News   Mar 28, 2024
 937     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 536     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 831     0 

Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s

Do we know what problems the Yonge & Eglinton station is running into? I've only be able to find vague information saying construction crews found defects with the TTC station but I'm kinda curious what the exact issue is.

From The Star
But construction of the stop has been unexpectedly complex. It’s being built beneath the existing Eglinton subway station and, midway through work, Crosslinx discovered defects in structures installed in the 1950s during construction of the TTC stop. The defects had to be repaired, significantly delaying work on the new LRT station.

The work on the station had to be delayed until these structural defects were fixed. They are now fixed and the contractor is back to working on building the station. But of course with a significant delay.
 
Cyclist in the suburbs would have to be more skilled to be riding with higher speed traffic. I think there would be less problems there than the downtown streetcars. There will be less jaywalkers too.

As for traffic, I think they'll need to install those flashing train LED signs to make people more aware of the situation.
 
I think all LRT lines on wide road areas should be treated like subway lines by not interfering with traffic at all. This could be accomplished by just tunnelling or maneuvering about every major intersection with the rails. Simultaneously creating LRT stops and connections below or above those intersections. This was only created on the Science Center's Eglinton stop not the rest of them. Which I think will clog up traffic by giving the LRT the right away. They keep forgetting that this not a mid size city like Kitchener, London. But a city that's is or becoming a booming metropolis with all the future density being created on these avenues.
No worries. Now that they've created a right-of-way, they can spend a billion or so in the future to tear up the line and put in viaducts. While at that, they can spend perhaps half a billion to fix the Leslie/Eglinton intersection. (all figures are wild estimates)
 
No worries. Now that they've created a right-of-way, they can spend a billion or so in the future to tear up the line and put in viaducts. While at that, they can spend perhaps half a billion to fix the Leslie/Eglinton intersection. (all figures are wild estimates)
There is an advantage of having the LRT on the surface. It brings better development like the Golden Miles redevelopment and better access to the LRT. Having it on viaducts paints a more negative image of it. The line wasn't meant to be a major line from the airport to Scarborough. UPX+GO would be better if fare integration and better connection to the TTC are made.

As for the Leslie intersection, they can fix the issue without touching the track. They simply need to expand the roadway north of the tracks (which includes winding the bridge over the Don River and the underpass over CPR) to allow for a eastbound lane north of the tracks. That lane would be designated for making east to northbound turns and south to eastbound lanes. That lane would split before the Brentcliffe portal and merge after the west Don Mills portal. The 2 eastbound lanes south of the tracks would be through traffic only, no turns to or from Leslie. A pedestrian bridge would be built to service the platforms and cross the roadway. A simple drawing of what I meant. Safety islands would be installed at the intersection to make to appear as a regular intersection which would avoid the issues at Spadina/Queens Quays.

fix leslie.png
 
You just disregarded the second half of my post and focused on the first half.

Streecars have been in Toronto for over 150 years and accidents happen dozens of times per month. People here drive into 30-year-old streetcar tunnels with road bumps and flashing signs. People will continue to 'figure it out' by making wrong turns or drinking and driving. 549 streetcar crashes per year is not a small number.

Here is what the Star reported about streecar lanes:



Here is what they said about streetcar crashes vs busses:

So you're going to rebut my comment about taking things out of context by using comments taken out of context. Fair enough then.

Those articles give some pretty numbers, sure, but they also don't give a lot of other data that would be required to know if the numbers are relevant and useful, rather than just pretty. They use the term "involved' many times, but in how many of them were the streetcars at fault? Is the ratio or percentage similar to other cities with other streetcar operations? Is the ratio or percentage similar to our bus network by vehicle-miles or service hours, taking into account the size indifference in the two fleets? What are those measures when accounting for pedestrian traffic where they operate?

As for the number of people who drive into "30-year-old streetcar tunnels....", what is the exact number again, 31 occurrences? And again, how many of those were actually preventable (vehicle operator was simply confused versus intoxicated or was actively looking to drive into there)?

Sheer numbers can be helpful, but are way more useful if accompanied with some context.

Dan
 
There is an advantage of having the LRT on the surface. It brings better development like the Golden Miles redevelopment and better access to the LRT. Having it on viaducts paints a more negative image of it. The line wasn't meant to be a major line from the airport to Scarborough. UPX+GO would be better if fare integration and better connection to the TTC are made.

As for the Leslie intersection, they can fix the issue without touching the track. They simply need to expand the roadway north of the tracks (which includes winding the bridge over the Don River and the underpass over CPR) to allow for a eastbound lane north of the tracks. That lane would be designated for making east to northbound turns and south to eastbound lanes. That lane would split before the Brentcliffe portal and merge after the west Don Mills portal. The 2 eastbound lanes south of the tracks would be through traffic only, no turns to or from Leslie. A pedestrian bridge would be built to service the platforms and cross the roadway. A simple drawing of what I meant. Safety islands would be installed at the intersection to make to appear as a regular intersection which would avoid the issues at Spadina/Queens Quays.

View attachment 285793
It's a matter of different visions for the corridor. At least for me, this is called the crosstown and it should've been built as a rapid crosstown metro. Redevelopment of Golden Mile can still happen with 1km apart stations. It all comes down to proper zoning.

The fix you have here is similar to how the intersection was set up. The tracks/station is where the island used to be. I wonder why they didn't think of this during the design.
 
So you're going to rebut my comment about taking things out of context by using comments taken out of context. Fair enough then.

