christine
New Member
Not at all.
On Feb 8 2012 the city voted to revert back to the LRT projects including the Crosstown in its original form. Ford lost his powers more than a year and a half after the vote.
|
|
|
On Feb 8 2012 the city voted to revert back to the LRT projects including the Crosstown in its original form. Ford lost his powers more than a year and a half after the vote.
zang
Senior Member
Sure. Keep saying that, and put it on your dream board. It’ll manifest someday.
Last edited:
smallspy
Senior Member
That column is one of the three that run down the length of the platform, and that ares holding up the Eglinton station platforms above. There are other columns on the other sides of the track from them, but they are covered by false walls, and so invisible to passengers.
It is as unavoidable as it gets.
Dan
ssiguy2
Senior Member
This line should have been a subway which means it could also have elevated sections and it should have had far fewer stations on the underground and especially at-grade sections. While the TTC and the City are responsible for the current slow running due to it's stupid vision-zero policy and it's lack of signal priority, the actually fundamental issues as to why the line took so incredible long to build is 100% on ML. ML couldn't have been more incompetent when designing this line if they tried. The issue is NOT about P3 projects which can work well {see Vancouver Canada Line} but rather how ML put it's plans out to tender and what those plans included. A 5 year old could have done a better job.
When you put a contract out to tender, it is exactly that, a contract and once signed, there is no going back. This means you need to put out a tender with 100% of what is expected........vehicles, construction zones, speed required thru sections, what the stations/stops will entail, what stations there are and where, trackage requirements, timelines,.............basically everything down to the colour of the paint. Once every single detail needed is determined THEN you put it out to tender and take the contractor who provide the best deal for what you need, the budget and timelines you have, with a reputable company that has a solid record of bringing in such projects.. Once the contract signed there are NO changes for any reason..........both parties signed on the dotted line and are expected to follow thru and if either party want changes during the construction, they are out of luck.
The juvenile delinquents at ML never understood this basic concept and the Eglinton fiasco is the result. ML wanted to change the rules mid-stream and then are somehow surprised that effects timelines, budgets, and doesn't result in endless lawsuits from the contractor. This is akin to so to going out and buying a car for a set price and then when the car is about to arrive, you want a different colour, different engine, and different interior design and expecting the car dealer to still provide the vehicle on the same schedule and budget and not expecting them to take you to court because you signed one thing but expect another free.
When you put a contract out to tender, it is exactly that, a contract and once signed, there is no going back. This means you need to put out a tender with 100% of what is expected........vehicles, construction zones, speed required thru sections, what the stations/stops will entail, what stations there are and where, trackage requirements, timelines,.............basically everything down to the colour of the paint. Once every single detail needed is determined THEN you put it out to tender and take the contractor who provide the best deal for what you need, the budget and timelines you have, with a reputable company that has a solid record of bringing in such projects.. Once the contract signed there are NO changes for any reason..........both parties signed on the dotted line and are expected to follow thru and if either party want changes during the construction, they are out of luck.
The juvenile delinquents at ML never understood this basic concept and the Eglinton fiasco is the result. ML wanted to change the rules mid-stream and then are somehow surprised that effects timelines, budgets, and doesn't result in endless lawsuits from the contractor. This is akin to so to going out and buying a car for a set price and then when the car is about to arrive, you want a different colour, different engine, and different interior design and expecting the car dealer to still provide the vehicle on the same schedule and budget and not expecting them to take you to court because you signed one thing but expect another free.
mikey7767
Active Member
Okay. I just checked, you're right. But, it still would have been the same length as Ford had negotiated. It doesn't change the fact that the length was included in the negotiation to bury it. And I proudly campaigned against Karen Stintz when she ran for office federally even though I don't live in that riding. Glad she never got elected.
yrt+viva=1system
Senior Member
innsertnamehere
Superstar
That deal had the Sheppard East and Finch West LRTs dropped in exchange for the burial of Eglinton.
