At its meeting on November 17, the TTC will consider a report on the Eglinton LRT Transit Project Assessment. A few items have caught my eye already:
- Another round of public meetings starting from November 23 to December 10 will present the final version of the design.
- The scheme for handling left turns has been modified from that shown in the original plan.
- Construction is proposed for three stages, but service will not reach the airport until 2020. The section west from Eglinton West Station to Commerce Blvd. would open in 2016, the east section to Kennedy in 2018, and the airport link in 2020. Promoters of the Pan Am Games might have questions about that timetable.
- The Silver Dart alignment to the airport remains the preferred option, and the line will not serve the hotel strip on Dixon Road.
- The station formerly located at Brentcliffe is now at Laird.
Revised November 13, 10:15 am:
The process for handling Commission approval of the Transit Project Assessment is rather odd because only the Executive Summary is available at this time. Full details of the proposal have not been provided, and yet the Commission is being asked to sign off on the TPA.
This begs the question of how the TTC can “approve” an assessment when the document is not before them and may not yet exist in final form.
Airport Access
As shown at earlier public meetings, the TTC has retained the Silver Dart alignment into the airport lands. This option, as opposed to a route crossing highway 401 further east and serving the Dixon Road hotel strip, is favoured because of connections with the Mississauga/GO BRT scheme and because it has the simplest 401 crossing. This decision appears also to be driven by seeing the airport, as opposed to the businesses around it, as a regional node.
However, the actual connection to the airport is the last of three stages in the project with direct service linking Eglinton West Station to the airport delayed until 2020.
A related study, still underway by Metrolinx and the Airport Authority, must deal with the function of an LRT line within the airport — where it will connect, whether it will serve multiple points or only a single terminal, how it will relate to the Union-Pearson rail service and whether it will link to or replace the inter-terminal shuttle.
Don Mills / Eglinton Station
The proposed design places the Eglinton line in an underground station with a surface stop for the future Don Mills LRT, and an offstreet 7-bay bus terminal to the northeast of the intersection. The Executive Summary does not include a detailed plan of the station and, therefore, it is impossible to say how an underground Don Mills LRT or Downtown Relief Line station might be built here as an alternative.
All transfer moves from the Don Mills LRT to the Eglinton line are assumed to occur on the surface at the northeast corner of the intersection. Here, passengers would walk between the main station entrance and the Don Mills LRT platform in the middle of the street. One cannot help asking why this platform has not been designed to be underground as part of the LRT station, or at least with enough width on the surface to include an entrance building. Don Mills is quite wide at this location and there is ample room for a large surface LRT platform.
This intersection is also ripe for development both above the proposed bus terminal and on other nearby lands. As a future major interchange, the station should be designed to serve future development.
Stations and Left Turns
Surface stations will have the now-familiar farside stop configuration, but platforms will be designed for three-car trains. With the only platform access at the rear of each platform, pedestrian congestion at major stops may interfere with operations. It is unclear whether extra-wide platforms have been provided to deal with this.
The “standard” layout includes left turn lanes in both directions, although an alternative scheme is proposed for major junctions where turning traffic will be shifted beyond intersections to a separate U-turn. This raises the question of an alternative nearside arrangement for the platforms at such locations, but this is not discussed in the report.
Moreover, there is no discussion of traffic signal timings and priority systems. It could be possible that one station could have three associated sets of traffic signals — one at the station/intersection itself, and one of each approach for the U-turning movements across the tracks. This is a recipe for severe interference with LRT operations.
The design still appears to be only a sketch, not a detailed plan, and is a poorly thought-out response to criticism of the original scheme with U/left turns via the north-south streets. I have no doubt this will raise additional questions at the coming public meetings, and it is unclear how feedback from that process will get into the final design. Moreover, the issue of large vehicles making U-turns across the LRT right-of-way has not been addressed.
The fundamental issue is that at major intersections, there will be left turning traffic. The problem is how it should cross the LRT line. The U/right scheme proposed now appears even worse than the “standard” configuration. The report states that most intersections “operate over their overall respective capacities” during the peak periods, and this implies a considerable amount of turning traffic that must be handled.
Tunneling
The underground sections will be built with twin 6m diameter bored tunnels. These are large enough to accommodate any conceivable Light Rail Vehicle as well as future conversion to full subway operation.
