On September 2, the TTC held an open house to present designs for the section of the proposed Eglinton LRT west of Martin Grove. The display panels and an updated FAQ are available on the project’s website.
The display starts with introductory materials for the project and shows the current schedule for the overall study. By November 2009 when the next round of public meetings occurs, the design options should be settled in preparation for the formal Transit Project Assessment. However, the length and complexity of the line may interfere with this schedule depending on how the project team reacts to comments at the neighbourhood and political levels.
The TTC needs to “get it right” before the TPA starts because that process runs to a fixed timetable and does not offer much opportunity for significant change. Any “alternatives analysis” is presumed to be completed before the TPA itself.
The Pearson segment varies from the rest of the line in using centre platforms (see panel 9). This changes the intersection geometry and pedestrian access. Notably, provision for high pedestrian volumes is needed only on one rather than both sides of an intersection, and passengers waiting for the LRT are separated from traffic by the transit lanes.
Two major routes into the airport were studied:
- West via Eglinton to Renforth Drive or Commerce Blvd., then north into the airport.
- North via Highway 27, then west via Dixon Road into the airport.
The first of these has four variants which are permutations on the route:
- From Eglinton to Convair via Renforth or via Commerce.
- From Convair to the Airport via Silver Dart or via Carlingview including a station at Dixon Road.
The five options are shown on panels 11 through 15, and you can easily see the differences by stepping back and forth between them.
The Silver Dart alignment is intriguing because it takes the LRT, complete with its overhead power distribution system, right across the end of a runway. Many years ago, a proposed electrification of the Dufferin bus was rejected because, among other things, stringing overhead along Wilson south of Downsview Airport would not be allowed. What is different today that allows Silver Dart to hold an LRT route?
The preferred route (Option 1) takes the westernmost of the various alignments running via Commerce and Sliver Dart. This choice gives a gerrymandered feeling to the route which is pulled southwest to connect with the Mississauga Transitway at Commerce Blvd. The ranking scheme on panel 16 shows how various factors affected the choice.
- Route 1 is the simplest to implement because it spend most of its time following existing streets and requires only one new bridge across Highway 401.
- Travel time is shortest for the Highway 27 (east) route because this is the most direct. I understand that the difference is about 4 minutes, one way
- Capital costs are lowest for the routes that use Silver Dart between Convair and the Airport as this is the shortest path and does not involve crossing Highway 427 to reach Carlingview.
- Development opportunities are best for the Carlingview routes because this serves more land that is not immediately beside the airport. The preferred route (1) and the east route (5) rank equally on this factor.
- Ridership projections are equal for all options and therefore do not affect the route selection. This implies that whatever development might occur, its effect on ridership will be minimal.
- Interregional connectivity is ranked highest for the Commerce Blvd. options (1 and 2) because of the link to the Mississauga Transitway. Whether this is the appropriate location for the interchange is not addressed, and the Transitway design is taken as a given.
The detailed alignment and station locations begin on panel 18. The thin black lines show the extend of widening required to accommodate the LRT lanes on various streets.
The most bizarre proposal is for the Commerce Blvd. stop and interchange with the Transitway. The LRT will be operating through an area that is now largely vacant land, beside a grade separated transitway, and yet the LRT is designed essentially as an upgraded streetcar.
Passengers from many services on the Transitway will have to make their way up to street level and walk out into the middle of the road to reach the LRT at what should be a major transfer point. This is a nonsensical design guaranteed to minimize the value of the very interchange that is cited as such a benefit of the alignment.
There is no discussion of swinging the LRT north of Eglinton so that it can share the Transitway’s alignment west of Renforth and have a consolidated station structure at Commerce. This would simplify the turn from Eglinton to Commerce by making it below grade at the level of the Transitway, and then ramping up into the middle of Commerce north of Eglinton. (I am awaiting feedback from the Eglinton LRT project team on this issue.)
Panel 22 shows the planned route structure for Transitway operations, and clearly the majority of the routes are headed for Kipling Station and its new regional terminal. However, transfer traffic for airport employees and customers, as well as for riders bound across Eglinton will be considerable and the hub should be designed to make such transfers as easy as possible.
