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

[Eug]

1) Although the connections to GO in Mississauga won't benefit me directly in any way, it's good to see the TTC and GO finally actually trying to connect up to each other. If only they could do that at other sites too, with a common fare system. However, selfishly, I would prefer Route 5, with an extension to GO to meet Route 5.

2) Regardless if people think philisophically it should not be called a "Crosstown" line, I for one would most definitely take it to the airport, if it only took 78 minutes in rush hour. That would save me time and money from having to drive and then park in airport parking, unless I was driving there at 6 am or something. Plus I get to read the paper, check my email (over 3G), etc.

3) I'm glad to see that the downtown Eglinton segment is going to be 30 km/hr. Effectively it is subway speed for that entire stretch, and that stretch is what needed subway the most.

4) I'm glad to see the bike lanes continuing to be mentioned in the various presentations. Perhaps on nice days I'll just ride my bike along that Eglinton corridor to work. I don't do that now because I don't think it's safe... not to mention I've been a lazy slug lately.

5) It would be very, very cool if the subway section of the line had 3G repeaters inside.

 

[W. K. Lis]

One thing to consider is that there are a significant number of employment sites on the west side of the airport. Particularly most of the Airport support services are located there while the passengers and airport service personnel are headed to the east side. If we want to capture as many airport employees as possible than an extension to the west side should be considered or, at minimum, an agreement with the airport that an employee shuttle be run from the station to the other side. The shuttle could also have the benefit of accessing the airport grounds and using the central tunnel to shorten the trip.

Don't forget that the airport is on Mississauga property. It's Mississauga that should (in theory) provide transit to the west side of the airport. In fact, it should be Mississauga paying for the part of the LRT that touches Mississauga soil.

 

[DavidH]

In fact, it should be Mississauga paying for the part of the LRT that touches Mississauga soil.

That's a double standard, considering that Toronto is *NOT* paying for the part of the LRT that touches Toronto soil.

 

[kEiThZ]

That's a double standard, considering that Toronto is *NOT* paying for the part of the LRT that touches Toronto soil.

+1

Thank the powers that be for Metrolinx. It'll get rid of this kind of provincialism.

 

[dunkalunk]

I'm not sure why they can't just extend the Missisauga BRT to Renforth to shorten the route, there is certainly lots of space.

 

[nfitz]

Good question. The quick answer is because then Mississauga is building into Toronto. Hopefully this is the kind of question that Metrolinx will ask. (I'm dreaming ...)

 

[Dan416]

Good question. The quick answer is because then Mississauga is building into Toronto. Hopefully this is the kind of question that Metrolinx will ask. (I'm dreaming ...)

That's what I was wondering at first. And then came to the same conclusion.

 

[Fresh Start]

I'm not sure why they can't just extend the Missisauga BRT to Renforth to shorten the route, there is certainly lots of space.

Or better yet, just extend it to Martin Grove and let MT handle local transit service along Eglinton west of there. The meandering alignment of Route 2B is too impractical for any fast service into the airport. The LRT line could rather easily just zip up the 427 or run adjacent to it after Martin Grove, only stopping near Carlingview & Dixon en route.

Why must this "rapid transit" line be overextended to the point of not being in fact "rapid", when a one-stop-will-serve-all schema obviously won't work in a place the vast size of Airport Corporate Centre? Buses will still be doing the bulk of passenger distribution regardless of whether the Crosstown LRT heads this far southwest or not.

 

[Towered]

Don't forget we should learn to love life like the Europeans do, and walk more slowly, drive more slowly, and enjoy the scenic views that our slow-moving tram provides, gazing wistfully out the window waiting for streetside cafés to sprout up like mushrooms after a rain.

Yeah, I much prefer sprawling one storey plazas, surrounded by asphalt deserts, next to highway-esque arterial roads.

 

[Dan416]

Yeah, I much prefer sprawling one storey plazas, surrounded by asphalt deserts, next to highway-esque arterial roads.

Excellent. Because with the LRTs those "avenues" will remain just the way you like them.

 

[W. K. Lis]

For routes 1-4, there is an East Mall stop. To do so, the light rail vehicles seem to follow the current westbound Eglinton traffic beside them. It looks like no bridge or tunnel.

It has been mentioned that the Transit City LRT's will be running at or close to subway (heavy rail) headways. This means that the LRV's will have to get a green or go ahead traffic signal every 2 minutes 40 seconds or so, during the rush hours (if both eastbound and westbound are in sync at that intersection). In the non-hour, the LRV's would have a headway closer to 5 or 6 minutes.

While I can see the light rail vehicles passing all the automobiles and trucks along Eglinton, I can see some impatient motorist trying to save 5 seconds at this intersection and cause problems.

It would be better if there was a tunnel or bridge to get past this bottleneck for the LRV's.

 

[Second_in_pie]

^^ I'm not sure if I should be questioning the master, but I was under the impression that the max headways the LRTs could run at was 5 minutes. I thought I heard that higher frequencies would displease the road gods.

I still support alignment #5. It'd give a shorter trip time, and would probably have a lower cost.

 

[drum118]

^^ I'm not sure if I should be questioning the master, but I was under the impression that the max headways the LRTs could run at was 5 minutes. I thought I heard that higher frequencies would displease the road gods.

I still support alignment #5. It'd give a shorter trip time, and would probably have a lower cost.

How does it connect to MT BRT???

Headway said last night was 3-5 minutes.

The ROW should be on the north side of the road as well the bike lanes. This way, the grade is on the north side would allow the ROW to run over the road and takes traffic out of the picture 100% in most places.

 

[Fresh Start]

Wow, if this really is the preferred alignment I'm sticking to the 192. At least then I don't run risk of missing my flight, lol!

 

[EnviroTO]

^ I know. Anyone looking at the convoluted route to the airport will wonder what on earth happened during the planning process. The immovable busway terminal with busses running on pavement could not be moved to make the trip on the LRT rail project more direct.

I can understand that Route 5 needs to be ruled out because many of the busses will be headed south on the 427, but why the busway terminus can't be moved to the south east corner of Renforth and Eglinton is beyond me. Instead of making good use of the hydro corridor they are using up land which could be developed. Ideally the LRT would come down from the airport on Carlingview and dive under the 401 in a straight line surfacing south of Eglinton to connect with the busway terminal and then head east.