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

[andrewpmk]

Not sure that driving big-box stores away is a desirable task; they are part of the city's economy and must be located somewhere. Btw, they could use transit, too. Employees need to get to / from work, and customers can take small purchases on transit.

As land values increase, big box stores will get driven away and replaced with high density retail (shops with multi-storey or underground parking) and condos. Given that the Golden Mile is a fairly low-income area this may take several decades, but it will probably happen eventually. How many big box stores do you find in densely populated Asian cities - not very many.

 

[W. K. Lis]

As land values increase, big box stores will get driven away and replaced with high density retail (shops with multi-storey or underground parking) and condos. Given that the Golden Mile is a fairly low-income area this may take several decades, but it will probably happen eventually. How many big box stores do you find in densely populated Asian cities - not very many.

The city should be taxing the property that the parking lots sit on at a higher rate to discourage them, or charge a parking tax. I've noticed many times that the parking lots usually take up more real estate than the stores themselves. Just wondering what they are taxed at?

 

[BurlOak]

I'm not proposing that all intersections be elevated rather some, and it's just a theoretical suggestion. Another suggestion would be to cut and cover under major intersections, however with true signal priority I doubt these features would even be needed. However, the unfortunate situation in Toronto is that we've never even seen true signal priority.

I am not sure if you can turn this into a Rapid transit corridor. There are 15 intersections between the Don Mills portal and the Kennedy portal - that is a spacing of about 350m. I doubt that signal priority is possible with so many, and so close intersections, especially at the train frequency needed to be a rapid transit line. Crossing gates and signal priority could work if intersections were a kilometre of more apart. In order to go over an intersection, the track would have clear the roadway by about 5.5m, plus about 2.5m for the structure to support the tracks. If you want to go under an intersection you again need about 5m clearance for the LRT, 0.5 to 1.0m for the "tunnel" structure, and 2 or 3m for services and utilities under the cross road. In order to get the track to go from horizontal to 8m (above or below) would need about 150m at 4% grade, plus 75m for the vertical curve (transition from level to inclined or inclined to level). Plus add in a 100m station and this means that the elevated portion for one crossing would require about 0.7 km. It also means that if you go over Vic Park, you can not come down before Pharmacy. This means that it would have to go over both and be over 1 km long.

Thus, I think the only options are to keep it the way it is designed or have it fully elevated.

If left as is, then ECLRT will not have enough capacity to carry many, and all of Scarborough (aside from Agincourt) will be funnelled onto the B-D subway. This means that:
1) There would be a significantly higher number of passengers arriving at Yonge-Bloor and the DRL would have to solely be required to get as many riders as possible. This could only be accomplished if there were no intermediate stations and the DRL ran express from Pape to the Financial District. (Pape and the Downtown station would have to be designed for huge passenger volumes).
2) There would be significantly fewer passengers passing Don Mills and Eglinton, and a DRL extension to Eglinton would not be required.

If the ECLRT were elevated, passengers would be better distributed between the two lines. This would mean
1) The demand on the DRL to solely relieve Yonge-Bloor would not be as great, and the line could have additional stations downtown.
2) Pape station would not require nearly the capacity and could be more easily built without massive construction.
3) The demand at Don Mills and Eglinton would be higher and an extension of the DRL to Eglinton would be justified.

So I think it is possible for ECLRT to be in the median, but it will have a great effect on the rest of the network.

 

[Rainforest]

Thus, I think the only options are to keep it the way it is designed or have it fully elevated.

If left as is, then ECLRT will not have enough capacity to carry many, and all of Scarborough (aside from Agincourt) will be funnelled onto the B-D subway. This means that:
1) There would be a significantly higher number of passengers arriving at Yonge-Bloor and the DRL would have to solely be required to get as many riders as possible. This could only be accomplished if there were no intermediate stations and the DRL ran express from Pape to the Financial District. (Pape and the Downtown station would have to be designed for huge passenger volumes).
2) There would be significantly fewer passengers passing Don Mills and Eglinton, and a DRL extension to Eglinton would not be required.

