News   Nov 18, 2024
Tower Crane Installed at 1071 King West While Building Gets Height Bump
 1.5K     1 
News   Nov 18, 2024
City of Toronto Introduces Measures to Protect Renters and Boost Affordable Housing Supply
 794     0 
News   Nov 18, 2024
Canada Lands Company Submits Application Outlining Downsview West District
 1.8K     1 

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

nfitz said:
Was anyone at the meeting? Seems to be a no brainer to put it on the south side, so they must have had some explanation at the meeting.
Click to expand...

Steve Munro got an explanation from them a couple of months ago.

Placing the LRT on the south side of Eglinton Avenue East in the vicinity of the West Don River/Leslie Street was included in three of five options compared to the at-that-time base case (which was underground throughout the corridor) in the Don Mills River Crossing Study prepared in February 2012 by HMM. However, the LRT would have been in a completely separate right-of-way on a new bridge across the West Don River in order to maintain current vehicle capacity of Eglinton Avenue East (i.e., no conversion of travel lanes to LRT tracks).

That report recommended one of the options that included a continuation of the bored tunnel from the west to pass under the West Don River and portal east of the Don Valley Parkway. That option was selected because the cost differential with the at-grade options was minimal, provided that a station at Leslie Street was not required. If a Leslie Station would be required, then one of the at-grade south side options was the preferred option. MX decided to proceed with the first option, and further refined that option with a launch at Don Mills Road and continuing eastward with the EA alignment, which led to the preparation of the Eastern EPR Addendum.

The at-grade south side option was not compared to the EA Option.

Generally, however, It is very difficult (if not impossible) to relocate the portal from the centre of Eglinton (as proposed in the current design) and shift it to the south side of the right-of-way and continue to use the existing bridge. The “viaduct†option that HMM reviewed, was suggested by the public and was presented during the recent consultations for the changes in the East, was more expensive and required an EA amendment. Due to project implementation timelines the project is proceeding with the EA option.
Click to expand...
 
I get the feeling this was Metrolinx just deciding to do what was easiest and most convenient and not what was the best option. They've been complacent and tended to just do what they originally planned in Many circumstances.

South side may be difficult but why not just do it and do it right? If the can build tunnels under the ocean in earthquake zones, I hardly see the need for Metrolinx to whine about this being difficult.
 
Thoughtless Miscreant said:
Steve Munro got an explanation from them a couple of months ago.
Click to expand...

The fact is, Metrolinx bungled the handling of the Brentcliffe-Don Mills alignment. From the minute the 2010 EA came out with the median arrangement, many of us pleaded for a south-side alignment so it would be grade-separated through to Don Mills and so also the Leslie intersection would remain functional for cars. Metrolinx said they'd study it and the result was the proposal to tunnel all the way to Don Mills. This was overkill and predictably the STIMBY's (Stop in my back yard) from the Leslie condos (aided inexplicably by the Leaside Property Owners Ass.) put pressure on local MPP Wynne (who was running to be Premier) to revive the Leslie stop. By the time this process played out, most of a year was wasted and then the order was "lets get building" so they never revisited a south-side surface alignment; they just reverted to the EA.

Metrolinx claims that it's difficult if not impossible to emerge from Brentcliffe portal on the south-side. Just like a year ago they claimed it was impossible due to slope issues and soil contamination to launch at Brentcliffe at all. Hogwash!

I think another reason they are stubbornly refusing to look at the south-side alignment is that they are desperate to save every penny possible to cover massive over-runs elsewhere. Look at the plans for Eglinton-Yonge station. While I welcome them as a definite improvement over the last proposal, they won't be cheap. Extending the Eglinton subway platform (on the Yonge line) 70m north so that the station will extend directly overtop of the Crosstown platform and thus allow a direct connection! This extension will require closure of Yonge subway service from time to time and will unfortunately result in the elimination of the pocket storage track north of Eglinton.
Still in the long run this is a good solution and will be worth it!

Unfortunately the same logic isn't being applied at Leslie. That one intersection will be the weak link in an otherwise strong chain from Mt. Dennis to Don Mills. There are many possibilities for Leslie to be grade separated without incurring the huge cost of a tunnel extension but I don't believe it will even be looked at.

At least when the traffic is backed up to west of Laird waiting to turn north at Leslie and when LRT's are delayed at Leslie waiting for their turn in the 3 cycle traffic lights, the trains will be smoothly running to Laird. Even if stuffed trains from Don Mills (due to increased headway east of Laird) arrive at Laird, the good people of Leaside will enjoy the fact that every second train will be empty having been short-turned at Laird.

I think the LRT (after getting through the construction nightmare) will be ok from Mt. Dennis to Laird. If east of there even gets built (and I don't think it's a sure thing), it will be traffic and LRT chaos to say the least. Then again by the time the at-grade contract gets awarded we could see various govts. change and this whole exercise will have been academic!
 