The LRT presentation itself would benefit greatly from having the Transitway design as well as planned future development sites superimposed on the alignment drawings. This would allow for much better understanding of tradeoffs and benefits, and would simplify discussion of alternatives.
When the line reaches the airport (panel 29), it disappears into a planning haze because the exact location of the LRT station is not yet decided. Although I have heard of one schene that puts the station some distance from the existing people mover and planned Blue 22, this does not make sense for distribution of traffic within the airport. The people mover has limited capacity, and it is possible that an extended LRT will take over its function.
The design does not address future integration of an airport branch from the Finch LRT which would probably travel southwest via the Hydro corridor from Finch & Weston to Dixon & Martin Grove.
When the study comes back for another round of public meetings in the fall, we may learn if they have resolved problems with the airport alignment as well as many other issues along the Eglinton route. My greatest concern, based on experience with some other studies, is that we would see nothing more than a warmed-over-lightly rehash of the existing designs, and offhand dismissal of concerns that have been raised. The Eglinton line is the heart of Transit City, and it deserves good design and a genuine attempt to respond to communities along the route.
I agree on the Mississauga BRT connections. At a minimum, I suppose, they could widen the Commerce Blvd platform to provide direct links (escalators and an elevator) down to the BRT ransitway station, without having to cross the street. This isn’t downtown — there’s enough empty land around to provide flexibility.
Steve: The problem with going underground directly from a street platform is that the busway is only one level down. There isn’t headroom for a mezzanine. If, however, the LRT runs alongside the busway either at grade, or at the same “one below” level, a completely off-street connection would be possible.
At the airport, wouldn’t it make sense for the LRT to have stops at both Terminal 1 and Terminal 3? About 40% of the airport’s passenger capacity is at T3. They’re already connected by roadway at ground level (really, a very short distance, and from what I’ve seen not that heavily used). Even without peoplemover capacity problems, just getting up to the peoplemover level from ground level is a hassle.
Steve: As things stand, the LRT station may be at the same level as the people mover, but not exactly nearby. This is not a very intelligent design.
For what it’s worth, Silver Dart Drive still has special low-height streetlights, so it does seem like standard overhead poles might be a problem.
And finally, a stop named Rangoon on the airport LRT route somehow seems fitting — though it might make some jet-lagged traveller unsure if they’ve landed in the right place.
Steve: It really needs a crossover so that the TTC could short-turn trains before they reach the place people are headed. “Sorry folks, this train is not going to the Airport, you will have to switch at Rangoon.”
“Many years ago, a proposed electrification of the Dufferin bus was rejected because, among other things, stringing overhead along Wilson south of Downsview Airport would not be allowed. What is different today that allows Silver Dart to hold an LRT route?” [especially since Downsview was a military base soon to be decomissioned, and Pearson is a busy with a capital BUSY commercial airport].
The answer is simple. The LRT is not a trolley bus. Or maybe that’s too simplistic. There’s GOT to be a more complicated answer.
Steve: Would I be far too suspicious to think that the TTC was telling a fib about overhead on Wilson?
The Silver Dart Drive is west of the 427 (technically on Mississauga), there is some road that goes under the 427 into the industrial area on the east side of the 427 (Toronto), the only people I see using that stop is that industrial area people, which would have to walk 1-2km under the 427 then to their respective buildings.
I am all for the 27/Dixon alignment, isn’t there a convetion centre in the Dixon/27 area anyways? there is 2 or 3 hotels in the area.
I don’t like the idea that the stops from Renforth (technically the border of Mississauga and Toronto is in that intersection) to Silver Dart Drive are going to be in Mississauga, I am sure the whole line will be one fare zone? Think how you had to pay extra fare on the Malton bus when crossing the 427 then that extra fare moved to pass the airport.
The western alignments (where they have to build a bridge over the 401) is to make that Mississauga connection. Why do WE have to move into Mississauga for the connection? Why can’t we get THEM to move into Toronto and make the connection here so we can go up the 27/Dixon option.
