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

[T3G]

that wasn't always the case. they used to build subway lines in under 4 years. i'll let you figure out why that's no longer the case.

Enlighten us, please. Why?

 

[toaster29]

I guess we won't be seeing anything new about this line untill it's actually complete. Plenty of stations we actually haven't seen below ground but doubt we'll get any new insight on that

It bothers me so much that the Metrolinx higher ups won't open anything until we have the line fully complete. Open segments that are functioning, even if it means not operating Yong/Eng station, which some people think is the problem. The mismanagement is unreal, baffles my mind how this isn't front page news everyday, how how FOI requests are able to give us info on what is going on.

 

[T3G]

It bothers me so much that the Metrolinx higher ups won't open anything until we have the line fully complete. Open segments that are functioning, even if it means not operating Yong/Eng station, which some people think is the problem. The mismanagement is unreal, baffles my mind how this isn't front page news everyday, how how FOI requests are able to give us info on what is going on.

What bothers me is how people keep trotting this idea out as though it in any way makes sense. Do you really think that opening a line without its central transfer point, forcing people to backtrack or transfer onto a different service, and have service bypass an active construction site while they figure out what is going on underneath the station, is really better than waiting until the project is safe to open? We're not talking about deferring the opening of the Scarborough segment here, you are suggesting that the central part of the line be left incomplete.

It strikes me as profoundly unsafe to run trains through an active construction site, and it would also be a fantastic failure in PR. "Gee, all this money pumped into the project and its centerpiece station isn't even done?" No one who is even remotely politically savvy would go for this. And you don't need a FOI request to figure that out, either.

 

[W. K. Lis]

What bothers me is how people keep trotting this idea out as though it in any way makes sense. Do you really think that opening a line without its central transfer point, forcing people to backtrack or transfer onto a different service, and have service bypass an active construction site while they figure out what is going on underneath the station, is really better than waiting until the project is safe to open? We're not talking about deferring the opening of the Scarborough segment here, you are suggesting that the central part of the line be left incomplete.

It strikes me as profoundly unsafe to run trains through an active construction site, and it would also be a fantastic failure in PR. "Gee, all this money pumped into the project and its centerpiece station isn't even done?" No one who is even remotely politically savvy would go for this. And you don't need a FOI request to figure that out, either.

There is a crossover on Line 5 between Cedarvale (Eglinton West) and Avenue Road. I forgot where the crossover is. (There is a track map of all the pocket tracks and crossovers.) They could use the section from Mt. Dennis to Cedarvale until Eglinton is up and running in the meantime.

Except that it would remind people of the cancelled Eglinton West Subway that former Premier Mike Harris filled in. That construction began in 1994 but was cancelled in 1995.

 

[Admiral Beez]

What bothers me is how people keep trotting this idea out as though it in any way makes sense. Do you really think that opening a line without its central transfer point, forcing people to backtrack or transfer onto a different service, and have service bypass an active construction site while they figure out what is going on underneath the station, is really better than waiting until the project is safe to open? We're not talking about deferring the opening of the Scarborough segment here, you are suggesting that the central part of the line be left incomplete.

It strikes me as profoundly unsafe to run trains through an active construction site, and it would also be a fantastic failure in PR. "Gee, all this money pumped into the project and its centerpiece station isn't even done?" No one who is even remotely politically savvy would go for this. And you don't need a FOI request to figure that out, either.

It depends. Can trains with passengers safely transit through Eglinton, or is it too dangerous even for that? Can we really consider Eglinton an “active” construction site? It can’t be all that active if they’re two years behind schedule.

 

[Rainforest]

I get the problems with running trains through the Yonge&Eglinton station while the latter is not completed.

However, running less frequent service (say, 1 train in 8 min, on Mon - Fri only) just from Mt. Dennis to Cedarvale should be worth considering. The bus riders would not be forced to transfer, as the buses would run the full route just as they do today. But the LRT would serve those riders who only need to travel between Mt. Dennis and Cedarvale, and thus reduce the bus crowding.

Furthermore, that smaller scale operation would serve as a field test for the LRT. Hopefully, some of the teething problems would be discovered and fixed before the full service begins.

 

[W. K. Lis]

From the 2010 "Environmental Project Report". Which means that the crossover locations may or may not have been built, because they would not tell the non-executive "folks" like us if they did it or not.

Proposed locations for operational crossover tracks are: between Commerce Boulevard and Renforth Drive; east of Martin Grove Stop; west of Wincott/Bemersyde Stop; between CNR/CPR rail line and TTC Maintenance and Storage yard; between TTC Maintenance and Storage yard and Black Creek Stop; east of Keele Station; east of Eglinton West Station; east of Eglinton Station; west of Laird Station; and east of Pharmacy Stop.

Proposed locations for tail tracks or storage (pocket) tracks are: north of Silver Dart Stop, north of Commerce Boulevard, west of Islington Stop; east of Jane Stop; west of Keele Station; west of Eglinton West Station; west of Eglinton Station; east of Laird Station; and west of Don Mills Station.

That report is very old as seen by the station names. There must be some recent report with the real, current locations, which us "folks" could see.

 

[Dan416]

From the 2010 "Environmental Project Report". Which means that the crossover locations may or may not have been built, because they would not tell the non-executive "folks" like us if they did it or not.



That report is very old as seen by the station names. There must be some recent report with the real, current locations, which us "folks" could see.

I still think the dumbest thing was using the name Eglinton at Yonge street. I get if you don't want to rename the whole station, then just name the Eglinton line portion as Yonge. The signs at Bloor-Yonge show Yonge on the Bloor line and Bloor on the Yonge line, so they could have done that. To have an Eglinton station on the Eglinton line is the height of stupidity, which clearly I'll never get over.