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

[junctionist]

Should the underground stations feature unique design elements and artwork? I feel that the very uninspiring two Harbourfront 'LRT' station designs should be avoided at all costs. This is supposed to be a prominent bit of infrastructure linking midtown after all.

 

[nfitz]

There also isn't a heck of a lot of room along the south side of Eglinton at that point for two sets of tracks. That's a pretty steep hill on the other side of the guardrail.

I'd assume that your using 2 road lanes, reducing traffic on Eglinton to 4 lanes ... shouldn't be a big issue, as it's only 4 lanes west of Brentcliffe already, and presumably would only be 4 lanes east of Don Mills once the LRT is built.

 

[jtaylor247]

Does anyone else find it weird that they plan to take 4 years to go about 2 km to the airport from commerce blvd?

 

[DavidH]

Should the underground stations feature unique design elements and artwork? I feel that the very uninspiring two Harbourfront 'LRT' station designs should be avoided at all costs. This is supposed to be a prominent bit of infrastructure linking midtown after all.

These are going to be much smaller facilities than the average subway station, but yes, I'll argue in favour of unique design elements at track level. Given that you will be passing multiple stations in a tunnel, uniqueness helps people identify their stop. We can't assume all riders can read signs.

This doesn't mean it has to be expensive.

 

[EnviroTO]

Does anyone else find it weird that they plan to take 4 years to go about 2 km to the airport from commerce blvd?

The pessimist in me says they are leaving it till last so they can cancel it later based on any number of excuses be it existing rail links, not being able to handle the extra load, the lack of urbanity at Silver Dart Drive, etc. The optimist in me says they are leaving it until last so they can rethink the connection and branch off the line at Martin Grove to go to the airport in a more intelligent fashion. The realist in me says perhaps they are waiting to see if traffic at Pearson picks up spurring further phases in the Airport Development Program to see what happens to Terminal 3.

 

[kettal]

I wonder what the cost of building two portals is compared to the cost of just leaving it underground all the way to Don Mills. For the improved reliability I would've thought it worthwhile to pay a little extra and leave it buried for that stretch. Or is there a problem with tunneling there because of the soil conditions and proximity to the Don Valley?

Building it on the existing road bridge over the valley would be a hell of a lot cheaper than building a new bridge, or even worse, tunnelling under the river.

 

[nfitz]

The pessimist in me says they are leaving it till last so they can cancel it later based on any number of excuses be it existing rail links, not being able to handle the extra load, the lack of urbanity at Silver Dart Drive, etc. The optimist in me says they are leaving it until last so they can rethink the connection and branch off the line at Martin Grove to go to the airport in a more intelligent fashion. The realist in me says perhaps they are waiting to see if traffic at Pearson picks up spurring further phases in the Airport Development Program to see what happens to Terminal 3.

Surely the practical answer is that they are still trying to figure out how to get it into the terminal. The design is no where near as advanced as the first phase, so they would not be able to start construction in 2010 like they are planning with both the aboveground and the tunnel portal.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Does anyone else find it weird that they plan to take 4 years to go about 2 km to the airport from commerce blvd?

You forgot that the land above the 401 is in Mississauga, not Toronto, and the airport is federal. It's called red tape.

 

[nfitz]

You forgot that the land above the 401 is in Mississauga, not Toronto, and the airport is federal. It's called red tape.

Airport? Red tape? They move like greased lightening ... they built some of the structural elements for the Union-Pearson airlink station in T1 years ago ...

 

[Dan416]

Consider the following:

1. the Eglinton Crosstown line is being built to accomodate subway-length trains
2. the Spadina Subway stations are all ridiculously overbuilt
3. the Eglinton Crosstown stations are likely to be much smaller than typical TTC subway stations

In light of this, maybe this is a way (admittedly, a roundabout way), of getting proper-sized subway stations somewhere down the line in the future. When the TTC plans subway stations, they become ridiculously oversized. By proposing this line as underground LRT, we can build it "cheaper" because they aren't "subway" stations, although we can later outfit them to be. I think it would be equivalent to the Green Line in Boston, which is underground LRT and is basically the equivalent of a subway when it's underground anyway, and above ground it's just a streetcar.

If it does prove to require subway in the future, it'll require a conversion, but since it's planned, it is doable. And we'll end up with normal-sized stations too

 

[nfitz]

If normal-sized means some of those pitifully under-sized stations on Danforth, Bloor, and Yonge then we are screwed!

 

[Dan416]

If normal-sized means some of those pitifully under-sized stations on Danforth, Bloor, and Yonge then we are screwed!

Undersized stations on B-D and Yonge? Which undersized stations are you referring to? They all do the job they're meant to without being overcrowded.

 

[junctionist]

Undersized stations on B-D and Yonge? Which undersized stations are you referring to? They all do the job they're meant to without being overcrowded.

They mostly work except perhaps for Yonge and Union which get really crowded and people have to walk on the yellow line across the centre platform (when people are walking in opposite directions through the narrow sections), but wider platforms and taller ceilings would have made the downtown stations feel less crowded and would have probably made them seem grander and hence more attractive.

 

[Second_in_pie]

If we have a proper network, many, if not all the current stations would not have the capacity issues that they currently have. They're perfect for the job they're supposed to, but the entire city isn't supposed to be running on all the stations we have right now. That's why we may seem to have problems with some stations.

Not that I've seen any of these problems. Outside the YUS at rush hour, I don't see any glaring station flaws. And I especially see no reason to be building overly extravagant stations. Maybe one or two important stations could be nice big stations (Union, B-Y, St. George and York U might be good candidates,) but not the entire network. Not every single station in an extension.

 

[nfitz]

They all do the job they're meant to without being overcrowded.

Not overcrowded? Dundas? Queen? St. George? Narrow platforms on Bay. Yonge-Bloor. Eglinton. Pape is underdesigned; even stations like Coxwell and Dufferin could do with more space.

And most of these are two platforms stations. The new ones have a single platform!