WislaHD
Superstar
I highly doubt people would be transferring from a SmartTrack Eglinton West to the Eglinton LRT. If anything, there would be counter-flow traffic from people on the Crosstown transferring to SmartTrack for a quicker trip downtown.
|
|
|
- Thread starter aquateam
- Start date
dunkalunk
Senior Member
In theory, I like the idea of using Hydro Right-Of Ways for rail corridors. However, because hydro towers allow the lines to pretty much ignore the terrain and infrastructure below them, they have a tendency to be filled with a lot of obstacles that are difficult to route around such as substations, parallel floodplains, or 26 lanes of the 401/427 interchange. You also won't be able to build anything substantial in one because there's power lines in close proximity. I'm not saying that running a transit corridor in a Hydro ROW is a bad idea, but it can get more expensive than anticipated, and if your goal is intensification you won't see much, if any.
I was of the opinion that a rail spur connecting Cooksville GO to Square One (probably with a tunnel Palgrave Rd) was one of the better options for connecting Downtown Toronto to Mississauga City Centre. Given the Milton Line will need to be widened and electrified regardless as part of GO RER, and given how expensive CP would make track upgrade, it would make sense to terminate the electrified RER portion of the line at Square One. Square One already acts as a major transfer node and would connect directly to the Mississauga Transitway and Hurontario LRT.
I have to agree with many on here regarding the Eglinton routing of SmartTrack; it makes no sense to run a heavy rail line on Eglinton West. The major assumption that an Eglinton alignment was based on; that the Richview corridor would still be publicly-owned land was flawed. A 2km tunnel under a quiet residential street with no intermediate stations would certainly be far less costly than tunnelling for 7-8km under a major urban arterial with multiple intermediate stations. Eglinton West will have its LRT extension.
ehlow
Senior Member
Why not? If you're travelling to Yonge & Eg, or North York centre, or York U, you would.
robmausser
Senior Member
At the December 11th meeting of Metrolinx, GO CEO Greg Percy states that the Crosstown will be used for the Eglinton portion of Smarttrack.
"The intention is use of the kitchener and stouville corridors, and eglinton crosstown west of mount dennis"
http://youtu.be/e2WtF8dVXfQ?t=41m55s
Watch video.
ehlow
Senior Member
I'm pretty sure he misspoke. For context, he's explaining what the proposal for SmartTrack is.
He likely meant to say that "use of Kitchener and stouffville corridors, and Eglinton west of Mount Dennis" instead of "Eglinton Crosstown". It's a common mistake, if you say the phrase "Eglinton Crosstown" over and over, you might say it instead of "Eglinton" referring to the road.
crs1026
Superstar
I disagree with this conclusion, but I will admit there is considerable justification for making it.
LRT *can* be just as speedy as a subway in theory, but Toronto's applications of it don't guarantee this.
One of the endearing attributes of subways is that they enter the station, open the doors, people get on, they close the doors, and the train leaves and travels to the next station at full speed. Toronto's attempts at LRT (other than the SRT, which is a mini-subway albeit high off the ground) do not do this. The examples being Queen west of Sunnyside, and Spadina, and St Clair. The track is not built to sufficient standards to reach sufficient speed, and traffic priority as Toronto practices is, doesn't permit that start-speed-and-stop efficiency that our subways achieve (on good days).
I recently spent some time in Portland OR, and they are way ahead of Toronto in both respects. So I believe LRT CAN accomplish this, but we need to plan this in right from the start.
On the Eglinton route, LRT could provide the appropriate number of seats. If there is concern with speed, then build higher quality track beds and use vehicles that can accelerate and ride well at speed. (The jury is out on Flexity in this respect - I haven't compared weight or dimensions with Portland's equipment but my impression was that Portland's equipment is sturdier and closer to a heavy rail vehicle, althugh it does fine on city streets)
I would still advocate judicious use of "dips". Eglinton in the west end is a transition from 400 Highway to city streets, and much traffic uses it as a quasi-expressway to get from the 401/427 junction into the west end of the city. Surface LRT stops will inevitably mess up left turns on Eglinton. Transit solutions should not choke vehicular traffic conditions relative to the status quo, as this is not efficient transportation policy nor is it good for voter buyin. Also any "dip" stations on this route can be built as cut and cover and would therefore be only moderately expensive, especially at LRT length.