For underground stations, the proposed plans show two-car trains, but the platforms have a “reserved” area allowing for extension to three-car sets (or four-car subway trains). The box structure of the typical station is designed to fit under the standard road allowance found on the central part of Eglinton where the line will be underground. The illustration shows fairly deep stations, although this will likely vary at points along the line given the surface topology and the presence of utilities under the street. No fare collection equipment is shown for the stations as all Transit City lines will use the Presto smart card system.
The station designs do not indicate how provision will be made for conversion from low to high platform operation if there were a mode change.
No preliminary designs are shown for the connections to the existing Spadina and Yonge subway stations, nor for potential future links with rail corridors and GO services.
Steve Munro 
As a cyclist, I would prefer combining the two bike lanes into a single lane (like the Martin Goodman trail) and separate them from traffic by a barrier. So far, Toronto has been lagging in the design of protected bike lanes. By keeping motor vehicles out, they improve safety.
LikeLike
Wow… Airport in 2020? that makes no sense.
I did not know where Commerce Blvd was until now. Unless I misunderstand, they are going to go full tilt 13km to Missisauga and then take another 4 years to finish the last 2 km to the airport?
LikeLike
Just passed through Eglinton West Station today. There are still signs posted at the main entrance and the collector booth for a community meeting in September.
LikeLike
Not very happy the the underground section was pushed back to Keele.
It would have been more logical to have the underground section start east of Jane … but I guess due to a lack of funding they can’t do that.
Another thing that doesn’t make sense is Leslie.
The TTC should either consider puting that stop on the south side of Eglinton so it won’t disrupt traffic — there’s enough space to do that —
or they can also consider making Leslie underground considering Don Mills will be underground.
Steve: I prefer at least looking at a design with the LRT running along the south side of Eglinton between the portal at Brentcliffe and Don Mills Station. There will be issues with any arrangement, but the TTC appears to have simply ignored this possibility.
LikeLike
Ps based on what I saw in the report there’s going to be a ton of traffic signals on Eglinton — one for intersections and one just for left turns? That doesn’t make much sense.
There are just so much design problems with this project maybe the TTC should go back to the drawing board.
Steve: The underlying question about those extra left turn signals is whether they will be arranged to favour transit or traffic. So-called priority signalling in parts of the streetcar network actually slows down transit service by limiting the number of streetcars that can get through in one green cycle for transit and always giving left turns their shot. The design needs to start with transit’s needs and then fit in the other traffic.
LikeLike
The Don Mills station design is interesting; essentially it will be underground again, with an above ground section between Brentcliffe and west of Don Mills Road.
The figure in the report shows the tracks in the centre of Eglinton west of Don Mills Road … but I wonder why they don’t run on the south side of Eglinton between Brentcliffe and Leslie. If they did that, it wouldn’t interfere with the Leslie intersection, and there wouldn’t be any driveways, etc. to cross from Brentcliffe to Don Mills Road other than the emergency access road to Brian Peck Crescent, and the vastly overdesigned flyover for Celestica, which really seems no necessary these days.
Also intersting is that it shows the Don Mills LRT aboveground down the centre of Don Mills Road; but there is no access to the underground station from the Don Mills Road LRT platform. Instead riders must wait for a green light, and cross the road to get to an underground station entrance. There’s plenty of land available at this intersection to widen the Don Mills LRT platform slightly to allow for access directly into the underground station.
Steve: Restructuring Eglinton to run the LRT along the south side is emminently sensible, although a bit tricky at the railway east of Leslie where you would have to build a new LRT underpass. As for Don Mills Station, yes, that needs to be designed so that there is no pedestrian traffic on the surface making connections between transit lines.
LikeLike
Knowing the TTC, there won’t actually be a connection to the airport while the LRT terminates at Commerce. The 192 Rocket will blow right past on the highway, and actual passengers will be forced to pay another fare to get on the Mississauga Buses that might actually go there.
LikeLike
Steve wrote, “Restructuring Eglinton to run the LRT along the south side is emminently sensible, although a bit tricky at the railway east of Leslie where you would have to build a new LRT underpass.”
