JSF-1
Active Member
Why would the stop at VP need to be in a trench if the line is already elevated? Same with Golf Club and Lawrence. Its just needlessly complicated when an elevated station is already out of the way of the roads.
|
|
|
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Osgoode wasn't designed for an interchange station, but it's getting one.
Queen wasn't designed for an interchange station, but it's getting one.
Pape wasn't designed for an interchange station, but it's getting one.
Eglinton West wasn't designed for an interchange station, but it's getting one.
Eglinton wasn't designed for an interchange station, but it's getting one.
Kennedy wasn't designed for an interchange station, but it's getting one.
Sheppard-Yonge wasn't designed for an interchange station, but it has one.
Don Mills wasn't designed for an underground interchange station, but if deemed necessary, it will have one.
Johnny Au
Superstar
Kennedy was designed to be an interchange station since 1980 to accommodate the then-under construction Line 3 (which would open five years later).
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I'm talking about it's interchange with Line 5.
Johnny Au
Superstar
You should have been clearer.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I'm no fan of the Brentcliffe Portal situation. But the time to fix this has passed years ago. Hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more, have already been sunk into this current design. Modifying the design at this stage would result in years of design, and likely have the government paying huge penalties to the contracts. The train has long left the station on this matter. Changing the design at this point is not a realistic proposition. This line will be operational within 39 months.
Last edited:
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
Actually, the QUEEN station was designed to be an interchange station with the YONGE station of the QUEEN (streetcar) subway. The BLOOR station was not designed as an interchange station when originally built.
See link.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Actually, the QUEEN station was designed to be an interchange station with the YONGE station of the QUEEN (streetcar) subway. The BLOOR station was not designed as an interchange station when originally built.
See link.
This is getting a bit pedantic. It's not designed for the interchange station it's getting. Whatever allowances were made for a future interchange station are being used by the pedestrian underpass. It has no impact on the Relief Line interchange station.
I was not aware that Bloor Station (Line 1) was not designed for the interchange station though. But now that I think about this history, it does make sense. The flying-U was the favoured Line 2 alignment back when the Yonge Line was under design and construction.
Hopkins123
Senior Member
Remember though that the existing Bloor-Danforth Line transitions several times above and below grade during its length, so it's not needlessly complicated if it's advantageous to do so. The three intersections you've highlighted are in fact the most complex ones to tackle, hence why two of them even gets mentioned by the official planners here:
https://eglintoneastlrt.ca/current-work/eglinton-and-kingston-road/
https://eglintoneastlrt.ca/current-work/kingston-road-lawrence-morningside/
Per elevation, I doubt three stations are needed in the general Eglinton/Kingston area within close proximity to eachother so a single stop right as the LRT turns onto Kingston Rd at Golf Club Rd seems like a nice compromise (there'd be no need for the Guildwood Pkwy stop). If at Golf Club Rd, harder to have it above grade due to land constraints and if placed in the parkland walking times to/from Guildwood Pkwy become a bit far. The tunneled section I'm envisioning goes all the way from Cedar/Eglinton to Livingstone/Kingston where the line bridges over the train tracks for an elevated GO Stn stop over the north-side parking lot, Old Mill style. From there the Galloway stop is also elevated but (as per the the link) the West Hill triangle stop is best dealt with underground. This becomes more clearer since Morningside Ave roadway is extremely narrow to handle exclusive lane surface or elevated ROW for LRT and would likely cross Highland Creek on its own separate bridge into the UTSC campus grounds anyway emerging fro the tunnel. I've put a lot of thought into this.
As for VP, elevation too does work but some parts of the station (I'm presuming a station versus just a stop, with bus bays) would be better if dealt with below grade in the triangle with O'Connor/Eglinton Sq and a below grade connection to the mall. I see this more as an open-air trench like Renforth Stn.
drum118
Superstar
May 27
Kennedy Station And Intersection with more up on site
Kennedy Station And Intersection with more up on site
Cobra
Senior Member
https://twitter.com/Metrolinx/status/1004422780136419330
Answer: Limited space will prevent fully enclosed shelters. But, the design for surface stops has weather protection from above, behind and at the sides, and is fully accessible.
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
Well, they could enclose the entire platform and track area at the station, similar to Viva VMC Station, but that only works at the same side stops and it's a lot more expensive.
https://twitter.com/Metrolinx/status/1004422780136419330
Answer: Limited space will prevent fully enclosed shelters. But, the design for surface stops has weather protection from above, behind and at the sides, and is fully accessible.
hw621
Senior Member
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
Real reason: money. Controlled by the suburban automobile-addicted Councillors.
OneCity
Senior Member
Money yes.
But the only fancy stops are In the semi urban automobile addicted Core and if suburban politicians were in control this line would never have built in the cheap non grade seperated manner it currently is. So no.