[ssiguy2]

My point was that commercial and industrial areas are just as important as the beautiful streets with beautiful people.

The Golden Mile should never be turned into residential but try for higher density commercial/industrial. Those areas keep people employed, create tax revenue, stop people and businesses from leaving the city and hence...........wait for it...........improve quality of life. Trying to turn those vibrant com/ind areas into residential lands is both foolhardy and shortsighted. This is why elevated transit thru that {and similar areas} should be employed as they are not disrupting high density residential areas.

 

[nfitz]

Am I missing something? The Golden Mile is just car dealerships isn't it? These can go in large building, just like along King Street. Seems to be lots of new car dealerships along streetcar lines in condo buildings.

 

[11th]

If I remember correctly, I remember seeing a gas station built into the first floor of a building along Metro Line 6 near the Eiffel Tower when I was there a few years back.

They actually do this a lot in other urban areas. Maybe there're regulations preventing that from being built in Toronto (or Canada).

 

[Platform 27]

I always thought that the south-of-the road option is the best solution for this stretch, and was surprised when they decided to just tunnel all the way to Don Mills.

However, is it possible that they know something that we don't know? The cost of two portals, the bridge over West Don, and the CPR underpass actually exceeding the cost of continuous tunneling?

I was at the meeting, and they said that they found that building the originally-planned TBM launch shaft at that portal location near Brentcliffe would have been next to impossible. An alternative that would have kept a portal there would have been if they drove the TBMs in the opposite direction and built an extraction shaft at the site instead (they're smaller) but that meant a launch shaft back at Bayview, which they also investigated only to discover it would have been pretty difficult too.

Basically, south side surface running in that area was off the table because it didn't solve the problem they set out to fix, namely getting rid of that tunnel portal.

 

[allabootmatt]

My point was that commercial and industrial areas are just as important as the beautiful streets with beautiful people.

The Golden Mile should never be turned into residential but try for higher density commercial/industrial. Those areas keep people employed, create tax revenue, stop people and businesses from leaving the city and hence...........wait for it...........improve quality of life. Trying to turn those vibrant com/ind areas into residential lands is both foolhardy and shortsighted. This is why elevated transit thru that {and similar areas} should be employed as they are not disrupting high density residential areas.

And on the Paris example, it is fair to point out that the 'Region Parisienne' contains a vast amount of pretty unattractive suburban wasteland, which is nonetheless crucial to the French economy. But yes, there are certainly gas stattions and the like in central Paris, just adapted to the landscape.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

If I remember correctly, I remember seeing a gas station built into the first floor of a building along Metro Line 6 near the Eiffel Tower when I was there a few years back.

We don't see gas stations built into the first floor of building nowadays, for the same reason we no longer see curbside gas pumps. Fire hazard.

Dundas near Brock.

 

[BurlOak]

I was at the meeting, and they said that they found that building the originally-planned TBM launch shaft at that portal location near Brentcliffe would have been next to impossible. An alternative that would have kept a portal there would have been if they drove the TBMs in the opposite direction and built an extraction shaft at the site instead (they're smaller) but that meant a launch shaft back at Bayview, which they also investigated only to discover it would have been pretty difficult too.

Basically, south side surface running in that area was off the table because it didn't solve the problem they set out to fix, namely getting rid of that tunnel portal.

I am a bit confused with this post. The second paragraph says the problem to solve is to get rid of the tunnel portal. The only way to achieve this is to continue the tunnel. I would have thought the goal would be to find the overall solution, from Laird to Don Mills, that has the lowest cost.

From the first paragraph, it is not clear whether a south side alignment was considered by Metrolinx, or whether they wanted the LRT in the median. With a portal in the median, the launch site would be to the south, but extensive decking would be required for Eglinton to pass over the access to the actual TBMs, and extra space is needed to allow the equipment and extraction process to make the 90 degree turn to the staging area. If the portal was on the south side, there would be no disruption to the Eglinton traffic, and presumably the TBMs could be in a pit about 50m by 20m (about the size of the TBM pit at Keelesdale) on the south side, and the staging area would be to the east. It may be possible to have in access from Vanderhoof and out access to Eglinton. I do not recall the production rate of these TBMs (50m per week?), but I am think it is probably close to 20 to 30 dump truck per day, not per hour.

I would guess that there are many excuses here and they are probably just chosing the option with the lowest design cost, and not the one with the lowest construction cost.

 

[EnviroTO]

My point was that commercial and industrial areas are just as important as the beautiful streets with beautiful people.

Commercial and industrial properties are just as important as residential properties. I don't know why the existence of those properties would require ugly streets and ugly people to make them viable.

The Golden Mile should never be turned into residential but try for higher density commercial/industrial.