I strongly suspect that the cost of building this underpass could pretty much be covered by building a south-side right of way instead of a median. This is because this type of right of way can be built for about $30 million per km if ballasted tie construction is used. Compare this to $50 million per km for a concrete-encased median. The benefits of extending the exclusive right of way all the way to Don Mills will pay off in a small reduction in operating costs from the increased operational reliability this introduces, which is a yearly reduction from opening until forever.
Alas, as I have mentioned before, I have been told by someone on the inside that there is an aversion in the TTC’s track maintenance department to ballasted tie construction for some reason.
I suspect we could create a huge list of this sort of bone-headed thinking that has limited benefits of our transit system.
LikeLike
The section regarding property requirements really caught my attention. Specifically: “full acquisition, (including demolition of buildings and relocation of existing businesses or residences) on 45 preperties”. I understand this was common during both the Yonge and Bloor-Danforth subway construction, but I wonder how this will be viewed today? I imagine the property owners in question will not be very accepting of these changes. Is there a potential for legal challenges that would ultimately delay construction of the LRT?
The restricted left turns at several instersections, replaced by alternate routes or u-turns, also caught my attention. Best to keep this one as quiet as possible, because motorists will be livid when they find out about these changes. From an LRT perspective, it’s great and will minimize delays. But drivers will spend much more time turning onto the street in question. Victoria Park seems especially odd. Today, westbound traffic can turn left onto Eglinton Sq and then left on VP, which is actually quite efficient. But the document appears to imply that eastbound traffic will also route through Eglinton Sq, which would mean that drivers would have to turn right at VP, left at Eglinton Sq, left at Eglinton, and then right onto VP. This seems awfully convoluted. It would be better to have eastbound traffic turn left onto Jonesville Cres, then left onto VP.
LikeLike
I may be missing something but why is there a 7-bay bus terminal at Don Mills and Eglinton? Surely the local routes don’t need that much space.
Steve: Thinking of this in advance of the construction of the Don Mills line, we would probably have separate bays for Don Mills (2), Flemingdon Park, Lawrence East, and a local Eglinton bus. It is also possible that they designed it that way because that’s how much room there is on the property.
LikeLike
For the Don Mills LRT platform at Don Mills Station, even better than simply access to the underground section would be a larger hallway/anteroom under the roadbed where passengers could linger. A notice board could announce the arrival of the next DM LRT train so people could surge up to meet it, rather than waiting in the elements on the platform… I know, larger tunnel means higher costs, but we’re building for the long term here.
I also notice the “Typical Surface Stop” layout shows a three-car train while the “Typical Underground Stop” shows only two-cars… is this showing the flexibility of the system?
Steve: The trains magically shrink when underground.
LikeLike
I have a bias for having the LRT underground between Jane and Black Creek, just to avoid the hill at Weston Road. But that is just me.
I did notice all the crossover tracks and tail tracks mentioned in the report, which allow for storage of disabled trains.
One problem, not mentioned, is just west of Martin Grove where a LOT of traffic is currently bottled up exiting from 401 and 427 onto Eglinton West. It is especially troublesome during “rush” hours. Having the light rail vehicles crossing the eastbound lanes can be presented with delays, if not handled right.
LikeLike
If they are expanding the bridge that spans Highland Creek for the Malvern LRT, so the LRT will run on the east side of Morningside, then why can’t the same be done at Leslie?
Steve: If the LRT is south of Eglinton, it must also pass through the embankment holding the railway line east of Leslie. This should be possible, and I don’t know why the study didn’t examine it.
LikeLike
I wonder how feasible it would be to elevate the Leslie Station. It’s hard to say without looking at the elevations, but if the LRT was kept at the same elevation as where Eglinton crosses under the railway track, and then crossed Leslie and the Don River elevated, then that could allow it to stay in the centre and not interfere with traffic at Leslie …
… though it might be too difficult to modify the Eglinton bridge over the Don River to do this.
Steve: For that kind of money, we may as well bury it. There is a reason for the “L” in “LRT”. I feel the line really should be on the south side of Eglinton, and would have preferred at least that this be shown as an option.
LikeLike
Steve where is this new bus loop at Caledonia going to be located? I looked on google earth, and unless I’m really missing something the only place within one block of Caledonia and Eglinton that can hold any sort of loop is a tiny laneway connecting with a side street beside a KFC. It looks like that part of the road is only there because Eglinton starts to curve slightly south to go over the rail tracks.
