News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.4K     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 

Hopkins123 said:
There's a big honking right of way from East Mall all the way to Islington. Again between Royal York and Scarlett there's land. Only those seeking to find problems refuse to see the obvious solutions.
Click to expand...
You're talking to someone who is very familiar with the area, and doesn't rely on Google Maps for facts and verification. Again, there would be a need for expropriation along various stretches of the south end of the corridor that you're talking about.

Take a walk along the Crosstown West route and you'll see exactly what i'm talking about.
 
Amare said:
You're talking to someone who is very familiar with the area, and doesn't rely on Google Maps for facts and verification. Again, there would be a need for expropriation along various stretches of the south end of the corridor that you're talking about.

Take a walk along the Crosstown West route and you'll see exactly what i'm talking about.
Click to expand...

You're not understanding what I'm trying to say. The affected properties you're alluding to comprise about 5% of the total ROW from East Mall to Scarlett Rd. What's stopping the builders from having this tiny section (mainly between Kipling and Bemersyde) tunnel directly underneath Eglinton emerging from the tunnel into a trench at either side. It's a very simple, practical solution.

Why must we overthink and over-complicate everything in this city to the point that nothing half-decent ever gets built? Eesh!
 
I understand exactly what you're trying to say, and the point i'm making is that you cant base your point off of Google Maps. Even if you look at the map, you would understand that this plan would require expropriation.

Every single piece of property between between Martin Grove and Islington would be affected, including 2 TDSB high schools (Martin Grove to a lesser extent, and Richview to a larger extent). If you look at the section between Royal York and Scarlett, it would still require expropriation as it would affect most of those properties. The only section where expropriation wouldn't be needed is the section between Islington and Royal York.

There's no overthinking and over-complications going on, it is simply fact and there's more to building trenches than just digging a hole in the ground. Soil conditions, and engineering play a large role so any trench in this area could be bigger than you would think.
 
Amare said:
I understand exactly what you're trying to say, and the point i'm making is that you cant base your point off of Google Maps. Even if you look at the map, you would understand that this plan would require expropriation.

Every single piece of property between between Martin Grove and Islington would be affected, including 2 TDSB high schools (Martin Grove to a lesser extent, and Richview to a larger extent). If you look at the section between Royal York and Scarlett, it would still require expropriation as it would affect most of those properties. The only section where expropriation wouldn't be needed is the section between Islington and Royal York.

There's no overthinking and over-complications going on, it is simply fact and there's more to building trenches than just digging a hole in the ground. Soil conditions, and engineering play a large role so any trench in this area could be bigger than you would think.
Click to expand...

I tried looking at the map, and streetview pretty closely. It's hard to tell the exact width of the right of way, and I don't know how wide the rail ROW would need to be. That being said, I think that soil conditions would probably not affect the width of the tunnel itself so much as it would affect things like construction method and price. The construction itself has more potential to impact property than the actual rail ROW. It looks from above like the properties are set back far enough that there is room for two tracks until Islington. Some sections are narrower than others, and extra width would be needed for stations, which could be a deal breaker depending on where they are, but it's worth looking into IMO. Another thing is that as this lrt is planned, presumably there is room for two tracks already, and trenching it wouldn't be completely different in terms of space than the current plan, whatever that is. Do they plan on slashing a driving lane, or widening the road?

If I understand rightly here, the two high schools are not in the section in question here. Between Islington and Martin Grove, there might not be room so it would have to either completely go underground, elevated, or at street level.
 
aquateam said:
He raises a lot of good points about the methodology that staff used. They can use those wishy-washy and opaque categories like "Healthy Neighbourhoods" and non-justifications like "visually obstructs vista over Humber River" or "Reduced intuitive wayfinding" as arguments against grade separations, while keeping hard metrics like travel-time impacts, operating costs, ridership impact, etc., hidden. By weighing whatever factor they want, they can come to whatever pre-ordained conclusion they want: in this case, a cookie-cutter centre-of-the-road streetcar in ROW configuration.

It's also good that he points out that they looked at grade-separations in isolation, when the Metrolinx BCA for Eglinton West showed the highest cost-benefit for an entirely grade separated line.

The problem is his tunnel-vision: until Toronto has a modern operating elevated line, we will never see what they can do, at a fraction of the cost of a buried line (the screeching, neglected, SRT that runs through industrial dumps isn't a good comparison). A side of the road, elevated configuration (except maybe for Martin Grove because I'm not sure what the best way is to figure out the mess with the highway ramps and power lines) would mitigate all the traffic impacts and give transit users the speed and reliability to ensure the success of this line.
Click to expand...

Even a narrow trenched system on the side of the road would do.

There is space along the richview corridor. Not ALL of the corridor was sold off.

So you tunnel under the areas that were, and you continue as a sidewall trench where it wasnt.
 
Its funny all of the suggestions we are giving to do a better job at grade separation from other cities.

We have an example here in Toronto. Want to know something even better, the example exists on EGLINTON AVE.