By the way, I think the Blue22/airport train/Crosstown and Finch LRTs should all be next to each other, ideally would be one station but different technologies would make that impossible? What about making it a la Kennedy station (one on top of each other).
“The Silver Dart alignment is intriguing because it takes the LRT, complete with its overhead power distribution system, right across the end of a runway. Many years ago, a proposed electrification of the Dufferin bus was rejected because, among other things, stringing overhead along Wilson south of Downsview Airport would not be allowed. What is different today that allows Silver Dart to hold an LRT route?”
If I’m not mistaken, isn’t Silver Dart below the level of both the east end of the runways and the 427; unlike Wilson along the south side of Downsview? If so, it might be that trucks on the 427 are a bigger hazard to landing aircraft than the proposed height of the overhead. At the same time, Downsview was a military base and the feds might have different regulations regarding height clearances along the approach to runways at such bases.
Steve: If I look at the airport on Google Earth, I don’t see light standards on this section of Silver Dart at all.
Is there any reason not to position the Renforth Transitway station further east at the corner of Renforth and Eglinton, rather than Commerce and Eglinton? The planned location is already much closer to the next station (Orbitor) than any other two station-pairs on the BRT, so moving it further east shouldn’t cause distance issues. In the original 1990s EA, the station was located at the northwest corner of Renforth and Eglinton; the only reason I can see from moving it from there to Commerce Blvd was to keep the station entirely in Mississauga instead of straddling the boundary. However the northwest corner, or better yet the northeast corner, seem to make more sense, ignoring boundary issues. Another alternative is that the Eglinton project simply extend the Mississauga transitway …
I do not like using Silver Dart for the LRT, for the same reasons mentioned by others. Unless they are going underground along Silver Dart (unlikely), it would serve the public better going via Carlingview. Just look at a satellite image (ie. maps.google.ca) and you can see why.
And no wires getting tangled by the feet of the swan boats as they come in for a landing.
I could see an LRT line becoming the preferred way to move between Terminals 1 and 3 (similar to Minneapolis and St. Louis), but I’m wondering if that connection would be better served by a western extension of the Finch LRT.
Hopefully, this bigger picture will be considered in the overall design of both routes.
I would prefer option three, provided that the Transitway could be built to terminate at the LRT’s Renforth stop. Based on the presentation, I’m not clear if it received lower marks because the inter-regional connection is not technically possible or because the project teams are not collaborating with each other.
The decision rule seems flawed to me. There are definitely more rigorous ways to rank projects than employing a total score methodology. But, beyond that, I think that there is a critical problem in the analysis because ease of implementation and estimated capital costs are not independent variables. They should be positively correlated to some extent. Normally, I would conclude that the inclusion of both doubly penalized option three versus option one but, strangely, the project team is claiming, numerically, that the lower capital cost project is actually more difficult to implement. Maybe this is possible. I don’t know. But it seems to defy common sense. In any event, inter-regional connectivity ends up being the tie breaker, and I am left with my original question.
“If I look at the airport on Google Earth, I don’t see light standards on this section of Silver Dart at all.”
But there are ones on the west side of the 427.
Short of an aviation safety expert throwing in their two cents on the matter, I think the only way we’ll get an idea of whether the TTC actually did their homework with Silver Dart is if someone knows the significance of those shorter light standards used on the 427 around the Renforth overpass and why that stretch of them doesn’t extend far enough north to cover the ends of both runways.
“Panel 22 shows the planned route structure for Transitway operations, and clearly the majority of the routes are headed for Kipling Station and its new regional terminal. However, transfer traffic for airport employees and customers, as well as for riders bound across Eglinton will be considerable and the hub should be designed to make such transfers as easy as possible.”
The Mississauga/GO BRT also runs a branch into Pearson, so those heading into Mississauga ride the BRT while those riding into Toronto ride the LRT, no real need to transfer if coming to/from the airport. For those continuing along Eglinton past the border then the transfer point becomes critical.
Mississauga’s BRT has stations at Renforth and Orbitor, with no provision for Commerce. There’s a .pdf showing the easternmost section of the BRT corridor indicating that the BRT station was planned with the possible LRT station west of Renforth complete with an underpass to access the station. Again, a provision has been made for eastward expansion, presumably for the TTC to use which allows them to access the terminal.
