News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 3.4K     11 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 1.2K     3 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 2K     0 

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

dowlingm said:
For some reason I am not enthused by the 51/56 merger as proposed.

I would like to see 56 go up Laird and across Glenvale to Bayview, then one way loop back east along Kilgour Road’s various medical centres to Rumsey (or with some works, Sutherland) which have car parks but no adjacent buses, thus providing more convenient to their services for the catchments of both Crosstown and Line 2
View attachment 521186
Click to expand...
For selfish reasons, I'd like the 56 to make turn at Sunnybrook (SB). As it stands, it looks like I'm obliged to 3-4 rides to get to work from Coxwell/Danforth.

Currently: usually 56 from Donlands to 11 at Bayview (with either bike share or subway from Coxwell to Donlands)

Future equivalent: 51 from Donlands to Laird, 5 to Leaside, 11 to SB (plus bike/subway to Donlands).

Alternate 1 (and current): 2 to Yonge, 1 to Davisville, 11 to SB.

Alternate 2 (future): 91 to Bermondsey, 5 to Leaside, 11 to SB.

I don't predict either of these alternatives will be faster than the 30 min from Donlands to SB.
 
Voltz said:
As has been mentioned there where several years of intentional delays put in the schedule by the province, when it was a TTC project, their plan was to open it in phases starting in 2015, which would have been doable since the first phase only had a few underground stations.
Click to expand...
well you can blame verster for that in his ego 1 gigantic grand opening approach. hes been steadfast on it despite the obvious benefits of a phased approach.
 
cplchanb said:
well you can blame verster for that in his ego 1 gigantic grand opening approach. hes been steadfast on it despite the obvious benefits of a phased approach.
Click to expand...
How can you open an line that was never was plan to open in phases in the first places as well doing the testing for that phases if there still out standing issues to be fix for it??

Do you know for a fact what could be open in phase 1 & 2 and able to prove it??

Safety is Number 1 issue on all construction sites as well operating transit.
 
drum118 said:
How can you open an line that was never was plan to open in phases in the first places as well doing the testing for that phases if there still out standing issues to be fix for it??

Do you know for a fact what could be open in phase 1 & 2 and able to prove it??

Safety is Number 1 issue on all construction sites as well operating transit.
Click to expand...
It's the underground sections that are holding g everything back. They have been testing trains for 2 years now. Had they gone for a phased opening at the start they could've easily worked it in their commissioning. Safety is not an issue for this since they only need to move trains through the tunnels as deadheads.
 
cplchanb said:
Safety is not an issue for this since they only need to move trains through the tunnels as deadheads.
Click to expand...
Unless, of course, the deadheading trains encountered a problem, right? Or does the safety of train drivers and construction workers not matter?

I don't want to rehash this debate again as I've stated my piece at least half a dozen times at this point, but there's a very good reason no one took the idea of a phased opening seriously.
 
cplchanb said:
It's the underground sections that are holding g everything back. They have been testing trains for 2 years now. Had they gone for a phased opening at the start they could've easily worked it in their commissioning. Safety is not an issue for this since they only need to move trains through the tunnels as deadheads.
Click to expand...
If they decided to change to a phased approach, could it be done and the public be placated with that?
 
cplchanb said:
well you can blame verster for that in his ego 1 gigantic grand opening approach. hes been steadfast on it despite the obvious benefits of a phased approach.
Click to expand...
Again, it's not possible for the Eglinton Line to open in a phased way.

As much as I bash Metrolinx for screwing up this project in a way no one else could, if there's work being done at various parts throughout the line, you simply cant run trains in/out of work zones. Remember, trains have to be dispatched from the MSF daily and once they are done service they must return back. It's not feasible to park trains along time line just to run service, nor is it feasible to run trains for a couple stations for the sake of "running service". This is a simple explanation of why a phased opening is not possible, i've gone into detail in the past as to why it cant be done.
 
cplchanb said:
It's the underground sections that are holding g everything back. They have been testing trains for 2 years now. Had they gone for a phased opening at the start they could've easily worked it in their commissioning. Safety is not an issue for this since they only need to move trains through the tunnels as deadheads.
Click to expand...
I guess the trackwork and station work on the grade section don't count from opening up the line now??

Have you talked to TTC to see what impact the surface route will have on their existing service??

Did you forget where the surface line can only run not using the underground station??

Moving anything in the tunnel and underground stations have safety issues 100% regardless been deadhead.
 
A phased approach that was planned from the beginning would have worked, but a phased opening planned late in the game doesn't work when you are not the general contractor. The old delivery method would have had TTC as the general contractor paying for all the little pieces of work contracted out, and if all the pieces were done safely in an area they could decide to open that part up. Any new cost related to changes in phased opening would be evaluated and under the control of the TTC.

In the current Crosstown delivery method the whole delivery was outsourced as a fix bid and delivery hasn't gone as well as expected meaning Crosslinx probably isn't making as much as they would have hoped. No doubt, any launch of service would be used to negotiate new billings to Metrolinx and would have legal costs involved. You need to move a train through the station not fully signed off on... that is going to throw off our whole delivery plan please pay. Every single thing not to original contract and plan would be a way for the vendor to get money back or to escape the scrutiny of the team ensuring all components have been delivered to specification.
 
EnviroTO said:
A phased approach that was planned from the beginning would have worked, but a phased opening planned late in the game doesn't work when you are not the general contractor. The old delivery method would have had TTC as the general contractor paying for all the little pieces of work contracted out, and if all the pieces were done safely in an area they could decide to open that part up. Any new cost related to changes in phased opening would be evaluated and under the control of the TTC.

In the current Crosstown delivery method the whole delivery was outsourced as a fix bid and delivery hasn't gone as well as expected meaning Crosslinx probably isn't making as much as they would have hoped. No doubt, any launch of service would be used to negotiate new billings to Metrolinx and would have legal costs involved. You need to move a train through the station not fully signed off on... that is going to throw off our whole delivery plan please pay. Every single thing not to original contract and plan would be a way for the vendor to get money back or to escape the scrutiny of the team ensuring all components have been delivered to specification.
Click to expand...

Thank you, this is the best explanation of the current state.

Although, they should have added something to that effect to the contract wording. If the general contractor is unable to open the whole line on-schedule, then they must make a reasonable effort to safely open the section next to the LSF. In our case, from Mt Dennis to the Eglinton West subway.
 
Don’t know if this was posted before but I saw this picture on Reddit looks like the new connection between Line 1 and 5
IMG_0712.jpeg
 
Nov 25
Mount Dennis, Keelesdale and Caledonia stations are ready for the surface area and no one working on the site today. No idea what is needed for Keelesdale and Caledonia stations since they are underground and out of sight. See nothing for Mount Dennis.

All the stations and entrance have the black/orange T post up now.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top