Eglinton Crosstown line

[Xtrazsteve]

There isn't any 32 to SCW sign. Also, the supervisor at SCW tells them to run local and carry all the regular 90 Vaughan Rd passengers. Seeing 32 on the St Clair ROW is rare. Also, Queensway are operating some of the runs between SCW and Eglinton Stn.

There is a lot of 32's are are short turning at Oakwood/Eglinton.

[leylandvictory2]

the supervisor can ask the operator to do "drop off only" in the event the bus is running late.

[Gil]

the supervisor can ask the operator to do "drop off only" in the event the bus is running late.

How much run time is given on the St. Clair West-Eglinton Stn. segment that it'd be running late and have to run drop-off only on Bathurst? When the buses turned onto Bathurst they stayed in the passing lane all the way down to St. Clair.

I assume the 32s short turning at Oakwood and Eglinton are turning back west and not heading back to St. Clair West Stn.?

[leylandvictory2]

runs are not given extra running time during a scheduled diversion.

[Gil]

Then there's this:

SNC consortium wins Crosslinx contract

Ross Marowits, The Canadian Press

Published Wednesday, April 22, 2015 3:58PM EDT
Last Updated Wednesday, April 22, 2015 7:12PM EDT

TORONTO - A consortium that includes SNC-Lavalin (TSX:SNC) has been selected by the Ontario government as the preferred bidder for Toronto's multibillion-dollar Eglinton light rail transit contract, sources say.

The Crosslinx Transit Solution group is a mix of Canadian and international partners, including SNC, Aecon (TSX:ARE), EllisDon, Stantec (TSX:STN), ACS Infrastructure Canada, Dragrados and IBI Group.

It beat Crosstown Transit Partners, which included Fengate Capital Management, OHL Concesiones, STRABAG, Bechtel Development Co. and Obayashi Canada Holdings.

The contract, said to be worth up to $4 billion, is the embattled Montreal-based engineering and construction company's second-large win in a week. The federal government has selected a different SNC-Lavalin partnership to build the new Champlain bridge in Montreal for more than $3 billion.

SNC has declined to comment on either contract.

The Eglinton Crosstown LRT is part of Metrolinx's regional transportation plan designed to reduce congestion.

It is a 19-kilometre light rail line with up to 25 stations that will run along Eglinton Avenue, with about half the distance running underground. It will link to bus routes, three subway stations and various GO Transit lines.

The project is expected to open in late 2020.

Funding for the project will be provided by the Ontario government and administered by Metrolinx.

The winning bidders will maintain the system over 30 years and finance the project.

RBC Capital Markets analyst Sara O'Brien said the contract is worth between $3 billion and $4 billion for the consortium.

"If confirmed, we would view this Eglinton win as positive, given size and impact to SNC Infrastructure segment and reputation, following SNC consortium win last week of Champlain bridge," she wrote in a report.

The two large government contracts are being awarded even though SNC-Lavalin has been grappling with a number of events that have spawned criminal and civil allegations against certain former SNC executives. Most of the cases are still before the courts.

SNC has said it will plead not guilty to fraud and corruption charges filed against the company in February by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Follow @RossMarowits on Twitter.

By The Canadian Press

Is Crosslinx what you get when you combine the Eglinton Crosstown Line with Metrolinx?! The editor may have gotten the headline wrong as Crosslinx is the name of the consortium that SNC is a part of for this bid.

[Flalex72]

Then there's this:

SNC consortium wins Crosslinx contract

Ross Marowits, The Canadian Press

Published Wednesday, April 22, 2015 3:58PM EDT

Last Updated Wednesday, April 22, 2015 7:12PM EDT

TORONTO - A consortium that includes SNC-Lavalin (TSX:SNC) has been selected by the Ontario government as the preferred bidder for Toronto's multibillion-dollar Eglinton light rail transit contract, sources say.

The Crosslinx Transit Solution group is a mix of Canadian and international partners, including SNC, Aecon (TSX:ARE), EllisDon, Stantec (TSX:STN), ACS Infrastructure Canada, Dragrados and IBI Group.

It beat Crosstown Transit Partners, which included Fengate Capital Management, OHL Concesiones, STRABAG, Bechtel Development Co. and Obayashi Canada Holdings.

The contract, said to be worth up to $4 billion, is the embattled Montreal-based engineering and construction company's second-large win in a week. The federal government has selected a different SNC-Lavalin partnership to build the new Champlain bridge in Montreal for more than $3 billion.

SNC has declined to comment on either contract.

The Eglinton Crosstown LRT is part of Metrolinx's regional transportation plan designed to reduce congestion.

It is a 19-kilometre light rail line with up to 25 stations that will run along Eglinton Avenue, with about half the distance running underground. It will link to bus routes, three subway stations and various GO Transit lines.

The project is expected to open in late 2020.

Funding for the project will be provided by the Ontario government and administered by Metrolinx.

The winning bidders will maintain the system over 30 years and finance the project.

RBC Capital Markets analyst Sara O'Brien said the contract is worth between $3 billion and $4 billion for the consortium.

"If confirmed, we would view this Eglinton win as positive, given size and impact to SNC Infrastructure segment and reputation, following SNC consortium win last week of Champlain bridge," she wrote in a report.

The two large government contracts are being awarded even though SNC-Lavalin has been grappling with a number of events that have spawned criminal and civil allegations against certain former SNC executives. Most of the cases are still before the courts.

SNC has said it will plead not guilty to fraud and corruption charges filed against the company in February by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Follow @RossMarowits on Twitter.

By The Canadian Press

Is Crosslinx what you get when you combine the Eglinton Crosstown Line with Metrolinx?! The editor may have gotten the headline wrong as Crosslinx is the name of the consortium that SNC is a part of for this bid.

That consortium is very similar to the Rideau Transit Group which got Ottawa's LRT contract.

[38 Highland Creek]

This from CP24:

New phase of Eglinton Crosstown Project Begins

The new TBMs named Don and Humber will start tunnelling WB from Brentcliffe Rd. to Yonge St.

[skyfirenet]

I was wondering when they would fire them up after I saw that they were being moved from their storage site along Esandar drive.

[GTAmissions1]

The Eglinton Crosstown will not be complete until September 2021.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/24/eglinton-crosstown-finish-delayed-a-year

Always questioned the 2020 completion date. I don't think it will be the end of the delays especially for a project this large and how many underground stations have to be built along the corridor.

[nfitz]

Despite the "severe" financial penalties for missing the deadline? The contractor has set the deadline here. Short of natural disaster, it's hard to imagine it won't be achieved. I'd expect the contractors to move heaven and earth to achieve the schedule; this is one of the strengths of this model of development.

[Gil]

Steve Munro is reporting on Metrolinx' consultation regarding changing some of the names on the Eglinton Line to avoid duplicating existing station names. So far they're looking at:

Keele »» Silverthorne

Dufferin »» Fairbank

Bathurst »» Forest Hill

Avenue »» Oriole Park

Bayview »» Leaside

Don Mills »» Science Centre

Ferrand »» Aga Khan & Eglinton

[wil9402]

The following report will be presented at next weeks TTC Board meeting:
Changes to TTC Bus Routes in Eglinton Corridor for Line 5 Rapid Transit Line

It lists the preliminary plan for bus routes connecting to the Eglinton LRT. Some of these are already known form previous documents but there are a few interesting in it as well, which I'll list below:

Renumbered Routes:

13 Avenue Rd: 5 Avenue Rd renumbered to free up the number to be used for the Eglinton LRT
19 Bathurst: 7 Bathurst renumbered to free up the number for a rapid transit line

27 Jane South: Previously numbered 19
I'm assuming this means that 6 and most likely 8 and 9 will be renumbered as well. 6 will probably become 18, but not sure about the other two.

Revised Routes:

58 Trethewey: Will replace 32C. Runs from Keelesdale Station to Jane & Lawrence

51 Leslie: Combined with 56 Leaside to run from Donlands Station to Steeles
195 Jane Rocket: Will continue to run from Jane Station to Pioneer Village Station, but will run across Eglinton to serve Mt Dennis Station

[nfitz]

I'm assuming this means that 6 and most likely 8 and 9 will be renumbered as well. 6 will probably become 18, but not sure about the other two.

Though I'd think we are a long way from that. Line 3 should be available by then. Future lines - Jane? DRL? By that point, the 8 Broadview might vanish anyway with the DRL completed. And presumably there's a Scarborough reorganization coming with the construction there, so might as well leave 9 Bellamy alone until then too.

[Xtrazsteve]

I really question this line from the report: "Provision has been made all along Eglinton Avenue for east-west bus service, as the overnight service will be operated by buses. This protects for the ability to operate a daytime east-west bus service in parallel to the underground portion of the line. Similarly, bus bays have been reserved at Mount Dennis Station and at Science Centre Station for a possible parallel daytime bus route."

Does this mean the 34 Eglinton might not even operate?

You also missed the 170 Emmett that will replace the 32D.

The 195 running to Jane station is revised as previous plans show the 195 going to Mt Dennis Station only.

At the moment, I don't think the 6 will become 18. There seems to be a possible comeback of the 18 Caledonia bus with the SmartTrack plan. I think they'll reserve it for that. 93 is still free. Of course we have 114, 118, 119, 128, 163 and 164 too.

Interestingly the 58 will once again serve the same stop at Lawrence/Jane as the previously 58 Malton once did. I don't think TTC has done that before (at lest not recently) with any other routes.

[nfitz]

Does this mean the 34 Eglinton might not even operate?

It's a possibility. And if it did, I'd imagine it would only run once every 30 minutes. Even if it did operate, it's continued existence would depend on ridership.

Interestingly the 58 will once again serve the same stop at Lawrence/Jane as the previously 58 Malton once did. I don't think TTC has done that before (at lest not recently) with any other routes.

There's others surely. The resurrection of the 172 Cherry, and the upcoming resurrection of the 121 Front for example.

[Xtrazsteve]

It's a possibility. And if it did, I'd imagine it would only run once every 30 minutes. Even if it did operate, it's continued existence would depend on ridership.

There's others surely. The resurrection of the 172 Cherry, and the upcoming resurrection of the 121 Front for example.

The old Mt Dennis hub presentation listed 15min headway for peak peroids. Maybe 20-30min off peak like Sheppard or not run at all like Yonge.

I meant a new route, not a resurrection route. 121 and 172 is basically the same route as before with the same name. This 58 services a different route. Previous something like 77 went from Spadina to Swansea, 171 went from Progress to Mt Dennis, 38 from Horner to Highland Creek. The recycled numbers don't end up in the same place.

Then we have the 83 went from Trethewey to Rexdale to Jones. Interesting Jane was split up with the 83 Trethewey operating on Trethewey and Jane while the 35 Jane operated between Bloor and Eglinton back in the 60s.

[16 McCowan]

I really question this line from the report: "Provision has been made all along Eglinton Avenue for east-west bus service, as the overnight service will be operated by buses. This protects for the ability to operate a daytime east-west bus service in parallel to the underground portion of the line. Similarly, bus bays have been reserved at Mount Dennis Station and at Science Centre Station for a possible parallel daytime bus route."

Does this mean the 34 Eglinton might not even operate?

You also missed the 170 Emmett that will replace the 32D.

The 195 running to Jane station is revised as previous plans show the 195 going to Mt Dennis Station only.

At the moment, I don't think the 6 will become 18. There seems to be a possible comeback of the 18 Caledonia bus with the SmartTrack plan. I think they'll reserve it for that. 93 is still free. Of course we have 114, 118, 119, 128, 163 and 164 too.

Interestingly the 58 will once again serve the same stop at Lawrence/Jane as the previously 58 Malton once did. I don't think TTC has done that before (at lest not recently) with any other routes.

You're missing 136, 137, 138, 153 etc...

Without the bus service between Science Centre/Don Mills and Kennedy Stns., how would people take the local 34 EGLINTON bus as an alternative to the LRT? Since the 85 SHEPPARD EAST and the 97 YONGE local buses runs parallel to Lines 4 and 1 respectively, they usually serve local stops. But in that case I am getting the feeling the 85 will still be around even though the SHEPPARD EAST LRT will be built.

As for the 51 LESLIE extension to Donlands Stn., the existing service on Brentcliffe and Wicksteed is lost which is served by the 56B LEASIDE peak service. I wonder if the 56 number will be reused.

Though I'd think we are a long way from that. Line 3 should be available by then. Future lines - Jane? DRL? By that point, the 8 Broadview might vanish anyway with the DRL completed. And presumably there's a Scarborough reorganization coming with the construction there, so might as well leave 9 Bellamy alone until then too.

