deep enough to go underneath the pipeline and a simple automated (and likely non-accessible) entrance could be built on the south side of Eglinton to eliminate the need to cross it to access the station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Gil said:

My guess is the pipeline running along the south side of Eglinton is a hinderance to providing station access from the south side of Eglinton forcing passengers to potentially have to cross the street twice (at Kipling if you get off at the nearside northbound stop) to get to the station entrance.

The pipeline isn't the issue, it's far enough away from the street.

 

The issue is Metrolinx's own design methodology, which now prioritizes things like minimizing the effects of the construction on the roadways to the detriment of things like tunnel alignment, station siting and neighbourhood access.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, smallspy said:

The pipeline isn't the issue, it's far enough away from the street.

 

The issue is Metrolinx's own design methodology, which now prioritizes things like minimizing the effects of the construction on the roadways to the detriment of things like tunnel alignment, station siting and neighbourhood access.

 

Dan

It was one of their other presentations that mentioned the pipeline which led me to think that might have been the excuse for the poor design in connectivity.  If enough people complain, especially given that it's perceived to be in Doug Ford's own riding (only the segment between Martin Grove and the 401 ramps actually is, the Martin Grove station is conveniently in Etobicoke Centre, not Etobicoke North) perhaps he may be persuaded to top up the spending.  They're already going with the gold-plated subway version, why not throw in the extra entrance(s) to make it more palatable?  Having only one access point into the station is surely problematic?  It seems short-sighted to be spending all of the money to put the line underground only to hamper access to it.  

As for disrupting the street, looking at the station cross-section, the Concourse Level looks deep enough that a passageway to the south side of Eglinton could be mined rather than using cut-and-cover.  It seems they may have taken the input "Keep station footprints as small as possible" at little too far.  "Keep traffic lanes open at all times to minimize disruption" is a laudable goal, but on this section of Eglinton when there are few if any homes or businesses that front onto Eglinton who are they concerned about impacting?  If they do opt for cut-and-cover, the passageway shouldn't be wide enough that decking couldn't be quickly put into place overnight to allow for construction.  I'm curious whose feedback about building footprints and traffic they're apparently taking into account but aren't willing to consider the possibility of additional access points if they're brought up in further public consultations?

image.thumb.png.0f8e48cf1c8c65abc5fe1e61b1bba4df.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they don't want to build entrances on both sides, they should at least build a bus loop so riders don't have to cross the road. Martin Grove/Eglinton would be a big mess with more pedestrian collision with this design. Enough people are already getting killed there and this will make it worst. This is very lousy that the secondary entrance becomes an emergency exit to compel with fire regulation. Small footprint doesn't mean difficult to access.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/2/2022 at 11:00 PM, Gil said:

The presentation deck from the virtual open house for the Eglinton West Extension (I don't think I'll ever personally use Crosstown in the name of the line) held on March 30.

I'll include the station overview maps:

1648733130294-png.389080Martin Grove/Eglinton

1648733172811-png.389081 Kipling/Eglinton

1648733208515-png.389082Islington/Eglinton

1648733270372-png.389083Royal York-Eglinton

Is there any consistency with how the placeholder names are presented?!  I think I've seen hyphenated (-), slash (/), ampersand (&) and "and" used at the intersection name over the various Metrolinx projects.

My guess is the pipeline running along the south side of Eglinton is a hinderance to providing station access from the south side of Eglinton forcing passengers to potentially have to cross the street twice (at Kipling if you get off at the nearside northbound stop) to get to the station entrance.

image.thumb.png.d002bea55f1c2aa51811806361a08f46.png

The station template doesn't seem to allow for an additional entrance on the other side of the street (without greatly increasing the cost of each station).  I don't see a secondary/emergency exit in the template even though they are indicated on the maps.  I presume they come off of the Concourse Level from each station?  Having only one fare gate means unless they plan on automating the entrance, they'll only be emergency exits and not secondary accesses.  The Concourse Level may be deep enough to go underneath the pipeline and a simple automated (and likely non-accessible) entrance could be built on the south side of Eglinton to eliminate the need to cross it to access the station.

Annoying they still seem to be building it all underground. Why not elevated on a structure or something else that makes more sense and is much cheaper?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...