There is no heavy industrial on Eglinton, the plant at Pharmacy was the last one which even came close to being considered more than light industry. On Eglinton it is primarily big box retail, a mall, very low density office space, and light industrial (warehousing, data center, etc). The two largest light industrial properties have high-rise residential across the street on Birchmount. The amount of land dedicated to retail and parking lots for that retail is something like 7 times the amount the Eaton Centre uses and the basic reality is that people shop in retail, and people work in offices, retail, and light industrial properties so I'm not sure why there can't be more residential use in the Golden Mile. They are building condos next to Redpath and that is a far more industrial use property than the light industrial properties on the Golden Mile.

Those areas keep people employed, create tax revenue, stop people and businesses from leaving the city and hence...........wait for it...........improve quality of life.

The Golden Mile is mainly big box retail. The low wages paid in big box stores.... wait for it.... decreases the quality of life. Not having residential properties located near the businesses in the Golden Mile takes away potential customers and for workers creates a commute which.... wait for it.... decreases the quality of life.

This is why elevated transit thru that {and similar areas} should be employed as they are not disrupting high density residential areas.

Industrial use doesn't lend itself to density or transit. If the Golden Mile is really to be industrial then it is quite pointless running transit through the area at anything other than ground level and really the need for much beyond a bus route would be unlikely. Industrial doesn't lend itself to transit well due to larger factories being highly automated (low density in terms of numbers of workers), and light industrial tends to have a large delivery component which is not replaced by transit. If the office or retail components of the Golden Mile are looked at then intensification of only a slight amount still leaves land that could be used for residential. Is there any benefit to a 2 storey office building over a 12 storey residential building and a 6 storey office building, or a huge parking lot over a parking garage and two 12 storey residential buildings? There isn't. When there isn't heavy industry, noisy industry, or smelly industry, then there is no point it not allowing mixed use. The market can decide if it makes sense to build a residential building or a warehouse.

 

[Solid Snake]

But what if there was 50,000 people living in the Leslie/Wickstead area in 50 years - the area is ripe for redevelopment.

Then they'll just add it by cut and cover when density will justify having a station there...otherwise you end up with stations like Bessarion

With the line being grade separated between Mount Dennis and Don Mills, what do you think about elevating the rest of the line to keep it that way?

 

[nfitz]

Then they'll just add it by cut and cover when density will justify having a station there...otherwise you end up with stations like Bessarion

Normally I agree, but in this case Metrolinx is saying that adding an intermediate station woudl require a 2-year closure of the line. Hence my position that if Metrolinx is correct about the requirement of a 2-year closure, that perhaps they should rough something in now.

With the line being grade separated between Mount Dennis and Don Mills, what do you think about elevating the rest of the line to keep it that way?

Elevate the rest of the 33 km line because the 13 km section in the middle with the highest ridership is in a tunnel? That sounds like overkill. Grade-separating a 20-km LRT unnecessarily will take a lot of money away from other essential projects such as the Downtown Relief Line, the Yonge Extension, etc.

 

[Rainforest]

With the line being grade separated between Mount Dennis and Don Mills, what do you think about elevating the rest of the line to keep it that way?

Besides the higher cost, I am concerned that it will cause a speed-capacity mismatch. The line will become so fast that it will switch some riders from the BD subway, and a lot from bus routes; but its capacity limit will remain in the 15,000 - 18,000 pphpd range even for automated operation, due to the station length and car width. It might get overloaded in the central section.

If the goal is to have a very fast, fully grade-separate transit on Eglinton, then it should have been subway; but the ship has sailed with LRT on board. With the LRT technology chosen, it is essential to maintain the ability to run short-turns in the central section, to keep the whole line with reasonable loads.

 

[M II A II R II K]

It has the space for 3 TC vehicles which is about 5 subway cars so it shouldn't be too much of a problem. With LRT they can maybe run just one or two vehicles off peak periods.

 

[Rainforest]

It has the space for 3 TC vehicles which is about 5 subway cars so it shouldn't be too much of a problem. With LRT they can maybe run just one or two vehicles off peak periods.

LRT cars are longer but narrower than subway cars. Capacity of one LRT car will be around 200 (same as, or a bit more than, one subway car). The 3-car train can take no more than 600.

On 2-min headways, it will be 30 trains per hour, capacity = 18,000 pphpd.

Furthermore, I am not sure that exits and other station elements are designed for that kind of capacity.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

LRT cars are longer but narrower than subway cars. Capacity of one LRT car will be around 200 (same as, or a bit more than, one subway car). The 3-car train can take no more than 600.

On 2-min headways, it will be 30 trains per hour, capacity = 18,000 pphpd.

Furthermore, I am not sure that exits and other station elements are designed for that kind of capacity.

However, the Flexity Freedom LRV's will be wider than a Montréal Metro car. A Montréal Metro car is the same width as a CLRV or Flexity Outlook.

 

[drum118]

They should use the Siemens Combino Supra NF12B, 6 section found in Budapest that is just over 59m long. By going to this length regardless who makes it, it eliminates 2 cab control and one car. This car was built in 2007 and the 2nd longest in the world.

Our famous supplier has a 7 section in Berlin, but haven't been able to find what the length was for it, but longer than our model. F8E Bombardier Flexity Berlin 40m?

Could never get inside shots as it too pack.