It would simply mean that the LRT would probably have to diverge off Eglinton at Matheson (or there abouts) in order to gain access. This access though is in the form of an overpass above Renforth. So you have the added cost of another overpass, where funding costs could be shared, countered by the station already being built. You’d just need to ramp up to get onto Commerce to cross the 401.
I have a nagging suspicion that if the two projects don’t communicate with one another we could end up with a messy transfer situation.
Steve: Yes, and yet the TTC shows a transfer station at Commerce. Definitely a left hand, right hand problem.
I don’t get it. What’s the BRT connection suppose to do? If BRT users want to get to airport, I think it was be easier and cheaper to get on another bus. If BRT users want to go to Toronto I think they would transfer at the Kipling subway station. And speaking of Kipling, I think the Eglington LRT should turn north at Kipling and then west on Dixon to reach the airport. This would serve a lot of residential areas, several airport hotels, reduced rate parking and not require any bridges or tunnels. Seems too obvious. I must be missing something.
Steve: You are not the first to have wondered why we are building a major transit interchange in the middle of nowhere while diverting the Eglinton LRT away from an obvious market. This may have something to do with keeping Metrolinx and their fetish for regional connections, meaningful or otherwise, happy.
Option 3 clearly seams superior to Option 1. It makes much more logical sense to extend the BRT from Commerce to Renforth than to extend the LRT from Renforth to Commerce and then effectively back again. In the Criteria and Ranking scores Option 3 beats Option 1 in the concrete catagories. (Travel Time, and Cost).
I wonder if the extra point that Option 1 gets for ease of implementation is due to the ease of not having to communicate with the BRT people to ask them to move their stop.
Steve: I would never make such an unkind suggestion.
Why oh why can’t there be two separate western terminals on the Eglinton line? An A and B route if you will. At Martin Grove, alternating LRTs could diverge, one going on to Commerce terminal, the other to Pearson (following the Route 5 option) terminal. Other cities have branch lines, why can’t we do it here? Even a circuit or loop design combining routes 1 and 5 would be better than forcing all passengers to take a scenic detour to Mississauga.
By building Martin Grove stop as a centre platform, I got a sense that they will short turn trains at Martin Grove. Maybe one in two trains or two in three trains will run to the airport. Most, if not all the stops past Martin Grove are centre platform, therefore any of those stop could potentially be built with a crossover.
I know for a fact that demand to the airport during rush hour isn’t that high since the 192 Airport Rocket doesn’t run a better headway during rush hour. It’s not the way people commute. I hope they don’t eliminate the 192 or majorly reduce service when the LRT opens.
Seems to me that the empty land between Eglinton, Renforth & Matheson ought to be good for something.
Have the inter-regional link at Eglinton and Renforth gives opportunities for a better terminal than having it at Commerce Drive. I think capital costs could be be higher but development over the terminal could really help that area.
Then there is the option of better service towards the north along Matheson Rd. – It is all industrial & office parks & big box stores now, but consider what will happen in the future when gas prices increase – we may see more corporate shuttle buses to help public transport users reach these spread out places.
I certainly dont want to see TTC & MT have to pay to service these spread out developments.
As for having the BRT and LRT both going to the Airport … what an interesting situation.
*We can have them both go – costs money but it is convenient and makes Mississauga happy – as Hazel points out, the airport is in Mississauga).
*Have the BRT stop at Eglinton & Renforth and let the LRT take people to and from the airport – the need to change to the BRT at Renforth will be annoying for Mississauga residents but they can pretend that the LRT is theirs.
*Have the BRT cover the airport and the LRT stop at Eglinton & Renforth – Toronto residents and TTC users will not like the change, but Hazel will remind us that the airport is actually in Mississauga.
The only thing we are missing here is Swan Boats along Etobicoke Creek. Will Metrolinx be sponsoring an “Inter-regional Swan Boat Terminal” at Etobicoke Creek & Brittania Road East?
