kEiThZ
Superstar
In the Toronto context, would the TTC really agree to using express trains when we have no experience with them whatsoever?
|
|
|
In the Toronto context, would the TTC really agree to using express trains when we have no experience with them whatsoever?
As an alternative to placing express trains on one level and local trains on the other, the tunnel width could be further reduced by placing eastbound tracks on one level, and westbound tracks on the other. This would allow for one side platform to be built on each level to serve the local trains, rather than a wider island platform or two side platforms. Express stations could have one island platform on each level, which serves both local and express trains. You just walk from one side of the platform to the other to switch from local to express - no stair climbing.
There's a first time for everything, right?
My map with the DRL added in. I used my own favoured Front-ish alignment.
I don't know why I ended up with so many stations in the east (I had to cut out Church) and so few in the west
How much would it cost to dig a friggin' tunnel to connect Downsview with Yonge-Sheppard on the Sheppard line. Forget the extra stop, just connect the two sides of the loop already!
My map with the DRL added in. I used my own favoured Front-ish alignment.
I don't know why I ended up with so many stations in the east (I had to cut out Church) and so few in the west
So many stations in the east would seem, to me anyway, to kill the whole political motivation for putting this line in early - ie providing a tangible relief to the Y-B station. (Too many stations = slow ride) I also think that Union or south is wrong, but I'm sure keithz will eventually correct me there.My map with the DRL added in. I used my own favoured Front-ish alignment.
I don't know why I ended up with so many stations in the east (I had to cut out Church) and so few in the west
We don't know if the DRL will be tunnelled the whole way (either because people insist on it, or because people deem anything else impossible), or if it might run in trenches or on the surface or elevated for stretches, or how many stations there will be, or what much the stations themselves will cost based on how deep they are, or what % of contingency will be added, or how much a new yard might cost, or how gold-plated it'll be, or how much beyond the necessary minimum will be wasted on engineers and consultants and architects...or even how long the line will be. Bring on the [hopefully, as unbiased as possible...except a bias for low-costness] studies!
I agree.. the DRL could/should be extended (eventually) north to ~Weston in the west, and up Don Mills in the east to Eglinton, Sheppard or Steeles. I would like to think it's all "feasible", it's only a matter of whether there is the political will to get it done (within our lifetime / ever). It's not the first time I said it but, ah, if only...I would like to see the subway go from the Scarbourough towncentre all the way to Weston. I have been out the other way a few times to get to Laosian grocery store - and I believe that part of the line would get used -- not sure the volume - but there is seems to be a considerable number of high rises in the area..... I just think that once they started the line, that having Sheppard crosstown, Eglinton, Bloor, and DRL and eventually having a few more lines NS on the outer region (DRL intersect terminate at Sheppard/Weston) would provide Toronto a good backbone. I of course have no idea if it is all feasible.
it's an LRT/(perhaps HRT in the distant future?) on Hurontario, in MissisaugaWhy do you have a line downtown on the far west but not the east? What's that line called?
So many stations in the east would seem, to me anyway, to kill the whole political motivation for putting this line in early - ie providing a tangible relief to the Y-B station. (Too many stations = slow ride) I also think that Union or south is wrong, but I'm sure keithz will eventually correct me there.
The existence of consultants and engineers outside the formal structure of the TTC is a direct result of the TTC not carrying them in-house. You think bringing them into the TTC's bureaucracy will result in efficiency?
The DRL runs through the densely populated inner city, as well as many areas ripe for redevelopment. Stops should be every 500m, like on the downtown YUS. But like I've said before, it also has to be fast, which is why express stops should be spaced every 2000m. A double decker tunnel would fine on narrow streets where a 4 track tunnel could not be accommodated.
As an alternative to placing express trains on one level and local trains on the other, the tunnel width could be further reduced by placing eastbound tracks on one level, and westbound tracks on the other. This would allow for one side platform to be built on each level to serve the local trains, rather than a wider island platform or two side platforms. Express stations could have one island platform on each level, which serves both local and express trains. You just walk from one side of the platform to the other to switch from local to express - no stair climbing.
This bias, I think, holds back many of the would-be planners on this forum. The existence of consultants and engineers outside the formal structure of the TTC is a direct result of the TTC not carrying them in-house. You think bringing them into the TTC's bureaucracy will result in efficiency?
Money spent on consultants and engineers isn't de facto wasted; the waste is built in by the project selection - i.e. it's not who you select, it's what you put out to tender.
Architects similarly respond to the desire of the client, they don't drive the process that results in more or less expensive projects... The expense is built in by the selection of architects in the first place.