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

[W. K. Lis]

Umm, I hope not. I applaud this new LRT line, but I stopped watching after a few minutes because is just so, well, boring and hideous. Virtually the whole line seems to run through an industrial wasteland of blank walls, parking lots and random depressing junk. I don't like the three foot high concrete walls a bit, and the grill fencing isn't much better. What purpose would they serve on Eglinton? The Golden Mile is nearly as ugly as this, not quite, but I think the goal is to try to improve its character. While the crossing arms are an idea that Toronto might want to consider for the speed gain, I think the more European look of Toronto's plan is preferable.

Many of the U.S. suburban LRT lines have stations far apart and surrounded by parking lots or garages. This means the transit user has to use their cars to park-n-ride. However, there are stations that are more pedestrian-friendly without the parking lots but with residences or offices, but are few.

 

[M II A II R II K]

There is a point about the hideous element of it, but a setup like that in terms of independence from traffic and red lights, even if it has to be timed to take off from a station to ensure the green lights, and the crossing arms.

 

[EnviroTO]

The article in The Sun on this project was a painful read. Seems Ann-Levy and Stintz are equally challenged when it comes to having a clue what is possible. Stations close to the surface constructed using tunneling in dirt with a road on top? Are you kidding me? There can be debate about how quickly the cover is applied but there can be no debate that it has to be cut and cover. I'm surprised Stintz is asking "how are they doing it" type questions in a public forum on a portfolio you would expect her to be more informed about. Thank goodness they are going to look into joint developments. Stations are largely at intersections which are the more valuable properties on the street.

 

[rbt]

The article in The Sun on this project was a painful read. Seems Ann-Levy and Stintz are equally challenged when it comes to having a clue what is possible.

Stintz is usually smart enough not to ask questions publicly she doesn't already know the answer to. Given her easy access to engineers, I would assume she does know the answer already.

This could be an attempt to shut Ford up about the disruption LRT construction will cause by showing how much more impact Eglinton construction will have as a subway, while looking like she has done everything in her power to minimize it.

If Ford is going to be in continual campaign mode speawing partial truths and outright lies, the rest of council will need to constantly remind the public what the actual facts are. Asking the question publicly and getting a public answer from one or more engineers will do that.

Sue-Ann obviously puts her own spin on almost everything. If Ford said there would be major disruption to build underground stuff I'm certain her article would have come out very differently. She has not, for example, mentioned Keele and Finch which is a really obvious example of what to expect; Ford fully supports that project.

 

[Solid Snake]

Speaking of “sound” TTC fiscal management, I watched Tuesday as commissioner Peter Milczyn asked the Blue Suits, yet again, whether any of them were pursuing developers interested in building over or around the 10 proposed underground stations.

Proving yet again that they are operating somewhere back before the light bulb was invented, Anna Pace, speaking on behalf of the rest of the TTC Bright Lights, said: “I don’t think so.”

This caused Milczyn to direct the staff — in a far more diplomatic way than I would have — to consult with Build Toronto to seek development partners.

“I’m extraordinarily frustrated that in 2012 we still have stand-alone stations,” added Milczyn, noting this is a historic opportunity to attract joint ventures which could bring in more tax revenue. “Unless there is a push from us this won’t get done ... there has to be the political will to do this.”

100% agree

 

[W. K. Lis]

According to the last TTC commission meeting, there was a report on the LRT projects (at this link), and there was this little note:

In February 2012, Metrolinx acquired the 58 acre Kodak lands site at Black Creek Drive and Eglinton Avenue West for the Crosstown LRV Maintenance and Storage Facility. The preliminary planning and environmental assessment for the maintenance and storage facility has started. It is expected that the first public consultation for the environmental assessment site will be in fall 2012. Metrolinx has identified this area as the Weston Mobility Hub.

Personally, I would like to name it the Kodak Maintenance and Storage Facility to recognize the Kodak history in the area. Hope that some of the remaining Kodak buildings will remain.

