News   May 28, 2024
Core Architects Wins a Trio of Awards for 210 Bloor West
 1.1K     1 
News   May 28, 2024
Quayside Resubmission Refines Block 3 and 4 Tower Plans
 1.6K     0 
News   May 28, 2024
News Roundup for May 28, 2024
 556     0 

Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

Streety McCarface said:
Who said it had to be in the middle of Eglinton? They could have easily moved it to the side
Click to expand...
shifting LRT lines from the middle of the street to the side causes all kinds problems don't forget they dug the tunnel right under Eglingtion so basicly the trains will come out at Lared alredy in the centre of the street if they were to be on the side of the raod they would have to corss all lanes of traffic to do so
 
EastYorkTTCFan said:
shifting LRT lines from the middle of the street to the side causes all kinds problems don't forget they dug the tunnel right under Eglingtion so basicly the trains will come out at Lared alredy in the centre of the street if they were to be on the side of the raod they would have to corss all lanes of traffic to do so
Click to expand...
Well now it's too late. I imagine the comment was for it being done in the original design.

For a while I thought the best option was to dig up the first couple of hundred metres of the tunnel portal and rebuild it so that the track would surface on the south side. Now I think that too much work has been done with the original plan and we will have to live with this - warts and all.
 
Hopkins123 said:
At least there's still opportunities to prevent the Etobicoke section of the Crosstown from becoming a glorified streetcar. I pity Scarborough, it got screwed again.
Click to expand...

I do wonder what they plan for that section. Part of the section runs through Ford territory, so maybe it won't be a "glorified streetcar", or maybe it will be. You never know!
 
MisterF said:
Talking about planners and engineers like they're all united in their opinions is foolish. Both professions are highly subjective and you'll find a wide variety of opinions about any given topic among both groups. Planners don't necessarily disagree with the C-Train model, many of them are big fans of it and are critical of the Transit City model.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that, I'm just pointing out that Urban Planners and Transportation/Civil Engineers don't see eye to eye, their priorities are completely different. Will their opinions meet occasionally? Absolutely, but that doesn't dismiss the fact that each have their own agenda and will do what they deem is necessary to fulfill it. If an Urban Planner's job is to make a city more appealing, they will generally try to do that to the best of their ability, even if it means reducing the efficiency of a road. There's nothing wrong with that, again, opinions are subjective and many will share opinions, or have different opinions. Nothing wrong with that.
 
thettctransitfanatic said:
I do wonder what they plan for that section. Part of the section runs through Ford territory, so maybe it won't be a "glorified streetcar", or maybe it will be. You never know!
Click to expand...

In this age of austerity, I highly doubt the 17-18 stop, 500 metres apart road median design originally proposed for Crosstown West is going to fly. Nor should it. The Richview corridor is perfectly suited to any configuration of side-of-roadway at-grade, trench, elevation and tunnel. No one said we have to stick to a specific right-of-way alignment.

10 stops max to Pearson from Mt Dennis is more than suitable.
 
Streety McCarface said:
I'm not saying that, I'm just pointing out that Urban Planners and Transportation/Civil Engineers don't see eye to eye, their priorities are completely different. Will their opinions meet occasionally? Absolutely, but that doesn't dismiss the fact that each have their own agenda and will do what they deem is necessary to fulfill it. If an Urban Planner's job is to make a city more appealing, they will generally try to do that to the best of their ability, even if it means reducing the efficiency of a road. There's nothing wrong with that, again, opinions are subjective and many will share opinions, or have different opinions. Nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...
What I don't get is, it is almost agreed by most that an in-median LRT will decrease the non-transit capacity of the road. Densification of a road outside of the downtown core seems to come in the form of residential buildings. Now guess how a lot of those new residents will commute by, other than taking the TTC...
 
There are too many underground and at-grade stations so if they had cancelled a couple of them and made the current stations smaller and less elaborate they could have elevated the at-grade section and made the system faster, more reliable, have higher capacity, and cheaper to run. This had nothing to do with Queen's Park and everything to do with Miller wanting to create ' great city building' hoping to turn every LRT street into a mini-Yorkville and doing everything he could to appease his union friends by building lines that can never be automated.

Remember before Miller's 'LRT or nothing' TC plan, the original Metrolinx proposal was to extend the current SRT along Eglinton using ART. Also remember that TC was planned upon the assumption that the City would reach 3 million by 2030 and yet already has and will be closer to4.7 million by then. Exceptionally poor planning.
 