The map on page 7 of the display panels PDF shows the GO logo where the Eglinton intersects the Georgetown, Barrie and Richmond Hill lines… at last, some joined up transport! 🙂
Steve: That would be rather tricky considering that Don Mills and Eglinton is close to the yet-to-begin service on the CPR (which crosses a bit to the north) while the Richmond Hill train is down in the valley rather further east.
Miroslav said: I don’t like the idea that the stops from Renforth (technically the border of Mississauga and Toronto is in that intersection) to Silver Dart Drive are going to be in Mississauga
Sorry Miroslav, I live 1 km west of Renforth and my property tax bill is from the City of Toronto, not Mississauga.
Steve: Considering that this line will be financed largely by Queen’s Park, I don’t think it matters where the boundary is. That said, the hub location seems to be dictated by old plans for the busway that should be revisited, to the detriment of the larger usefulness of the link to the airport and the lands around it.
I think the scoring system needs additional work…They are essentially weighting each factor identically. Is it realistic to say that “Travel Time ” is of identically important to “Ease of Implementation”?
I would like to see more deatiled information on the East Route, option 5:
1) If Steve is correct that this is 4 minutes faster (or about 10% for time to get to the Yonge subway), surely this should have greater importance since the identical trip generation scores for all routes suggests traffic is almost all to/from the airport.
2) Option 5 scores low on interconnectivity because it appears that the MT BRT is assumed to stop at Renforth regardless of the LRT location….Why can’t the MT BRT continue on non-BRT Eglinton W south of the the 427 interchange and connect to the Martin Grove station for those connecting toward Toronto? Airport destined BRT can still use the road system to reach the airport directly. The area south of the airport would be better served by buses that could connect onto the BRT for transfer to the LRT at Martin Grove.
3) Option 5 has high construction cost and high difficulty because of the specified long tunnel under the 401. What is the cost for a bridge option? If the LRT was routed up Martin Grove to Dixon, crossing the 401 is easier and additional traffic generators will be passed.
Thoughts on the BRT/LRT connecting.
Ignoring the fact that’s in in a field beside some kind of large grey building (a factory?) lets look at the direct connection. My question is simple – cannot you build the BRT stop itself to be directly under the road, and have a 1960’s style yonge-bloor connection, where stairs, escalators, and elevators connect the single centre platform of the LRT stop directly to the BRT stop below?
Steve: The main issue with putting the BRT underground is ventillation, not to mention special problems if anyone runs double-deckers. The BRT at this point is in a trench to have grade separation with the north-south streets.
Ever since this transit project was first announced in 2007, the ttc has given off the impression that the western end of the line would have two terminals: one connecting to the airport and the other linking with the Bus Transitway for Mississauga, why now are they trying to fit everything into on route? Why is the ttc so afraid of branching routes, they failed to do it with our subway lines and now there doing the same thing with our lrt lines.
Regarding the airport, you might say that demand is not there, I would say that since transit currrently claims a 1% share of that demand as opposed to more like at least 20% of rush hour demand, then maybe there is a huge share of demand yet to be captured.
Steve: A major demand that this line should address is employees of the airport and surrounding businesses. However, that area draws from all over the GTA, and many people will not come from areas easily served by a trip on any one line. Getting transit’s share up will be challenging.
Employees have to be at the airport in the early to meet passengers for a 6 AM flight. That means the Eglinton LRT would have to operate 2 or 3 hours before, or 24 hours a day, to get the employees to the airport.
If there is say 15 or 30 minute in the very early morning, the signaling should be able to operate so that the trains (or single Blue Night cars) could share a track while the other track is undergoing maintenance.
Steve: I suspect it will be a night bus just as today with the 307 Eglinton West Night. There are safety issues having underground stations in comparatively unused parts of town open all night.
If branching is not being considered as previously indicated on the advertising maps, one of the chief advantages for LRT over subway as mode choice is being neglected. Furthermore, the BRT line should be built in such a way that progressive LRTification can be done, and not some crazy interface that will cost millions to tear down before a single sleeper is laid.