As well, what would they be using a bus loop for at Caledonia and Eglinton? The 47 Lansdowne should continue to run right through the intersection up to Yorkdale. Unless the TTC decides to needlessly split the route for an extra needless transfer point. But the TTC wouldn’t do that, they know better!
LikeLike
MHuigens: I also notice the “Typical Surface Stop” layout shows a three-car train while the “Typical Underground Stop” shows only two-cars… is this showing the flexibility of the system?
You may also notice the “reserved” section of the underground structure, which is about one car length long. My guess is that the platform will be roughed in and walled up for day 1 (2 car operation) and then opened up at a future date. (Perhaps the text on the images should be expanded to indicate that)
Aboveground roadway / property reconfiguration for 3 car trains could be done during initial construction, but realistically the trains will stop short to keep passengers close to the intersection when they’re only 2 cars long. That said, if they didn’t show the 3 car trains, people might question the need for property takes at that location.
LikeLike
The U-turn-to-go-left arrangement is not unique to an LRT ROW; it’s been used for some time in various jurisdictions to reduce intersection congestion, especially Michigan, for which the setup is named: the Michigan left. I’m not sure how drivers will react, but I think it could work.
Steve: What is missing from the published reports are traffic statistics showing how many cars want to make those left turns. This drives the amount of red time the LRT line would face at the signal. In the direction of travel, this arrangement avoids holding LRT traffic for a left turn phase just before a stop, but this also creates a new traffic signal for the other direction of LRT flow.
The diagram in the report shows the setup for only one direction of traffic, but in many cases, there will be left/U turn provisions in both directions. This could create more, not less, opportunities for delay of the LRT service which will now face three rather than one signal.
LikeLike
They might consider extending the base 47 branch from St. Clair up to Eglinton, or maybe running the 14 Glencairn bus down there as well- this would be a useful connection.
LikeLike
The centre platforms shown in the renderings of the underground stations look quite narrow, especially with the width of staircases and elevators. I worry that when the Eglinton Line reaches capacity, these will be congested like Bloor-Yonge and St. George. Wouldn’t it be better to build side platforms so that they can be expanded more easily should more platform space be necessary at a later date? This would also allow the TTC, if it wanted to, to dispense with the fare mezzanine and build separate entrances on each side of the road (similar to the original design of Dundas station), more than offsetting the extra cost of having additional elevators and escalators.
LikeLike
I believe constructing a roughed in wall is a waste of money and materials. They should have temporary metal barrier installed to prevent people from falling onto the tracks or boarding from that end. The stations are small enough with a 3 car trains platform, but to be boxed in a 2 car train platform. I feel a bit claustrophobia, but I guess Queens Quay is a small station too and that seem okay.
It seems easier to remove temporary barrier than a wall. I am thinking they actually save money by not decorating the roughed in section. The tracks would be only half a feet lower than the platform level and there is no third rail. It’s a lot safer than subway.
LikeLike
Calvin Henry-Cotnam said: “Alas, ….. I have been told by someone on the inside that there is an aversion in the TTC’s track maintenance department to ballasted tie construction for some reason.”
One presumes the TC lines in street center reservation will be encased in concrete in a similar manner to St Clair. This begs the question (perhaps 20 years or less down the road) ‘what happens when the track is worn out and will need major replacement?’ If this were Queen St (or St Clair) local streetcars, they throw a bus service on for 4 to 6 weeks at a time, divert or cancel the streetcars and everyone gets ticked off in one manner or another until it’s done. But — TC lines are not local streetcars, but, in effect, rapid transit lines perhaps one step down from subways. To replace the track, they will need to first have the concrete broken up and removed, then the replacement, then re-concreting, then (hopefully) a bit of grinding to get the concrete off the railhead, and service resumes. That would entail shutting down large portions of a semi rapid transit line for weeks at a time. The replacement buses (assuming they had enough to actually replace the capacity) would be stuck in the reduced traffic lanes. Chaos would ensue.
Were they to use open trackage the job become so much simpler, and sections could easily be rebuilt in the overnight closure period. Can”t do that with concrete. Doesn’t anyone at the TTC see what they’re sticking themselves with (or perhaps they don’t give a rat’s ass as that problem will occur after they’re all retired sucking up their pensions and they won’t have to worry about it.
