DSC
Superstar
Update on OL to TEYCC https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2023/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-236511.pdf
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
generalcanada
Senior Member
if anyone has the time to look through a 2000 page contract document to find litterally just anything interesting:
duffo
Active Member
Something interesting: MX has the right to contract ProjectCo to build future extensions of the system. There's quite a bit of detail around the procedure in the document. Makes me think that MX may be setting the stage for building future extensions relatively quickly..
W. K. Lis
Superstar
T3G
Senior Member
Well, well! It turns out you don't need a monster station building to make a subway station accessible after all!
How did our highly knowledgeable, qualified, enlightened burghers at Metrolinx miss this one?
How did our highly knowledgeable, qualified, enlightened burghers at Metrolinx miss this one?
MrGoose
Active Member
Well, well! It turns out you don't need a monster CABLE STAYED BRIDGE to CROSS THE DON RIVER after all!
How did our highly knowledgeable, qualified, enlightened burghers at Metrolinx miss this one?
How did our highly knowledgeable, qualified, enlightened burghers at Metrolinx miss this one?
ARG1
Senior Member
... who cares?
TossYourJacket
Senior Member
This might be one of the stupidest, low-effort, trolling comments I've seen on this forum
If you had even any vague concept of how civil engineering worked, which you clearly do not, you'd understand that the key issue is how the downward forces are applied to the bridge, and how you counter them structurally. Please show me an example of 2 metro trains crossing a bridge like this simultaneously, as will happen on the planned bridge over the Don River. Otherwise, nothing you are saying is anything more than nonsensical and/or clueless trolling. There is a reason you use cable-stayed bridges (among other options) for supporting significant loading. A pedestrian bridge like this would collapse if you applied the loading case of 2 subway trains, let alone 2 subway trains + snow. There is not enough upward counter force force to balance out the downward force applied by the trains. Cus guess what, people weigh a lot less than trains!
I get that Metrolinx can be stupid, but nonsense like this isn't helpful or productive as a way to criticize them. All it shows is you have absolutely zero idea how structural engineering works. You might as well ask why we don't build the bridge out of string, that's how far from reality the point you think you are making here is. Pedestrian bridges and bridges that support trains are not even remotely the same.
generalcanada
Senior Member
why do people keep saying this? its very disrespectful.
"he has an opinion, i dont like it so he must be paid by x company". Developers, metrolinx, government projects. Its all the same, instead of engaging in reasonable debate, you go straight to personal attacks
as for the station entrances, having bigger wider station entrances instead of narrow staircases is a good thing. All those 50 year old narrow hallways and staircases and king, queen, and osgoode are not something we should be looking at as good station design.
Granted, sure theyre cheaper but it comes at a cost that in transit we shouldnt be sacrificing. Future growth.
T3G
Senior Member
generalcanada
Senior Member
....what?
You posted a picture of bowling green station with a tiny elevator shaft saying we should be building those i guess?
You do know the station entrance stairwells are tiny and narrow like I mentioned right?
Is that not what youre trying to say? we should be building in the style of that station? not big modern station entrances?
We did that in 1960 with those old Yonge line Stations as I mentioned
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
T3G
Senior Member
Yes, that is correct. I suggested building the entrance into the station in that style, to avoid the pointless destruction of the public realm that Metrolinx has chosen instead.
I don't see how bringing up bridge sizes is relevant, except t discredit my original argument. There is a very good reason why we don't run heavy trains on tiny bridges. There is no good argument at all for the large station building when a much smaller one would do the trick.
I don't see how bringing up bridge sizes is relevant, except t discredit my original argument. There is a very good reason why we don't run heavy trains on tiny bridges. There is no good argument at all for the large station building when a much smaller one would do the trick.
generalcanada
Senior Member
ahhhh i see its the osgoode hall thing again, LOVE IT
There is a big difference between "OK" and "GOOD"
Look at king station on the Yonge line, its already over capacity, those stairwells absolutely do not work, they are very cramped and during rush hour hard to get through.
People talk about the trains of the ontario line and how they arent the highest capacity, I point out that trains arent the only thing that makes capacity differences.
The stations themselves also contribute to capacity, large platforms, big entrances, multiple separate escalators/stairwells
Why should we be okay with limiting capacity?
Northern Light
Superstar
No you don't.
This is true.
'already'? It was built in the early 1950s, so its capacity was mostly sufficient for 70 odd years. Psst, King Station is getting expanded, the concourse level will begin to grow in 2 years. I expect some additional vertical circulation as well, but I haven't seen the detail plans so can't attest to that.
This argument would cut both ways.......but I digress........
I believe Osgoode as currently designed will have congestion issues; that's a point of conjecture I suppose, as those designing the station feel there is adequate space in their models; I think there are problematic pinch points, and they've been overly conservative in their assumptions as they apply to the existing Line 1 station, which their mandate suggests they are not to address more than necessary....
That said, I would agree w/you that @T3G 's idea, taken on its own (without other changes to the design would not be sufficient. But there's nothing wrong w/the idea per se, is merely a matter of how one would otherwise address capacity constraints.
Regrettably, I think the choices made here impose substantial constraints and additional costs, in respect of future capacity expansion.
Leaving the existing Line 1 Station non-compliant with the Fire Code (no second completely independent exit from the platform) is a serious problem to me; and I'm not entirely convinced its consistent with the law.
I believe vertical circulation capacity between Line 1 and the O/L is also inadequate.
I think these issues would have been better addressed with a completely different set of design choices. But both Mx and the City dropped the ball there........sigh.
***
Edit, I should add, the large impact on Osgoode has as much or more to do w/the keyhole access (extraction shaft for the TBM) than the entrance itself. This too could have been avoided by doing the entire stretch from University to Yonge as cut and cover, including the intersection of Univ/Queen and extracting the TBM within the ROW of Queen.
Last edited: