[ARG1]

Someone pointing out the obvious yet again - Crosstown might end up being split in half down the road

https://twitter.com/x/status/1505937278518001666

Can we not post BlogTO articles about how some random UofT student posted a tweet about service that like 50 people saw?

While I share this concern, let's actually post official releases about something like this happening, and not BlogTO.

 

[drum118]

Can we not post BlogTO articles about how some random UofT student posted a tweet about service that like 50 people saw?

While I share this concern, let's actually post official releases about something like this happening, and not BlogTO.

Don't read BlogTO nor rely on its info as it off the track a number of times when it comes to transit. It the click line to gain revenue.

Splitting a line can happen in a number of forms and it will depend mostly on ridership.

Just like line 1 & 2 extension, do these extension need to see the same quality of service when ridership said every 2nd or 3rd train is needed to service the extension? To run the same quality of service requires more equipment, manpower and a higher operating cost.

Having Line 5 spitted may only require to have every 2nd train for the extensions and there needs to be a crossover that the end stations being built today to allow for the split. Can't see any splitting of service for the line being built period.

Another type of spilt can be from X to Y not using the full line of Line 5 being built today and need a crossover to do it.

Talking about spits is way too early when the line isn't open yet and someone trying to create issues when there is no issue in the first place for brownie points.

We now return to real known things, not what may happen fiction.

 

[Steve X]

The issue is caused by changes in the project. There was supposedly significant at grade intersection at both ends with the central tunnel for the busiest part. Now they have changed the entire western, the eastern part becomes the bottleneck.

This is what happens when they take an European concept and Americanize it.

 

[felix123]

Don't read BlogTO nor rely on its info as it off the track a number of times when it comes to transit. It the click line to gain revenue.

Splitting a line can happen in a number of forms and it will depend mostly on ridership.

Just like line 1 & 2 extension, do these extension need to see the same quality of service when ridership said every 2nd or 3rd train is needed to service the extension? To run the same quality of service requires more equipment, manpower and a higher operating cost.

Having Line 5 spitted may only require to have every 2nd train for the extensions and there needs to be a crossover that the end stations being built today to allow for the split. Can't see any splitting of service for the line being built period.

Another type of spilt can be from X to Y not using the full line of Line 5 being built today and need a crossover to do it.

Talking about spits is way too early when the line isn't open yet and someone trying to create issues when there is no issue in the first place for brownie points.

We now return to real known things, not what may happen fiction.

Why dismiss the entire article? The point about Metrolinx trying to convince Toronto to allow proactive TSP, and Toronto not budging on the status quo was accurate. If BlogTO's readership understands how much their own city's department is working against them, as we already see on Spadina and on St. Clair, all the better.

The 510 is lumbering, kneecapped garbage, but it doesn't need to be. Same goes for a partially at-grade line 5 LRT.

 

[JasonParis]

Because the article isn't based on journalism. It is headline-baiting, and frankly dismissible as it is literally based on someone's tweet. A proper article would have both Metrolinx and a transit expert's opinion for starters.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Someone pointing out the obvious yet again - Crosstown might end up being split in half down the road

https://twitter.com/x/status/1505937278518001666

If issues exist on the surface section, we know exactly who to blame (hint, it is the City of Toronto).

 

[Steve X]

What is preventing them to let through traffic go before left turns? The light at Lake Shore and Windermere is setup like that.

 

[mistersg1]

What is preventing them to let through traffic go before left turns? The light at Lake Shore and Windermere is setup like that.

I'm trying to remember, I haven't been in the city much by car since COVID hit, but yes, Lake Shore and Windermere (I think it was Ellis or Humber Station which also use it) use the lagging FPLT, a rarity in Ontario. I'm no traffic engineer (at least yet) but I've always wondered why they are reluctant to use lagging FPLT especially in transit ROW situations.

Again, one of those streets, it's either Humber Station or Windermere uses lead/lag FPLT, that is one side gets a leading fully protected left turn, and at the end of the cycle, the other side gets a lagging fully protected left turn.

Someone explained to me once the concept is based on "driver expectancy", here in Ontario, we always expect a protected turn, whether it's FPLT or PPLT, to be leading, that is to occur before the main signal (generally for going straight) turns green.

Lagging PPLT movements are incredibly rare in the city on a side note, I think Lake Shore/Yonge is the only example I can think of, except in that case, the protected turn doesn't protect against oncoming traffic but against pedestrians.

I could get into a glossary of all these terms, but I thought way back when, the endgame for the Crosstown (maybe not entirely because of the significant grade separated underground portion), Finch West, and all other Transit City routes as being rebranded as 500 series routes. Ever since 2008 when I looked at this, I've always wondered, what exactly makes the 512 St Clair different from the Finch West LRT other than stops being further apart? Remember, the Harbourfront route was once Route 604 and appeared on the full map (not the subway diagram) as a service being on par with the subway/RT.