City forefathers in Toronto are already responsible for poor planning in having no foresight in the construction of roadways, saddling future generations with narrow four lane roads for most of our major streets. We’ve all seen how that worked out for us. Now TTC want to screw it up for the future as well? That’s almost criminal behavior. And, the concrete-embedded track will be far noisier than open trackage, and that’s another problem they saddle us with. I’ve seen it said that all the new rubber-encased track is quieter, and perhaps it is a few decibels down the scale, but I’ve stood beside cars passing by on the new track and my hearing is quite good – and I hear little difference.
Track laying for the TC lines needs a major re-think, in my opinion.
LikeLike
Steven, I wouldn’t get too hung up on the method they use to pre-build and then barricade off the third car portion of the underground station. No doubt this particular bit will be done in the least costly way (unless the project is magically under budget at the time of construction). 😉
LikeLike
John F Bromley wrote, “This begs the question (perhaps 20 years or less down the road) ‘what happens when the track is worn out and will need major replacement?’”
If turn back crossovers are doubled (facing-point crossovers as well as trailing), then it is possible to operate single-track for short distances while the other track is taken out of service. Still, with concrete encasement, it may be advantageous to replace both at the same time.
John F Bromley also wrote, “Were they to use open trackage the job become so much simpler, and sections could easily be rebuilt in the overnight closure period.”
Not only that, but it is fairly simple to add a pair of switches to make a section single-track while work is being done. This eliminates the safety issue with facing-point switches. When I was in Oslo in August 2008, there was a couple of kilometre section (Ullern to Abbediengen, for those familiar with Oslo) of one of the tram lines being rebuilt using temporary single track.
LikeLike
All comments above this point were made before the extended version of this article was posted.
LikeLike
If Paris can have this then any new Toronto ROW should too. Maybe when they rip the FieldTurf out of BMO Field it could be laid on the Queensway as a trial 🙂
LikeLike
Is the initial plan to operate with only 2 car trains on Eglinton? How will 2 car trains be able to handle the projected demand?
Steve: The key point here is “initial” vs “projected”. The demand numbers the TTC and Metrolinx have used are out in 2031, and there is some disagreement about these projections. 2-car trains on a 3-minute headway give you 5,000 per hour more or less. You can change the train length and/or headway to adjust.
LikeLike
Why is there no major interchange planned where this line crosses the super-high-volume GO rail corridor near Weston Rd?
Steve: I believe that’s called Weston Station. This is mentioned explicitly in the TPA document along with other possible rail locations.
LikeLike
I am starting to wonder if the idea to build subway on Eglinton should be revisited.
The original cost estimate for Eglinton Crosstown LRT was $2.2 B. That amount of money builds less than 10 km of subway, and such a short subway would not be particularly useful on Eglinton. Assuming that $2.2 B is all we could spend on this line, and given that all models predict the demand within LRT capabilities, Eglinton LRT looked like the only reasonable choice.
However, the cost estimate has grown to $4.6 B, and those funds have been allocated. This is still not enough to build full Eglinton subway, but probably enough to build subway along all of Eglinton West, Yonge to Pearson. The distance is about 18 km, and not all of them need to be tunneled. There can be an at-grade section in Richview corridor, elevated over the 401 / 427 maze, and possibly elevated through residential parts of Etobicoke (although the latter section would have to be decorated so it does not look like the Gardiner concrete slab). If the average cost can be brought down to $250 M per km, then 18 km would cost $4.5 B.
The switch to subway would resolve most of the design problems you discussed above. Other benefits would include fast and inexpensive (unlike ARL) transit connection to the airport from a large part of Toronto, higher total ridership (partly new transit riders, and partly shifted from Bloor line), and no need for future LRT-to-subway conversion if the ridership keeps growing.
The drawbacks would be delayed rapid transit service to Flemmington Park area, and delayed relief of the congested section of Eglinton East next to Yonge. However, if DRL subway materializes and its eastern leg reaches Eglinton, it will mitigate those problems. In particular, the 54 Lawrence East, 51 Leslie, and 100 Flemmington buses would operate off the Eglinton / Don Mills station of DRL subway. Only buses 34 and maybe 56 would keep running on Eglinton East to Yonge.
