Crosstown LRT | Metrolinx

Discussion in 'Transportation and Infrastructure' started by Undying42, Mar 25, 2008.

  1. Undying42

    Undying42 Guest

    Somehow I don't see a properly done light rail possible for EC. The tunneled portion could be a breeze to travel through then face gridlock in the at-grade sections. As such periods of several minutes could transpire with no surface, causing crowding at stops then all of a sudden two, three vehicles appear at once. This isn't better than buses but more encouragement to take private modes of transport. I'd prefer short-distance subways that intensify stops where necessary than line after line of kilometre-apart ones that require monster suburban terminals to feed them with multiple bus routes. EC as a LRT line wouldn't be faster than the buses its replacing, which is why we should support an Eglinton subway line instead.
     
    #1
    GenerationLee likes this.

  2. Voltz

    Voltz Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    127
    As W. K. Lis just said, the surface sections on Eglinton will have their own lanes, plus the intersection spacing on those sections is much wider than on Spadina, allowing for much more effective signal priority (especially with new GPS tracking technology). Given this, and the current traffic gridlock at rush hour, how could Light Rail vehicles possibly operate any slower than busses :confused:

    It is likely that longer 3 car LRV's (about the same length of a 4 car subway train) would be short turned within the tunneled section, or to Jane and Don Mills at the most, and 1 or 2 car LRV's would travel from end to end.

    I would also assume that station spacing in the tunneled section would be similar to a regular subway, considering how expensive each one would be. ( at least $75 to &100 Million)
     
    #2
  3. unimaginative2

    unimaginative2 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    4,554
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    New York
    I hope that you're right. I certainly don't have your faith in the TTC adopting modern signal priority with GPS tracking. Considering that we've heard nothing about it so far, I wouldn't be surprised if, at best, the TTC decided to create some homemade signal priority system based on their own technology from the 70s, a la CIS.

    Given the terrible traffic congestion on Spadina, how is it that the streetcar still manages to be as slow as the old mixed-traffic bus?

    I think we have to do better than "faster than buses" if we're going to spend $8 billion on these routes. They've got to be time competitive with the subway, and I certainly don't see that happening.

    I'm hoping they adopt some kind of system like that. Hopefully the short-turned cars would be frequent enough to provide a reliable service in the tunnel even if the TTC completely bungles operations on the surface sections.

    Which is absolute madness. Why do stations in Toronto have to cost as much as subway lines in other cities? Simply because they're massively overbuilt. Why does a station like Bessarion need a vast mezzanine with underground fare control. I think the model for all but the busiest future stations should be Wellesley. A simple surface building with fare control and perhaps a little bus terminal, with escalators right down to the platform.

    The station at the 407 Transit way will cost $90 million dollars. This is for an underground station beneath undeveloped, government-owned land. The TTC actually included a brief examination of running the line elevated at that point, including an elevated station, and determined it is feasible. Unfortunately, it would be at a slight inconvenience to operations based on the angle of approach from a pocket track, so it was dismissed out of hand as an "inferior" option. There was absolutely no examination of relative costs of the two options, which boggles the mind considering that with the station alone costing $90 million, elevating that section could save hundreds of millions of dollars at an insignificant cost to operations.
     
    #3
  4. scarberiankhatru

    scarberiankhatru Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, it's certainly wide enough to run in the middle of Eglinton, but it's even wide enough in Etobicoke and Scarborough to run it largely in trenches and make it almost if not entirely grade separated to turn it into a real rapid transit route. Trenches could go at the side or they could go in the middle, like a transit version of Montreal's Decarie.
     
    #4
  5. RedRocket191

    RedRocket191 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Total speculation here, but its possible that building code has something to do with it. Maybe there are minimum requirements of size for evacuation purposes, or because its supposed to be used as some sort of shelter in the event of an emergency.

    Everyone, from the TTC to the private sector, will only build to the minimum requirements to keep costs down. There has to be SOME legislative reason why subway stations are so big, because I doubt they would have done it voluntarily.

    If this is the case, then perhaps the law that governed the size changed between the time the original line was built and the time when the newer stations were built.
     
    #5
  6. W. K. Lis

    W. K. Lis Superstar

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,419
    Likes Received:
    1,355
    Location:
    Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
    The current building codes require escalators and elevators. In the 1950's, elevators were not required, and escalators were an optional luxury. When the original Yonge subway was built in the 1950's, only a few had escalators. When the original Bloor-Danforth subway was built in the 1960's, only escalators going up were required (and only at the main exits).

