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

[BurlOak]

Metrolinx is now saying they're sticking to the original EA with stop at Leslie retained.

We were told late last year that the portal east of Brentcliffe (on the hillside) was not possible due to engineering complexities. It was not that this portal location was more expensive, it was that it was not possible. We were also told that the stop at Ferrand had to be eliminated since it could not be put in with the underground station at Don Mills.

Then, Metrolinx announces that they looked at it in more detail and the stop at Ferrand could in fact be re-instated.
Now, Metrolinx announces that the original portal location could in fact be built.

Metrolinx does not have any crediibility since we never know if or when they are telling the truth.

I guess there is no chance of swtiching from the median to a South side alignement past Leslie. No matter what Metrolinx would say about this option, I am not sure if I would believe them.

 

[nfitz]

We were told late last year that the portal east of Brentcliffe (on the hillside) was not possible due to engineering complexities. It was not that this portal location was more expensive, it was that it was not possible.

That's not my recollection. Simply that it was going to be a lot more expensive.

 

[datamouse]

About that

So many here on UT passionately debate transit issues, dedicating a significant amount of time to it. Perhaps instead of simply debating it here on UT, more members should take a more active role and take their concerns directly to Metrolinx. Nothing will change by simply discussing it here on UT. But we do have the potential to change things if we alert those in a position of power about our concerns.

Say what you want about Ford but out of all the letters I've sent to politicians on he and my local MPP ever bothered to respond to me. It feels so damn futile when they won't even send an acknowledgement of receipt leaving you to wonder if they even read it. I don't expect a full written response all the time, just some degree of confirmation that I'm being heard.

 

[CapitalSeven]

It's true the there's been some backtracking, but I've gone back to the document from December that presented the revised plan, and it said in part this:

-new development to the south of the Brentcliffe launch site would require temporary shoring to protect the building foundation for the duration of construction, and construction noise mitigation measures may be insufficient

-Slope Stability issues north of Eglinton at the Brentcliffe portal could impact the ability to permanently maintain 4 lanes of traffic at this location

I don't know how you could read that as "not possible." To me it sounds more like "tricky."

Look, there are a lot of voices in this forum asking for faster lines and fewer stops, or rather a few fairly vocal ones. But it's a bit of an echo chamber, and if it were representative of people out participating in Toronto's democracy, we'd see planners removing stops after open houses. We see the opposite. And can you blame Metrolinx for not wanting to send this back to the city, after the wretched spectacle Toronto's city council puked out this week?

 

[Rainforest]

What a disappointment!

Between an added, useless stop at Leslie and the need for LRVs to physically cross one of the busiest, most-congested intersections in the city - Don Mills and Eglinton - we are looking at easily a 5 minute addition in travel times and a major f%^k up in scheduling.

I am not a big fan of tunneling suburban rapid transit but the tunnel was money worth spending.

I also lost a lot of faith in two people who I used to have a great deal of respect for in transit circles: Glen Murray for reopening the Scarborough RT replacement debate for the umpteenth time and Steve Munro for crusading against a tunneled alignment to Don Mills and using "access to the park" as a red herring to get people on his side.

Transit planning in Toronto is such a farce. We don't even have Rob Ford to blame this time.

Steve Munro was not much against this particular tunnel, and certainly did not bring "access to the park" as an argument against such tunnel. Some people posting on his site did.

Other than that, I agree with your statements.

Furthermore, now the capacity between Yonge and Don Mills will be limited by the design of surface section, and very frequent service will not be possible on that segment. Meanwhile, the demand there is the combined flow from Eglinton, Lawrence East, the Flemmington Park cluster, and the riders transferring from the Don Mills bus.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well the argument raised by Metrolinx is that the change will have to go to council for approval and they don't want the possibility of delay. Let's face it, taken from face value who would blame them?

AoD

 

[M II A II R II K]

Maybe they could build up around the Leslie Station and make the stop worthwhile and continue it underground.