You're missing the proposed DON MILLS, SHEPPARD EAST, ETOBICOKE-FINCH WEST and WATERFRONT WEST LRT lines. If they use route 10 as the LRT number, 10 VAN HORNE bus would be likely renumbered if they have to.

In regards to the route numbering of 8, it would be irony to see 8 BROADVIEW ceasing to exist, in theory, I would consider more than welcome to have the 70 O'CONNOR rerouted to Broadview Stn. and have the 102 MARKHAM RD extended to Coxwell Stn. or yet, establish the new 93 ST. CLAIR EAST route running between Coxwell Stn.-Warden Stn. replacing the 70C branch.

[Xtrazsteve]

You're missing 136, 137, 138, 153 etc...

Without the bus service between Science Centre/Don Mills and Kennedy Stns., how would people take the local 34 EGLINTON bus as an alternative to the LRT? Since the 85 SHEPPARD EAST and the 97 YONGE local buses runs parallel to Lines 4 and 1 respectively, they usually serve local stops. But in that case I am getting the feeling the 85 will still be around even though the SHEPPARD EAST LRT will be built.

As for the 51 LESLIE extension to Donlands Stn., the existing service on Brentcliffe and Wicksteed is lost which is served by the 56B LEASIDE peak service. I wonder if the 56 number will be reused.

You're missing the proposed DON MILLS, SHEPPARD EAST, ETOBICOKE-FINCH WEST and WATERFRONT WEST LRT lines. If they use route 10 as the LRT number, 10 VAN HORNE bus would be likely renumbered if they have to.

In regards to the route numbering of 8, it would be irony to see 8 BROADVIEW ceasing to exist, in theory, I would consider more than welcome to have the 70 O'CONNOR rerouted to Broadview Stn. and have the 102 MARKHAM RD extended to Coxwell Stn. or yet, establish the new 93 ST. CLAIR EAST route running between Coxwell Stn.-Warden Stn. replacing the 70C branch.

The 130's are still possible for being reassigned. The 140s and 150s are for downtown expresses. 153 wasn't a public displayed number.

LRT stops are 600m apart, less than 800m average on Line 2. Line 2 has no parallel service on Bloor, so Eglinton's surface section would be fine.

As your post goes on, it becomes more BS.

TTC cares less for service on Brentcliffe and Wicksteed. 56B is rush hour only at 22.5 min. It's a luxury to have buses on side streets. Unless there's demand or a political decision, no one cares. The Sheppard East LRT isn't getting built. The 85 will stay along with the 190 and possibly another rocket route to Meadowvale/Zoo/UTSC.

56 will eventually be reused but not in 2021 when this LRT opens.

When they have over 10 lines, they'll worry about it.

Rerouting the 70 to Broadview is pure BS. Who wants to ride the bus longer to get downtown. 102 to Coxwell Station, no thanks. We don't need to make the 102D into a 4 hours round trip.

[nfitz]

You're missing the proposed DON MILLS, SHEPPARD EAST, ETOBICOKE-FINCH WEST and WATERFRONT WEST LRT lines. If they use route 10 as the LRT number, 10 VAN HORNE bus would be likely renumbered if they have to.

Don Mills is gone from the current plan - replaced by the DRL. Waterfront West would presumably be a 500 series service. I don't see them exceeding 7 anytime soon, or 9 for years, even if Sheppard East is built.

Rerouting the 70 to Broadview is pure BS. Who wants to ride the bus longer to get downtown.

That's a bit strong. The 8 bus always seems to move very quickly on the rare occasion I've taken it - and I've never been impressed by the 70's speed.

Looking in Google maps, at 8:45 AM, the travel time for 8 from Coxwell/O'Connor to Broadview is scheduled to be 16 minutes, compared to 12 minutes for 70 to get to Coxwell station. However the subway takes 7 minutes to get from Coxwell to Broadview.

Rerouting the 70 to Broadview, might not only be quicker, it might provide better service for the 8 route, and save money. (presumably replacing service on Coxwell with a quick shuttle - which would actually run on time being such a short route. I'm sure you've sat at Coxwell staiton, cursing because the 70 never shows up on time, wondering why you didn't just walk ...

