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

[sixrings]

Although elevated trenched underground is of some importance on the eastern and western sections, the bigger issue to me is the stop spacing. My last post was simply advocating for larger stop spacing, especially in the west if its run in median.

pearson, martin groven kipling, islington, royal york, scarlett, jane, weston, keele, caledonia, dufferin. Oakwood, eglinton west, bathurst, chaplain, avenue, yonge, mount pleasent, bayview, laird, leslie, donmills, etc.

 

[ssiguy2]

Although I think the selling of the Richview Corridor is extremely short sighted, I can't see how it would make any difference.
Toronto is the only city on the planet that does not use nor even cosider using any of it's existing rail or hydro corridors for transit.
Why use existing infrastructure and corridors when you can tunnel so as not to disturb the urbanity of the Walmarts and gas stations along all those O so bohemian suburban roads?

 

[BurlOak]

Once again - the ROW on the north side of Eglinton will soon be 4 m wide - Mr Ford is selling the city land west of Islington. I think for this and all the other reasons we need to forget about a west extension of the LRT. Ever.

I did not have time to review your earlier link in detail. On the Steve Munro blog (April 26, 2011), a letter from Councillor Mihevic states that The proposal to transfer the Richview lands to Build Toronto is meant to take place after the construction of the Eglinton LRT through this stretch of Eglinton.

Why would Ford allow (or want) this land to be sold. He could buy maybe a couple of hundred metres of Sheppard subway (at most). As for Eglinton West, it would lead to a much more expensive subway being required (which will never happen) or a street median LRT being built (what Ford does not want). Something smells fishy about this.

 

[BurlOak]

Although elevated trenched underground is of some importance on the eastern and western sections, the bigger issue to me is the stop spacing. My last post was simply advocating for larger stop spacing, especially in the west if its run in median.

pearson, martin groven kipling, islington, royal york, scarlett, jane, weston, keele, caledonia, dufferin. Oakwood, eglinton west, bathurst, chaplain, avenue, yonge, mount pleasent, bayview, laird, leslie, donmills, etc.

I think your stops spacing was bang on correct.

I did wonder if the NIMBYs along Eglinton near Kennedy (the only East portion with any residential) would oppose an elevated line and whether the addition of a stop at Ionview would help appease them. What every NIMBY would want is a stop in front of their own house and few stops elsewhere. Having this one extra stop would not affect speed that much, and even the added cost would make it much less expensive than a fully tunneled line.

 

[BurlOak]

No and we shouldn't. IIRC there will be a new LRT platform constructed at the mezzanine level with a junction joining it to the SRT.

Was this with the Ford plan or the original plan. My thought were if the line is elevated, it may be possible to re-use this for continuous operation with SRT. The original plan had much more transfers from SRT to B-D, so a better connection was needed between the two. However, with the Ford plan, this may not be nearly as important.

I must admit that part of my thinking was also related to making this line ICTS. When the people of North Scarborough comprehend a 3 or 4 year shut down of the SRT, I think there will be significant pressure to shorten it. Looking at the Kennedy curve of the SRT, it appears that a widening of the bridge in this area by 5 or so metres, plus removing about 10 metres of station from the East side, would allow a curve radius of 35-40m to be done. Much of this structural work could be done with the line in operation.

 

[gweed123]

Was this with the Ford plan or the original plan. My thought were if the line is elevated, it may be possible to re-use this for continuous operation with SRT. The original plan had much more transfers from SRT to B-D, so a better connection was needed between the two. However, with the Ford plan, this may not be nearly as important.

Very good point. Indeed, the whole redesign of Kennedy was predicated around a linear transfer to B-D, with the ECLRT and SMLRT both being 'secondary'. With the redesign as a single through line (and the non-existence of the SMLRT), keeping it on the upper level may make sense.

