78 is labeled ground floor, but that appears to be like DVP elevation. If you go a couple of hundred metres away (where a station might be), the elevation of 84 appears more appropriate. Thus, it's 17m from grade to bedrock, plus 5m buffer, plus 4m to platform level. 26m seems like the right number.

Rock may be nice to tunnel through as long as you don't build stations. Once you have stations, especially close ones like downtown*, then the extraordinary amount of time and effort needed to build a station, exceeds the disruption of continuous cut-and-cover and shallow stations.

* - if stations are every 700m, platforms are 150m long with +/-15m service rooms at either end, then essentially between 25% to 30% of the line is deep, time consuming, costly and complex deep cut-and-cover construction. And this 25% to 30% happens at busy intersections, where traffic is more and disruption greater.
 
BurlOak said:
78 is labeled ground floor, but that appears to be like DVP elevation. If you go a couple of hundred metres away (where a station might be), the elevation of 84 appears more appropriate. Thus, it's 17m from grade to bedrock, plus 5m buffer, plus 4m to platform level. 26m seems like the right number.
Click to expand...

The proposed station is only 100m or so away from the Don River - and I would be quite hesitant to interpret what is called a podium as ground level. If it is that high up, you wouldn't have needed the flood protection landform along Don Roadway in the first place.

Rock may be nice to tunnel through as long as you don't build stations. Once you have stations, especially close ones like downtown*, then the extraordinary amount of time and effort needed to build a station, exceeds the disruption of continuous cut-and-cover and shallow stations.

* - if stations are every 700m, platforms are 150m long with +/-15m service rooms at either end, then essentially between 25% to 30% of the line is deep, time consuming, costly and complex deep cut-and-cover construction. And this 25% to 30% happens at busy intersections, where traffic is more and disruption greater.
Click to expand...

That's an assertion, plus you are assuming that the line will stay that deep all the way through. It's not that "extraordinary" compared to complex, split station designs that shallow schemes may require, cut and cover or not.

AoD
 
Just about everyone agrees that the SRT should be retained with upgraded train sets and perhaps a light roof to mitigate bad weather. No one can reasonably justify the antipathy toward Sky Train tech and Council's hell bent support of the Scarborough subway extension. If sensible choices were made on transit in Scarborough, no doubt we'd have the DRL dug sooner, perhaps from Eglinton to Queen and Dufferin at least, instead of the planned small J stub.
 
Same old, same old.

Planning instead of doing a Toronto tradition
Transit building has never been easy

From link.

1297919051240_ORIGINAL.jpg


As annoying as the ongoing deferrals of building new and much-needed additions to the existing public transit network is, researching old editions of the city’s newspapers reveals that this bothersome characteristic has been around for years, nay decades.

Deferral of the proposed extension of Line 2 (aka the Bloor-Danforth subway) into Scarborough seems to be a continuation of this cautious approach to getting things done.

Take, for instance, the first really serious plan put forward to build Toronto’s original two underground transit lines — yes two. Certainly there had been other earlier proposals, but in the case of those put forward in the early 1900s, they were political “pipe dreams.”

The plan that was made public exactly 75 years ago Sunday was put forward by the TTC’s chairman, William C. McBrien, a businessman who went on to serve a total of 21 years on the commission. McBrien died less than three months after his “beloved” Yonge subway (Canada’s first) opened on March 30, 1954.

At the time, there was a suggestion that it be titled “the McBrien Subway” in his honour. Instead, the TTC’s new head office building at 1900 Yonge St. (Chaplin Cres.) was named the McBrien Building.

McBrien knew that in the years following the end of the Second World War the city and its surrounding suburban townships would undergo rapid growth. As a result of this growth, the needs of the travelling public would have to keep pace or the city would strangle. Rapid transit lines serving the core areas, plus extensions connecting the city with its suburbs, were the only answer.

What made his 1942 plan seem plausible was the fact that when McBrien announced the project he suggested that it be built in sections. In doing so, the associated costs could be financed so as not to be a burden on the city taxpayers. In fact, thanks to the tremendous increase in the TTC’s passenger traffic during the war years, the fares thus collected could finance a large percentage of the construction costs. McBrien’s plan is shown on the accompanying map.

It shows a 6.3-km-long Bay–Yonge underground rapid transit line from Union Station on Front St. to a terminal just north of St. Clair Ave.

In addition, the commission proposed a 5.3-km underground streetcar subway that would, for most of its length, parallel Queen St. from the Logan Ave. intersection in the east to Trinity Park in the west end of the city. To look after the inevitable population growth in the city suburbs, several surface extensions via rights-of-way were planned that would include tracks along the abandoned Belt Line to Eglinton, through part of the Nordheimer Ravine to St. Clair and the lower Don Valley to the Broadview–Danforth intersection.

However, the war was on and winning it was more important. Transit expansion could wait.

Today, there’s no war and still we wait.
Click to expand...
 
Are you saying we should be doing the Scarborough subway, the full DRL from Sheppard to Mt. Dennis, full ST, full electrification and expansion of existing GO lines (RER), high-speed inter-city rail (HFR with fewer stops), the LRT's in Scarborough off of the Crosstown and Sheppard lines, Finch LRT, West Eglinton LRT, Queens Quay East LRT with Cherry St. LRT, maybe a Jane St. LRT, ROW's for LRT on Queen and King (and College?), and have all of this reach the suburbs connecting with their rail lines? Okay, if all this happens, how to pay? Here we are back again... To start with, can the Gardiner Hybrid and stick with boulevard option...
 
This has nothing to do with the Gardiner one way or another, and it certainly not a thread to discuss your "schemes".

AoD
 
Last edited:
I recall that it's for the entire Relief Line proposal (Dundas West to Sheppard).

I don't know who's "taken the lead" on it, but last I heard, Toronto City Planning will be studying everything up to and including the TPAP (EA). I presume that the Metrolinx-hired consultant will be handling detailed design and engineering work, immediately upon completion of the TPAP.
 
Hopefully they'll study bringing the line as far west as possible. Looking at instertname's 3D model thread is yet another reminder of how mindboggling it is that we don't have a cross-core line in place, nor have a tangible plan for one yet.
 
44 North said:
Hopefully they'll study bringing the line as far west as possible. Looking at instertname's 3D model thread is yet another reminder of how mindboggling it is that we don't have a cross-core line in place, nor have a tangible plan for one yet.
Click to expand...

It's pretty shocking how our subway system is pretty useless for getting around the core area. This may yet change that.

AoD
 
TheTigerMaster said:
I recall that it's for the entire Relief Line proposal (Dundas West to Sheppard).

I don't know who's "taken the lead" on it, but last I heard, Toronto City Planning will be studying everything up to and including the TPAP (EA). I presume that the Metrolinx-hired consultant will be handling detailed design and engineering work, immediately upon completion of the TPAP.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure. I don't think City Planning has the manpower to handle the project itself, unless they are hiring more staff (which is possible). I believe the long portion of the study will be handled more by consultants as the manpower doesnt exist in the governments wings. I could be wrong though.


I believe the funding was to get the whole line from Sheppard to Dundas West to a "shovel ready" stage.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top