 

[BurlOak]

Maybe they could build up around the Leslie Station and make the stop worthwhile and continue it underground.

I they could offer the contractor an extra few tens of million as a bonus for running the LRT on a south side alignments, I am sure they would find a way to allow the full length to Don Mills to be grade-separated.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

I also lost a lot of faith in two people who I used to have a great deal of respect for in transit circles: Glen Murray for reopening the Scarborough RT replacement debate for the umpteenth time and Steve Munro for crusading against a tunneled alignment to Don Mills and using "access to the park" as a red herring to get people on his side.

Metrolinx claimed the tunneled section and relocated station would provide better access to the park. Metrolinx was using the park as justification for the tunnel.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Metrolinx claimed the tunneled section and relocated station would provide better access to the park. Metrolinx was using the park as justification for the tunnel.

You're right. However, had locals not meddled, Metrolinx would never have had to float this justification for moving the stop from Laird to Brentcliffe because the move would have never happened. Incidentally, the move from Laird to Brentcliffe would have meant that the station spacing between Bayview and Brentcliffe would have been 1200 m - in an area, unlike Leslie and Eglinton, where people actually live. This is where Metrolinx first should have grown a spine and told the handful of naysayers to piss off. The station location at Laird was far more useful to everyone than Brentcliffe.

Steve Munro was not much against this particular tunnel, and certainly did not bring "access to the park" as an argument against such tunnel. Some people posting on his site did.

Okay, yes, I went back and read the original post of his from April 24th, and he is against Metrolinx's proposal to shift the station from Laird top Brentcliffe, citing reasons of accessibility to the station platforms (the station being much deeper) and the hastily run cost analysis which suggested that this shift would be cost neutral.

5 minutes seems like quite a stretch for the addition of a single station.

Here's why I defend the 5 minute quote:

1. The LRV now has to decelerate down the hill toward Leslie station (because it must stop there)
2. It has to wait for a complicated left-turn light cycle at Leslie and Eglinton
3. It has to stop at Leslie station to entrain and detrain passengers - the dwell time can be around 30 seconds.
4. It has to accelerate up the hill toward either Laird or Don Mills
5. It has to wait for a complicated light cycle at Don Mills and Eglinton (I originally thought that Don Mills station would be at-grade; who knows what it'll be, these plans change daily!).

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Say what you want about Ford but out of all the letters I've sent to politicians on he and my local MPP ever bothered to respond to me. It feels so damn futile when they won't even send an acknowledgement of receipt leaving you to wonder if they even read it. I don't expect a full written response all the time, just some degree of confirmation that I'm being heard.

There was a UT member (forgive me for not remembering the name) who came up with an excellent transit funding scheme based on auto rates. He sent a well thought out letter to the NDP leader about his idea and they couldn't be bothered to send so much as a boilerplate thank you message in return. The least they could do is acknowledge the letter. All these politicians seem care about is their poll numbers.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

There was a UT member (forgive me for not remembering the name) who came up with an excellent transit funding scheme based on auto rates. He sent a well thought out letter to the NDP leader about his idea and they couldn't be bothered to send so much as a boilerplate thank you message in return. The least they could do is acknowledge the letter. All these politicians seem care about is their poll numbers.

gweed123

 

[W. K. Lis]

Currently, Eglinton Avenue East, in the Leslie Street area, has several multiple lanes for straight traffic and turns, along with safety islands.

The current surface stop at Leslie Street is designed for portals in the middle of the road, portals also in the middle of the road. The road design for Eglinton Avenue is to have just two lanes in each direction.I see no problem having the LRT running on the south side of Eglinton, shifting the automobile traffic to the north. In fact, I see no construction differences having portals on the south side or in the middle of the roadway. It may even take next to nothing from the parkland to the south, if the design uses the two eastbound lanes for the LRT and shifting the traffic lanes north. In fact, I think it would be easier for the traffic having the south right-of-way, in this section of Eglinton at least.

