sixrings
Senior Member
That's an optimistic view. Complaining doesn't always lead to better things.
|
|
|
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
For the Martin Grove grade separating stop
CONS*
• Prolonged impacts to traffic on both Eglinton and Martin Grove, both major arterials, during construction
• Bus loop not advisable
• Below grade stop results in less opportunity for natural surveillance
????????????????????????????????
This is Martin Grove and Eglinton. Surveilling what? The grassy median between the highway ramps?
CONS*
• Prolonged impacts to traffic on both Eglinton and Martin Grove, both major arterials, during construction
• Bus loop not advisable
• Below grade stop results in less opportunity for natural surveillance
????????????????????????????????
This is Martin Grove and Eglinton. Surveilling what? The grassy median between the highway ramps?
OneCity
Senior Member
Natural surveillance - In regular terms this is basically ensuring people are in the eyes of law enforcement?
Are the inferring they don't trust the Citizens in these areas lol.
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
Yes and no.
It is referring more to a Jane Jacobs idea of natural surveillance.
But I fail to see how this is a reasonable concern to be having at Martin Grove and Eglinton. People are not exactly spending time around here outside of the automobile. This station will be overwhelmingly served through bus feeders.
Hopkins123
Senior Member
What indeed. And a bus loop is not advisable? Since when? Seems like a natural terminus for the 111 and 52G to me and north/south bus riders on the 46 will desire it too. But again, we're downsizing Crosstown West at all costs to the point this line is becoming worthless.
BMO
Senior Member
it's almost like there's different traffic in different parts of the city and that not everywhere has the same typology, built-form, mode split, etc.
BMO
Senior Member
Honestly, if you were to use the same comparisons they used against grade separation and just compared it to a local surface bus route you'd literally find that the bus route performs better in almost every category except for "Supports Growth" and Travel times. This is a joke. Where are the operations analysis of intersections, the travel demand forecasting and comparison of travel times for alternatives? Where is future growth rates compared based on the chosen alternative? This isn't a transportation planning report, this is an urban design report.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
BurlOak
Senior Member
I guess City Planning has taken over from TTC Engineering.
TransitBart
Senior Member
Even stranger considering the intersection is in a trench.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Again, the topography is your friend. The Don River, like most rivers, is in the bottom of the valley. Scenic Drive, and CPR, are near the crest of the valley (maybe more like the mid point. If you go over Don River and Leslie, you can still have a portal through the railway embankment - a relatively simple operation as was done for the Wynford on-ramp to DVP a few decades ago. An alternative is to curve a bit south and go under the end span of the CPR bridge over the Don River.
Rainforest
Senior Member
The first link contains the cost estimates for grade separation at each intersection. Three dollar signs ($$$) means up to $150 million, one dollar sign means up to $50 million.
Jane: up to $150 million, 1000 m elevated
Scarlett: up to $150 million, 1300 m elevated
Royal York: up to $150 million, 700 m below grade
Islington: up to $50 million, 600 m elevated
Kipling: up to $150 million, 800 m below grade
Martin Grove: up to $150 million, 900 m below grade
So, for $800 million over the base cost, we can have a real LRT on Eglinton West, that can compete with cars and possibly overtake them during the rush hours. I think this is a good deal, even if the costs can grow somewhat when the detailed design is completed.
But if $800 million is too much, then they should at least grade separate at Islington (cheaper than at other intersections, significant traffic) and at Martin Grove (tunneled and likely more expensive than the above estimate, but the worst traffic situation at present). That would cost up to $200 million per their estimates, perhaps closer to $300 million in reality, but still pretty affordable compared to the total cost of Eglinton LRT.
Last edited:
Dan416
Senior Member
I think these planners should visit LA and ride their LRT.
CapitalSeven
Senior Member
The LRT in LA has some intersections that are elevated and others at grade with no signal priority. It's a mish-mash of what they needed and what they could afford. The stop by the convention center is a small platform with a metal gate you swing by hand and then try to dodge the train in the crosswalk.
800 million may not be much out of context, but the context is already over-paying Scarborough by a billion or two, throwing money at the Gardiner, unable to find money for the waterfront lines, and the relief line to start 8 years from now. There's no 800 million to throw at a line that isn't going to top 3500 riders per hour anywhere west of Jane.
800 million may not be much out of context, but the context is already over-paying Scarborough by a billion or two, throwing money at the Gardiner, unable to find money for the waterfront lines, and the relief line to start 8 years from now. There's no 800 million to throw at a line that isn't going to top 3500 riders per hour anywhere west of Jane.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
When highways needs an overpass or underpass at a city street, money is no object.
When a LRT needs an overpass or underpass at a city street, please fill out this 12 volume questionnaire in triplicate, jump through these hoops of fire, and turn your head & cough. Oops, we ran out of money.
When a LRT needs an overpass or underpass at a city street, please fill out this 12 volume questionnaire in triplicate, jump through these hoops of fire, and turn your head & cough. Oops, we ran out of money.