News   Jun 17, 2024
Misty Veil
 176     0 
News   Jun 14, 2024
Dual High-Rises and Production Studio Space Proposed in the Port Lands
 2.6K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
Exchange District Condos' Four Towers Progressing by Square One
 1.8K     1 

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

AlvinofDiaspar said:
I don't subscribe to the notion that NIMBYism alone is the issue in the transit saga in Scarborough; having said so, can you explain to me why say ECWest is underground instead elevated?

AoD
Click to expand...
Because when Toronto was studying the Eglinton West section of the line, the only allignments they studied were at grade and buried. This means that when Doug Ford got into office and wanted to get shovels in the ground while grade separating the corridor, the fastest option was to take the already studied underground allignment and run with it to get TBMs in the ground asap, instead of spending time doing studies for an above ground alignment, especially when you consider that if he doesn't get shovels in the ground by 2022, and he loses, we're likely going to go back to the at-grade allignment. This is why for projects like Yonge North which will likely get built no matter who is in power, he looks for shortcuts and cost savers even when they will increase the time it takes to get the project built (Keep in mind that the area the YNSE goes through are swing ridings so its not like he's doing this in areas where he has no chance of winning).

Same thing applies to the SSE, its only built the way it is because that's what's already been studied previously.
 
ARG1 said:
Because when Toronto was studying the Eglinton West section of the line, the only allignments they studied were at grade and buried. This means that when Doug Ford got into office and wanted to get shovels in the ground while grade separating the corridor, the fastest option was to take the already studied underground allignment and run with it to get TBMs in the ground asap, instead of spending time doing studies for an above ground alignment, especially when you consider that if he doesn't get shovels in the ground by 2022, and he loses, we're likely going to go back to the at-grade allignment.
Click to expand...

You and I both known OL disproves that nonsense you just advanced.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
You and I both known OL disproves that nonsense you just advanced.

AoD
Click to expand...
First you posted that response so quickly that I don't believe you could've read what I said that quickly to make a counter argument.

Second and most importantly, the Ontario Line was likely studied as an alternative long before Doug Ford got into power, and there is quite a bit of evidence pointing to this fact, namely a ton of open houses that were made during 2018 where Metrolinx was seemingly contemplating using rolling stock that weren't TRs. Furthermore if we compare Yonge North with the Ontario Line, it took 2.5 years for the Yonge North preliminary business case to be released where all they changed was that there is now an option where the subway goes outside after Royal Orchard, while the rest of the line is mostly in tact. Meanwhile the Ontario Line was announced and detailed plans were released less than a year after Ford got into office. I don't believe for a second that OL was Doug's idea or that he ordered a complete shift in Metrolinx and managed to pump stuff like this out that quickly. What most likely happened was that a light metro alternative was being developed internally as a solution to the escalating costs of the DRL (this is backed up by those late open houses), and when Doug got into office, Metrolinx came up to him and presented all of the different options for projects under his request, he saw the Ontario Line and its delicious cost per kilometer, and told Metrolinx to pursue that instead.
 
ARG1 said:
First you posted that response so quickly that I don't believe you could've read what I said that quickly to make a counter argument.

Second and most importantly, the Ontario Line was likely studied as an alternative long before Doug Ford got into power, and there is quite a bit of evidence pointing to this fact, namely a ton of open houses that were made during 2018 where Metrolinx was seemingly contemplating using rolling stock that weren't TRs. Furthermore if we compare Yonge North with the Ontario Line, it took 2.5 years for the Yonge North preliminary business case to be released where all they changed was that there is now an option where the subway goes outside after Royal Orchard, while the rest of the line is mostly in tact. Meanwhile the Ontario Line was announced and detailed plans were released less than a year after Ford got into office. I don't believe for a second that OL was Doug's idea or that he ordered a complete shift in Metrolinx and managed to pump stuff like this out that quickly. What most likely happened was that a light metro alternative was being developed internally as a solution to the escalating costs of the DRL (this is backed up by those late open houses), and when Doug got into office, Metrolinx came up to him and presented all of the different options for projects under his request, he saw the Ontario Line and its delicious cost per kilometer, and told Metrolinx to pursue that instead.
Click to expand...

I have seen that counteragument coming from you before. You are rehashing old stuff here (as am I) - so I will just leave it as that. Your comment re: OL is just that, a conjecture - and I find it hard to believe an organization truly interested in minimizing cost and not pander to NIMBYism could not have come up with alternatives to a buried ECWest in the given timeframe, especially when you have cost differential in the $B range. And humour me further - why would Doug Ford want a buried LRT? Why did he (or his brother, on that matter) never pushed for above ground transit, even though it is cheaper - a purported interest? Because it is objectively inferior? Or because it is something that is prone to NIMBYism? I mean how many politicians have you seen actively promoting elevated transit infrastructure in this town over say, the past 20 or so years?

