News   Jul 12, 2024
 1.3K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 1.1K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 390     0 

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

800 million may not be much out of context, but the context is already over-paying Scarborough by a billion or two, throwing money at the Gardiner, unable to find money for the waterfront lines, and the relief line to start 8 years from now. There's no 800 million to throw at a line that isn't going to top 3500 riders per hour anywhere west of Jane.

I hear you. However:

a) There is no single transit expansion fund in the city; projects are funded by individual agreements. Not spending money on one project doesn't necessarily mean they can be used for another transit project.

b) Ridership of this particular line may be more sensitive to speed than ridership of other lines.

If the line ended at Martin Grove, and was primarily meant to serve central Etobicoke residents, then I guess the all-at-grade design would be good enough.

However, there are two significant destinations at the far end: the Airport employment area, and the Mississauga Transitway connection. If we want trips to those destinations to be attractive, then we should reasonably upgrade the line. Otherwise, those riders will use GO, cars, or try avoid the trip altogether.
 
It's interesting that no one objected to putting Crosstown underground in the Keele-Brentcliffe stretch. The reason? Too little roadway width and general acceptance that traffic would be a mess and LRT would be slowed if it went on the surface.

The assumption at the time - close to a decade ago, now - was that east of Brentcliffe and west of Weston Road, the street had adequate width and traffic was less intense.

Guess what, folks. Eglinton is a major thoroughfare from KR all the way to the 427. Anybody who thinks that cars thin out beyond the center is misinformed.

What changed? The Fords sold a lot of width through Etobicoke for development. So now we have the same narrow road west of Keele that we had east of it. And just as much traffic. So why does the idea of sinking the LRT under main intersections surprise anyone? It's the same design that was accepted all along in the center.

- Paul
 
What changed? The Fords sold a lot of width through Etobicoke for development. So now we have the same narrow road west of Keele that we had east of it. And just as much traffic. So why does the idea of sinking the LRT under main intersections surprise anyone? It's the same design that was accepted all along in the center.
I've been following this thread since the latest announcements.

Nobody has been advocating for all-at-grade design aside from City Planning. The opinion has been pretty consistent that some key intersections need grade-separation.

But, because of City Planning, we are receiving community backlash and a local MPP who want to opt for a 100% tunnel as an alternative.
 
I've been following this thread since the latest announcements.

Nobody has been advocating for all-at-grade design aside from City Planning. The opinion has been pretty consistent that some key intersections need grade-separation.

But, because of City Planning, we are receiving community backlash and a local MPP who want to opt for a 100% tunnel as an alternative.

To be fair, that MPP has wanted 100% underground long before Monday’s report from CP
 
To be fair, that MPP has wanted 100% underground long before Monday’s report from CP
Although, it does appear MPP Yvon Baker doesn't expect the Jane to be tunneled.
http://yvanbaker.onmpp.ca/News/14441?rc=l&l=EN

[Baker requests that] all LRT options in this report, including tunneling the LRT from Scarlett to Martin Grove.

It's also a bit interesting looking at the cover from the reports linked a few pages back.

It gives the impression that only major stops exist, but in the text, the main criteria was the ability to retain the mid-block stops.
Stage One Report_20171113_Accessible.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Stage One Report_20171113_Accessible.jpg
    Stage One Report_20171113_Accessible.jpg
    42.4 KB · Views: 370
It's also a bit interesting looking at the cover from the reports linked a few pages back.

It gives the impression that only major stops exist, but in the text, the main criteria was the ability to retain the mid-block stops.

The intersections on the cover of the report are the intersections where they examined potential for grade separation.
 
I hear you. However:

a) There is no single transit expansion fund in the city; projects are funded by individual agreements. Not spending money on one project doesn't necessarily mean they can be used for another transit project.

b) Ridership of this particular line may be more sensitive to speed than ridership of other lines.

If the line ended at Martin Grove, and was primarily meant to serve central Etobicoke residents, then I guess the all-at-grade design would be good enough.

However, there are two significant destinations at the far end: the Airport employment area, and the Mississauga Transitway connection. If we want trips to those destinations to be attractive, then we should reasonably upgrade the line. Otherwise, those riders will use GO, cars, or try avoid the trip altogether.

The projected ridership of this line simply does not justify gold plating the service - if the community doesn't want it that badly, I'd say ice it rather than bend over backwards and upsize it just because the local MPP wanted to save his ass. Quite frankly, it is what they deserve for voting in councillors that voted to sell off Richview corridor in the first place. Action, meet reaction.

AoD
 
Last edited:
as much as I am OKish with this plan, if there was one thing I would do it would be to remove the midblock stops. To me that is a bigger issue than the grade separation minus again Martin Grove.
 

Back
Top