nfitz
Superstar
If you really need to answer such an obvious question, there's really not much point responding is there?
|
|
|
Transit City Plan
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
Thoughtless Miscreant
Active Member
Jeez, I'm sorry you consider it beneath you to answer an honest question from someone who might not know as much about transit as you do.
Asterix
Active Member
Ok, consider me an ignorant fool. To me it would seem obvious that there isn't a fundamental difference between a signaled pedestrian crossing and a signaled car crossing, at least as far as whether it is something an LRT needs to be concerned about.
Apparently that obvious conclusion isn't correct as you have argued adamantly that this intersection needs to be completely isolated from any other traffic, so long as that traffic is automotive and not pedestrian.
I guess it is that same ignorance that has left me unconvinced that there is a strong, discernible case to be made for why Leslie must, must be completely grade separated. We've seen talk about isolating the LRT on the south side (and doing some fancy footwork around the Celestica ramp), trenching it, or even tunneling it, all at significant added cost and yet no one has provided quantifiable benefits. Someone did go as far as suggesting a one minute time saving, but hasn't clarified how that would be achieved or where that minute is available to be gained.
Simply repeating 'completely grade separating to Don Mills with ATC all the way' is not quantifying the benefit.
Similarly using Rob Ford's 'underground or nothing' pronouncement as justification seems to be buying in to the belief that extravagant construction is warranted, so long as it will get the mayor's blessing to build something. As a taxpayer and transit user, I'm not sold on the idea that barely a month into a new mayoralty term we must chuck fundamentally sound designs and plans based on the whims of someone who has no claims to expertise on anything transit related.
Amy Rose
Active Member
Will there be anyway to separate in the West and East Eglinton portals so that cars don't accidentally enter the tunnels, especially with the ATO in Eglinton tunnels, unless the LRVs are specified to have specialized sensors that will do an emergency stop automatically if a vehicle is within radius.
I would imagine at some point they would switch from having pavement between the tracks, to having raised tracks like on the subway. If a car was dumb enough to drive into the portal, they wouldn't get very far, and this is likely what would happen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVtuJ_0GWCU
EnviroTO
Senior Member
The plan seems to be that it will be rebuilt as a full intersection as shown in the Eglinton LRT EA. They are building some condos there. However it is uphill slightly from its current location.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
ATO would allow absent minded pedestrians to automatically get run over instead of accidentally. It sounds less erroneous and more acceptable that way.
Honestly, I don't think that with a whole line being grade separated they would have pedestrians cross the tracks but I could be wrong. There are good sight-lines at the location so it isn't inherently dangerous but knowing there are morons that manage to get themselves run over by relatively slow moving freight trains I probably wouldn't want an at grade crossing. If the whole line had many at grade crossings the system would be set up so the driver has a constant eye on that possibility, but a one off crossing would catch the driver by surprise if there was someone on the tracks. Being in a river valley I doubt they would build a pedestrian underpass but would opt for an overhead walkway instead.
GenerationW
Senior Member
You should be sold since that's just the reality. Ford and Miller both threw established transit plans in the trash. The only difference is Miller waited a term to do it, and Ford took about three seconds even with funding in place. Unless we make the TTC Chair an elected position, the Mayor holds most of the cards in Toronto's transit planning.
Anyway, isn't the real debate right now guessing what kind of plan (if any) Ford will propose next month instead of worrying about alignment details on Eglinton, especially when that line is on the chopping block and may already have been killed or delayed?
Asterix
Active Member
What was the state of the transit plan that Miller supposedly threw in the trash?
Did it have funding in place (even if for only part of the plan)? Did it have completed detailed plans and designs? Did it have contracts signed? Did it have construction starting or about to start?
It seems silly to try and make them seem equivalent.
I would agree that the bigger concern is what larger scheme Ford will or will not put forward in the new year. That being said, this current thread has turned to the alignment issue because there are some people who believe that any and all steps to fully grade separate Eglinton, regardless of cost or reasonableness, must be taken to make it somehow appealing to the 'underground or nothing' new mayor.
