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

[Dan416]

I don't understand the point of building "LRT" when you're basically just building a streetcar in a ROW. I understand LRT is a spectrum, but I think this instance is way too close to the streetcar side of the spectrum rather than the rapid transit side of the spectrum.

 

[junctionist]

The places without development potential are just opportunities to cut stops and make the line faster. St. Clair would be quick if it weren't for all the stops and red lights.

 

[adrianaliu]

i think it would be nice to see development adjacent to the line and a more complete street with an urban feel, but the priority for this route is speed and reliability because of its connection to Mississauga and the airport. Most journeys on eglinton west will be of longer distance than say something like finch west or st. clair. So while I am fine with urban development along the corridor, it shouldn't come at the expense of speed and reliability. If we consider LRT as a spectrum, this should be closer to a rapid transit route than a streetcar, so limit stops and grade separate where it makes sense.

 

[WislaHD]

You know, the thought occurred to me that if we are building a "streetcar in a ROW" style LRT, then the Weston-Dixon to Airport corridor actually makes a lot more sense than Eglinton for that specific type of transit.

Makes for much easier Jane connection, interchange with Weston UPX (which becomes SmartTrack?), and the development potential for Weston and Dixon roads is a lot higher. You can build the idealized St Clair-esque urban corridor around such a transit line all the way to the airport.

I wonder what kind of ridership potential that would have.

Eglinton could have its transit problems resolved by BRT meanwhile.

 

[11th]

If Richview Expressway were to have been built, the over and underpasses would be rubber-stamped. But for the Eglinton West LRT, sorry can't afford it.
Just put in the over and underpasses that would have been used for the expressway and use them for the LRT instead.

Call it a Skytrain, a metro, or a subway, and the over and underpass would very likely to be rubberstamped because those modes typically has grade-separation requirements. LRT is such a fluid term, and that allows for "cheapening" to take place.

 

[smallspy]

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or if you are seriously incredulous that a signalling system system can do what it is designed to do, to the point that nothing other than commercially protected excerpts of code and scans of wiring diagrams will convince you.

• Do you have some kind of insider knowledge that puts you in a better informed position than the experts consulted by professional journalists at Canada's highest circulation newspaper?
• Is there some reason that trains would be unable to close their own doors automatically, a function performed safely and without human intervention by literally every elevator and commercial building in the world?
• Is there a reason that Andy Byford, the outgoing CEO of the TTC who no longer has any stake in internal TTC politics, would be part of a conspiracy to hide this?

Until you are able to answer those basic questions, maybe you shouldn't challenge the reference that you asked for.

Just to recap:

Level of evidence needed by other people:
Something akin to what you would expect in an air crash investigation

Level of evidence needed by Dan:
Just a vague sentiment that the reference is wrong, without any articulation of why that could be the case.

Here is your goddamned reference, unless internally commissioned documentation isn't acceptable and I need to hack into TTC archives.

Since you don't seem to understand how these kinds of systems work....

There are ATC/ATO systems that are designed to be completely free from human input. For instance, the version of SelTrac used on the Vancouver Skytrain. The train stops, opens its doors, counts down a timer, closes the doors, pauses for a second, and then starts moving again.

And there are other systems that are designed to have some minimal level of human input - perhaps closing the doors, or pressing a button to initiate operation. The system can move the train on its own, but needs to be told that it is okay to do so. And sometimes these systems are designed to be "upgraded" to fully automated systems, and sometimes they are not.

For instance, the system currently being installed in our subway system requires the operator to close the doors, and then press a button to begin the operation of the train on its own.

What no one here knows yet is whether it can be operated completely free of human input.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[W. K. Lis]

There are metros (subways) and light rail systems around the world where the passenger has to press a button to open the door to enter or egress the train.

See the arrow pointing to the button to open the door. Useful for platforms that are outdoors (Rosedale or Davisville stations for example) like on Eglinton East or Eglinton West.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

There are metros (subways) and light rail systems around the world where the passenger has to press a button to open the door to enter or egress the train.

See the arrow pointing to the button to open the door. Useful for platforms that are outdoors (Rosedale or Davisville stations for example) like on Eglinton East or Eglinton West.

Maybe this would be something they take into account with the replacements for the T1's

 

[Rainforest]

You know, the thought occurred to me that if we are building a "streetcar in a ROW" style LRT, then the Weston-Dixon to Airport corridor actually makes a lot more sense than Eglinton for that specific type of transit.

Makes for much easier Jane connection, interchange with Weston UPX (which becomes SmartTrack?), and the development potential for Weston and Dixon roads is a lot higher. You can build the idealized St Clair-esque urban corridor around such a transit line all the way to the airport.

Dixon Rd is interesting as a light rail corridor. However, a route via Weston would be problematic. Weston is very narrow in many places, with houses sitting very close to the existing lanes and no room for more lanes. Furthermore, it is not directly connected to Dixon Rd; they are separated by Humber River.

Instead, I would consider splitting the Eglinton line at Royal York. One branch would continue along Eglinton and connect to Renforth Gateway and the employment areas south of Pearson. The other branch would go up Royal York to Dixon, then turn west on Dixon and continue to the Pearson terminals.

Royal York is wider than Weston, and the houses are located further from the road. There should be room for two in-median light rail lanes.

 

[Palma]

Dixon Rd is interesting as a light rail corridor. However, a route via Weston would be problematic. Weston is very narrow in many places, with houses sitting very close to the existing lanes and no room for more lanes. Furthermore, it is not directly connected to Dixon Rd; they are separated by Humber River.

Instead, I would consider splitting the Eglinton line at Royal York. One branch would continue along Eglinton and connect to Renforth Gateway and the employment areas south of Pearson. The other branch would go up Royal York to Dixon, then turn west on Dixon and continue to the Pearson terminals.

Royal York is wider than Weston, and the houses are located further from the road. There should be room for two in-median light rail lanes.

And you think those homeowners on Royal York would want this?

 

[crs1026]

A better route would be Scarlett. Royal York is quite narrow also, and the turn onto Dixon would be awkward. Lots of width on Scarlett.

Serving Dixon would get high marks for social equity - but - I wonder where those riders need to go. My impression is that taking them along Eglinton isn't helpful. They more likely want to go straight along Lawrence Again, we need to consider what BRT might accomplish rather than jumping straight to rail.

I wonder if a successful King streetcar pot will spin off added curiosity about bus lanes outside the core. Lawrence is crying for faster, less impeded bus service.

- Paul

 

[ADRM]

The places without development potential are just opportunities to cut stops and make the line faster. St. Clair would be quick if it weren't for all the stops and red lights.

The stop frequency on both St. Clair and Spadina in the grade-separated sections really is annoying and bizarre, and I'd hate to think that self-defeating oddity is being replicated here, where the environment is even less urban.

 

[Leo_Chan]

The stop frequency on both St. Clair and Spadina in the grade-separated sections really is annoying and bizarre, and I'd hate to think that self-defeating oddity is being replicated here, where the environment is even less urban.

Do you mean dedicated right of way and not grade separated?

 

[ADRM]

Do you mean dedicated right of way and not grade separated?

Indeed I do.

 

[robmausser]

Its odd to me that the Mississauga Transitway, a BRT system, warrants such expansive grade separations, yet for an LRT the need is not there.

Metrolinx is odd.