I personally wouldn't mind paying higher taxes to fund an overrun if they got it right. If the project is over budget and is bungled well then we've got ourselves a whole other issue of complete incompetence.

Does anyone know if deputations are allowed at Metrolinx meetings? I'd love to say my piece as the board members usually just nod their head and collect their pay cheques.
 
I'm still hoping that the Leslie stop disappears and it's tunneled till Don mills.. I hate people comparing the lrt to a streetcar but this isn't going to help. To be honest I think the lrt should remain undergrounduntil right after it crosses the dvp...
 
Ozman said:
The fact is, Metrolinx bungled the handling of the Brentcliffe-Don Mills alignment. From the minute the 2010 EA came out with the median arrangement, many of us pleaded for a south-side alignment so it would be grade-separated through to Don Mills and so also the Leslie intersection would remain functional for cars. Metrolinx said they'd study it and the result was the proposal to tunnel all the way to Don Mills. This was overkill and predictably the STIMBY's (Stop in my back yard) from the Leslie condos (aided inexplicably by the Leaside Property Owners Ass.) put pressure on local MPP Wynne (who was running to be Premier) to revive the Leslie stop. By the time this process played out, most of a year was wasted and then the order was "lets get building" so they never revisited a south-side surface alignment; they just reverted to the EA.

Metrolinx claims that it's difficult if not impossible to emerge from Brentcliffe portal on the south-side. Just like a year ago they claimed it was impossible due to slope issues and soil contamination to launch at Brentcliffe at all. Hogwash!

I think another reason they are stubbornly refusing to look at the south-side alignment is that they are desperate to save every penny possible to cover massive over-runs elsewhere. Look at the plans for Eglinton-Yonge station. While I welcome them as a definite improvement over the last proposal, they won't be cheap. Extending the Eglinton subway platform (on the Yonge line) 70m north so that the station will extend directly overtop of the Crosstown platform and thus allow a direct connection! This extension will require closure of Yonge subway service from time to time and will unfortunately result in the elimination of the pocket storage track north of Eglinton.
Still in the long run this is a good solution and will be worth it!

Unfortunately the same logic isn't being applied at Leslie. That one intersection will be the weak link in an otherwise strong chain from Mt. Dennis to Don Mills. There are many possibilities for Leslie to be grade separated without incurring the huge cost of a tunnel extension but I don't believe it will even be looked at.

At least when the traffic is backed up to west of Laird waiting to turn north at Leslie and when LRT's are delayed at Leslie waiting for their turn in the 3 cycle traffic lights, the trains will be smoothly running to Laird. Even if stuffed trains from Don Mills (due to increased headway east of Laird) arrive at Laird, the good people of Leaside will enjoy the fact that every second train will be empty having been short-turned at Laird.

I think the LRT (after getting through the construction nightmare) will be ok from Mt. Dennis to Laird. If east of there even gets built (and I don't think it's a sure thing), it will be traffic and LRT chaos to say the least. Then again by the time the at-grade contract gets awarded we could see various govts. change and this whole exercise will have been academic!
Click to expand...

Councillor Jaye Robinson also took up the noble cause of keeping the Leslie Stop and causing massive disruptions at that intersection. Likely due to the pressure from the Leaside association who wanted the stop to help with their property values.
 
Voltz said:
Councillor Jaye Robinson also took up the noble cause of keeping the Leslie Stop and causing massive disruptions at that intersection. Likely due to the pressure from the Leaside association who wanted the stop to help with their property values.
Click to expand...

That's true about Councillor Robinson and that makes sense for her. Those Leslie condos are in her ward, so she was fighting for them. I don't blame her, or them for that matter. Even though few of them in my opinion will use the Leslie stop, she did her job and argued for better service for her constituents. The traffic nightmare it will create in Leaside won't affect her ward as her ward only dips down to Eglinton in one sliver that straddles Leslie Street. Her ward does not include Leaside! Leslie and Eglinton is not part of Leaside in a technical boundary sense or in a neighbourhood sense.

This is why the Leaside association's involvement is so strange. A Leslie stop will do nothing for Leaside property values. No one from Leaside will walk down the hill all the way from Brentcliffe to (or up to come home from) the Leslie stop. I doubt the Leslie condo dwellers will even walk the 500m or so down to the Leslie stop. If they don't drive, they'll get on the bus at their door (as they can now) and ride to the station at Laird which will be underground and protected from the elements. Leasiders couldn't care less about a Leslie stop other than it will create traffic nightmares in their neighbourhood and maybe that will drive property values down!
Again, the LPOA's involvement is a mystery to me. There must be some behind the scenes quid pro quo of which I'm unaware.
 