I must admit that part of my thinking was also related to making this line ICTS. When the people of North Scarborough comprehend a 3 or 4 year shut down of the SRT, I think there will be significant pressure to shorten it. Looking at the Kennedy curve of the SRT, it appears that a widening of the bridge in this area by 5 or so metres, plus removing about 10 metres of station from the East side, would allow a curve radius of 35-40m to be done. Much of this structural work could be done with the line in operation.

I agree, especially if the shutdown happens in an election year. If that's the case, I'll just grab a lawn chair and watch the crazy roll on by. It should be entertaining (and quite scary at some points).

As for the ICTS thing, if that was on the table, it would have been done last year when the change was announced. We know Ford doesn't like LRT, so that pretty much means that since it's still LRT that Metrolinx wasn't pushing for ICTS (because they wouldn't have had to have pushed very hard). If Metrolinx doesn't want ICTS, to me that speaks volumes. I think they just want this thing done, without any more delays.

As for the structural work, you forgot the 90 degree tunnel curve under the Stouffville line. Even if they went with Mark II ICTS, that would have still needed to have been rebuilt because of curve radius, which would have meant the line would have needed to be shut down anyway (albeit for not as long as the conversion to LRT will be).

 

[k10ery]

I did not have time to review your earlier link in detail. On the Steve Munro blog (April 26, 2011), a letter from Councillor Mihevic states that The proposal to transfer the Richview lands to Build Toronto is meant to take place after the construction of the Eglinton LRT through this stretch of Eglinton.

The notice says "on November 29, 2011 City Council declared the following properties surplus, with the intended manner of disposal to be by way of a transfer to Build Toronto Inc." Three properties are listed, between Kipling and Royal York. The ones west of Kipling in the original resolution are not there for some reason. Perhaps Mihevc got part of what he wanted?

Why would Ford allow (or want) this land to be sold. He could buy maybe a couple of hundred metres of Sheppard subway (at most). As for Eglinton West, it would lead to a much more expensive subway being required (which will never happen) or a street median LRT being built (what Ford does not want). Something smells fishy about this.

Ford says all transit will go underground. The Build Toronto prospectus for the land to be sold even talks about easements for future stairs to the platforms. Seriously.

The reality is that underground won't get built out there. With the sell off, the side of road or trenched options will be gone. Even in-median looks to be very tight. Eglinton is wide, but the existing bike path, sidewalks, and buffers take up 10 m of it. I think you're right: This little sale makes a west extension much less likely.

Come on. There is no reason to permanently keep a totally artificial linear transfer at Weston or Jane, if the chosen technology (LRT) can operate in the street median. Using the Richview corridor on the north side of Eglinton may be a preferred option; but if it is gone, let's continue in the street median and get direct service to Etobicoke and the airport.

The passenger volume is not currently there, the neighbourhood does not want it, and Ford is making it physically harder to fit LRT into this stretch of Eglinton. My guess is, in 2020 this thread will still be open, only we will be discussing "what could have been". Hope I'm wrong though.

 

[BurlOak]

As for the ICTS thing, if that was on the table, it would have been done last year when the change was announced. We know Ford doesn't like LRT, so that pretty much means that since it's still LRT that Metrolinx wasn't pushing for ICTS (because they wouldn't have had to have pushed very hard). If Metrolinx doesn't want ICTS, to me that speaks volumes. I think they just want this thing done, without any more delays.

As for the structural work, you forgot the 90 degree tunnel curve under the Stouffville line. Even if they went with Mark II ICTS, that would have still needed to have been rebuilt because of curve radius, which would have meant the line would have needed to be shut down anyway (albeit for not as long as the conversion to LRT will be).

I do agree that we missed the boat on ICTS . I think the reason is that TTC probably figured they would kill time for the next 3.5 years and just revert back to the median LRT. Metrolinx probably figured is was easier to just keep the vehicles that were going to be ordered - but fabrication had not yet started. Ford gave notice of the grade separated transit line as soon as he was elected. These other bodies appear to not have worked with him - or not took him seriously. I could have understood this if a Mayor makes such an annoucement in their final year.

