[W. K. Lis]

If issues exist on the surface section, we know exactly who to blame (hint, it is the City of Toronto).

View attachment 386918

The reason for no lagging left turns is that the decision-makers (AKA Canadian oligarchs) do not use public transit. They use gas guzzlers, where they are the only people in them, and MUST get priority over all other peasants in transit vehicles.

 

[mistersg1]

The reason for no lagging left turns is that the decision-makers (AKA Canadian oligarchs) do not use public transit. They use gas guzzlers, where they are the only people in them, and MUST get priority over all other peasants in transit vehicles.

Well, lagging left should be beneficial to more drivers, as most drivers continue on straight then make a left turn at any given intersection. The main issue for lagging left (that’s fully protected) I think would be for queuing left turn vehicles potentially ending up beyond the left turn bay into the regular lanes, a leading FPLT allows the left turn bay to clear before the main green starts allowing the left turn bay to be filled again.

As I understand, the only other time you can squeeze a green in for a transit ROW would be between the barriers, that is when the intersection is under red clearance (also known as “all red”, when every light in the intersection is red)

 

[ssiguy2]

ML could have solved much of the left-turning problem if they had done what other systems {like LA} and created light controlled U-turn lanes.

Unfortunately, due to ML's lack of vision and planning, such is not the case. What this UofT student says is exactly what everyone else knows is going to have to happen................the line will have to be divided in 2. No thru routes of any kind but just 2 separate lines where the one ends and requires a transfer to a new train going in the same direction. This could be made relatively painless if ML employs a same cross-board station and the trains are coordinated but this iML so they probably won't. These 2 separate tracks would also allow the underground and grade separated parts to be automated reducing operational costs.

Transit, like highways, are only as strong as their weakest link and the Crosstown has 10 km of it. You simply cannot run the frequency levels needed when running on the street with basically no light priority. Can you imagine the problems on the Yonge Line if it ran metro to Eglinton and then down the middle of Yonge to Finch? This at-grade section is going to be no faster than the Spadina or St.Clair streetcars.

It is patently absurd that Toronto has built a hyper expensive transit project that won't even have the capacity {little alone the speed, reliability, and lower operational costs} of Vancouver's McCanada Line. This is what happens when you have a myopic mayor like Miller who thinks that there is a one-size-fits-all transit solution backed by the fact that he would never allow any system to be built that could be automated in order to appease his union support.

 

[mistersg1]

ML could have solved much of the left-turning problem if they had done what other systems {like LA} and created light controlled U-turn lanes.

How exactly does signal priority work? I’m just wondering. By U Turn lanes are you suggesting that the main road, in this case Eglinton becomes something like a “Michigan Left” scenario?

If that’s the case, U-turn lanes seem to create the same kind of scenario as a fully protected left turn, such a movement would have to be fully protected otherwise there would be a conflict in the U-turn lanes and the LRT. It’s hard to describe what I mean but I’d need to see how this U turn lane operates.

Is there any place in the GTA that uses signal priority, I’m aware the VIVA Rapidways use the same kind of signalling as the ROW streetcars and now Crosstown LRT. Does VIVA use signal priority?


Many years ago, I was called an idiot for pointing out the obvious pitfalls of this line, and yet here we are, things are looking to come full circle and I was right all along. Line 5 Eglinton and 515 Eglinton, it’s coming whether you like it or not.


Very nice analogy you use with a hypothetical Yonge Line. It’s just such a bloody shame when you look at the history of true rapid transit planning on Eglinton, back in the 1980s when the GTA was a fraction of the size it is now and they were speaking of a full blown subway across Eglinton. The crosstown will be the biggest waste of money the city ever did. When metro Toronto stopped freeway building in 1971, more than 50 years ago, how much true rapid transit have we gotten in the region since? The stuff we did get has been incredible tainted by politics and not by actual need.

 

[MrGoose]

20 billion dollar streetcar! Another 20 billion dollars to give it high floor platforms and grade separate the eastern section!

 

[mistersg1]

20 billion dollar streetcar! Another 20 billion dollars to give it high floor platforms and grade separate the eastern section!

You better believe it!

Just a question, does anyone know how long the underground stations are, I mean do they allow for the LRVs to be coupled with 2 or 3 units. If they do grade separate the eastern section, this would have to be the most expensive “light metro” built in history.

 

[JSF-1]

Someone pointing out the obvious yet again - Crosstown might end up being split in half down the road

https://twitter.com/x/status/1505937278518001666

The line is fine as it is for now. If and when the Eglinton East extension is built than we can talk about splitting the line since there will be a far better case to be made for it. Operating the Crosstown efficiently from Malvern to Renforth while half the line is at road level would be one hell of a feat, so ideally we could split the line at Science Centre after the OL opens. However we are still at least a decade at minimum away from that being a concern so the Crosstown as it is will be fine for now.