    Today, air conditioners in cars are an optional luxury (Ontario asks and gets $100 air conditioning tax for cars), but most want it. Build a house today, you must have at least double-paned windows and high insulation. A new house today must have an high-efficiency furnace, it wasn't a few years ago. All of them are an extra cost.

    Can you get an wringer-washer? Nope, just automatic washers. What about black and white televisions for your home? Do you have a black and white monitor for your computer? And so on and so on...

    Over a hundred years ago, one could build your own house. With only a hammer and nails, you could. No building permits, no inspections. What codes, there weren't any. The original codes were put in because the building trades wanted jobs for their own members. So bricks and mortar were required by the city as the first building codes were established.
     
    #6
  7. Earlscourt_Lad

    Earlscourt_Lad Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Earlscourt
    I'm not sure how accurate that is. You're not required to build with bricks and mortar anywhere that I know of. Excepting perhaps firebreaks, but slapping cinderblocks together isn't a highly skilled occupation, and firebreaks are unarguably beneficial.
     
    #7
  8. Earlscourt_Lad

    Earlscourt_Lad Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Earlscourt
    I'm not sure how accurate that is. You're not required to build with bricks and mortar anywhere that I know of. Excepting perhaps firebreaks, but slapping cinderblocks together isn't a highly skilled occupation, and firebreaks were a good idea back in more flammable times.
     
    #8
  9. scarberiankhatru

    scarberiankhatru Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bessarion only cost $36 million and this included the whole station, escalators, elevators, two exits, an emergency hatch, a large mezzanine, etc., etc., all of this in a deeper than average station. Why the hell are they building stations in open fields at Jane & Steeles that may cost three times as much? It's (*conspiracy theory alert*) not building codes or advanced technology, it's that they artificially inflated the cost of the extension to an almost absurd degree to ensure the subway extension would never get built...and now we seem to be stuck with this plan even after Rubber Stamp McGuinty came to town on a horse named 2020.
     
    #9
  10. unimaginative2

    unimaginative2 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    4,554
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    New York
    The only new building code requirements that are relevant are the need for two exits (one can be a simple emergency stairwell) and for an elevator (which is a given). There is absolutely nothing in the code requiring fare control areas to be build underground, in vast mezzanines.
     
    #10
  11. RedRocket191

    RedRocket191 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,306
    Likes Received:
    0
    It may not be the building code, but I'm sure we can find some official reason. People don't do things "just because"
     
    #11
  12. unimaginative2

    unimaginative2 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    4,554
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    New York
    I'm afraid they do all the time. That's just the way bureaucracies work. They get it into their heads that something is just the way things are done, and then they stick to it tenaciously.

    Think about it. If the TTC actually cared about saving money, don't you think they would have at least looked at how much different options cost before dismissing them?
     
    #12
  13. Undying42

    Undying42 Guest

    Running the subway at grade west of Jane Street is very logical and would multimillions on unnessary tunneling. The only section that'd definitely need to be buried is the transistional zone where the line veers upto Dixon heading into the airport. Even along Dixon the line could run along an elevated ROW. So at best, if Eglinton-Crosstown ever becomes a bona fide subway line, it need only be buried between Jane and Markham Rd.
     
    #13
  14. scarberiankhatru

    scarberiankhatru Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eglinton east of Leaside is mostly a 7 lane road with metres of empty space on either side...it's more than wide enough for vehicles to run in a trench in the middle/side of the road, especially since the blocks are very, very long between Leaside and Kennedy. Even if Eglinton was reduced to a 4 lanes from 6-7, the benefits of gaining a real rapid transit line on the corridor far outweigh this and would absorb tons of car traffic. Virtually everything along Eglinton is Avenues-fodder, anyway, so some plazas could be acquired if needed for the sake of, say, some larger stations.
     
    #14
  15. doady

    doady Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,762
    Likes Received:
    120
    Location:
    Mississauga
    I think this is the best solution for both above-ground sections of the LRT. They should be below-grade similar to the Mississauga Transitway. As I said before, if the entire Eglinton LRT is grade-separated, then it can be considered more like a subway line... Unfortunately, however, Steve Munro is pushing for on-street solution...
     
    #15

Share This Page