If you were building a 400 series highway, would you put interchanges at every major avenue (and over/underpasses at collectors), except for 1? "No, we can leave this as an intersection, it's good enough". Of course not! These 'unwarranted costs', as I've explained numerous times, are a drop in the bucket for the cost of the entire project. Adding $50 million to the project budget to remove the 1 last at-grade intersection seems like a good investment to me. If you really want to penny-pinch, maybe you should look at that LRT out to suburban never-never land to gain back a few dollars. Eglinton is not the place to penny-pinch, especially when it means the difference between a fully grade-separated LRT subway, and a full grade separated line*.
*except for one at-grade intersection
It was evaluated, with certain projects prioritized. It was also already officially adopted into the City's OP.
For Spadina, yes it did (except for the Feds, which delayed funding for a few years, but that's not the City's fault.
The better question to ask would be: if Miller had stuck with the RTES, would he have gotten the same degree of funding commitment that he did with TC? I think he probably would have. When he would have gone to the province for funding, he would have had completely planned, partially engineered projects that could have been shovel ready in a couple years (and this was in 2007). In addition to Spadina, we could have had at least one other subway construction project signficantly underway by now, possibly two. So I think it's somewhat hypocritical to praise 1 mayor for throwing a transit plan in the garbage, but condemn another for doing the exact same thing. Do I think what either of them is right for doing it? No. If you're going to change a transit plan, make incremental changes, as opposed to wiping the slate clean*. At least that way work from the previous plan can be either carried over completely, or adapted for use in the new plan. Had Miller done this, we would be at least two years further ahead than where we are now, possibly even more than that.
*Note: The one exception to this I can think of is the 1st Ottawa LRT plan. That thing was beyond fundamentally flawed, and it wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. In rare cases like that, throwing the thing onto the fire and watching it burn is acceptable. Although to be fair, I'm glad they didn't literally do this, because the section from Bayview to Riverside South in the new plan is identical to the 1st plan, so it's pretty much shovel-ready right now, just waiting for funding.
Last edited:
Asterix
Active Member
This is what remains our fundamental difference of opinions.
Unless I am mistaken, you are only interested in an Eglinton line running in the underground portion from west of Keele through to Don Mills. In that situation, then yes, fully 100% grade separation has a good case.
But for those of us interested in seeing the line extend on the surface well to the west and east of those locations, there is still not the demonstrated discernible benefit to going hog-wild isolating the Eglinton-Leslie intersection given decent signal priority can achieve the same level of service speed at a fraction of the cost.
Asterix
Active Member
Have I "praised" Miller for "throwing" away previous plans (which included higher order transit on Eglinton, Finch and in Scarborough, among other TC similarities)?
My point is that regardless of past history, we are oh-so-close to actually starting major needed rapid transit infrastructure, further along than we've been in a very long time (even the Harris-canceled Eglinton subway was only going to be a token stubway from the Allen a few kms to the west). But now we're being told that's out the window and we'll be back to another several years of planning and discussing (starting from the ridiculous initial premise that unfunded gravy train subways where there is not the demand are the only way to proceed).
It's not just about that though. The central portion of Eglinton (from Jane to Don Mills) will be a vital piece of infrastructure for this city. In the future, the DRL is likely to bisect both of those ends. This will inherently create a need for higher frequencies and higher reliability. Couple it with the fact that some trains will be short turned at both those ends. Also, I think Eglinton in the west should be grade-separated via the Richview corridor, but that's a different story. And I'd hardly call an extra $50 million "hog-wild", and the current plan is hardly "a fraction of the cost" of what I and others on here are advocating for.
But yes, agree to disagree.
We were nearly as close in 2006-2007, before the reset button was pressed. I wasn't on UT back then, but I wonder what the general sentiment was on here. I wonder how much defence there was for RTES, and how much criticism there was for Miller and TC, considering that Miller basically pushed the reset button on transit, and pushed transit expansion another 3-4 years back.