News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

They seemed to do Queen's Quay station without much of a problem, and heck, that thing is built in 100% infill.

Erm.. Might want to check on that again. The actual lifespan of this location is going to be significantly less than expected and has already undergone closures for structural issues. The slurry wall construction method used here (is it Madrid that builds this way?) did not work well.

There are lots of locations which are fully submerged or even in the middle of streams with York Mills being one of the more successful locations.
 
Erm.. Might want to check on that again. The actual lifespan of this location is going to be significantly less than expected and has already undergone closures for structural issues. The slurry wall construction method used here (is it Madrid that builds this way?) did not work well.

There are lots of locations which are fully submerged or even in the middle of streams with York Mills being one of the more successful locations.

I was aware of some engineering issues, but I figured that they had been resolved, thanks for the update. Oh well, look on the bright side, the engineers now know what NOT to do when it comes to building the DRL!

And yes, York Mills is a perfect example of that as well. Probably a much better successful example than QQ.
 
Don't forget the low water table. Not saying it isn't doable, just that it's not exactly a cake walk, nor the best location to run the line.

You mean the high water table?

Erm.. Might want to check on that again. The actual lifespan of this location is going to be significantly less than expected and has already undergone closures for structural issues. The slurry wall construction method used here (is it Madrid that builds this way?) did not work well.

There are lots of locations which are fully submerged or even in the middle of streams with York Mills being one of the more successful locations.

I can't help but be impressed by St-Michel – Notre-Dame station in Paris, which was built under the Siene, with exits at one end of the platform serving one bank of the river, and exits at the other end of the platform serving Ile Cite in the middle of the river.

Yeah, a Union DRL might not be as straightforward as most stations but it's hardly groundbreaking engineering.
 
Hate to say it but it's more of Toronto's can't do attitude. We have so much land available that any significant engineering feat is seen as far to expensive and we accept sprawl as the result.

As has been said Toronto is not the first city to deal with these sorts of engineering problems, it's just that we are unwilling to take them on.
 
You mean the high water table?

Yeah, that would make more sense.

Yeah, a Union DRL might not be as straightforward as most stations but it's hardly groundbreaking engineering.

More importantly than the costly engineering (again - not impossible) is that it simply makes more functional sense to run the line further north closer to where the majority of riders are actually going.
 
Hate to say it but it's more of Toronto's can't do attitude. We have so much land available that any significant engineering feat is seen as far to expensive and we accept sprawl as the result.

As has been said Toronto is not the first city to deal with these sorts of engineering problems, it's just that we are unwilling to take them on.

There are a dozen threads on this board complaining about how subway construction costs are inflated here. Taking on any additional complexity will only drive up the costs. This board is fairly transit friendly, can't imagine what a hostile group would be like.
 
From the article:
New Toronto Mayor Rob Ford is not a big fan of his city's trolley system, and Maghnieh said as lines are closed there, it could mean opportunities for Windsor to snag some surplus streetcars.
The first half is probably just hearsay that the reporter heard from the election.
The second half though, referring to "surplus streetcars" is probably referring to the fact that the existing fleet is getting replaced, so Windsor could snag a couple of them.
 
They may be referring to the vehicles themselves, which will become surplus once the new streetcars arrive. Seeing as how they would only need a few for the line, it makes sense to get used ones.

Would they legally be allowed to use our old high-floor streetcars though? Wouldn't provincial law force them to go with an accessible low-floor vehicle?
 
All new purchases would need to meet accessibility requirements. This means the infrastructure built new would need to be accessible, but if they got hand-me-down vehicles that might be allowed. I'm not sure if the grandfathering applies when the vehicles switch owners. There might be a deadline by which all transit must be accessible but based on the TTC elevator installation plans that time is beyond the life of the CLRVs.
 
All new purchases would need to meet accessibility requirements. This means the infrastructure built new would need to be accessible, but if they got hand-me-down vehicles that might be allowed. I'm not sure if the grandfathering applies when the vehicles switch owners. There might be a deadline by which all transit must be accessible but based on the TTC elevator installation plans that time is beyond the life of the CLRVs.

The current TTC fleet cannot be grandfather if sold to Windsor or any Ontario transit system unless they use them as a tourist line or build high floor platforms for them.

MTO wanted TTC fleet to be 100% accessibly by 2012 like the buses have to be, but back off to the 2018. Beyond that date, they have to be off the road as regular service cars.

MTO has fast track ODA standards from the 2025 deadline.
 

Back
Top