News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.3K     0 

MisterF said:
You may be under the mistaken impression that municipal boundaries have anything to do with numbered mass transit lines.
Click to expand...
So MiWay lines 1-9, and 11+ are going to be bus routes, but the 10 is going to be a rapid transit line, because... ???

If matching the city's numbering scheme is not the name of the game here, why did they bother to renumber the 5 Avenue Road and 6 Bay buses a few years back to make space for the Eglinton and Finch LRT? I was under the impression that the "rule" was supposed to be that the lowest numbers were rapid transit lines. A superflous rule, but you can sort of see the logic in it, but if we're dumping a rapid transit line in a sea of bus routes, the whole rule goes out the window, and the information could have just as easily been communicated by numbering them 532 and 536, or just adopting the numbers 32 and 36. Their positions in the numbering pattern would be analogous to the Mississauga 10 being surrounded by bus routes.
 
Last edited:
T3G said:
So MiWay lines 1-9, and 11+ are going to be bus routes, but the 10 is going to be a rapid transit line, because... ???

If matching the city's numbering scheme is not the name of the game here, why did they bother to renumber the 5 Avenue Road and 6 Bay buses a few years back to make space for the Eglinton and Finch LRT? I was under the impression that the "rule" was supposed to be that the lowest numbers were rapid transit lines. A superflous rule, but you can sort of see the logic in it, but if we're dumping a rapid transit line in a sea of bus routes, the whole rule goes out the window, and the information could have just as easily been communicated by numbering them 532 and 536, or just adopting the numbers 32 and 36. Their positions in the numbering pattern would be analogous to the Mississauga 10 being surrounded by bus routes.
Click to expand...

Maybe, Line 10 is a hint to Hurontario kind of being Hwy 10, and not in relation to any Toronto line numbering.

Not that I have anything against MT renumbering its bus routes. But with them only having 1 rapid transit line so far, they may not feel much pressure to do so.
 
warrens said:
It leads towards a future where the Mississauga Transitway gets a number when it becomes a rail service (whether it's a continuation of Crosstown or not, I won't even guess at), and I think it's within the realm of reason that the GO lines will get numbers as well.

I mean, the names "Lakeshore East" and "Lakeshore West" are purely relative to Union Station, right? Part of what needs to happen in the decades to come is to break the old way of thinking that these lines only exist to get people to downtown Toronto.
Click to expand...
The GO Lines will likely be lettered not numbered. This is already in Metrolinx wayfinding documents, but I suspect they are waiting until the build-out of the RER network.
 
Rainforest said:
Maybe, Line 10 is a hint to Hurontario kind of being Hwy 10, and not in relation to any Toronto line numbering.

Not that I have anything against MT renumbering its bus routes. But with them only having 1 rapid transit line so far, they may not feel much pressure to do so.
Click to expand...
Yes Line 10 does refer to Hwy 10.

I'm not sure how they will number Dundas BRT line that is the 2nd Rapid Transit line for the city that is to see some early construction this year with full construction in 2025. Dundas was called Hwy 5.

In fact, Mississauga Transitway was the first Rapid Line even though it has two missing sections at this time that are been looked at now as to how to fix them.

Anyway, ML oversees how lines will be numbered, not local systems. Local systems will have to change existing route numbers for ML numbers.

JasonParis said:
The GO Lines will likely be lettered not numbered. This is already in Metrolinx wayfinding documents, but I suspect they are waiting until the build-out of the RER network.
Click to expand...
I will take the A line while you take the C line.
 
I'm not picking a date, other than to observe that it would seem politically self-destructive to open the Finch line without first having given a firm date for Crosstown's opening. Otherwise the Finch opening would simply give an opportunity for public axe grinding. So as Finch progresses, Ml.will have to say something eventually.

But, as an exercise in being data driven.... it is said that Vegas keeps odds on many wierd things.... has anyone heard of an actual betting line on the opening date? I'd trust the expert opinion of the bookies more than the sidewalk superintendents at this point.

- Paul
 
An update on the EglintonTOday complete street plans: original plan to present before city council's Infrastructure & Environment Committee delayed from next week to May 2, 2024. Installation is still projected for "summer 2024".

From the meeting minutes: Road resurfacing for non-Crosslinx sections of Eglinton is proposed to begin early July.

No clues as to an opening date for the LRT.
 
1711135310625.png
 
Bojaxs said:
Maybe setup jersey barriers between the tracks and the roads? Calgary does this with their LRTs that run down the middle of stroads. Not very visually appealing, but does the job.

maps.app.goo.gl

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
maps.app.goo.gl maps.app.goo.gl
Click to expand...
This sucks, and honestly - I didn’t foresee this. In retrospect I should have.

Is there a reason we don’t have barriers for the majority of the above-ground alignment excluding the intersections? Perhaps some sort of metal fencing as opposed to concrete jersey barriers (given experience with Union Station, once those go in they’ll never leave because the cost of replacing them will keep
escalating year over year.)
 
allengeorge said:
This sucks, and honestly - I didn’t foresee this. In retrospect I should have.

Is there a reason we don’t have barriers for the majority of the above-ground alignment excluding the intersections?
Click to expand...
I'm sure its due to the same contingent that always complains about how emergency vehicles will get around all the traffic (quietly ignoring that the problem lies with too many cars on the road)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top