BurlOak said:
For the Leslie Stop, they show a 100m diameter circle from the platform - but they actually show this as an oval. This might be true for an underground station were people can exit from one of several entrances. For Leslie, I do not think we plan for pedestrians to run across unsignalized traffic. Thus, the 100m circle (not sure why they did not show 300m or 500m) should be centred around the pedestrian crosswalk and not the east end of the platform.

It is also of note that a similar thing was not done for Ferrand. The pedestrian crosswalk is to the east of the Ferrand platform - sharing the intersection with the DVP off ramps. If they did the same 100m circle at Ferrand, there would be a total of ZERO businesses and residents within the circle.
Click to expand...

A few observations:

1-Let's assume that the signal priority system for the LRT prevents the trains from stopping and waiting at red lights, wouldn't the fact that the LRT travels below the CP rail bridge force the train to slow down like our streetcars usually does when travelling underneath a bridge/overpass?

2-Leslie station should have been skipped. Bus service to Laird or Don Mills is sufficient.

3-Ferrand Station is not necessary

4-Wynford Drive's station with the pedestrian bridge is a great idea. It prevents the LRT from being interrupted by pedestrians who might want to cross the ROW to catch a train like on St.Clair. It's safer and a superior to the EA option that looked like a regular streetcar stop.

Looks like something like this

Station%20Top.jpg


If Metrolinx can keep this up for the at grade section, that would be fantastic. I always hated the Transit version of the stops
 
sixrings said:
I'm still hoping that the Leslie stop disappears and it's tunneled till Don mills.. I hate people comparing the lrt to a streetcar but this isn't going to help. To be honest I think the lrt should remain undergrounduntil right after it crosses the dvp...
Click to expand...
I agree, but aren't they now planning to turn back some trains at Laird instead of Don Mills? If so, they should build a bus terminal at Laird instead of feeding a bunch of bus routes into Don Mills Station where there will be fewer trains.
 
Ozman said:
The fact is, Metrolinx bungled the handling of the Brentcliffe-Don Mills alignment. From the minute the 2010 EA came out with the median arrangement, many of us pleaded for a south-side alignment so it would be grade-separated through to Don Mills and so also the Leslie intersection would remain functional for cars. Metrolinx said they'd study it and the result was the proposal to tunnel all the way to Don Mills. This was overkill and predictably the STIMBY's (Stop in my back yard) from the Leslie condos (aided inexplicably by the Leaside Property Owners Ass.) put pressure on local MPP Wynne (who was running to be Premier) to revive the Leslie stop. By the time this process played out, most of a year was wasted and then the order was "lets get building" so they never revisited a south-side surface alignment; they just reverted to the EA.
. . . . .
I think another reason they are stubbornly refusing to look at the south-side alignment is that they are desperate to save every penny possible to cover massive over-runs elsewhere.
. . . . .
Click to expand...

I tried sharpening my pencil and come if with some better cost estimates.
  1. Move “Scenic†portal south (or Eglinton north) by 6.5m. Roughly cost neutral – say $5M.
  2. Build Bridge over West Don River. Assume Eglinton Sidewalk is turned to a bike lane and pedestrians use the north side of this bridge. Also assume a “trail†uses the sidewalk on the south side of this bridge. Bridge: 12m wide x 100m long x $6,000 /m2 = $7M.
  3. Build Leslie Station at grade instead of Leslie Stop. Building 20m wide x 120m long x 2 levels x $2000 / m2 = $10M. Lets double it to account for some bus bays = $20M.
  4. Build twin tunnels through CPR embankment using jack-and-bore. 60m long x 5m span x 2 tunnels x $25,000 /m2 = $15M.
  5. Reconfigure Celestica ramps from a loop to a diamond interchange. $5M.
Total Extra Cost = $52M.

  1. Move double storage track from underground east of Laird to at grade west of Don Mills. Say a station costs $80M. Say the savings to build this at-grade on the side of road storage compared to underground in the median is - $25M.
  2. Move double crossover from underground west of Laird to at grade west of Don Mills. Say the savings to build this crossover at-grade on the side of road compared to underground in the median is - $15M.
  3. Build about 1km of LRT track between West Don River and Don Mills at-grade versus the difficulties with traffic control in the median. Say 1 km x $10M/km (savings) = $10M.
  4. Build Don Mills portal on the south side compared to the median of Eglinton. Savings = $5M.
Total Savings = $55M - it is basically cost neutral.

Construction time.
  1. Preliminary Design = 9 months.
  2. EA Approvals (Class B – bridge widening – although the bridges are at different elevations, their retaining walls, slope and scour protection are all connected) = 24 months.
  3. Final Design = 3 months.
  4. Construction = 12 months.
  5. Contingency = 12 months.
  6. Completion date (assuming immediate start) = end of 2018.
Although construction would not begin immediately on this bridge, it is not on the critical path and it would have ZERO impact on the opening of the line.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top