If the ECLRT were elevated, passengers would be better distributed between the two lines. This would mean
1) The demand on the DRL to solely relieve Yonge-Bloor would not be as great, and the line could have additional stations downtown.
2) Pape station would not require nearly the capacity and could be more easily built without massive construction.
3) The demand at Don Mills and Eglinton would be higher and an extension of the DRL to Eglinton would be justified.

So I think it is possible for ECLRT to be in the median, but it will have a great effect on the rest of the network.

I have to disagree on some points:

1) There is no relation between the design of Eglinton line, and the number of DRL stations south of Bloor. There are 9 stations from Pape/Danforth to Yonge/King if traveling with BD and Yonge subways. If DRL will have 5 or 6 intermediate stations between those two points, it will be attractive enough; added bonus is avoiding the Yonge line crowds. DRL can have a reasonable number of stations south of Bloor; more than 6 is not needed anyway.

2) Better distribution of passengers between the two lines (BD and Eglinton) does not mean even distribution. Eglinton is being designed in a way that it hardly can carry more than 15,000 pphpd; while BD can easily handle 30,000. Elevating Eglinton east of Don Mills will not add capacity near Yonge, where the demand will be highest. It is actually desirable to direct more riders from Scarborough to BD than to Eglinton.

3) Extension of DRL to Eglinton is justified; but that does not necessarily mean it will be funded in the foreseeable future.

 

[ssiguy2]

While Toronto spends a not so small fortune on Eglington hoping that there is no accident along the route and waiting for the lights to change here is what Vancouverites are going to have to suffer thru on their new Evergreen and existing Expo and Millenium Lines............. skytrainforsurrey.org and just type in gallery under the search.

These are the very nice, very bright Innovia 300 series which as you can see have twice the length of the current MK11 using one longer train and articulation like the new Rockets. They can be expanded to 6 car trains and have frequency level potentials of every 75 seconds. Vancouver plans on eventually having all 6 car Innovia 300 trains and on the Expo/Mill and Mill/Evergreen line interlined sections running every 75 seconds each way. Think of that in Toronto's old ICTS buggies as being the equivalent of 11 MK1 cars coming by every 75 seconds and yet still be cheaper to run than Eglinton LRT because they are automated.

Aren't you glad Toronto is engaging in "great city building" as opposed to creating a cost effective Metro system?

 

[Rainforest]

^ FYU, subways have traffic lights as well. Obviously they are not to make way for the cross traffic, but they do hold trains in place if something is happening ahead. It is a rather common situation during the PM rush.

Speed and reliability of the whole Eglinton line will be determined primarily by its long tunneled section. The 5.5-km long eastern surface section will slightly reduce the speed, but there is no reason for it to affect reliability.

 

[BurlOak]

I am not sure if you can turn this into a Rapid transit corridor. There are 15 intersections between the Don Mills portal and the Kennedy portal - that is a spacing of about 350m. I doubt that signal priority is possible with so many, and so close intersections, especially at the train frequency needed to be a rapid transit line. Crossing gates and signal priority could work if intersections were a kilometre of more apart. In order to go over an intersection, the track would have clear the roadway by about 5.5m, plus about 2.5m for the structure to support the tracks. If you want to go under an intersection you again need about 5m clearance for the LRT, 0.5 to 1.0m for the "tunnel" structure, and 2 or 3m for services and utilities under the cross road. In order to get the track to go from horizontal to 8m (above or below) would need about 150m at 4% grade, plus 75m for the vertical curve (transition from level to inclined or inclined to level). Plus add in a 100m station and this means that the elevated portion for one crossing would require about 0.7 km. It also means that if you go over Vic Park, you can not come down before Pharmacy. This means that it would have to go over both and be over 1 km long.

Thus, I think the only options are to keep it the way it is designed or have it fully elevated.

