sixrings
Senior Member
I agree.... the Don Mills stop would be closer to most of the buildings... this request doesn't make much sense...
|
|
|
I agree.... the Don Mills stop would be closer to most of the buildings... this request doesn't make much sense...
JayBeeGooner
Active Member
The inclusion of Ferrand won't have a negative impact on the operation of the line either. The stop will most likely be at the end of the Don Mills portal, and can save residents a walk. The dwell time at the stop will be minimal. I really do not see Metrolinx's exclusion other than to save money.
Actually, looking at the original open house panels, it looks like the east Don Mill portal will be located where Ferrand Station would logically be located. Heck, even the TTC didn't have a design for Ferrand Station.
http://www.toronto.ca/involved/proj...n_lrt/pdf/2009-11-20_display_panels_part3.pdf
So it makes more sense why Metrolinx excluded the station.
Actually, looking at the original open house panels, it looks like the east Don Mill portal will be located where Ferrand Station would logically be located. Heck, even the TTC didn't have a design for Ferrand Station.
http://www.toronto.ca/involved/proj...n_lrt/pdf/2009-11-20_display_panels_part3.pdf
So it makes more sense why Metrolinx excluded the station.
Last edited:
sixrings
Senior Member
I wont lie I don't mind the surface section but TRUTHFULLY I only want stops at major intersections.. That's my bias. Id like the fastest surface LRT possible and we can revisit adding stops later. But once stops are in they are rarely removed. One to few stops in my opinion is better then too many stops that slows down the line too much.
JayBeeGooner
Active Member
I agree with both you and Toronto1. I revised my original post. The Ferrand stop is way to close to Don Mills, and the east portal would make it impossible to build a surface stop without conflicting with the DVP on/off ramps.
sixrings
Senior Member
maximum 5 mins walking distance doesn't justify a stop for me... good work researching it.. For the record I often have to go to an office building on Gervais drive and I take the eglinton bus. I get off at don mills and WALK.... its really not that complicated. This whole idea of a stop at every single residents door stop is crazy.
JayBeeGooner
Active Member
Thanks. I am an advocate for reasonably close stop spacing (500-800metres), but these stops are far to close. Residents on Ferrand can easily walk to Don Mills.
sixrings
Senior Member
nfitz
Superstar
Parker's off the deep end. Council has already clearly voted on this. And both Metrolinx and the TTC have shot him down already.
What's bizarre, is his opinion on this seems to be opposite they way he voted both at TTC and at council, if I remember correctly.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Councillor John Parker "is urging the provincial transit agency to switch to a subway instead". (of LRT)
The problem seems to be that Parker realizes that something is wrong with the current ECLRT plan, but does not have the proper information to propose something better. Many Councillors seem to be in the same boat (i.e. Stintz and DeBaeremaeker with the One City plan and Ford and company with the tunnelled ECLRT to Kennedy), but for whatever reason nothing was changed.
rbt
Senior Member
I don't disagree that it's dumb but here is a rather interesting (and likely very false) quote from Metrolinx:
"Metrolinx disputes Mr. Parker’s assertion that his idea is more affordable because LRT vehicles, designed to run on the surface, are more expensive. On a per-kilometre basis, according to the transit agency, a tunnelled LRT still costs less than a subway."
I expect what they really mean is that 90m stations are cheaper than 150m stations.
canmark
Active Member
Parker comes out sounding like a right-wing American politico nut by talking about God's intentions:
rbt
Senior Member
If God intended us to run LRT underground; God would have given us the ability to create grand underground tunnels and stations, and portals to tracks on the surface so that LRT could navigate both domains.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Is there some type of Provincial or Federal law that all subways must have 150m stations. Maybe it is a requirement when calculated using Newtoninan physics.
I think the statement reads ok. Parker says that LRT cars are more expensive than subway - which is not disputed as incorrect. Metrolinx makes no mention of this, and just states that LRT, overall is cheaper - without offering any reasons.
The answer is it really depends on the project.
LRT is more expensive to tunnel than subway because of the wider diameter required for the overhead canary.
LRT is less expensive to elevate than subway because of the presumably lighter loads the structures need to support.
LRT is cheaper to build at-grade than subway, because, well, you can't really build a subway at-grade without any grade separations at intersections.
The subway vs LRT relations over which is "more expensive" depends on how much of each of those 3 the project involves. If you're building an all-tunnelled LRT, yeah it'll be more expensive. If you're building an all at-grade LRT, yeah it'll less expensive.
rbt
Senior Member
No. There's no requirement that they have 5 minute or better frequencies either. Many places run 15 to 20 minute frequencies, particularly during off-peak periods.
When the general Toronto public thinks subway, they think of the Yonge or BD lines, both in frequency and capacity.
If you gave them a subway like the short Bay Street section of Queens Quay (up to 15 minute frequencies, fairly unreliable to predict service, short trains, small station with stairs and no ability to buy passes or tickets), they may not be very happy despite being underground.