LikeLike
The logic behind encasing the tracks in concrete was, I believe, for the purpose of allowing emergency vehicles to access the ROW if needed. The section of ballasted tracks along the Queensway doesn’t have very much requiring access (save for the development at Windermere). A ballasted section along Eglinton would effectively put up a barrier between the north and south sides of the road. The eastern portion of the route is lined with shops and businesses, which would require easy access for emergency vehicles.
Grass would be a nice, environmentally-friendly compromise. Although I think there will probably be those who will say it isn’t practical due to our weather conditions (snow/ice) which aren’t really issues for cities that have sodded their ROWs.
LikeLike
I see the TTC is still going ahead and putting people’s lives at risk by building the bus bays at Keele.
There is NO need for any bus bays here, just extend two routes and everyone is happy.
What happened to the part about SAFETY in the TTC moto?
Steve: What are you talking about?
LikeLike
“If Paris can have this then any new Toronto ROW should too.”
It’s my understanding that a grass ROW is unworkable because of our climate (it wouldn’t be compatible with a snowplow). Also don’t forget that the Fire Department demands access to the ROWs (which doesn’t seem to be an issue anywhere else) and fire trucks don’t run on rails.
I do hope that the TTC is at least thinking about what will happen in two decades from now when the rail needs to be replaced. They’re not so near-sighted as to miss that, are they?
LikeLike
Calvin Henry-Cotnam says:
November 13, 2009 at 9:40 am
John F Bromley wrote, “This begs the question (perhaps 20 years or less down the road) ‘what happens when the track is worn out and will need major replacement?’”
“If turn back crossovers are doubled (facing-point crossovers as well as trailing), then it is possible to operate single-track for short distances while the other track is taken out of service. Still, with concrete encasement, it may be advantageous to replace both at the same time.
RW: Since the TTC wants to operate 5 minute headways this means that you need a lot of cross-overs to handle this close headway. You also have the problem about signalling it and allowing for the inevitable bunching. Many other locations think that a 15 minute headway warrants LRT and can get away with this type of single track operation. I don’t think they can do it.
“John F Bromley also wrote, “Were they to use open trackage the job become so much simpler, and sections could easily be rebuilt in the overnight closure period.”
“Not only that, but it is fairly simple to add a pair of switches to make a section single-track while work is being done. This eliminates the safety issue with facing-point switches. When I was in Oslo in August 2008, there was a couple of kilometre section (Ullern to Abbediengen, for those familiar with Oslo) of one of the tram lines being rebuilt using temporary single track.”
RW: with open track they would probably not need to to do much, if any, single track operation. They could weld the trail, haul it into location, then switch it out over night. There would be no need for single track operation except in certain confined areas as in the time when the TTC rebuilt the Long Branch underpass at Humber Loop. I fully support John’s comments; the line should be open track on ballast like the Queensway. How come the TTC never tried to convert it to full pavement? If they are worried about pedestrian traffic then put in removable “planking: to accommodate them. If they are worried about emergency vehicles then use heavier, but removable planking.
LikeLike
There’s one major difference with the Michigan Left. There’s nothing to cross in the middle of the street. For example, on Michigan Avenue in Detroit, it is pretty easy to make a u turn after a major intersection, but it isn’t signalled, and there are no tracks to cross.
LikeLike
Calvin H-C said: “Not only that, but it is fairly simple to add a pair of switches to make a section single-track while work is being done. This eliminates the safety issue with facing-point switches. When I was in Oslo in August 2008, there was a couple of kilometre section … of one of the tram lines being rebuilt using temporary single track.”
I saw exactly the same procedure in frequent use in Amsterdam in 2009 – they were expanding their subway and there was lots of surface construction. There there is at least one stretch of single line streetcar track on a narrow street which is permanently used in both directions, controlled by traffic lights. There are also the fascinating lift bridges with on streetcar lines where the track AND the overhead all lift.
LikeLike
I hadn’t even considered the issue of grass/open cover vs. concrete in terms of its implications for maintenance. Having read the posts on this subject, I am very much persuaded of the virtue of the open ROW.
But this is now just one of many questions about this project leaving me troubled.
Whether its the absence of he subway interface design concepts; or the strange left-turn arrangements.
Or the absence of any station attendants/security.