- Paul
Last edited:
robmausser
Senior Member
Another thing other cities do is shift the entire road to one side and the LRT to the other.
There is NO reason to have an LRT in the centre of the road.
In Denver for example, the LRT is entirely on one side of the road completely separate from the roadway.
This way you dont have to wait for cars that get an advanced green to turn left (in one direction). The only obstruction is when the intersection is red to advance forward.
Putting the LRT in the centre simply forces the LRT to deal with more traffic.
There is NO reason to have an LRT in the centre of the road.
In Denver for example, the LRT is entirely on one side of the road completely separate from the roadway.
This way you dont have to wait for cars that get an advanced green to turn left (in one direction). The only obstruction is when the intersection is red to advance forward.
Putting the LRT in the centre simply forces the LRT to deal with more traffic.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
A partly elevated and trenched extension is superior, imo. It would be far faster than the LRT as proposed.
Rainforest
Senior Member
Agreed.
However, we might be able to have both; Eglinton LRT in the street proper, and SmartTrack in the Weston sub corridor and then in the 401 corridor. Both combined might end up being cheaper then pushing SmartTrack heavy rail along / under Eglinton.
The LRT would provide local service, the heavy rail would provide an express connection to the airport business hub and Mississauga.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I don't think there's a pressing need for local service on this part of Eglinton. Large parts of this street have no building on it. Typical rapid transit spacing should be sufficient for this area.
salsa
Senior Member
This Eglinton thingy makes so little sense for all kinds of reasons that I wish it would just die already. This is nothing more than an election year brain fart designed by John Tory using 6 year old google satellite imagery. As long as it continues to be taken seriously by Metrolinx and politicians, it will continue to waste time and distract from the main focus of GO RER.
Even if there is room to fit a trench, what about the not so minor issue at Mt Dennis? How will it curve from the rail corridor onto Eglinton? According to the G&M, "if the train goes underground at Mount Dennis, it cannot come above ground until just west of Martin Grove".
Took a deeper look at whether Eglinton can in fact fit a trenched Smart Track, and it may be possible, even if it ends up being a little tight.
Even if there is room to fit a trench, what about the not so minor issue at Mt Dennis? How will it curve from the rail corridor onto Eglinton? According to the G&M, "if the train goes underground at Mount Dennis, it cannot come above ground until just west of Martin Grove".
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Make Eglinton West just an extension of the Eglinton Crosstown and have SmartTracks take over the entire UPX with half the trains {shorter one} heading to Pearson and the other longer trains going to Malton. NO one in Toronto is going to cry at the demise of the UPX.
crs1026
Superstar
A very good point. I forget how the Crosstown EA proposed to deal with the gradient of the Humber River valley, and I'm not sure if the G+M statement is accurate, but LRT specs for curvature and gradient are a lot more forgiving than heavy rail specs. The east side of the valley is the steepest - how you would engineer heavy rail to permit a station at Jane is beyond me.
- Paul
muller877
Senior Member
It is the way that Toronto builds LRT's. But there are different ways. Get rid of all left turns. Every 500 meters or so create a U-turn lane for both ways on the street (Korea does this on some roads). In the centre of the 2 U-turns is a pedestrian crossing and a LRT .
So there is a break in traffic for people that want to U-turn as well as pedestrian crossings all at the same time. If you want to turn left you have to U-turn and then turn right.
If you want to cross the street on either foot or car you have to turn right, a U-turn, and then another right. Same for all minor streets.
The LRT/Smarttrack stop could be smack dab in the centre...so it is where pedestrians would cross the street. Eliminates traffic lights for both transit and cars. Only downside is the extra travel time for pedestrians if they want to go right across the street...but it gives them a safe place to cross the road and less risk of injury (no cars will be trying to turn right/left when they are crossing)
Rainforest
Senior Member
But you don't want to create a permanent linear transfer at Mt Dennis.
Most of bus routes have lighter usage in the outer parts, and most of the proposed or future LRT lines will have the same pattern. We do not want to introduce a midway transfer on every street where the mixed-traffic bus is getting converted to LRT.