 

[CapitalSeven]

1. The LRV now has to decelerate down the hill toward Leslie station (because it must stop there)
2. It has to wait for a complicated left-turn light cycle at Leslie and Eglinton
3. It has to stop at Leslie station to entrain and detrain passengers - the dwell time can be around 30 seconds.
4. It has to accelerate up the hill toward either Laird or Don Mills
5. It has to wait for a complicated light cycle at Don Mills and Eglinton (I originally thought that Don Mills station would be at-grade; who knows what it'll be, these plans change daily!).

Partly true.
1. It will stop on a downward slope when westbound, which is a disadvantage, but it will actually be on an upward slope when eastbound, which is efficient, as gravity helps brake.
2. We don't know what the signal priority system will be.
3. If no one actually lives at Leslie, why would the dwell time be half a minute?
4. As noted, it accelerates down the hill when westbound.
5. Why do you keep saying this? They have said they are going back to the original EA plan, in which there is a portal about 800 feet before Don Mills and an underground station. No one has talked about an at-grade station here in years.

The only thing affecting the speed of the route between Laird and Ferrand is the single controlled intersection at Leslie. Even without any signal priority this light would be green about half the time, and so the average wait time would be half of the length of the signal cycle. How long is that, about a minute? Your 5 minutes doesn't stand up.

This plan doesn't change every five minutes. In the fall they proposed a change, and after public consultation, the change was cancelled and they went back to the approved plan.

Unfortunately, it's true that the planners defended their proposed change as the best solution and had to back down on it. This reflects our political & public service culture. No one who works for government is ever allowed to suggest that what they are "explaining" is a compromise. Everything is optimal. Alternatives to the agreed plan are shown to be unworkable, but when they become the new plan they are shown to be improvements. No one acknowledges the contradiction; you could say so in a memo, but that would never make it to the final edit. I don't know how it got this way, but it's not the fault of the planners of the Eglinton line. If you want to see this in action, go back and read the last 5 years of planning documents on the Ottawa Confederation Line. Nearly every feature of the final plan, save the basic route, was suggested at some point and ruled out, until it became part of the plan for cost-cutting reasons, at which point it became an improvement.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Partly true.
1. It will stop on a downward slope when westbound, which is a disadvantage, but it will actually be on an upward slope when eastbound, which is efficient, as gravity helps brake.
2. We don't know what the signal priority system will be.
3. If no one actually lives at Leslie, why would the dwell time be half a minute?
4. As noted, it accelerates down the hill when westbound.
5. Why do you keep saying this? They have said they are going back to the original EA plan, in which there is a portal about 800 feet before Don Mills and an underground station. No one has talked about an at-grade station here in years.

The only thing affecting the speed of the route between Laird and Ferrand is the single controlled intersection at Leslie. Even without any signal priority this light would be green about half the time, and so the average wait time would be half of the length of the signal cycle. How long is that, about a minute? Your 5 minutes doesn't stand up.

This plan doesn't change every five minutes. In the fall they proposed a change, and after public consultation, the change was cancelled and they went back to the approved plan.

Unfortunately, it's true that the planners defended their proposed change as the best solution and had to back down on it. This reflects our political & public service culture. No one who works for government is ever allowed to suggest that what they are "explaining" is a compromise. Everything is optimal. Alternatives to the agreed plan are shown to be unworkable, but when they become the new plan they are shown to be improvements. No one acknowledges the contradiction; you could say so in a memo, but that would never make it to the final edit. I don't know how it got this way, but it's not the fault of the planners of the Eglinton line. If you want to see this in action, go back and read the last 5 years of planning documents on the Ottawa Confederation Line. Nearly every feature of the final plan, save the basic route, was suggested at some point and ruled out, until it became part of the plan for cost-cutting reasons, at which point it became an improvement.

If there is no one waiting or getting off at the Leslie stop, maybe the LRV train will not even stop there. Would passengers have to request a stop if they want off at Leslie? I don't think there were plans for a bus loop at or near the Leslie stop. Unless they do a walking transfer from a bus stop after which the bus would continue on to its bus loop.