For me, route 1 blows. It is far too indirect. Route 5 is closest to the ideal but a bit too far east. My routing would not be cheap but it would involve routing via a tunnel as with route 5 or up the hydro corridor and then a tunnel westward but then up Galaxy Blvd. The TTC should simply say that the BRT will end at Martin Grove and they will cover the cost. If Mississaugans want the BRT to serve YYZ more directly they should build a BRT branch up Silver Dart themselves.
September 11, 2009 at 2:32 pm
2) “Option 5 scores low on interconnectivity because it appears that the MT BRT is assumed to stop at Renforth regardless of the LRT location….Why can’t the MT BRT continue on non-BRT Eglinton W south of the the 427 interchange and connect to the Martin Grove station for those connecting toward Toronto? Airport destined BRT can still use the road system to reach the airport directly. The area south of the airport would be better served by buses that could connect onto the BRT for transfer to the LRT at Martin Grove.”
I asked the planner from Mississauga this and he said that there was a large employment node on the North side of Eglinton, which I believe is in Mississauga even if the South side is in Toronto, that they wanted to serve. Also they, Mississauga, wanted to send one line north from this station into the airport and this would be difficult to do from a station farther to the east. Mississauga claimed that the BRT could not make the grades necessary to put in a grade separated station farther East(?). It is interesting to note that only one of the Mississauga lines will run into the subway in base service. The others are only rush hour connections. The BRT is going to use the collector lanes of the 427 and Dundas to get to Kipling so it has to meet the LRT west of the 427 and there is not much room for their station.
According to one of the design consultants and a TTC type this route had the cheapest building cost for bridges across the 401 427 mess. There are also plans to put in high density commercial, retail and industrial development into all the vacant fields. It was also apparent that Mississauga would not move their BRT station. Since Metrolinks will probably be in on the construction and the province will foot part of the bill then he who pays the consultant gets to pick the “best” route.
In terms of the BRT, why not use the hydro corridor west of Kipling for a quick jaunt to the subway? Avoids highway traffic, and some well-timed traffic priority signals could take care of the at-grade intersections while allowing local routes such as Bloor and Burnhamthorpe to take advantage of it as well. Then the interchange could be at Martin Grove or at Kipling.
Jonathon Markowski says:
September 12, 2009 at 11:48 pm
“In terms of the BRT, why not use the hydro corridor west of Kipling for a quick jaunt to the subway? Avoids highway traffic, and some well-timed traffic priority signals could take care of the at-grade intersections while allowing local routes such as Bloor and Burnhamthorpe to take advantage of it as well. Then the interchange could be at Martin Grove or at Kipling.”
Probably because they have already made up their minds. Don’t confuse them with facts or practical alternatives.
It’d be nice if some caveats attached to this Transit City plan were modified in some regard. Specifically what’s there to serve along Eglinton proper west of Lloyd Manor deserving of rapid transit of any kind? I don’t necessarily feel that the Crosstown LRT should route to the Airport Corporate Centre, especially considering the 4 kms of no man’s land it’d go pass en route. Both the 111 and 112 buses can provide frequent local transit through this stretch. The TTC may also wish to retain the 32B bus as most of ACC will never be walking distance of a LRT station there, just a handful of buildings if that.
Meanwhile a more northernly alignment could serve TOD such as convention centres, hotels/motels, a corporate business park, airport related industries, apartment buildings and a shopping mall. So mirroring Kipling Stn’s interregional hub status, the Kipling/Eglinton stop could be transformed into a bona fide station with bus bays (on Crown land readily available within the Richview Exwy corridor) whereby Mississauga Transit routes such as #17, 18, 27, 35, 50 and 57 can terminate. Thereafter, only four more stations may be needed: Martin Grove/Westway, Dixon/Hwy 27, Dixon/Carlingview and Airport Terminal One opposite the people mover tram. This wider spacing lends to the fact that the LRT preferably should be in its own exclusive side-of-arterial ROW, most likely elevated.
Ah. Well now it all makes sense. Are there going to be any priority measures on the reconfigured 427, or shall we contend with vehicular traffic that, obviously, must be much, much lower on one of the province’s busiest highways now that there’s gonna be a bus every 10 or 15 minutes…
Steve: I don’t think anyone has thought of how the buses will “speed” to and from Kipling Station.
