News   May 02, 2024
 44     0 
News   May 02, 2024
 91     0 
News   May 02, 2024
 339     0 

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

My recollection from the 2003 blackout is, they had enough backup power to evacuate the tunnels, but that's all. The bus fleet operated (sort of, considering there were no traffic signals working) but the subway and streetcars were closed down.

I can't imagine a scenario where the Crosstown would keep humming along while the rest of the city went dark. That's what the gas plant proposal amounts to. It's huge overkill. All that is required is sufficient redundancy in feed points and tie lines within the line's power distribution system that a blackout in one part of the city (the most likely event) doesn't shut the line down. City wide blackouts just don't happen that often. We can use the money better on other things.

- Paul

If we want a better power supply we need the power plants closer to the city. Regions around Nanticoke were only out for 30 minutes in the 2003 blackout while we were out for days. But of course we paid $1 billion to build a gas plant and then tear it down in the GTA. So we get what we deserve...at the whims of a hydro system that is hundreds of km long.

I assume the Airport's system is designed to get them through a power outage and to land planes safely....it was probably not designed with enough capacity to do much more.
 
Future site of Laird Station secondary entrance

IMG_20160921_191841_hdr.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20160921_191841_hdr.jpg
    IMG_20160921_191841_hdr.jpg
    134 KB · Views: 1,381
The problem is not that theyre not meeting the sched. The problem is the schedule itself is too lax. We are wasting money as well in years of delays and lost productivity because the sites work only from 8-3 for the most part yet get paid more than engineers who work much longer and harder to produce the drawings.
First of all, most sites run 7AM to 330PM.

And how have you measured that engineers "work much longer and harder"? I won't argue with the hours, as many engineers do in fact work long hours and work very hard. However, many don't, and many construction workers do in fact work long hours. The opposite is also true. Generalizations, as always, are doomed to failure. I've worked 10-12 hours a day for most of this year, for instance. As has most of my crew.

But harder? Is it harder to consult a chart to tell you what beam to put in? Is it harder to click and make lines on AutoCAD? Maybe. Maybe not.

Your engineer-versus-trades shot sounds like sour grapes to me, too. With construction going full tilt in Toronto, you won't see labour rates falling. Whereas there are thousands of engineering professionals out of work in Alberta, many of them mobile. Tightening the schedule doesn't assure that labour is more productive - one glitch and you have even more people sitting around waiting for production to get going again.
Indeed. And unfortunately, no matter how many hard working engineers and estimators are working on these projects for peanuts (according to some), they still fail to properly plan their projects. So you are already ending up with people sitting around waiting for production to get going again. So much for working harder.

As you correctly said before, any accelerated schedule will require more manpower, will entails more risk. Companies are correctly pricing that risk into their costs for these projects.

Call it sour grapes but you know it's true... The avg blue collar contractor works less for more and it's costing us as well. But sure you can be satisfied with the schedule. I'm happy too that theyre adhering to the schedule too...unfortunately our expectations are akin to those of a rookie team who just got promoted to the premier league....low low expectations
Not sure how you are measuring less for more. Is freezing my balls off for a full days work so that you can have glass condos working less for more? Is laying asphalt for 10 - 12 hours a day in the heat, humidity, sun, working less for more? Is slugging drywall all day so that you can buy frozen yogurt or fancy burgers working less for more? Is working from dawn to dusk for 7 days a week so that renovations can be complete for school openings working less for more? Is brutalizing your body and health for years on end working less for more? Is exposing yourself to constant risk of injury or death for years on end working less for more? Please.

Or perhaps it's simply that different people have different skills and you are feeling a bit jealous that your skills are not as valuable economically in the current market.
 
Last edited:
This is a ridiculous conversation. Working "harder" is a pretty difficult thing to quantify. If we really want to determine who works harder, I suppose we should distribute pay based on how many units of energy their bodies consume while doing their jobs.
 
With plans for the LRT to be on a surface right-of-way, east of the Science Centre Station to Kennedy Station, I think the bicycle lanes are only added as an afterthought. There really has been no thinking done how to incorporate bicycle lanes in the roadway. Especially at the intersections. See this video on how they separate bicycles from the automobile traffic in The Netherlands.


In the west end, with the extension along Eglinton Avenue West, they seem to be assuming that only the current bicycle path (with modifications) will be used. It's only on the south side. There should be a north side cycle path, as well. Along with a sidewalk on the north side.
 
Last edited:
With plans for the LRT to be on a surface right-of-way, east of the Science Centre Station to Kennedy Station, I think the bicycle lanes are only added as an afterthought. There really has been no thinking done how to incorporate bicycle lanes in the roadway. Especially at the intersections. See this video on how they separate bicycles from the automobile traffic in The Netherlands.


In the west end, with the extension along Eglinton Avenue West, they seem to be assuming that only the current bicycle path (with modifications) will be used. It's only on the south side. There should be a north side cycle path, as well.
If you're not Dutch you're not much
 
With plans for the LRT to be on a surface right-of-way, east of the Science Centre Station to Kennedy Station, I think the bicycle lanes are only added as an afterthought. There really has been no thinking done how to incorporate bicycle lanes in the roadway. Especially at the intersections. See this video on how they separate bicycles from the automobile traffic in The Netherlands.


In the west end, with the extension along Eglinton Avenue West, they seem to be assuming that only the current bicycle path (with modifications) will be used. It's only on the south side. There should be a north side cycle path, as well. Along with a sidewalk on the north side.

The design of the bike infrastructure shouldn't have yet been designed in detail. Perhaps you can bring it up at a future public consultation?
 
Bus terminal demolition in full swing from yesterday:

IMG_7747.jpg
IMG_7748.jpg
IMG_7749.jpg
IMG_7750.jpg
IMG_7751.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7747.jpg
    IMG_7747.jpg
    793.3 KB · Views: 696
  • IMG_7748.jpg
    IMG_7748.jpg
    976.3 KB · Views: 677
  • IMG_7749.jpg
    IMG_7749.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 691
  • IMG_7750.jpg
    IMG_7750.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 816
  • IMG_7751.jpg
    IMG_7751.jpg
    921.6 KB · Views: 668
The design of the bike infrastructure shouldn't have yet been designed in detail. Perhaps you can bring it up at a future public consultation?

I don't relly get why we have to add bike lanes to every new project. Queens Quay is a different example as it was a continuation of the Martin Goodman trail. With Bike lanes in the rest of the city does use of them justify their existence, and would or should bike users pay something to the city for the maintenance of them?
 

Back
Top