Hopkins123 said:
I'm pretty sure that this is what the Province intends to do:

The%20Square%20One%20CCTT%20Solution_zpsh135jzzx.png


If the northbound Robert Speck stop platform remains on the south side of the intersection like the existing 103 stop, there ought to be enough clearance for the guideway to elevate into the T intersection as depicted. I didn't draw the through-section for clarity but this should work.
Click to expand...
Your Robert Speck North stop would be at-grade. This leave you only 150m (190m minus a platform length) to Square One Drive.I think this is what Drum was suggesting is not enough to elevate in.
Your diagram doesn't quite match what Metrolinx had on their site.
 
drum118 said:
The line at Sq One will move from the center to the side at this time where I have noted. To do what you want would require another set of lights for the southbound lanes.
Click to expand...
Without drawings, it's hard to describe. I imagine my option would have similar traffic signal requirements - but located at Robert Speck and not Square One Drive. (I also eliminate a traffic signal completely at Square One Drive).

Here a previous post diagram. https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attachments/c4ecaedd-4e21-4954-8767-3752474da229-png.182852/

Based on this, I see the proposal that (going south to north), the line switches to the West side within the Square One Drive Intersection. For both NB and SB LRT movements, crossing arms would go down (green) on Square One Drive and on the ramp from Hurontario to Sq. One Dr (I don't think you can trust traffic turning right on red without the arms). (it doesn't really matter where the Robert Speck stop is located). From here, it elevates over the Centre View ramp, the 403 ramps, and 403 itself. The famous Y is located here. It then moves back to the median at the traffic lights on the north side of 403 for the off-ramps. The LRT can access this when the signals are green for the 403 off-ramp traffic. It requires the stop line for the SB Hurontario traffic to be moved north a bit.

On the right, I show an option. Move the transition to the west down to Robert Speck. The stop line for SB Hurontario would have to move north a bit. It could then elevate about Sq. One Dr. and Rathburn, and essentially follow the same path. [I showed an option of making the SB 403 on-ramp more of a 90 degree ramp - but I don't think it really accomplishes anything, so I would keep it as described above (and in yellow)].
10.jpg
 
BurlOak said:
Without drawings, it's hard to describe. I imagine my option would have similar traffic signal requirements - but located at Robert Speck and not Square One Drive. (I also eliminate a traffic signal completely at Square One Drive).

Here a previous post diagram. https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attachments/c4ecaedd-4e21-4954-8767-3752474da229-png.182852/

Based on this, I see the proposal that (going south to north), the line switches to the West side within the Square One Drive Intersection. For both NB and SB LRT movements, crossing arms would go down (green) on Square One Drive and on the ramp from Hurontario to Sq. One Dr (I don't think you can trust traffic turning right on red without the arms). (it doesn't really matter where the Robert Speck stop is located). From here, it elevates over the Centre View ramp, the 403 ramps, and 403 itself. The famous Y is located here. It then moves back to the median at the traffic lights on the north side of 403 for the off-ramps. The LRT can access this when the signals are green for the 403 off-ramp traffic. It requires the stop line for the SB Hurontario traffic to be moved north a bit.

On the right, I show an option. Move the transition to the west down to Robert Speck. The stop line for SB Hurontario would have to move north a bit. It could then elevate about Sq. One Dr. and Rathburn, and essentially follow the same path. [I showed an option of making the SB 403 on-ramp more of a 90 degree ramp - but I don't think it really accomplishes anything, so I would keep it as described above (and in yellow)].
View attachment 183414
Click to expand...
Your first plan is close to what I have seen without the Robert Speck stop
 
The reason CCTT is located where it is is to connect with the BRT. So instead of simply finishing the BRT including a BRT station at Hurontario to connect with the LRT, they will instead divert the LRT off of Hurontario, into the BRT corridor, not only inconveniencing LRT riders but also inteferring with the future full BRT along Rathburn. Great idea.
 
doady said:
The reason CCTT is located where it is is to connect with the BRT. So instead of simply finishing the BRT including a BRT station at Hurontario to connect with the LRT, they will instead divert the LRT off of Hurontario, into the BRT corridor, not only inconveniencing LRT riders but also inteferring with the future full BRT along Rathburn. Great idea.
Click to expand...
What about all the riders transfering to a bus that doesn't run on the BRT or heading into Square One? It doesn't help everyone with by simply moving the BRT station next to Hurontario.

This grade separated spur only takes an extra minute. I don't see how the BRT would be the ultimate solution nor should they spend money on a brand new terminal next to the existing one.
 
the terminal has been over capacity for years. an elevated section would be an eyesore in what is supposed to be a vibrant downtown. sure a terminal at rathburn/10 will be quite a walk from the mall but that will be made better when development occurs in between the two. I was fine with the loop but if they prefer not to do it just keep the route on hurontario and use the savings to build a proper multimodal terminal
 
BurlOak said:
Your Robert Speck North stop would be at-grade. This leave you only 150m (190m minus a platform length) to Square One Drive.I think this is what Drum was suggesting is not enough to elevate in.
Your diagram doesn't quite match what Metrolinx had on their site.
Click to expand...

Couldn't my conception work if both the NB and SB platforms of Robert Speck Stn were on the south side of the intersection then? There's many creative ways that this could work. Remember Square One Dr already dead ends at Hurontario St so it's possible to angle the curve at which the elevation begins in such a way as not to disrupt traffic (perhaps prohibit anything over 3 metres like trucks from using that section of Hurontario to allow for enough clearance).
 
