Coolibop
Active Member
Where does it say that?Another articling stating EGLRT opening pushed to next year (2023).
Where does it say that?Another articling stating EGLRT opening pushed to next year (2023).
I wonder if they will just end up publishing one new map with a sticky cover over one of the lines until both are open (assuming they are within months of each other).
Once EWLRT and EELRT are complete, line 5 will indeed be very long.Now hear me out...
I probably don't have the best ideas but I have been thinking about this. If the LRT gets long enough it may need to be split into two. It's not like there are no long "subway" lines in the world, but Line 5 is uniquely split into a long grade separated section and a long section that is not. The western extension will be grade separated, and the airport leg will (I would only assume) be grade separated. In some future reality the line could even go down the Mississauga Transitway and get a short elevated section to Square One! Meanwhile in the east, any extension will be at-grade. They are even proposing a "Line 7" since apparently connecting directly at Kennedy is too hard.
So why not split the line (eventually) at (hear me out!) Science Centre Station!
All you would need to do is remove ONE at-grade crossing at Sunnybrook Park. It would make Lines 5, 7, and 3 all converge on one station. And it would split the increasingly longer and longer at-grade and grade separated LRT sections.
Or, again, maybe I'm missing something. Like, load balancing or some nerdy thing.
Maybe I'm also just obsessed with having more individual lines with their own numbers. (WOAH, SEVEN!)
Perhaps it's not the best thing in the world to have a linear transfer. But that's what they are proposing at Kennedy anyway + you could probably choose to either through-run or short turn trains at Science Centre ANYWAY despite it being two lines in order to balance service. You would then argue that that means it may as well be one line then, BUT I think:
A) It marks very clearly a split between two lines with different operating modes.
B) If you are short turning trains on a single line, that is awkward for the customer, instead of:
C) If you were traveling east towards Science Centre and wanted to keep going, you already know you have to change trains. An announcement that the train is through-running is a nice announcement, versus the announcement that would be involved in the above example, which would be a negative one informing you that your train, despite traveling on the same line, is not continuing.
That's my two cents anyway.
Updated shot of Eglinton Station's new entrance. If I'm not mistaken, this is the final station structure to go up for Line 5.
View attachment 417472
Does anyone know what's going on with the rest of the land there that was occupied by bus bays? Will they rebuild them?
Don Mills could be a good place to one day split the line, but constructing a through line at Kennedy is difficult either way, also there is a substantial ridership difference east and west of Kennedy, most westbound riders get on Line 2.Now hear me out...
I probably don't have the best ideas but I have been thinking about this. If the LRT gets long enough it may need to be split into two. It's not like there are no long "subway" lines in the world, but Line 5 is uniquely split into a long grade separated section and a long section that is not. The western extension will be grade separated, and the airport leg will (I would only assume) be grade separated. In some future reality the line could even go down the Mississauga Transitway and get a short elevated section to Square One! Meanwhile in the east, any extension will be at-grade. They are even proposing a "Line 7" since apparently connecting directly at Kennedy is too hard.
So why not split the line (eventually) at (hear me out!) Science Centre Station!
All you would need to do is remove ONE at-grade crossing at Sunnybrook Park. It would make Lines 5, 7, and 3 all converge on one station. And it would split the increasingly longer and longer at-grade and grade separated LRT sections.
Or, again, maybe I'm missing something. Like, load balancing or some nerdy thing.
Maybe I'm also just obsessed with having more individual lines with their own numbers. (WOAH, SEVEN!)
Perhaps it's not the best thing in the world to have a linear transfer. But that's what they are proposing at Kennedy anyway + you could probably choose to either through-run or short turn trains at Science Centre ANYWAY despite it being two lines in order to balance service. You would then argue that that means it may as well be one line then, BUT I think:
A) It marks very clearly a split between two lines with different operating modes.
B) If you are short turning trains on a single line, that is awkward for the customer, instead of:
C) If you were traveling east towards Science Centre and wanted to keep going, you already know you have to change trains. An announcement that the train is through-running is a nice announcement, versus the announcement that would be involved in the above example, which would be a negative one informing you that your train, despite traveling on the same line, is not continuing.