The city reverted to Finch and Sheppard instead. Of course Sheppard ending up quietly disappearing in 2019 with Ford rising to Queen's Park.
Had the 2012 Rob Ford plan stuck, Eglinton would have been fully underground to Kennedy then through-run with the rebuilt SRT as an LRT up to Sheppard and Markham Road. Finch also wouldn't have happened.
Voltz
Senior Member
Just to STC actually.
ThenWhat
Active Member
Yes, agree, give it time. The opening was successful overall, and there seems to be good will to work on improvements.
In three months or so, I will want to know:
1. Is the control system able to maintain approximately equal intervals between trains (i.e. avoid bunching) in spite of the unpredictable delays at intersection in the east.
2. How well do the Presto readers on the surface stops work? Are there enough of them for crowds in the rush hour? Will they break down when exposed to Toronto weather?
JSF-1
Active Member
I swear you people are just looking for things to complain about. Please tell us how far the stop spacing on the underground section should be? Because besides maybe Oakwood the stop spacing on the underground section is roughly every 800m - 1km which is in line with the rest of the subway network and is generally the global standard for most well built subway networks. Wider stop spacing means less local utility which can lead to longer commutes since riders now have to travel further to get to and from there closest station. Or you can do what the TTC has been doing since 1954 and the rest of the world does and have a more reasonable stop spacing that maintains speed without sacrificing accessibility. THE TORONTO SUBWAY IS NOT A REGIONAL RAIL NETWORK, IT IS NOT AN S-BAHN, IT IS A LOCAL SUBWAY WITH LOCAL STOP SPACING, and trying to jerry-rig it into being anything else completely misses the point of what the subway was built to do. If we want a regional line with wider stop spacing we can do that with the GO network because long-distance inter-regional lines has always been GO's mandate not the TTC's. The Toronto Subway can never be a viable inter-regional system because it was never supposed to be that in the first place. Perhaps we should look to a city like Paris that has both its subway and its expansive RER system effectivly acting as a second subway network just with wider stop spacing, one has a largely local utility and the other a regional utility. Pehaps the best move going forward would be for us to re-embrace the idea that GO ALRT put forward, that being the construciton of brand new GO lines independed of the pre-existing rail network, on their own right-of-ways (underground, elevated, at grade) with a wider 2-3km stop spacing and a frequency of every 5-10 min on peak and 15min off-peak. All of this ontop of upgrading the pre-existing network as well. Most city's with better transit don't rely on one network to be both a local and regional network because unless you are running an express service you can't have it both ways. Of course though all of this requires our politicians to think outside of the box and remeber that GO network expansion doesn't need to be restricted to pre-existing rail corridors, we can construct new ones, but I guess its easier for them to just try and jerry-rig our subway into being both Muni Metro and BART at the same time.
Just to give some lived experience, I used to work at the Loblaws at Yonge and Glen Echo years ago and let me tell you, you wouldn't know the city's most important subway line was under your feet given how much of a transit dead zone that area is. Your options are either climb the hill in the hogs-hollow ravine to get to York Mills, walk all the way down to Lawrence Avenue to get to Lawrence, or wait half and hour for the 97. It's no wonder everyone in that area drives, redevelopment has never occurred, and why I absolutely hated that commute. We space out stops every 800m-1km to avoid these kinds of dead zones.
Last edited:
yrt+viva=1system
Senior Member
Eglinton at 16:50
Full Metal Junkie
Senior Member
Are all the seats on Line 5 this multicolor pattern? There's no color coding of priority seating in blue like on all TTC? Is it because Metrolinx doesn't seem to mark priority seating?
yrt+viva=1system
Senior Member
All the seats are the same patterned colour. Only some decals on the wall and window indicate a priority seating. This is to Metrolinx standards.
zang
Senior Member
So tell me how grade level crossings with proper signal priority is functionally different?
And no, there are those here complaining it should’ve been a subway regardless; be it capacity, stations, whatever.