Not sure it would happen - but doesn't seem crazy. I won't speak to 102, as I've never ridden it.

[smallspy]

That's a bit strong. The 8 bus always seems to move very quickly on the rare occasion I've taken it - and I've never been impressed by the 70's speed.

Looking in Google maps, at 8:45 AM, the travel time for 8 from Coxwell/O'Connor to Broadview is scheduled to be 16 minutes, compared to 12 minutes for 70 to get to Coxwell station. However the subway takes 7 minutes to get from Coxwell to Broadview.

Rerouting the 70 to Broadview, might not only be quicker, it might provide better service for the 8 route, and save money. (presumably replacing service on Coxwell with a quick shuttle - which would actually run on time being such a short route. I'm sure you've sat at Coxwell staiton, cursing because the 70 never shows up on time, wondering why you didn't just walk ...

Not sure it would happen - but doesn't seem crazy. I won't speak to 102, as I've never ridden it.

That whole mess of routes through East York needs to be rethought, I'll admit, but rerouting the 70 to Broadview isn't the answer. With the exception of Cosburn, most of the traffic flows in the neighborhood are north-south, not east-west.

That said, Google is notoriously bad for timing when it comes to trip times - when driving, I find their times are at worst 20% out. In this case, it most certainly never takes 12 minutes to travel from Coxwell and O'Connor to Coxwell Station. The TTC schedules 4 minutes from O'Connor to Mortimer - there's no way in hell that it takes a further 8 minutes to travel the remaining 809 metres to the station.

Dan

[nfitz]

That whole mess of routes through East York needs to be rethought, I'll admit, but rerouting the 70 to Broadview isn't the answer. With the exception of Cosburn, most of the traffic flows in the neighborhood are north-south, not east-west.

That said, Google is notoriously bad for timing when it comes to trip times - when driving, I find their times are at worst 20% out. In this case, it most certainly never takes 12 minutes to travel from Coxwell and O'Connor to Coxwell Station. The TTC schedules 4 minutes from O'Connor to Mortimer - there's no way in hell that it takes a further 8 minutes to travel the remaining 809 metres to the station.

I agree, it does seem a bit off. But in my experience, the 8 Broadview moves very shockingly quickly, at least from Donlands to Broadview (the low ridership helps!). And I don't think I've ever taken the 70, when I didn't question afterwards why I hadn't walked. I find the Mortimer and Cosburn routes work well - but given I live on 506, and easily connect to them at Main Street, perhaps my view is warped.

[Xtrazsteve]

The 8 has to zoom past everything to make it to each end in 15 minutes. It needs to be done by an experience operator or they'll be late with no other buses on the 8.

Everyone near the subway want to get to the subway. The 62 and 87 are usually packed at Broadview Station but would empty out by Pape. They're really designed for people stuck between the north-south routes who doesn't want to walk.

The 70 gets pretty full too in rush hour. At least the few times I taken it. The intersection between Woodbine and O'Connor is pretty bad in rush hour.

Rerouting the 70 to Broadview, might not only be quicker, it might provide better service for the 8 route, and save money. (presumably replacing service on Coxwell with a quick shuttle - which would actually run on time being such a short route. I'm sure you've sat at Coxwell staiton, cursing because the 70 never shows up on time, wondering why you didn't just walk ...

They'll a new route on Coxwell to serve the hospital. I agree that the 70 does get stuck in traffic but putting it at Broadview Station would just let the regular riders along Broadview to fill it up.

[dowlingm]

As someone who has 70 pass by 100m from his front door, I'm not sure what the rationale with messing with it is supposed to be. If people want to get to Broadview, transfer to the 8 at O'Connor.

[nfitz]

I don't really think they should change it. I just object to someone referring to what seems like a perfectly reasonable, and perhaps even cost-saving and time-saving plan as "pure bull shit".

Is it the best solution - probably not. is it a reasonable solution, yes. It is pure bull shit? No.

[smallspy]

As someone who has 70 pass by 100m from his front door, I'm not sure what the rationale with messing with it is supposed to be. If people want to get to Broadview, transfer to the 8 at O'Connor.

And as someone who's been taking it for 25 years, I'm not certain I see a need to change it either. But like I said, I think that the whole route structure through East York needs a good shakeup or rethink. I'm just not sure the right way to approach it yet.

Dan