Like I have said, be careful when you sing praises of NIMBYism.

AoD
 
Last edited:
ARG1 said:
The good guys are in charge now? Where? Not in City Council at least...
Click to expand...
Oh I meant the liberals were the bad guys pushing at grade while the great leadership of Ford has brought us into utopia with grade separated everywhere. But I see how I loss track of the convo. My mistake.
 
What if... the pro-LRT councillors just don't know or forgot about the whole TPS situation, not some crazy "they hate drivers but don't actually want good transit" conspiracy. The best thing to do is call or email them, and that's what I'll do.
 
Where's the grass, man?
grasstram-ed02.jpg

grasstram-ed03.jpg

grasstram-ed05.jpg

grasstram-comp01.jpg

grasstram-ed06.jpg

grasstram-ed07.jpg

From link.

Sorry. Must be Toronto grey.
 
Sorry. It is illegal to use artificial grass in Toronto...

Toronto forces homeowner to remove fake grass from front yard

From link. Dated July 30, 2019

It's difficult to maintain a nice lawn in Toronto. Weeds grow and the extreme heat makes it almost impossible to keep it green sometimes.

Because of this, a natural solution is to turn to synthetic turf. It's less work to maintain and makes the most sense in the long term.

This is what Toronto woman Sangeeta Gounder told CBC news she did when it became increasingly difficult to care for real grass.

She told them her and her husband had artificial grass installed on their property three years ago, but they received a violation notice from the city in May.
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1155931489005006848

According to a Toronto bylaw, at least 75 per cent of a house's yard must be soft landscaping.

"Soft landscaping excludes hard-surfaced areas such as decorative stonework, retaining walls, walkways, or other hard-surfaced landscape-architectural elements," the city says. "Artificial turf is not acceptable or considered to be soft landscaping and is, therefore, not permitted."

In June, Gounder told CTV News she loves her turf and often gets complimented for it.

"Natural surfaces are important features of a city landscape as they help cool the air, absorb rainwater and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere," said city spokesperson Lyne Kyle.

"Artificial turf can be associated with surface water management issues, and it also acts like other paved surfaces and can become hot during summer months."

Kyle also said artificial turf can raise local air temperatures, doesn't absorb water as fast and that overuse of artificial turf would make Toronto less resilient to extreme weather events.

With due respect to @cityoftoronto by-laws, this one governing landscaping: preventing artificial turf is ridiculous. Watering, mowing, weeding of grass lawns make turf an aesthetic and worthwhile alternative. @JohnTory please reconsider!https://t.co/xb1eTTkbIL
— Nick (@ICREWTVANDFILM) July 29, 2019
Click to expand...

Kyle added that as of yet, the city has received five artificial-turf related complaints.

"The homeowner can either remove and reinstate the natural environment, seek a minor variance through the committee of adjustments, or contest the charges in court," Kyle said.

Although she's extremely disappointed, Gounder told CBC she plans to comply with the bylaw to avoid hefty fines and charges.
Click to expand...
It's so hard to get anything look nice in Toronto. Should be fine to use artificial grass on the right-of-way, but the bureaucrats say no, nein, ne, non, ochi, nihil, net...
 
W. K. Lis said:
Sorry. It is illegal to use artificial grass in Toronto...

Toronto forces homeowner to remove fake grass from front yard

From link. Dated July 30, 2019


https://twitter.com/x/status/1155931489005006848


It's so hard to get anything look nice in Toronto. Should be fine to use artificial grass on the right-of-way, but the bureaucrats say no, nein, ne, non, ochi, nihil, net...
Click to expand...
You'd think city hall would promote artificial grass since it would conserve water (And not need to be cut, thus also saving fuel).
 
Redflorist said:
You'd think city hall would promote artificial grass since it would conserve water (And not need to be cut, thus also saving fuel).
Click to expand...

It is a drainage issue. Rainwater needs to go somewhere and having it run into the storm sewer is a bad idea.

Water runs off artifical turf while real grass provides ample drainage.
 
Richard White said:
It is a drainage issue. Rainwater needs to go somewhere and having it run into the storm sewer is a bad idea.

Water runs off artifical turf while real grass provides ample drainage.
Click to expand...
The rainwater goes THROUGH the porous artificial grass into the subsoil underneath. If the subsoil is not that porous, like the concrete of the LRT right-of-way, they may have to add drainage to filter the rainwater away.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top