For underground stations, I don’t like this; and I’m a young man who feels comfortable walking just about anywhere in the City, but it would be very easy to feel trapped, late at night, alone on a platform. For young women, or older folks or the disabled, it just doesn’t sound wise.
I know there’s Queen’s Quay, but which I still have some concern over, but really its different. In a tourist area, a business district with high density residential, its not likely to be empty/lonely much; its also very close to the surface, which probably doesn’t make it any safer, but does, to my mind, create that illusion.
The idea of stations large enough to have escalators and concourses in low-density, low-use nodes (I’m thinking Laird here) …..
****
In any event, I’d hate to stall this project on the one hand, when the money is already promised … and yet the combination of these different issues is leaving me with a sense of unease.
LikeLike
Adam Hawkins says “I do hope that the TTC is at least thinking about what will happen in two decades from now when the rail needs to be replaced. They’re not so near-sighted as to miss that, are they?”
Then they operate temporary shuttle buses like they did with the 505 Dundas while they spend months to pull out the concrete and rebuild the tracks. I hope Metrolinx have budgeted maintenance cost in 30 years. Of which I highly doubt.
Does the TTC replace their subway tracks at night?
Steve: Subway tracks are replaced at night although under certain special circumstances, the TTC will shut part of the line down with a late opening on Sunday, or even a bus shuttle for the entire day on the outer end of a line.
One important thing about the construction of the “new” track is that there are two separate layers of concrete for the track structure. The bottom one holds the steel ties while the upper one holds the rails. (There is also a third layer underneath this which is the road foundation.) The idea is that when the track needs to be replaced, only the top layer will be removed.
The construction projects we see in places like St. Clair involve complete reconstruction of all three layers and that’s why they take so long. This is not to say that a track replacement won’t cause service interruptions, but it should not be as extensive or time consuming as the original construction.
LikeLike
Look at the proposed bus bays at Keele and Eglinton. Buses enter the bus bays through the middle of the intersection at Trethewey and Yore Road.
Steve: As I read that plan, there is a northbound path with right-in off Trethewey, through the loop, then right-out onto Yore Road. Southbound Keele buses would make a left into the loop from Yore Road, then left out onto Trethewey north of Eglinton. Trethewey buses would turn south-to-east into Yore Road and circle the loop clockwise, leaving with a right-out onto Trethewey northbound.
The layout appears to have two separate loading areas. One serves only the northbound Keele buses while the other serves southbound Keeles and the Trethewey route.
Also, this loop looks to be designed as an unpaid fare area, something that makes sense in the world of smart cards that will apply by the time it opens.
LikeLike
Gil wrote about grassed ROWs, “Although I think there will probably be those who will say it isn’t practical due to our weather conditions (snow/ice) which aren’t really issues for cities that have sodded their ROWs.”
Then Adam Hawkins wrote, “It’s my understanding that a grass ROW is unworkable because of our climate…”
The climate issue is thrown out the window when one considers that Oslo uses grassed ROWs in some places around the city, both on private ROWs and on median ROWs.
There is something that does not sit right with me about grassed ROWs, that may very well be concern about very little. How does the infrastructure hold up to being buried? I know we are not burying untreated wooden ties, but even pressure treated ties and steel components likely have a reduced life in this situation. More importantly, how does one see if there is a weakened condition forming? With concrete encasement, I suspect there will be visible damage to the concrete at the surface if there is any shifting to the track structure below. Grass and soil are somewhat forgiving to things shifting beneath them, and this could hide unexpected problems that may be forming.
LikeLike
My favourite line comes from 4.4.2:
“Measures will be implemented during construction to maintain navigation clearances and safety for vessels.”
Are the Mimico Creek, the Humber and the Don part of the St. Lawrence Seaway or are they protecting these rivers for possible operation of Swan Boats? Are you keeping something from us Steve?
LikeLike
Another problem not mentioned using concrete on the ROW is weed control. Do we control the weeds on our current ROW’s? I see no weed control on sidewalks either, for that matter. As the weeds grow, their root systems expand in the concrete cracks, making the cracks wider. Finally, the roots will break the concrete apart. That means an earlier reconstruction. And a higher cost.
Steve: The TTC stopped spraying on its rights-of-way because of issues with the City’s pesticide ban. They are supposed to be coming up with some sort of alternative, but I don’t know what it is, of if it exists yet.
LikeLike