For the 90 degree tunnel curve at Ellesmere, I thought the radius is about 100m. Is the issue that the radius is too tight, or is the vehicle too big to fit through the tunnel?

 

[CapitalSeven]

For the 90 degree tunnel curve at Ellesmere, I thought the radius is about 100m. Is the issue that the radius is too tight, or is the vehicle too big to fit through the tunnel?

I believe the curve is fine for either LRT or the Mark II, but the Mark II vehicles would hit the walls and the LRT would hit the ceiling, at minimum.

 

[BurlOak]

I believe the curve is fine for either LRT or the Mark II, but the Mark II vehicles would hit the walls and the LRT would hit the ceiling, at minimum.

In the "Scarborough RT Strategic Plan – Study Report", it states that there "may be a need to provide for widening of the safety walkway along side the existing track and to make track modifications within the Ellesmere tunnel" for using ICTS Mark II. I wonder why the use of the word "may". Could there be other options that may work (i.e. safety pockets for maintenance workers)? Could the nominal reduction in walkway width be acceptable? I am not too familiar with what is required. According to the SkyTrain website, the Mark I and Mark II are the same width, and the Mark II is 6" higher.

If it fits height wise, could one half of the tunnel be used as an emergency walkway and the other half for trains. This would require a new tunnel for only one direction - which could possibly be built while the existing line is still operating.

FInally, with additional train orders needed for a 30km long route, would cost premium to custom order vehicles to fit the existing tunnel be a lot less than was considered in the Report?

 

[M II A II R II K]

So those that would get on the SRT to go downtown would remain on this line if it came to fruition and therefore take many riders off of the BD line, which would act as a BD relief, but they would end up on the Yonge Line anyway, so this Eastern DRL should be built in conjunction with it.

 

[gweed123]

So those that would get on the SRT to go downtown would remain on this line if it came to fruition and therefore take many riders off of the BD line, which would act as a BD relief, but they would end up on the Yonge Line anyway, so this Eastern DRL should be built in conjunction with it.

Ideally yes. But there are other ways to avoid forcing people onto the Yonge line. One way is to increase the amount of trains that are short turned at Glencairn, so that there are near empty trains ready for loading at Eglinton West station. I know I'd stay on the Eglinton LRT for a couple extra stops if there was a near empty train waiting for me as opposed to getting off at Eglinton-Yonge and getting on a packed train.

That's very much a stop-gap measure though, and I agree that the DRL needs to open very soon after the Eglinton LRT does.

 

[Mapleson]

I'm glad there is some common sense in the Ford crowd. Karen Stinz: "If the decision is to go with an LRT, it should be at-grade,” she said. “If there’s a decision to put it underground, it should be a subway."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-suburban-stretch-of-eglinton/article2311140/

 

[sixrings]

I'm glad there is some common sense in the Ford crowd. Karen Stinz: "If the decision is to go with an LRT, it should be at-grade,†she said. “If there’s a decision to put it underground, it should be a subway."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-suburban-stretch-of-eglinton/article2311140/

really hope this means we will see right of way lrt in the west and east with farther stop spacing as i mentioned before. i am deffinately pro finch and pro other tc lines but i never liked the cutting which was done right before rob scrapped the whole thing. please no more stubs. instead complete lines.

 

[k10ery]

I'm glad there is some common sense in the Ford crowd. Karen Stinz: "If the decision is to go with an LRT, it should be at-grade,” she said. “If there’s a decision to put it underground, it should be a subway."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-suburban-stretch-of-eglinton/article2311140/

Holy crap! The wheels are coming off that new Ford we bought last year.

I seriously thought the "secret plan" at TTC and Metrolinx was to wait until Ford left office in 2014 and then go back to the original at-grade plan. If Stintz is speaking out now, then that is not the plan. She must think Ford is too weak now to fire her in the reshuffle in the fall. Or that she's running against him in 2014 and it wouldn't hurt to be fired?