News   Nov 18, 2024
 953     1 
News   Nov 18, 2024
 449     0 
News   Nov 18, 2024
 1.4K     1 

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

If these stops are given grade-separated status and are made to be electrified Eurostyle "pre-metros", I think the public would get off of its "subways cubed" kick mighty quickly.

Definitely! The Eglinton-Crosstown line is a highly important line in terms of demonstrating to the public what LRT con do.

The current plan shows its flexibility particularly just outside the ends of the tunnel. On the east, it rises up to the surface, running alongside traffic, before dipping down under the busy Don Mills intersection. It then runs along Eglinton crossing the DVP ramps at grade (hopefully with very powerful priority) and across the existing grade separation at Wyndford Drive.

But for the rest of the route, it seems to be ordinary streetcar-in-a-ROW design.

Selective grade separation can go a long way toward improving speeds and public image of Light Rail.

<EDIT: never mind>I'd like to see corresponding grade separation on the west end, with the line running on a bridge over Black Creek Drive (with no station) and diving back into a tunnel for Mount Dennis station at Weston road. This was one of the options put forward in the design stage, but it was dismissed due to cost. But we now know that this city apparently considers cost no object in building rapid transit, so the decision to build at-grade is worth revisiting. Indeed, the amount of time saved by this single grade separation would be similar to the amount of time saved by the Scarborough Subway (2 minutes).</never mind>

It would have been great to include the Scarborough RT as the east end of the ECLRT, showing how fast LRT can be when independent of a street, and muting the desire to build a multi-billion dollar subway extension to replace the city's fastest rapid transit line.

The TTC says it couldn't interoperate the SRT and ECLRT because the route would be too long to maintain service reliability. Yet they have no problem extending the YUS subway ad infinitum, so clearly what they mean is that the standard of design is too low to maintain service reliability.

With more grade separation on the above-ground portions, the SRT and ECLRT could operate as one, and we could eliminate the Kennedy transfer without bankrupting the city.

Instead of transferring at Kennedy to the B-D line and again at Bloor-Yonge (as if that station needs more riders), Scarborough riders can simply stay on the SRT until Don Mills or Yonge, and transfer to the DRL or Yonge Line.

v3s2.jpg


Spending a few hundred million extra on the ECLRT to improve speed and reliability would have exactly the same impact as spending billions of dollars on the subway extension, allowing those billions of dollars to instead be put toward the DRL.
 
Last edited:
Selective grade separation can go a long way toward improving speeds and public image of Light Rail. I'd like to see corresponding grade separation on the west end, with the line running on a bridge over Black Creek Drive (with no station) and diving back into a tunnel for Mount Dennis station at Weston road. This was one of the options put forward in the design stage, but it was dismissed due to cost. But we now know that this city apparently considers cost no object in building rapid transit, so the decision to build at-grade is worth revisiting. Indeed, the amount of time saved by this single grade separation would be similar to the amount of time saved by the Scarborough Subway (2 minutes).

That change has been made. TTC dismissed it, Metrolinx revisited it when they took over the project. IIRC, it was made cost-neutral by shortening the line back to Weston Rd. and cutting the Black Creek stop.
 
They were fine which operating it as a single line when it was entirely grade seperated, they just switched the operations once the at grade portion was reintroduced as it would have proven unreliable.
 
That change has been made. TTC dismissed it, Metrolinx revisited it when they took over the project. IIRC, it was made cost-neutral by shortening the line back to Weston Rd. and cutting the Black Creek stop.

Awesome! I somehow missed that. Thanks for the info.
 
So why is it when I check station design there is nothing on Weston. It only begins with Keele and mentions stations to the Allen
 
This is what I would really like to see for the Victoria Park/Eglinton Square stop:

The LRT dips underground just west of Victoria Park, and the stop is in a pit in wedge of Victoria Park, Eglinton and Eglinton Square (which leads into O'Connor). It would then re-emerge on the surface near Pharmacy Avenue to serve it. That section of Eglinton has a number of lights, skipping two of them, especially Victoria Park, should speed operations while being cost-effective.

This is on Tram #26 in Amsterdam, on the newer (opened 2005) IJburg line. This is Reitlandpark, where there are escalators, stairs and elevators is very similar to what I (and others) would like to see.

10548090146_171d5d7ccb_b.jpg


(h/t to CDL.TO for mentioning this location to check out when I was in Amsterdam.)
 
Last edited:
This is what I would really like to see for the Victoria Park/Eglinton Square stop:

The LRT dips underground just west of Victoria Park, and the stop is in a pit in wedge of Victoria Park, Eglinton and Eglinton Square (which leads into O'Connor).

I don't think anyone would be opposed to Transit City if most of it operated in a side-of-road trench, tunneled or elevated design. This is how the Crosstown should operate through Scarborough, perhaps consolidating the Victoria Park and Pharmacy; Lebovic and Warden; and Birchmount and Ionview stations into single stations with 100 metre long platforms spanning the area between those intersections.
 
I don't think anyone would be opposed to Transit City if most of it operated in a side-of-road trench, tunneled or elevated design. This is how the Crosstown should operate through Scarborough, perhaps consolidating the Victoria Park and Pharmacy; Lebovic and Warden; and Birchmount and Ionview stations into single stations with 100 metre long platforms spanning the area between those intersections.

I was just about to say that too.

If our LRTs were built like that picture above, no one would be crying for subways.
 
I was just about to say that too.

If our LRTs were built like that picture above, no one would be crying for subways.

The IJburg line is in a typical surface ROW on the outer section, and Amsterdam has an extensive street-running tram system as well. That's why this particular example fits so well in the Toronto context.
 
Sure they would ... what kind of second-rate city has to put up with outdoor platforms ...

no they wouldn't. Systems like the London DLR would be widely accepted. People take issue with Eglinton stopping at traffic lights in the east end
 
no they wouldn't. Systems like the London DLR would be widely accepted. People take issue with Eglinton stopping at traffic lights in the east end

You must not have heard what Karen Stintz had to say about the Scarborough Subway being outdoors. Something about at-grade transit not being "real" subways.

Of course she doesn't represent everyone, but I wouldn't be surprised if this viewpoint is widely accepted.
 
no they wouldn't. Systems like the London DLR would be widely accepted. People take issue with Eglinton stopping at traffic lights in the east end

I've seen on the street news interviews of riders waiting at bus stops on Eglinton East, complaining that they don't know how they will manage to get to work if it snows since they will have to wait at an above ground LRT platform, rather than an underground subway station......

This same rider was getting on at Victoria Park and heading to the Yonge subway, and was just outraged that Ford's all underground plan was no longer going to be built, as if the hand full of intersections between VP and the tunneled section were going to make her trip an absolute nightmare, while not being a drastic improvement over her current bus ride.

So yes, the objections to surface LRT are that irrational.
 

Back
Top