Steve X said:
What about all the riders transfering to a bus that doesn't run on the BRT or heading into Square One? It doesn't help everyone with by simply moving the BRT station next to Hurontario.
Click to expand...

Almost all of the bus routes that serve CCTT already intersect with Hurontario Street. Those riders do not need a diversion of the LRT to be able transfer to it.

3 Bloor will serve Central Parkway station.
7 Airport will serve Eglinton station. And of course 35 Eglinton will also serve Eglinton Station.
8 Cawthra will serve Central Parkway station.
10 Bristol will serve Bristol and Robert Speck stations.
20 Rathburn could serve a Rathburn station together with the BRT routes.
28 Confederation will serve Queensway station.
34 Credit Valley will serve Eglinton station. 34 mostly overlaps with 35 which will also serve Eglinton station.
76 Square One-Subway will serve Robert Speck station. 76 mostly overlaps with 26 Burnhamthorpe which will service Burnhamthorpe station.
91 Hillcrest will serve Cooksville GO station.
100/107/109/110 BRT routes could serve a Rathburn station if the full BRT was built.

That leaves only 6 Credit Woodlands, 9 Rathburn-Thomas, 61 Mavis, 66 McLaughlin, and 68 Windsor Hill as the only routes that will not connect with the LRT, at least not without any adjustments.

61 and 66 are north-south routes, so I think it is not important to connect to Hurontario. 66 should be combined with 28 anyways.

68 is a very minor route that mostly serves a small area in-between 10 and 35. And it is mostly a north-south route in its current configuration so I don't see why it is so important to divert the LRT for these few north-south riders.

6 and 9 could easily be extended to Hurontario/Rathburn to connect to the LRT.

Do you think it is easier and cheaper to extend 6 and 9 to connect with the LRT, or to divert the LRT to connect to 6 and 9 and inconvenience and increase the travel times of the Hurontario riders who do not care about 6 and 9? How many riders do you think are transferring from 6/9 to 19/103 today?

Personally I think it's just ridiculous to spend extra tens maybe hundred of millions dollars and increase the travel times of Hurontario riders and interfere with future construction of the full BRT just for the sake of not having to extend a couple of minor bus routes. I think it is much simpler and save time for both LRT and bus riders if they put that money into completing the BRT between Erin Mills and Hurontario and do some very minor adjustments of a few bus routes. But maybe that's just me.

MiWay is trying to go toward a grid system and Metrolinx wants to divert the Hurontario LRT off of Hurontario to connect to 2 minor bus routes and ensure that those 2 minor bus routes, each of which usually operate at 30 minute frequency, won't have to be extended 500m and taken out of an already overcrowded bus terminal. It's just madness. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
 
Hopkins123 said:
Couldn't my conception work if both the NB and SB platforms of Robert Speck Stn were on the south side of the intersection then? There's many creative ways that this could work. Remember Square One Dr already dead ends at Hurontario St so it's possible to angle the curve at which the elevation begins in such a way as not to disrupt traffic (perhaps prohibit anything over 3 metres like trucks from using that section of Hurontario to allow for enough clearance).
Click to expand...
It all depends on how important it is to no block Square One Drive. That question goes for my route as well. Every intersection to the south , all the way to the lake, has LRT blocking the intersection.
Why is this Square One Drive so special?
Another question is how much worse is it for traffic to have the LRT switch from centre of road to side of road at an intersection?

An unrelated question is why they are doing so much here to avoid interfering with the highway ramps, but they are doing nothing for the Eglinton LRT and DVP, and nothing for the LWLRT and 400? I suspect those had major complaints from traffic engineers at the time, but the political forces shut them down.
 
BurlOak said:
It all depends on how important it is to no block Square One Drive. That question goes for my route as well. Every intersection to the south , all the way to the lake, has LRT blocking the intersection.
Why is this Square One Drive so special?
Another question is how much worse is it for traffic to have the LRT switch from centre of road to side of road at an intersection?

An unrelated question is why they are doing so much here to avoid interfering with the highway ramps, but they are doing nothing for the Eglinton LRT and DVP, and nothing for the LWLRT and 400? I suspect those had major complaints from traffic engineers at the time, but the political forces shut them down.
Click to expand...

The WWLRT really was a special case tbh. They wanted to build it elevated between the Ex grounds and Roncy, but it wasn't just traffic engineers but also NIMBY people who got them to stop. I know, this is off topic...
 
The spur to the CC Terminal should be tunnelled. All those bridges and surface trackage in ROW strips will look unsightly.
 
Transportfan said:
The spur to the CC Terminal should be tunnelled. All those bridges and surface trackage in ROW strips will look unsightly.
Click to expand...

You clearly have never seen Vancouver's Skytrain. A full flyover would be great. And those stuck in traffic seeing the LRT whizzing by them might be more an incentive to leave the car at home.
 
micheal_can said:
You clearly have never seen Vancouver's Skytrain. A full flyover would be great. And those stuck in traffic seeing the LRT whizzing by them might be more an incentive to leave the car at home.
Click to expand...

So an elevated guideway is the plan? There was mention of level crossings and tracks cutting across fields. If so, good.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top