 

[duffo]

I am personally skeptical that this line will be the total failure people here are predicting. The TSP in place should be adequate to keep trains on schedule. I also don't know how they would easily convert the line into split operation, you'd need to upgrade the track infrastructure around Science Centre station pretty significantly to support the frequency of turnarounds required. In the long-term though, I think it wouldn't be a horrible idea once EELRT is on the table to split operations and extend the at-grade portion of the line down Don Mills/Gateway/Thorncliffe Park Dr to provide additional coverage to the high-density and underserved neighbourhoods down there. Something like this:

 

[toronto647]

They could also tunnel under Eglinton East so Line 5 could avoid the on street section.

lol like that is going to happen

 

[mistersg1]

I am personally skeptical that this line will be the total failure people here are predicting.

Well, would you call 510 Spadina or 512 St Clair a roaring success, the service sucks, it’s not that much quicker than a regular streetcar route (if that with the additional time of waiting for FPLT phases to end)

Furthermore, would you say that this route along with Finch West should appear on the subway diagram as equals to the other forms of rapid transit. As I said, the original Harbourfront streetcar once did appear on the map as an equal to the subway lines. I could make a case for the underground portion only being on the map, the rest of the service will again be lousy like the ROW streetcars.

 

[Steve X]

Well, would you call 510 Spadina or 512 St Clair a roaring success, the service sucks, it’s not that much quicker than a regular streetcar route (if that with the additional time of waiting for FPLT phases to end)

Furthermore, would you say that this route along with Finch West should appear on the subway diagram as equals to the other forms of rapid transit. As I said, the original Harbourfront streetcar once did appear on the map as an equal to the subway lines. I could make a case for the underground portion only being on the map, the rest of the service will again be lousy like the ROW streetcars.

Eglinton wouldn't be as ban as the 510 as the lights and stops are further apart. I don't think it would be a huge problem considering it does save rider time by not having to ride multiple escalators. The most concerning part is Victoria Park to Pharmacy section where 3 major intersections are within 500m. They really should have elevated it.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Well, lagging left should be beneficial to more drivers, as most drivers continue on straight then make a left turn at any given intersection. The main issue for lagging left (that’s fully protected) I think would be for queuing left turn vehicles potentially ending up beyond the left turn bay into the regular lanes, a leading FPLT allows the left turn bay to clear before the main green starts allowing the left turn bay to be filled again.

As I understand, the only other time you can squeeze a green in for a transit ROW would be between the barriers, that is when the intersection is under red clearance (also known as “all red”, when every light in the intersection is red)

The problem is the "left turn lane", singular. They could create "double" left turn lanes, to get more more left turners through the intersection, after the light rail vehicles get through.

 

[robmausser]

I am personally skeptical that this line will be the total failure people here are predicting. The TSP in place should be adequate to keep trains on schedule. I also don't know how they would easily convert the line into split operation, you'd need to upgrade the track infrastructure around Science Centre station pretty significantly to support the frequency of turnarounds required. In the long-term though, I think it wouldn't be a horrible idea once EELRT is on the table to split operations and extend the at-grade portion of the line down Don Mills/Gateway/Thorncliffe Park Dr to provide additional coverage to the high-density and underserved neighbourhoods down there. Something like this:

View attachment 386973

I dont think anyone here is saying that the line will be a "total failure". Just that there will be an obvious issue and pinch point with going from underground to the at-grade section that will get silly media attention, slagged by the general public, and will look unfavourable towards the whole project and other LRTs in Toronto. It will get blown out of proportion, but thats the problem. Metrolinx has an opportunity to try and remedy the situation as much as possible before it becomes front page news and causes people to dismiss the LRT as just another streetcar.

 

[ShonTron]

The problem is the "left turn lane", singular. They could create "double" left turn lanes, to get more more left turners through the intersection, after the light rail vehicles get through.

Which would require more room, and increase the distance and time it takes for pedestrians to cross the street.

Maybe instead, there should be limits on where motorists can turn left.

 

[Amare]

Metrolinx has an opportunity to try and remedy the situation as much as possible before it becomes front page news and causes people to dismiss the LRT as just another streetcar.

To that note do we really 100% know who's to blame for the lack of TSP?

Last time I checked on the issue, Metrolinx and the city were busy playing the blame game and blaming one another for the lack of TSP. To me it's always been the fault and responsibility of the City of Toronto (Toronto Transportation Services) for this madness, but do we have official confirmation?