News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.3K     0 

ssiguy2 said:
Regardless who is in power at City Hall or Queen's Park in a few years, Eglinton is a go.
I do think, however, that there will be further discussions about the DM to Kennedy section and wanting it made into a total grade separated line and with good reason. Needless to say that will involve some form of elevation and if it becomes a totally grade separated line then I think you will see continued pressure to scrap LRT technology.
Click to expand...

I do not think that totally grade separated will have any impact on the LRT technology.

What could change the technology is the shutdown of the existing SRT. I do not think it is on anyones radar that this will be shut down for 3 years to convert to LRT. If this shutdown can be made into a major issue during a campaign, I could see some attempts made to drastically reduce this time. Skytrain technology is the easiest way I see that this shutdown could be significantly reduced. The closure of the SRT will be a huge issue, but it will probably not surface during the campaign of 2014 since it is still too far away.

The other thing that may come up is the extension of the B-D subway to STC. Council voted on this to be studied and depending on who does this study, they could probably come up with whatever result they want. At about $2B, it is quite an expensive option.
 
BurlOak said:
I do not think that totally grade separated will have any impact on the LRT technology.

What could change the technology is the shutdown of the existing SRT. I do not think it is on anyones radar that this will be shut down for 3 years to convert to LRT. If this shutdown can be made into a major issue during a campaign, I could see some attempts made to drastically reduce this time. Skytrain technology is the easiest way I see that this shutdown could be significantly reduced. The closure of the SRT will be a huge issue, but it will probably not surface during the campaign of 2014 since it is still too far away.

The other thing that may come up is the extension of the B-D subway to STC. Council voted on this to be studied and depending on who does this study, they could probably come up with whatever result they want. At about $2B, it is quite an expensive option.
Click to expand...

I have long maintained that a big reason to do a Bloor-Danforth extension to STC is specifically because it can be accomplished without shutting down the SRT. There will be utter chaos in the east end with Eglinton and Sheppard under construction, with a shutdown of the SRT.

I would've also liked to have seen Eglinton combined with the old plan for the Morningside LRT, to serve Eglinton East, Kingston and Morningside UTSC...possibly extending up to Malvern.

With the Sheppard LRT going into Malvern, I think buses from Malvern to STC, especially if connecting right to the BD line, would be more than adequate for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, there's no political will to close some of the useless stations along the SRT corridor. And so they are going to force the Eglinton line up the SRT corridor.
 
After spending the long weekend in New York, for the life of me I can't figure out why Toronto doesn't build above-ground subways.
 
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
After spending the long weekend in New York, for the life of me I can't figure out why Toronto doesn't build above-ground subways.
Click to expand...

I agree big time. We want rapid transit. But we don't have the money nor do we want to pay the needed taxes for underground. We don't want on surface because of the reduced speed and the potential problems we might run into with car traffic. Above grounds only negative seems to be asthetics. It's cheaper then underground and faster then surface. For the life of me I can't understand why above ground wasn't considered a option for the western portion of the eglinton line between the airport and WESTON. Basically that section is almost through a abandoned forest. On the east side after vic park its all industrial.
 
^ That;s why infrastructure in Toronto costs twice as much to build and twice as long to do it.

I do think if there is a strong movement to make the line totally grade separated the choice of technology will become a very big issue. If they are going to transfer SRT another technology {although no other city on the planet would be stupid enough to} then LRT is the most expensive technology choice they could make and would have the lowest capacity. SkyTrain has faster pick-up than LRT and the MK111 are marginally wider and subways and monorails are significantly wider with 3 meter widths. They also don't have the need for higher tunnels/stations unlike LRT which has to have higher roofs to accomodate the catenarys.
 
nfitz said:
Has New York City built any subway above-ground since the 1950s? Other than the JFK Skytrain, that uses the SRT technology?
Click to expand...

But New york already has a expansive subway system built where as ours is underbuilt. Also they built theirs at a time when it was cheaper and they built the city with densities that support it. We are trying to make up for lost time with financial problems. I can't say it should be a universal application throughout the city but I don't see how the houses around the richview corridor are going to be negatively impacted by an above ground system. Similarly I can't see how big box store businesses are going to have a fundamental problem with it being above throughout the golden mile. I'm sure elevated could be built without being so imposing.
 
car4041 said:
New York isn't exactly building above-ground subways anymore either, are they? Last I heard, the Second Avenue Subway was very much underground.
Click to expand...

No, but Brooklyn is investigating building at-grade LRT as suburban/mid-rise neighbourhood feeder lines into the subway.
 
sixrings said:
But New york already has a expansive subway system built where as ours is underbuilt.
Click to expand...
They eliminated many of their surface and elevated lines, and put them underground.

Though if you try and travel from the Bronx to Queens, or from Brooklyn to Staten Island, you'd think theirs is underbuilt as well, with still no service to LaGaurdia, no express service to JFK, and overcrowding in Manhattan.

sixrings said:
I can't say it should be a universal application throughout the city but I don't see how the houses around the richview corridor are going to be negatively impacted by an above ground system.
Click to expand...
Which is good - as that's what they are getting. I don't recall of their being any serious discussion of putting a subway along Richview, even in the 1980s.
 
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
After spending the long weekend in New York, for the life of me I can't figure out why Toronto doesn't build above-ground subways.
Click to expand...

When New York City built their above-ground subways, there was no EA's done, there was little organized NIMBY's, building standards were just being started, little or no zoning, little in the way of benefits and wages low, and labour laws were almost non-existent.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top