News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     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
 5.1K     0 

Fish&Chips said:
The cancellation of Transit City was never put to a vote but was made by fiat by the Fords. People who flip-flopped on the issue like Milczyn didn't want a vote for fear of their reversal being exposed. I'd love to see how he and other former TC supporters like Stintz who are now on the Exec would vote.
Click to expand...

What would be the road map to bringing Transit City onto the council agenda?
 
The issue with the Don Valley crossing is that it puts them in a tough spot. Either they build a new bridge structure (which will probably trigger an EA) or they run in-median on Eglinton over the crossing.

If they do the latter -- and they *should* -- why bother building another portal and going underground east of the Don? Why not just continue in the ROW?
 
GraphicMatt said:
The issue with the Don Valley crossing is that it puts them in a tough spot. Either they build a new bridge structure (which will probably trigger an EA) or they run in-median on Eglinton over the crossing.

If they do the latter -- and they *should* -- why bother building another portal and going underground east of the Don? Why not just continue in the ROW?
Click to expand...

I agree with you and believe that this solution will be "the compromise". Much like the first "compromise" to save The Crosstown line.
TC supporters would want it be as it was -- with only a partial underground sections and Ford and his allies will bark at the moon because 'them darn streetcars get in ther' way'.

So do have it both ways -- it'll pop back out and stay above ground at the Don Valley while staying underground on the west end.
 
jje1000 said:
What would be the road map to bringing Transit City onto the council agenda?
Click to expand...

From the above globe article:

Mr. Perks, however, predicted that Metrolinx’s EA, which he said is subject to council approval, could become a lightning rod for critics of Mr. Ford’s plan. “This could be the issue that forces Transit City in front of this council for the first time.”
 
Metrolinx head honcho doesn't think so:

"Mr. McCuaig couldn’t say whether the public will be asked to comment on a surface option during next year’s EA and added that he’s not sure whether council will even be asked to make the ultimate decision."

This is a Metrolinx effort from here forward. I don't think they want the added headache of the plan changing once again. I can't believe this is even an issue to be honest. Just bridge the Don Valley with a separate structure and go back underground. It has been done tons of times in the city already.
 
11th said:
The compromise, make the rest elevated - full grade-seperate, and not tunnel either.
Click to expand...
Elevated is the worst of all options -- it is hugely visually intrusive, and would loom over the neighbourhoods it runs through.
 
Residents of Eglinton-adjacent neighbourhoods would go nuts if you tried to elevate the line. NIMBY forces would overwhelm.

Filip said:
Metrolinx head honcho doesn't think so:

"Mr. McCuaig couldn’t say whether the public will be asked to comment on a surface option during next year’s EA and added that he’s not sure whether council will even be asked to make the ultimate decision."

This is a Metrolinx effort from here forward. I don't think they want the added headache of the plan changing once again. I can't believe this is even an issue to be honest. Just bridge the Don Valley with a separate structure and go back underground. It has been done tons of times in the city already.
Click to expand...

He's assuming a lot when he says an EA wouldn't go to council or force public consultations. Kudos to Metrolinx if they can effectively stickhandle this, though.
 
Filip said:
Metrolinx head honcho doesn't think so:

"Mr. McCuaig couldn’t say whether the public will be asked to comment on a surface option during next year’s EA and added that he’s not sure whether council will even be asked to make the ultimate decision."

This is a Metrolinx effort from here forward. I don't think they want the added headache of the plan changing once again. I can't believe this is even an issue to be honest. Just bridge the Don Valley with a separate structure and go back underground. It has been done tons of times in the city already.
Click to expand...

i thought metrolinx was funding it and operating it. otherwiseit is the ttcs and the cities to actually build. if the price keeps going up the residents do have a right to question if this plan makes sense at all.
 
If they choose to elevate or bury over the Don Valley, or elevate or bury the eastern portion, either is fine by me. The only thing I don't want is in-median ROW.
 
A) After the DVP, the line would transition from underground to at grade
B) There would be an grade "Calgary Style" Wynford Station in the median with access below to Wynford Dr (See Yorkdale Station)
B) widen the existing bridge over the Don Valley (8 lane cross section in width)
C) Run this at grade median seperated LRT down the middle of the widened bridge
D) Dip Underground into a portal east of the bridge before Bermondsey
E) Resume Underground till Kennedy

Now if it was up to me, I would also elevate it from east of Laird to Wynford then elevate it again till Birchmount. But even if there is a huge opposition to elevated, this small but vital section can be built like this.

We all know that Eglinton between the DVP On-Ramp and Bermondsey is essentially a 6-lane expressway. Why not build an in-median grade level LRT in that portion in a manner that would be still completely seperated and thus...automated.

It would just look like the Spadina Subway for a short section. Leave Wynford Drive as it is, an interchange.

Cheapest Option. Most Realistic. Save Huge $$ on Wynford Station. Remains Grade Separated.
 
Tulse said:
Elevated is the worst of all options -- it is hugely visually intrusive, and would loom over the neighbourhoods it runs through.
Click to expand...
Not the best, but not the worst either, that's what called a compromise. The worst option would be - non-grade seperate + visually intrusive.
Given the projected frequency of the line, it might just create bottlenecks for north-south roads at Eglinton, if it is built in-median. This effects both personal automobiles and transit buses.
 
GraphicMatt said:
The issue with the Don Valley crossing is that it puts them in a tough spot. Either they build a new bridge structure (which will probably trigger an EA) or they run in-median on Eglinton over the crossing.

If they do the latter -- and they *should* -- why bother building another portal and going underground east of the Don? Why not just continue in the ROW?
Click to expand...

It should be noted that the latest pre-Ford plan for Eglinton LRT had an underground Don Mills station, with portals both west and east of Don Mills. So, technically they can revert to the pre-Ford alignment between Brentcliffe and Don Mills (in-median), and still keep all options open for the Don Mills - Kennedy section.

But IMO, full grade separation is more useful east of Don Mills. The Don Mills - Yonge section is going to be the busiest, since it will combine the passenger flows from Eglinton, Lawrence East, Flemmington Park, and transfers from Don Mills. Full grade separation of that section will allow for a more frequent service, every 2-nd train turning back west at Don Mills.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top