Those articles give some pretty numbers, sure, but they also don't give a lot of other data that would be required to know if the numbers are relevant and useful, rather than just pretty. They use the term "involved' many times, but in how many of them were the streetcars at fault? Is the ratio or percentage similar to other cities with other streetcar operations? Is the ratio or percentage similar to our bus network by vehicle-miles or service hours, taking into account the size indifference in the two fleets? What are those measures when accounting for pedestrian traffic where they operate?

As for the number of people who drive into "30-year-old streetcar tunnels....", what is the exact number again, 31 occurrences? And again, how many of those were actually preventable (vehicle operator was simply confused versus intoxicated or was actively looking to drive into there)?

Sheer numbers can be helpful, but are way more useful if accompanied with some context.

Dan

You disparage the numbers instead of actually addressing my comments. In the article, which is linked so you can go and read it, it does state how many are preventable crashes (defined as the TTC driver being at fault) compared to the total. But does that matter?

"Context" of who is at fault in a crash is meaningless if you are stuck outside in the cold waiting for a train that never arrives.

The tunnel is just an example of how drivers can be unpredictable and on how the very old tunnel on a line that opened 30 years ago still gets silly problems like driving into it.

The ION example is for a system that has more safety and priority features built into it still getting crashes. (and deaths) The crosstown will not have flashing lights, crossing arms, nor audible alarms which ION has.

And in your last comment, you are asking for a scholarly analysis of TTC crashes which I cant provide. And then using that as an excuse to disregard my whole argument. I can only provide the data I can find. Which are all linked above.

I suggest reading the article. Half of your questions are answered there.
 
There is an advantage of having the LRT on the surface. It brings better development like the Golden Miles redevelopment and better access to the LRT. Having it on viaducts paints a more negative image of it.
Let me debunk this entire argument with 1 word: Vancouver.

Somehow, despite having the entire rapid transit system built around the idea of trains running everywhere on elevated viaducts, somehow it doesn't hinder development, in fact I'd argue that out of downtown development is better than anywhere in Toronto other than maybe North York Centre. This is despite the fact that they're built around viaducts that in your words "paints a more negative image of it", in other words, real world examples don't back up your claims of elevated lines.
 
There is an advantage of having the LRT on the surface. It brings better development like the Golden Miles redevelopment and better access to the LRT. Having it on viaducts paints a more negative image of it. The line wasn't meant to be a major line from the airport to Scarborough. UPX+GO would be better if fare integration and better connection to the TTC are made.

As for the Leslie intersection, they can fix the issue without touching the track. They simply need to expand the roadway north of the tracks (which includes winding the bridge over the Don River and the underpass over CPR) to allow for a eastbound lane north of the tracks. That lane would be designated for making east to northbound turns and south to eastbound lanes. That lane would split before the Brentcliffe portal and merge after the west Don Mills portal. The 2 eastbound lanes south of the tracks would be through traffic only, no turns to or from Leslie. A pedestrian bridge would be built to service the platforms and cross the roadway. A simple drawing of what I meant. Safety islands would be installed at the intersection to make to appear as a regular intersection which would avoid the issues at Spadina/Queens Quays.

View attachment 285793
That's a quite interesting design. It's sorta like a diverging diamond interchange? I'm just wondering how the vehicles coming from Southbound to Eastbound, will get back on the proper side. The LRT Tracks are on the surface for a while east of Leslie, (800 metres) and only go underground just before Don Mills. All this work seems like a complete hassle.

I'd much rather have the LRT start rising at the Brentcliffe Portal, then elevated station just west of Leslie (or remove entirely) and elevate over the current intersection, then start descending to clear under the CPR overpass, the grade from Leslie St to CPR Bridge would be around 3% The CPR bridge would still need to be rehabed. And then the LRT would run on a guideway guarded from traffic until it dips to Science Centre Station. This way, the LRT does not have to deal with traffic lights, but can still run at street level.

1606682763119.png
 
Everyone going on about how it should have been built.... I don't see anyone volunteering for their taxes to be increased....
 
That's a horrible argument in this context, we should be optimizing over the capacity of service provided. The marginal benefit of the right transport infrastructure is very high. Also, Toronto has tons of economic growth coming in the next 20-30 years. Any other city in North America would be lucky to draw on all the future tax revenue potential we have.

At least Vancouver adds a tax hike with their transit projects.
 
Was looking at the hole where The Salvation Army Church was by Yonge and it almost triple depth wise now. That one hell of a hole when it was a drive in almost a year ago.

Looks like they still digging it out as the long arm excavator was there. Can't see the bottom with all the bracing in the way.

Way behind photographing in this area and the longest of any place I shoot by 11 months.

Talking to locals while shooting, their biggest complaint was the weekend closure that should be done over night as well the shuttle buses with too many riders.

No way in hell to do this work overnight and need the weekends to do the work.

As for shuttle buses, saw a lot of empty buses on Yonge to about 20 on the artic's. If you didn't see a bus in one minute, you would see up to 10 in the next minute. My 40' left St Clair with 3 of us on it and 15 on the Artic from Eglinton. Never saw a bus with 20 or more riders on it and can't speak for all the buses other than the ones I saw.
 
Slightly off topic but... Is anyone else concerned about the depth some of these LRT stations are at ? It appeared that the stairways and escalators in some stations are enormously long - if and when the escalators breakdown as they are apt to do, what does that mean for ridership?
 

Back
Top