Every time I ask that question, many people got extremely angry so I didn't bother. That student in the BlogTO echoes the same thoughts I had at his age regarding this and it's something to be considered.

(If someone needs definitions for FPLT, PPLT, and so on, I can give them on another thread)

 

[M II A II R II K]

They could also tunnel under Eglinton East so Line 5 could avoid the on street section.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Ive been saying this for years. The portal at Science Center is going to be a mess going east. (Theres only one light between it and the above grade portion to the tunnelled portion at Leslie, so that probably won't be much of an issue)

My thoughts exactly. Combine that with extensions on both ends and it starts to look like something well short of a tragedy if the service pattern is something like overlapping Mississauga/Renforth/Airport - Science Center and Mount Dennis - UTSC/Malvern.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

If issues exist on the surface section, we know exactly who to blame (hint, it is the City of Toronto).

View attachment 386918

The reason for no lagging left turns is that the decision-makers (AKA Canadian oligarchs) do not use public transit. They use gas guzzlers, where they are the only people in them, and MUST get priority over all other peasants in transit vehicles.

 

[mistersg1]

The reason for no lagging left turns is that the decision-makers (AKA Canadian oligarchs) do not use public transit. They use gas guzzlers, where they are the only people in them, and MUST get priority over all other peasants in transit vehicles.

Well, lagging left should be beneficial to more drivers, as most drivers continue on straight then make a left turn at any given intersection. The main issue for lagging left (that’s fully protected) I think would be for queuing left turn vehicles potentially ending up beyond the left turn bay into the regular lanes, a leading FPLT allows the left turn bay to clear before the main green starts allowing the left turn bay to be filled again.

As I understand, the only other time you can squeeze a green in for a transit ROW would be between the barriers, that is when the intersection is under red clearance (also known as “all red”, when every light in the intersection is red)

 

[ssiguy2]

ML could have solved much of the left-turning problem if they had done what other systems {like LA} and created light controlled U-turn lanes.

Unfortunately, due to ML's lack of vision and planning, such is not the case. What this UofT student says is exactly what everyone else knows is going to have to happen................the line will have to be divided in 2. No thru routes of any kind but just 2 separate lines where the one ends and requires a transfer to a new train going in the same direction. This could be made relatively painless if ML employs a same cross-board station and the trains are coordinated but this iML so they probably won't. These 2 separate tracks would also allow the underground and grade separated parts to be automated reducing operational costs.

Transit, like highways, are only as strong as their weakest link and the Crosstown has 10 km of it. You simply cannot run the frequency levels needed when running on the street with basically no light priority. Can you imagine the problems on the Yonge Line if it ran metro to Eglinton and then down the middle of Yonge to Finch? This at-grade section is going to be no faster than the Spadina or St.Clair streetcars.

It is patently absurd that Toronto has built a hyper expensive transit project that won't even have the capacity {little alone the speed, reliability, and lower operational costs} of Vancouver's McCanada Line. This is what happens when you have a myopic mayor like Miller who thinks that there is a one-size-fits-all transit solution backed by the fact that he would never allow any system to be built that could be automated in order to appease his union support.

 

[mistersg1]

ML could have solved much of the left-turning problem if they had done what other systems {like LA} and created light controlled U-turn lanes.

How exactly does signal priority work? I’m just wondering. By U Turn lanes are you suggesting that the main road, in this case Eglinton becomes something like a “Michigan Left” scenario?

If that’s the case, U-turn lanes seem to create the same kind of scenario as a fully protected left turn, such a movement would have to be fully protected otherwise there would be a conflict in the U-turn lanes and the LRT. It’s hard to describe what I mean but I’d need to see how this U turn lane operates.

Is there any place in the GTA that uses signal priority, I’m aware the VIVA Rapidways use the same kind of signalling as the ROW streetcars and now Crosstown LRT. Does VIVA use signal priority?


Many years ago, I was called an idiot for pointing out the obvious pitfalls of this line, and yet here we are, things are looking to come full circle and I was right all along. Line 5 Eglinton and 515 Eglinton, it’s coming whether you like it or not.


Very nice analogy you use with a hypothetical Yonge Line. It’s just such a bloody shame when you look at the history of true rapid transit planning on Eglinton, back in the 1980s when the GTA was a fraction of the size it is now and they were speaking of a full blown subway across Eglinton. The crosstown will be the biggest waste of money the city ever did. When metro Toronto stopped freeway building in 1971, more than 50 years ago, how much true rapid transit have we gotten in the region since? The stuff we did get has been incredible tainted by politics and not by actual need.

 

[MrGoose]

20 billion dollar streetcar! Another 20 billion dollars to give it high floor platforms and grade separate the eastern section!