salsa said:
But who's gonna pay for that?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Taxpayers I guess. That's not my job to figure out. I'm just saying that the only thing that could likely go there is parkland. It would be similar to the currently decked over portion of Yonge Line and the proposals to deck over the rail yard near Union. All of them are decked with public parks.
 
There is no rationale for decking the yard just for the sake of a park in a relatively low density area with sufficient green space. This is also a bit different from (and significantly costlier) decking over a pair of tracks in a trench. I can't see the case for it unless the proposal involves some form of densification above - and I can see vigorous community opposition to that.

AoD
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Yup. It's a stupid proposal.

Out of curiosity, why was the other exposed section of Yonge Line decked over?
Click to expand...

According to James Bow, it was to reduce noise complaints, reduce the incidents of people/objects getting onto the track, and to allow for development.

In general, I think it's better for maintenance and reducing wear-and-tear on the vehicles/tracks. Heat cycling is the primary cause of degradation of basically any mechanical component (other than friction). The fact that the Montreal metro is entirely underground, along with the storage yards, means that the trains don't experience the same kind of heat expansion/compression as Toronto trains do, which is probably the reason why they are still able to use their original sets of trains (which are planned to be in service for another 20 years!!!)
 
aquateam said:
According to James Bow, it was to reduce noise complaints, reduce the incidents of people/objects getting onto the track, and to allow for development.

In general, I think it's better for maintenance and reducing wear-and-tear on the vehicles/tracks. Heat cycling is the primary cause of degradation of basically any mechanical component (other than friction). The fact that the Montreal metro is entirely underground, along with the storage yards, means that the trains don't experience the same kind of heat expansion/compression as Toronto trains do, which is probably the reason why they are still able to use their original sets of trains (which are planned to be in service for another 20 years!!!)
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing, but as a rider I really like the open trench sections, getting some sunlight during the commute. I also like seeing & hearing the trains when walking around midtown.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
It's Josh Matlow's campaign for parkland at Yonge and Eg that has helped stall redevelopment proposals for the abandoned bus terminal. It was a joke.
Click to expand...

I doubt that Matlow had much to do with it. Once TransitCity was announced in 2007 (or maybe even just before it), the TTC stopped being actively searching for developers for the site as they realized that they could use it for staging and access during construction.

aquateam said:
In general, I think it's better for maintenance and reducing wear-and-tear on the vehicles/tracks. Heat cycling is the primary cause of degradation of basically any mechanical component (other than friction). The fact that the Montreal metro is entirely underground, along with the storage yards, means that the trains don't experience the same kind of heat expansion/compression as Toronto trains do, which is probably the reason why they are still able to use their original sets of trains (which are planned to be in service for another 20 years!!!)
Click to expand...

The fact that Montreal uses a LOT less salt that we do here in Toronto has a lot more to do with the longevity of the subway cars. That, and they've had a LOT more work done to them over the years than Toronto's fleets, and to be completely honest, their vehicles just see less service on a year-to-year basis than ours.

Keep in mind too that tunnels have much different - and costly - requirements for life-safety systems than open-cut sections. It does save a bit of maintenance in some ways - no snow removal, and less long-term damage to power and signalling systems due to exposure - but there are a lot of other systems that are needed which more than make up the difference.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
If they decked over Davisville the only thing I'd expect to be built is parkland.
Click to expand...

Because we should NEVER have density around a subway station!

Seriously? To the east just across Yonge is condo's and apartments (including along Morton, Balliol and Davisville). To the SW is the Beltline and more high-rises. To the west is Oriole park. There would need to be a step-back on the north end with the houses along Chaplin Cres. But huge opportunity for 5-8 highrises.
 
muller877 said:
Because we should NEVER have density around a subway station!

Seriously? To the east just across Yonge is condo's and apartments (including along Morton, Balliol and Davisville). To the SW is the Beltline and more high-rises. To the west is Oriole park. There would need to be a step-back on the north end with the houses along Chaplin Cres. But huge opportunity for 5-8 highrises.
Click to expand...

To the west there are a lot of very wealthy people that would fight this tooth and nail. The TTC was planning on selling the land in front of Rosedale station a number of years ago for redevelopment purposes. They didn't stand a chance. I would expect a similar outcome here.
 
The Davisville site is very large, and development of the Yonge side would not impinge on the people to the west. It is kinda absurd that a major artery in the city has a stretch that is nothing but open tracks to one side.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top