If left as is, then ECLRT will not have enough capacity to carry many, and all of Scarborough (aside from Agincourt) will be funnelled onto the B-D subway. This means that:
1) There would be a significantly higher number of passengers arriving at Yonge-Bloor and the DRL would have to solely be required to get as many riders as possible. This could only be accomplished if there were no intermediate stations and the DRL ran express from Pape to the Financial District. (Pape and the Downtown station would have to be designed for huge passenger volumes).
2) There would be significantly fewer passengers passing Don Mills and Eglinton, and a DRL extension to Eglinton would not be required.

If the ECLRT were elevated, passengers would be better distributed between the two lines. This would mean
1) The demand on the DRL to solely relieve Yonge-Bloor would not be as great, and the line could have additional stations downtown.
2) Pape station would not require nearly the capacity and could be more easily built without massive construction.
3) The demand at Don Mills and Eglinton would be higher and an extension of the DRL to Eglinton would be justified.

So I think it is possible for ECLRT to be in the median, but it will have a great effect on the rest of the network.

One thing I forgot about regarding consequences of the current ECLRT plan.

With the elimination of the Leslie Station (I always thought it would be on the South side between Leslie and CPR), it also means the the chances of a crosstown GO line are greatly reduced.

 

[nfitz]

With the elimination of the Leslie Station (I always thought it would be on the South side between Leslie and CPR), it also means the the chances of a crosstown GO line are greatly reduced.

Go seems to have been backpeddling away from that for a while. But if it were to happen, they'd be spending a lot of money and at that point going back in and building a station at Leslie might make sense - because it would actually have a purpose.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Go seems to have been backpeddling away from that for a while. But if it were to happen, they'd be spending a lot of money and at that point going back in and building a station at Leslie might make sense - because it would actually have a purpose.

Would a crosstown even be worth it now? Seems like it would be a second transfer point, not like the relationship between Grand Central-Penn or Montreal's two Stations. Would people from Markham, Barrie want to be dumped on Summerhill?

 

[W. K. Lis]

Go seems to have been backpeddling away from that for a while. But if it were to happen, they'd be spending a lot of money and at that point going back in and building a station at Leslie might make sense - because it would actually have a purpose.

Why hasn't GO moved their Oriole GO Station, located currently at Leslie St. and the 401, 740 m north to Sheppard Avenue East, to provide an easier access or connection with the Sheppard Subway at the TTC's Leslie Subway Station? There is currently only 286 parking spaces at the Oriole GO Station with maybe the only TTC route nearby being the 51 Leslie a couple blocks away.

 

[CapitalSeven]

Seriously, there was never a Leslie Station in the official ECLRT plan.

Curious, then, that it was unambiguously included in the environmental assessment drawings.

 

[Voltz]

Who cares if it was a station or a stop?

 

[nfitz]

It was unambiguously included in the environmental assessment drawings as a surface stop, not as a station.

It was clearly however included as a surface station.

I suggest that you review the drawings again.

I'd suggest you stop trying to play with people's words when you know exactly what they mean. It only serves to create confusion.

 

[innsertnamehere]

What nfitz is trying to say is that you are correct that they are referred to differently, but that the differentiation between the two terms is rather pointless. You can board the train regardless whether it is a station or a stop, and there was a point that you could board the train previously planned at Leslie, which has since been cancelled. Regardless of whether it is called a station or a stop.

 

[nfitz]

Nfitz, I am not going to play a game with you.

And yet your clearly playing games here. You 100% knew what someone was saying when they talked about the cancelled Leslie station. Yet rather than discussing the issue, you pretend that there wasn't going to be a stop at Leslie based on the terminology used by the person. Even Metrolinx hasn't been 100% consistent about this, as there is a discussion on their website about "Ferrand and Leslie Stations".

And this isn't the first time you've done this - you were doing exactly the same thing to someone else a few days ago.

How about applying a little common sense and grey to your black and white discussion and stop playing games.

The surface station at Leslie has been cancelled - and for good reason. Debate the issue, not the varying terminology, or we are going to be back into the endless argument of whether the service that the LRT vehicles are going to be running through the subway tunnel under Eglinton is a subway, LRT, Metro or pre-Loblaws ...