Toronto Crosstown LRT: Kennedy Station | ?m | 1s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

May 22nd update


IMG_8402.JPG


IMG_8403.JPG


IMG_8404.JPG


IMG_8405.JPG


IMG_8408.JPG


IMG_8411.JPG




More photos here: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/crosstown-lrt-metrolinx.11782/post-1557966
 
July 1
They still need to clear the area from the station to GO tracks and start building the based of the tunnel.

They are back filling the area on top of the tunnel to the west of the station and are on the east side of the traffic lights for TTC buses to/from the station.

For a holiday day, one busy site like other areas including Kennedy GO Station. Building a 2nd track bridge over the tunnel. Lot more up on site.
50070618971_c9e9d91329_b.jpg

50070058648_f4a854acf7_b.jpg

50070873507_50ea877cf9_b.jpg

50070061533_78e6b982a7_b.jpg

50070623191_9f498b44e4_b.jpg

50070876077_f4cfa205f2_b.jpg

50070062933_78ca3b4bb0_b.jpg

50070877142_07047f2a32_b.jpg

50070625511_bcc45ed18c_b.jpg

50070878287_3a7536d781_b.jpg

50070879082_373c2a3136_b.jpg

50070065833_768ff2735b_b.jpg

50070880382_b8ddf505e3_b.jpg

50070881217_9c31a38669_b.jpg

50071257673_d35f2b5dd4_b.jpg

50072071732_924fbe0806_b.jpg
 
Nov 06
Lot more up on site
Still digging the tunnel under GO Transit line as well the SRT
50581117458_b3c31ee2f8_b.jpg

50581117328_8a75c5b8dc_b.jpg

50581117188_de47cc6b58_b.jpg

50581844756_9283dd71b6_b.jpg

50581968792_5356eebb9f_b.jpg

50581969112_c0805be0e2_b.jpg

50581114993_ebcb6ff7cf_b.jpg

50581969937_6a699d1d92_b.jpg

50581116503_a23e4ee1d8_b.jpg

50581118468_94df15f81a_b.jpg

50581974482_6faa79d948_b.jpg

50581121318_36258c9b45_b.jpg

50581852316_9b5ae004b9_b.jpg

50581121838_347fd42ab8_b.jpg

50581852901_940e532c1a_b.jpg

50581967917_712708854d_b.jpg
 
Dec 30
The next few months will see most of the tunnel and station bury. They are now working where the buses cross the tunnel to the east and have yet to do work under the SRT. By Summer, Eglinton should be back to being a normal road with most work out of sight.
50781743767_b98f2ba98a_b.jpg

50781743932_551e5e859d_b.jpg

50780871398_14fc24e780_b.jpg

50781744502_a5b4f2e221_b.jpg

50780872788_afaed56e41_b.jpg

50781746047_6e35962be0_b.jpg

50780873173_25a5486206_b.jpg

50781746272_8f282edc10_b.jpg

50780873563_6619f4519c_b.jpg

50780873688_e7048e4307_b.jpg

50781639286_ef10cf40b9_b.jpg

50780874258_b9688f42ac_b.jpg

50781639486_763effe2d2_b.jpg

50780874513_23e1735184_b.jpg

50780874683_ca52c75abc_b.jpg
 
Would "normal" not be three lanes in each direction?

For want-to-be-expressways, yes. However, for urban streets, the maximum should be two traffic lanes for motor vehicles (maximum 40 or 50 km/h), plus segregated lanes for bicycles and e-bikes (maximum 30 km/h), and WIDE sidewalks for pedestrians (maximum 20 km/h ;)).
 
For want-to-be-expressways, yes. However, for urban streets, the maximum should be two traffic lanes for motor vehicles (maximum 40 or 50 km/h), plus segregated lanes for bicycles and e-bikes (maximum 30 km/h), and WIDE sidewalks for pedestrians (maximum 20 km/h ;)).

Two lanes of traffic will be more sufficient but if you put bike lanes anywhere alone Eglinton once Crosstown is in there will be an uproar (and rightfully so). You can only cram so many things onto a street before you begin to annoy people.

Two lanes of traffic and a ROW take up alot of space.
 
Two lanes of traffic will be more sufficient but if you put bike lanes anywhere alone Eglinton once Crosstown is in there will be an uproar (and rightfully so). You can only cram so many things onto a street before you begin to annoy people.

Two lanes of traffic and a ROW take up alot of space.

Depend upon the WIDTH of the traffic lanes. Wide traffic lanes make it "safer" for the speeders doing 100+ km/h, and less so for pedestrians.

Compelling Evidence That Wider Lanes Make City Streets More Dangerous​

Screen-Shot-2015-05-27-at-12.52.15-PM.png

From link.

The “forgiving highway” approach to traffic engineering holds that wider is safer when it comes to street design. After decades of adherence to these standards, American cities are now criss-crossed by streets with 12-foot wide lanes. As Walkable City author Jeff Speck argued in CityLab last year, this is actually terrible for public safety and the pedestrian environment.

A new study reinforces the argument that cities need to reconsider lane widths and redesign streets accordingly. In a paper to be presented at the Canadian Institute of Traffic Engineers annual conference, author Dewan Masud Karim presents hard evidence that wider lanes increase risk on city streets.

Karim conducted a wide-ranging review of existing research as well as an examination of crash databases in two cities, taking into consideration 190 randomly selected intersections in Tokyo and 70 in Toronto.

Looking at the crash databases, Karim found that collision rates escalate as lane widths exceed about 10.5 feet.

Roads with the widest lanes — 12 feet or wider — were associated with greater crash rates and higher impact speeds. Karim also found that crash rates rise as lanes become narrower than about 10 feet, though this does not take impact speeds and crash severity into account. He concluded that there is a sweet spot for lane widths on city streets, between about 10 and 10.5 feet.

In Toronto, where traffic lanes are typically wider than in Tokyo, the average crash impact speed is also 34 percent higher, Karim found, suggesting that wider lanes not only result in more crashes but in more severe crashes.

The “inevitable statistical outcome” of the “wider-is-safer approach is loss of precious life, particularly by vulnerable citizens,” Karim concluded.
 
Depend upon the WIDTH of the traffic lanes. Wide traffic lanes make it "safer" for the speeders doing 100+ km/h, and less so for pedestrians.

Compelling Evidence That Wider Lanes Make City Streets More Dangerous​

Screen-Shot-2015-05-27-at-12.52.15-PM.png

From link.

With all due respect, you cannot make traffic lanes wider or narrower depending on the street. That would be a bloody disaster.

I would not be surprised if the dimensions of traffic lanes were enshrined in the HTA.
 
With all due respect, you cannot make traffic lanes wider or narrower depending on the street. That would be a bloody disaster.
Lane widths are partially determined by maximum allowable speeds. I think that qualifies as “depending on the street”.


It does not look like the HTA specifies lane width, but that was from a cursory look. I could be wrong.
 
Lane widths are partially determined by maximum allowable speeds. I think that qualifies as “depending on the street”.


It does not look like the HTA specifies lane width, but that was from a cursory look. I could be wrong.

Even still. If you have different widths on Eglinton than you would on Ashtonbee for example that would be a nightmare.

The KISS method is the best way to go here.
 
Even still. If you have different widths on Eglinton than you would on Ashtonbee for example that would be a nightmare.
It seems that is explicitly allowed, as per the linked document. It makes sense to me: narrower roads signal “go slower”, and suggest a different street priority.

But two streets with exactly the same current and future usage and same speeds? Yeah, they should be the same width - unless you intend to change their usage.

A related article about the decision-making behind this:

 
Last edited:

Back
Top