Steve: I don’t think anyone has thought of how the buses will “speed” to and from Kipling Station.
If they had, the hydro corridor would have been the obvious candidate.
When I’ve been driving on 427 between 401 and QEW in rush-hour, I’ve always thought how great it is to be on a highway that actually moves, in comparison to the 401, QEW, Gardiner. As major Toronto highways go, it’s not bad in rush hour, as long as there are no accidents. Shame they don’t snag an HOV lane in the Collectors though, as part of the upcoming reconstruction.
Funny how I figured as much. But since the majority of peak demand would be headed there (during the busiest part of the day… on a busy 400-series highway…) you might hope that they would have. A busway beside Kipling in the hydro corridor makes a lot of sense because it would be shared by many mississauga buses and the already frequent express service on Kipling. Not to mention that if it proved to be faster than the 427/Dundas combination (feasible with proper traffic priority measures at intersections… wishful thinking) then the TTC rockets (191,192 (will that one still exist?)) could also divert there. Speaking of the airport rocket, if MT services will [somehow] connect Kipling Station to the Eglinton LRT, then is there a need for it?
I expect the 192 to remain, as improvements for it should be part of Big Move #2.
I’ve worked at the airport and drove that stretch of silver dart Dr daily so I can confirm that the road is slightly lower than the runway. How much lower, I don’t know but I’d bet it’s about 5′ or more. That’s probably why the can accomodate the overhead wires there. Wilson on the other hand is on the same level as Downsview.
There really needs to be some agency set up to mediate between GO/Peel/TTC/Airport transit in this area. I really think it’s time to make the airport area a destination by converging multiple lines of different transit types into one central area. Much the same way Union station brings together VIA/GO/Subway/Bus/inter city bus. Metrolinx are you listening?
This is entirely speculative but I was wondering if previous concerns re: trolley wires might have something to do with RF interference? (For an example – use an AM radio along a downtown streetcar route)
Perhaps it is felt that modern overhead and power supply can minimise effects on airport navigation/communications frequencies?
Steve: Transit vehicles run on DC and so the wires, per se, should not screw up comm systems. Some of the earlier solid state power controllers threw off lots of RF interference, but I think whatever regs related to the Dufferin bus proposal predated this issue.
Mark Dowling says:
September 16, 2009 at 10:42 pm
“This is entirely speculative but I was wondering if previous concerns re: trolley wires might have something to do with RF interference? (For an example – use an AM radio along a downtown streetcar route)
“Perhaps it is felt that modern overhead and power supply can minimise effects on airport navigation/communications frequencies?”
Steve: “Transit vehicles run on DC and so the wires, per se, should not screw up comm systems. Some of the earlier solid state power controllers threw off lots of RF interference, but I think whatever regs related to the Dufferin bus proposal predated this issue. ”
While they run on DC their choppers do create a lot of harmonics that make noise on am band radios and aircraft have am, not fm, radios eventhough they operate in the vhf band. This is left over from world war II days when the vhf radios were introduced but before they new how to control freuency modulation. If i remember correctly, the interference from the new U-Bahn in Cologne created so much interference with the telephone system they had to shut it down just after it opened for a week while they installed filters on all the cars.
When you drive near a street car in Toronto and have you am radio on you can hear the controller whine. I don’t know if it would cause a problem for the aircraft but it does create noise on am radios.
I just got an e-mail from firstname.lastname@example.org stating that “To confirm, after a thorough review, the decision was made to proceed with Route 1, as it would provide the best connection to existing and future development in the vicinity of the Airport.
More details will be provided at the next round of consultation.”
No human name attached to the e-mail.
Steve: Yes, I received an email from them that really didn’t address the issues I had raised. Sadly typical of what passes for consultation. There are times I wonder why I bother.
Those “more details” should have been part of the consultation we have already had. It’s the usual pattern. First meeting, there’s no details because they’re not that far. Second meeting, there are details, but you cannot challenge them because they’ve already made up their minds.