salsa
Senior Member
During the election I read something in the G&M saying that a tunnel might be required all the way to Martin Grove.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ugh-questions/article20923882/?service=mobile
|
|
|
- Thread starter aquateam
- Start date
During the election I read something in the G&M saying that a tunnel might be required all the way to Martin Grove.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ugh-questions/article20923882/?service=mobile
Palma
Senior Member
Have them make a healthy profit and no one will be complaining of being homeless
crs1026
Superstar
Keep in mind the reason why the City sold that land - to derive a huge chunk of revenue without tapping the taxpayer. It will be a very expensive thing to buy that land back, and the penalties to the developers and owners will be substantial considering how recently the city declared the land to be available for their use.
There is also the embarrassment factor for the sitting councillors who voted for the sale. I don't think Council would go there.
That sale was a travesty. I am astounded that it went unnoticed and unreported - sometimes I think that City Hall reporters in this city don't do much more than cut and paste the quotes they are given. But, for better or worse, it's a done deal. All concerned have steadfastly maintained that there is still room for a center LRT, so that's what we get I guess.
Unless someone - remember who the Councillor for that district is - insists we need an underground alignment.
- Paul
There is also the embarrassment factor for the sitting councillors who voted for the sale. I don't think Council would go there.
That sale was a travesty. I am astounded that it went unnoticed and unreported - sometimes I think that City Hall reporters in this city don't do much more than cut and paste the quotes they are given. But, for better or worse, it's a done deal. All concerned have steadfastly maintained that there is still room for a center LRT, so that's what we get I guess.
Unless someone - remember who the Councillor for that district is - insists we need an underground alignment.
- Paul
Adjei
Senior Member
The city doesn't think long term, only want short term benefits. Screw the future.
crs1026
Superstar
Totally agree.
With respect to the Airport Bsiness Center - do the stats actually show this as an intensive ridership zone? As opposed to any other part of the lands surround ing the airport? Dixon/Airport Road is pretty job intensive also.
Connectivity to the transitway and the Renforth Hub may be a good idea all the same, but one wonders why Mr Tory is so fixated on this particular business district
The extra cash needed to duck a corridor-situated LRT under a couple of the major north-south arterial roads is prudent, IMHO. There's nothing gained by making transit vs auto a win-lose proposition. Surface LRT will complicate traffic on Islington and Kipling, and even with priority signalling will add tiime to the LRT trip. We don't need that.
- Paul
BurlOak
Senior Member
The reason the Richview Land sold was because staff said there was no need for it. The only plan at the time was for an in-median LRT. One might even say they tricked Councillors by not identifying the ramifications in terms of lack of flexibility of plans.
The good news is that there is still room to elevate the tracks on the south side. Maybe with grade separation proposed for the Barrie GO line through Davenport, Metrolinx will actually begin to think about the benefits of elevation.
The good news is that there is still room to elevate the tracks on the south side. Maybe with grade separation proposed for the Barrie GO line through Davenport, Metrolinx will actually begin to think about the benefits of elevation.
nfitz
Superstar
For 400 passengers in peak hour?
Rainforest
Senior Member
400 per hour is at Renforth. Further east, where elevation is proposed, there will be more riders.
The ridership may be improved by the connection to Air Canada business centre, and it may be quite sensitive to travel speed (higher speed = more riders transferring from other routes).
In any case, it should be a continuation of LRT line, as that will give more flexibility (full grade separation not required at every point).
salsa
Senior Member
No, screw this whole ideology that we have to overbuild transportation infrastructure today under the (typically misguided) assumption that one day, maybe, in the distant future, there might be a massive spike in ridership to justify it. The Sheppard subway is one of the legacies of your way of thinking, but clearly many of our councillors haven't smartened up at all after that white elephant transit line. Projected ridership (2031) has shown that the passenger volumes are far below the threshold that necessitates grade-separated transit west of Jane, therefore the city came to the reasonable conclusion that the Richview lands are not needed. So instead of maintaining a bunch of wind-swepped grassy fields for eternity, why not develop it and add some moderate density near a rapid transit line, while revitalizing a suburban road.
So don't worry, I think the future is much brighter despite some people's pessimism. And if the need for grade separation ever arises by the time the LRT reaches the end of it's design life in 30 years, then a new elevated structure can be build on the ROW in the middle of the road.
At best you will save just a couple of minutes by elevating the line. The blocks are quite long here and intersections are far apart. If speed were to be the main priority, removing some of the intermediate stops would do more to save travel time than elevating the line. Personal anecdote: my friend's experience with the Eglinton bus when he used to commute to Mississauga, is that the bus runs quite fast within Etobicoke and it's mostly empty. It's a big contrast to the situation east of Weston Rd.
Here's the complete picture.
The numbers here are significantly less than the peak ridership for Finch or Sheppard LRT which will both be non-grade separated. On Eglinton, the maximum is 5400 somewhere in the tunnelled section.
Attachments
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
True. 900 at Martin Grove. 1,300 at Kipling. 1,500 at Islington. It's only at Jane that it starts to get borderline acceptable with 2,900. Perhaps they should terminate it at Jane.
Rainforest
Senior Member
Terminating at Jane would create another artificial transfer. LRT does not cost that much, it should be continuous and it should connect to all N-S routes.
Rainforest
Senior Member
The western section of Eglinton LRT can be designed in multiple ways; one option is to elevate it only over major intersections. Some of those intersections have been depressed to facilitate the Richview Expressway, and now this feature can facilitate the LRT instead. Elevating the whole LRT line may not be necessary in that case.
Rainforest
Senior Member
IMO, it would be smarter to build the transit line first, and then start developing of the unused lands. Maintaining those lands intact does not cost the city anything; and there are many other places with good transit connections where density can be added.
That would keep all LRT design options open until the line is actually built, and likely would make the LRT construction cheaper and less disruptive even if the street-median option is implemented.
robmausser
Senior Member
Completely 1000% agree.
Another point is that people also seem to forget that things have a shelf life before they need to be replaced.
Why are we building transit that we feel we will need 40 years in the future now, when in 50 years it will need to be replaced?
10 years seems like a really bad ROI.
Build things we will need 10 years in the future, and in 50 years when we need something better... replace it then when you would need to anyways...
Another point is that people also seem to forget that things have a shelf life before they need to be replaced.
Why are we building transit that we feel we will need 40 years in the future now, when in 50 years it will need to be replaced?
10 years seems like a really bad ROI.
Build things we will need 10 years in the future, and in 50 years when we need something better... replace it then when you would need to anyways...
Massively overbuilding is one thing, but you also don't want to make a Canada Line-like mistake and build a line that is near capacity on Day 1. A decent buffer within the 20-30 year planning horizon is probably best.
You also want to examine how the line can potentially be expanded (longer platforms, etc) and make sure that the design doesn't preclude those expansions (see: Bloor-Yonge). For this, Sheppard is actually a great example. The fact that they chose a subway is an overbuild for sure, but the fact that it's 4 car platforms easily expandable to 6 was a wise design choice once HRT technology had been chosen.
You also want to examine how the line can potentially be expanded (longer platforms, etc) and make sure that the design doesn't preclude those expansions (see: Bloor-Yonge). For this, Sheppard is actually a great example. The fact that they chose a subway is an overbuild for sure, but the fact that it's 4 car platforms easily expandable to 6 was a wise design choice once HRT technology had been chosen.