The original plan for SRT to extend to Malvern was done by the TTC as Metrolinx did not exist then. It was Miller who wanted to reverse a mistake of using an orphan technology in Toronto. His plan was more social engineering to make the suburbs more attractive and more urban. It would have improved those areas made travel easier. It was a far from perfect plan as it did not address capacity issues downtown nor the speed problem of having to travel further in the suburbs where 400m spacing doesn’t make sense as rapid transit z

As far as the stats go, the city has not yet hit 3M, last census shows Toronto has only 2.73M. We will only hit 3M in about 10-12 years. The city is mostly shrinking in population except for Downtown, midtown and NYCC. Most of the low rise neighbourhoods are shrinking in population as the residents there are aging and younger families are leaving the city due to unaffordable housing.

Actually, it’s much better planning to make other areas of the city more attractive. There is a reason downtown is getting most of the development - it’s dense, it has good urban environment and mixed used density and good level of services. The suburbs need more of that and better transit than just a bus or 1 new subway station for an area 1/3 the size of an entire city.
 
ssiguy2 said:
There are too many underground and at-grade stations so if they had cancelled a couple of them and made the current stations smaller and less elaborate they could have elevated the at-grade section and made the system faster, more reliable, have higher capacity, and cheaper to run. This had nothing to do with Queen's Park and everything to do with Miller wanting to create ' great city building' hoping to turn every LRT street into a mini-Yorkville and doing everything he could to appease his union friends by building lines that can never be automated.

Remember before Miller's 'LRT or nothing' TC plan, the original Metrolinx proposal was to extend the current SRT along Eglinton using ART. Also remember that TC was planned upon the assumption that the City would reach 3 million by 2030 and yet already has and will be closer to4.7 million by then. Exceptionally poor planning.
Click to expand...
Correct - nothing to do with Queen's park in 2007 to 2010.
But after the Ford-McGuinty compromise (later in 2011), Queens Park (i.e. the Liberals) became heavily involved as they sensed an opportunity to defeat Ford. They did everything possible to prevent grade-separation, side-of-road, elevation, etc. from happening. They even hid the report that proved the connected option was the best.
 
Streety McCarface said:
I'm not saying that, I'm just pointing out that Urban Planners and Transportation/Civil Engineers don't see eye to eye, their priorities are completely different. Will their opinions meet occasionally? Absolutely, but that doesn't dismiss the fact that each have their own agenda and will do what they deem is necessary to fulfill it. If an Urban Planner's job is to make a city more appealing, they will generally try to do that to the best of their ability, even if it means reducing the efficiency of a road. There's nothing wrong with that, again, opinions are subjective and many will share opinions, or have different opinions. Nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...
Again you're speaking in absolutes. The priorities of planners and engineers can and often do converge. Planners disagree with each other about a lot of things, including how a road could be improved. Same with engineers.

But I was more specifically responding to Steve X's assertion that planners don't agree with C-Train style rapid transit, when there are many planners who are all for it. The idea that planners as a rule think that LRT should run in the middle of the street and stop at red lights is completely inaccurate.
 
Steve X said:
The Scarborough subway is a good example. The richer people prefer subway and don't have to travel to Malvern. Poor Malvern doesn't even get a chance of an SRT extension with the subway extension in planning now. Yet many people agree it's right to do cause they don't pay as much taxes as the middle class. Not building a replacement for Lawrence East Station is another perfect example or ignoring the low income riders living just east of there along Lawrence. The whole Scarborough Subway Extension is designed to get the wealthier riders funneling north of STC to get on a faster subway and yet it seems like it's the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

Wow, rich vs poor? As if low-income residents will not benefit from a faster ride to the rest of the city, and fewer transfers.

Where are all those evil "wealthier riders" residing. Near STC? In Malvern? Never heard of a particularly high-income neighborhood around there.
 
Hopkins123 said:
In this age of austerity, I highly doubt the 17-18 stop, 500 metres apart road median design originally proposed for Crosstown West is going to fly. Nor should it. The Richview corridor is perfectly suited to any configuration of side-of-roadway at-grade, trench, elevation and tunnel. No one said we have to stick to a specific right-of-way alignment.

10 stops max to Pearson from Mt Dennis is more than suitable.
Click to expand...

They have already dropped the stops at The East Mall and one other stop ( I can't remember ), but I don't think the western extention needs too many stops either.
 
thettctransitfanatic said:
They have already dropped the stops at The East Mall and one other stop ( I can't remember ), but I don't think the western extention needs too many stops either.
Click to expand...
To the west, anything other than Renforth and Pearson (perhaps at both T1 and T3 if there's an easy way) might be unnecessary overkill and ultimately unused.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top