From what I've heard they never got their stuff together and completed the Pearson transportation master plan (or something similarly named) that was supposed be done a decade ago. As such they don't "want" a new transit line entering the airport as they have no clue what it's routing would potentially block because they still have no clue what they want the airport and it's surrounding infrastructure to look like long-term.

That's a very rough retelling and I'm sure theirs other on here with more info
 
rbt said:
More importantly, they're trying to find the 3rd party willing to pay for it. The Transit Hub came with a large office and hotel development expected to be leased to companies like WeWork.

I get the impression airlines at Pearson will support the project but they're not willing to fund it.
Click to expand...
Frankly i think the province and feds need to step in here. Metrolinx clearly has plans for s hub ...

So if someone like ford is willing to drop a billion on a convention..why not an extra couple billion to support better regional connection from the airport to wherever the hell he wants to build that center
 
Thaboss said:
Frankly i think the province and feds need to step in here. Metrolinx clearly has plans for s hub ...

So if someone like ford is willing to drop a billion on a convention..why not an extra couple billion to support better regional connection from the airport to wherever the hell he wants to build that center
Click to expand...
I guess not because the emperor of Toronto now wants Jets polluting over the entire waterfront by pushing for jets to / from the USA (at a time when travel to/from the USA travel Is down dramatically) and at an airport that can barely handle current drop off and pick up traffic as it is. Dough boys Ontario is WILD!
 
crs1026 said:
I would say that the concerns over the Flats can be dispensed with, although the odd protest sign remains on Eglinton.
Click to expand...
I mean there were a lot of tree removals, I don't agree with the protest goals (tunnel under the humber lol) but they also could have run the elevated section in the roadway between the humber and Jane Portal, we just value keeping the road open more than the trees.

The restoration plan will be great, and I think ultimately improve the area, but in general I would say the way these projects are phased don't really care about trees. The only party with in interest in saving trees is the City, who also has an interest in keeping the road open - so they are quite conflicted themselves. TRCA also cares, but they can't actually stop anything from happening.
 
BrenWilson said:
I mean there were a lot of tree removals, I don't agree with the protest goals (tunnel under the humber lol) but they also could have run the elevated section in the roadway between the humber and Jane Portal, we just value keeping the road open more than the trees.

The restoration plan will be great, and I think ultimately improve the area, but in general I would say the way these projects are phased don't really care about trees. The only party with in interest in saving trees is the City, who also has an interest in keeping the road open - so they are quite conflicted themselves. TRCA also cares, but they can't actually stop anything from happening.
Click to expand...
Damn beavers, they'll hear from some lawyers now...
 
Last edited:
A side effect from the construction of the Line 5 Eglinton West LRT extension is with the wildlife. Coyotes, pigeons and birds, squirrels, feral cats, and others are being pushed out by the noise, construction workers, trucks, concrete forms, and shifting debris in general. In my neighbourhood, there used to be a large flock of pigeons. Now there are few pigeons, replaced instead with sightings of coyotes. Guessing the coyotes had a squab banquet for a short while, but now they are roaming around for other menu cuisines.

As long as the construction continues, the wildlife will move on to other quieter woodlands and parks. They will not return to around the Humber River or other creeks until after most of the construction ends.
 
Civdis said:
This is how LRT should be built, fully grade separated.
Click to expand...

Then why build an LRT, a subway could run on an elevated track. The point of Light Rail is that it can run on a median between regular roads, light enough that it can interact with occasional traffic. Not that I disagree that this should be elevated, but the Eglinton line should've been a full subway.
 
This is where the distinction gets weird. There is LRT as a system concept, and then LRT as just the vehicle type. The only thing preventing Mx from running more traditional subway style trains on Line 5 now is the platform heights; you can get narrow enough subway style trains. Line 5 should have used a light metro stock (like the REM) and had high platforms, even if the at grade sections were maintained.
 
A.Malik.77 said:
On a serious note Major Mac is a good terminus for the line. It could go up to Teston if yard space is needed in the farmlands, but MM is a natural terminus and connects most of Maple and Woodbridge.
Click to expand...
Jane and Major Mack isn't in either Maple or Woodbridge; its just a generic area of Vaughan.
 
BrenWilson said:
This is where the distinction gets weird. There is LRT as a system concept, and then LRT as just the vehicle type. The only thing preventing Mx from running more traditional subway style trains on Line 5 now is the platform heights; you can get narrow enough subway style trains. Line 5 should have used a light metro stock (like the REM) and had high platforms, even if the at grade sections were maintained.
Click to expand...
Low platforms don't prevent high floor trains from running. There would just be steps at the doorway. There are systems around the world that does this, one such example is GO trains. Platforms are low floor but coaches are higher floor. An accessibility coach allows for such purpose with a higher ramp. Also, CLRV/ALRVs are high floor vehicles that ran on low floor lines.
 
Steve X said:
Low platforms don't prevent high floor trains from running. There would just be steps at the doorway. There are systems around the world that does this, one such example is GO trains. Platforms are low floor but coaches are higher floor. An accessibility coach allows for such purpose with a higher ramp. Also, CLRV/ALRVs are high floor vehicles that ran on low floor lines.
Click to expand...
.
I cannot imagine a realistic scenario where we employ steps for line 5, and you would still need to modify at least part of the platform for an accessibility door. CLRV and ALRVs existed before AODA and would not likely be acceptable in any *new* procurement.
 
Here’s some drive pics of Islington and Kipling stations in the West end future extension

IMG_9327.jpeg
IMG_9326.jpeg
IMG_9325.jpeg
IMG_9324.jpeg
IMG_9322.jpeg
IMG_9321.jpeg
IMG_9320.jpeg
IMG_9319.jpeg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top