Its on this forum. It was just completed last week.

738902f7-bb09-439a-87b3-c488aa4fc3cd_zpsukdehozz.jpg


Just put an LRT where the busway road is.
 
City survey on Crosstown routing is up:

Looking for a better connection to the airport? Take our Eglinton West LRT survey. Visit http://ow.ly/3kgS30gEw9C today

Interesting that they recommend not adding grade separation anywhere. Given the amount of traffic involved and the cost of tunneling / bridging that seems to make sense.
 
animatronic said:
Interesting that they recommend not adding grade separation anywhere. Given the amount of traffic involved and the cost of tunneling / bridging that seems to make sense.
Click to expand...

Their own estimates are within $50 million for grade-separating at Islington, and within $150 million for each of the other 5 major intersections. So, $800 million would reduce conflicts with the N-S traffic to a minimum (only minor intersections). I'd think that's a good deal.

If they believe $800 million is too much, at least they could do Islington for $50 million, and Martin Grove (worst congestion spot) for $150 million. For $200 million combined, which is pretty modest compared to the cost of all projects of the table, they could boost the profile of this line and make the trips to Airport South employment lands more appealing.
 
Rainforest said:
Their own estimates are within $50 million for grade-separating at Islington, and within $150 million for each of the other 5 major intersections. So, $800 million would reduce conflicts with the N-S traffic to a minimum (only minor intersections). I'd think that's a good deal.

If they believe $800 million is too much, at least they could do Islington for $50 million, and Martin Grove (worst congestion spot) for $150 million. For $200 million combined, which is pretty modest compared to the cost of all projects of the table, they could boost the profile of this line and make the trips to Airport South employment lands more appealing.
Click to expand...

I said something similar, though their internal review (in the survey) showed Kipling as having the best payback.
 
Rainforest said:
Their own estimates are within $50 million for grade-separating at Islington, and within $150 million for each of the other 5 major intersections. So, $800 million would reduce conflicts with the N-S traffic to a minimum (only minor intersections). I'd think that's a good deal.

If they believe $800 million is too much, at least they could do Islington for $50 million, and Martin Grove (worst congestion spot) for $150 million. For $200 million combined, which is pretty modest compared to the cost of all projects of the table, they could boost the profile of this line and make the trips to Airport South employment lands more appealing.
Click to expand...

Can we please stop acting like this is just about cost? Obviously grade separation would mean that this corridor could not become the next Queen West, therefore they are choosing at-grade to improve accessibility and sense of place /s

It's almost like how cars aren't appropriate in downtown Toronto and middle-of-the-road LRTs aren't appropriate for a suburban arterial with tons of space and zero walkability. The LRT won't change that, there's not enough opportunities for infill nor a reason for people to walk along Eglinton in this part of the city. Why these were included as such a large weighting in the selection is beyond me. However, there is a bunch of congestion and allowing the LRT to by-pass it all WILL provide benefit to the community and the broader city.

Not to mention at-grade LRTs are hostile for pedestrians requiring them to cross 3-4 lanes of traffic to reach the stop and 3-4 lanes to exit at a stop, while grade separation brings them to most corners without interacting with vehicles.
 
Rainforest said:
Their own estimates are within $50 million for grade-separating at Islington, and within $150 million for each of the other 5 major intersections. So, $800 million would reduce conflicts with the N-S traffic to a minimum (only minor intersections). I'd think that's a good deal.

If they believe $800 million is too much, at least they could do Islington for $50 million, and Martin Grove (worst congestion spot) for $150 million. For $200 million combined, which is pretty modest compared to the cost of all projects of the table, they could boost the profile of this line and make the trips to Airport South employment lands more appealing.
Click to expand...

You are assuming they would keep a consistent design and not build a Taj Mahal for each above ground station. When we know they would blow the budget on each one.

I think the elevated track at the main street are needed....I just wish there was a way to keep politicians from overbuilding.
 
BMO said:
Can we please stop acting like this is just about cost? Obviously grade separation would mean that this corridor could not become the next Queen West, therefore they are choosing at-grade to improve accessibility and sense of place /s

It's almost like how cars aren't appropriate in downtown Toronto and middle-of-the-road LRTs aren't appropriate for a suburban arterial with tons of space and zero walkability. The LRT won't change that, there's not enough opportunities for infill nor a reason for people to walk along Eglinton in this part of the city. Why these were included as such a large weighting in the selection is beyond me. However, there is a bunch of congestion and allowing the LRT to by-pass it all WILL provide benefit to the community and the broader city.

Not to mention at-grade LRTs are hostile for pedestrians requiring them to cross 3-4 lanes of traffic to reach the stop and 3-4 lanes to exit at a stop, while grade separation brings them to most corners without interacting with vehicles.
Click to expand...

Even if grade separation isn't done, they need to stop putting LRTs in the median. It can be At-Grade but to one side of the roadway, separate from the road. Its a much better choice for an area like this.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top