That's my two cents anyway.
Don Mills could be a good place to one day split the line, but constructing a through line at Kennedy is difficult either way, also there is a substantial ridership difference east and west of Kennedy, most westbound riders get on Line 2.
The line is heading towards being split at Kennedy. What this will mean is the better option will just be to grade separate the section east of Science Center, and put it out of it's misery.Now hear me out...
I probably don't have the best ideas but I have been thinking about this. If the LRT gets long enough it may need to be split into two. It's not like there are no long "subway" lines in the world, but Line 5 is uniquely split into a long grade separated section and a long section that is not. The western extension will be grade separated, and the airport leg will (I would only assume) be grade separated. In some future reality the line could even go down the Mississauga Transitway and get a short elevated section to Square One! Meanwhile in the east, any extension will be at-grade. They are even proposing a "Line 7" since apparently connecting directly at Kennedy is too hard.
So why not split the line (eventually) at (hear me out!) Science Centre Station!
All you would need to do is remove ONE at-grade crossing at Sunnybrook Park. It would make Lines 5, 7, and 3 all converge on one station. And it would split the increasingly longer and longer at-grade and grade separated LRT sections.
Or, again, maybe I'm missing something. Like, load balancing or some nerdy thing.
Maybe I'm also just obsessed with having more individual lines with their own numbers. (WOAH, SEVEN!)
Perhaps it's not the best thing in the world to have a linear transfer. But that's what they are proposing at Kennedy anyway + you could probably choose to either through-run or short turn trains at Science Centre ANYWAY despite it being two lines in order to balance service. You would then argue that that means it may as well be one line then, BUT I think:
A) It marks very clearly a split between two lines with different operating modes.
B) If you are short turning trains on a single line, that is awkward for the customer, instead of:
C) If you were traveling east towards Science Centre and wanted to keep going, you already know you have to change trains. An announcement that the train is through-running is a nice announcement, versus the announcement that would be involved in the above example, which would be a negative one informing you that your train, despite traveling on the same line, is not continuing.
That's my two cents anyway.
The "explanation" being given is that the SSE wasn't designed in a way to easily allow for an eastern extension to Line 5, and as such making 1 continuous line will be expensive and time consuming. However, Metrolinx almost immediately made a statement saying that none of this is true. Given that the city of Toronto has a pretty lengthy history of, let's call it smudging, data to push a specific alignment or design decision that they want to build I'm more willing to believe Metrolinx in this case. The actual reason has likely more to do with making the extension cheaper by allowing them to run smaller trams, and thus save money by not burying certain stations namely Midland and Lawrence-Kingston-Morningside.I haven't actually heard what the reason is for connecting though Kennedy being tough.
Thanks, NL!A reduced number of bus bays will be in a new terminal under the redeveloped Canada Square, assuming the City and Oxford finally come to terms.
The thread for that is here:
2180 Yonge | 247m | 65s | Oxford Properties | Hariri Pontarini
I expect Canadian Tire to move to a "hybrid" model with most staff working more days from home. Workspaces will be shared. This will significantly decrease the square footage required. That being said, some space being leased at Y-E Centre no longer be needed and incorporated somehow to Canada...urbantoronto.ca
What i ment was we haven't seen full scale service testing of the line yet. The problem is we don't really see them out a lot during the day time that would give a better understanding of how the line is actually going to work, once all of the work on the stations is complete and we have trains running a simulated service we can get a better idea of how it's going to work. As of right now i think people are being to quick to judge on things and not looking at what is actually going on, because they expect everything is going to be working right now as it is on opening day.Interesting, but I don't think that would explain the perceived difference, which is all above ground, because Metrolinx themselves have stated that line 5 is at full-speed testing. Whether or not there are workers on the tracks underground should affect how long an LRV dwells at an advance-left signal.
"It is slated to open next year" - Quote from the articleWhere does it say that?