 

[gweed123]

So any update on where the actual western terminus of this line will be? I know the launch site is at Black Creek, but there have been conflicting reports of where the line will actually end in the west. The TTC site says Black Creek, but the Crosstown site says Jane (http://www.thecrosstown.ca/sites/de...nded_system-map1v7-w-stations-stops_web_0.jpg).

Anyone know what the real deal is?

Personally I think the temporary (temporary until it can be extended to Renforth or the Airport) should be at the Georgetown corridor, to at least allow for an intermodal facility to be built there, with connections to the ECLRT, buses, and GO.

 

[Palma]

Considering I see no work being done west of Black Creek it looks like it will not start at Jane St but rather at Black Creek (though that makes no sense since there is nothing there) and I figure it should start at Keele St.

 

[nfitz]

Considering I see no work being done west of Black Creek it looks like it will not start at Jane St but rather at Black Creek (though that makes no sense since there is nothing there) and I figure it should start at Keele St.

They haven't completed the design west of Black Creek yet. The yard is west of Black Creek, so it will have to go at least a short distance past Black Creek, and even past Black Creek Drive.

 

[car4041]

Considering I see no work being done west of Black Creek it looks like it will not start at Jane St but rather at Black Creek (though that makes no sense since there is nothing there) and I figure it should start at Keele St.

That construction doesn't tell us anything -- it's just where the *tunnel* will start. The line is planned to continue west from there on the surface.

 

[gweed123]

They haven't completed the design west of Black Creek yet. The yard is west of Black Creek, so it will have to go at least a short distance past Black Creek, and even past Black Creek Drive.

True, they still have a few years before they have to have the surface design set it stone. I want to see it at least to the rail corridor, but if it goes to Jane I'm not opposed to that.

 

[nfitz]

True, they still have a few years before they have to have the surface design set it stone. I want to see it at least to the rail corridor, but if it goes to Jane I'm not opposed to that.

At the last Metrolinx meeting, they indicated that "Metrolinx staff plan to report back to the Board of Directors at the June meeting on the proposed alignment in the Black Creek area and the western terminus for this phase of the project including a "a grade separation option through the Black Creek area".

So should be set in stone soon.

 

[gweed123]

At the last Metrolinx meeting, they indicated that "Metrolinx staff plan to report back to the Board of Directors at the June meeting on the proposed alignment in the Black Creek area and the western terminus for this phase of the project including a "a grade separation option through the Black Creek area".

So should be set in stone soon.

Glad to hear that they're looking at continuing the grade separation through that area. I would think that the Georgetown corridor station (whatever it ends up being named), would be a good short-turn location for the line, much like Don Mills station will be, especially when the DRL ends there.

 

[BurlOak]

At the last Metrolinx meeting, they indicated that "Metrolinx staff plan to report back to the Board of Directors at the June meeting on the proposed alignment in the Black Creek area and the western terminus for this phase of the project including a "a grade separation option through the Black Creek area".

So should be set in stone soon.

I thought the City Council vote was for the old Transit City proposal. It seems that the following has been (may be) changed already:
1. Terminus at black Creek and not Jane.
2. Oakwood station dropped.
3. Continuous operation from SRT to Eglinton dropped.

How many changes are allowed before Council will say "that is not what we voted for".

 

[nfitz]

I thought the City Council vote was for the old Transit City proposal. It seems that the following has been (may be) changed already:
1. Terminus at black Creek and not Jane.
2. Oakwood station dropped.
3. Continuous operation from SRT to Eglinton dropped.

How many changes are allowed before Council will say "that is not what we voted for".

Number 3 WAS the old Transit City proposal. Number 1 was a huge debate item back in 2009/2010.

I'm quite sure that Metrolinx wouldn't object to the City of Toronto providing additional funding to keep the stations at Jane and Oakwood, if council votes to do that.

The addition/deletion of a station here/there is hardly unusual, we've seen this with other projects ... the addition of Sheppard West to the Spadina line, the deletion of Willowdale from the Sheppard line. The deletion of the station between Lawrence and Yonge from the 1970s Yonge line extension. The deletion of Royal Orchard from the forthcoming Yonge line extension.