[TheTigerMaster]

It just occurred to me that an elevated ICTS rapid transit line was “planned” for Spadina Avenue in the 70s or 80s. So that’s not quite a crazy idea after all

And I say “planned” in dramatic quotes, because so far as I’ve seen, it never went beyond the concept stage. But it was a proposal at the time from Queens Park.

I think they just viewed Spadina as yet another place to market ICTS.

Here is an image of the proposal, posted by Laurence Lui on Twitter. This image is literally the one and only piece information about the proposal I can find online. Might have to visit the Toronto Archives to find more information about it. To think there was a time where absolutely everything wasn't uploaded to the information superhighway...

Personally, I don't think I would've supported this, based on aesthetic reasons alone. This render minimizes the visual impact of the proposal, and even here nothing looks pleasant about it. But if it were built underground, it would have been a fantastic addition to the network. The line could've been shallow and cut-and-cover to minimize costs.

This line would've certainly moved significantly more people than the SRT or Sheppard Subway, since the 510 Spadina already matches those lines for ridership. All-day ridership might even have been comparable to the Eglinton Crosstown, as western Downtown continued to develop in the new millennia.

Steve Munro on the proposal:

A similar system was also proposed for Hamilton: http://www.trainweb.org/hamtransithist/ICTS.html

 

[micheal_can]

Over the decades we’ve slowly added second exits to stations. But it has been on a case-by-case basis, there hasn’t been any kind of comprehensive plan to do so. And these exits have never been motivated by crowding concerns.

But with the DRL, this shouldn’t be necessary anyways.

Do all the stations for the TYSSE have multiple exits?

 

[MisterF]

How many systems in the world are multi-track? I'm pretty sure NYC is the only one. Plus I'm sure multi-tracking must be a lot more expensive than bigger trains.

Yeah, I don't get why people keep saying we should build 4 track subway lines in Toronto. I'm not aware of any outside NYC either. When you have a city with anemic subway coverage, the answer to congested lines is clearly to build new ones. A 4 track subway only makes any kind of sense if the city has such a high density of subway lines that there isn't room to build new ones. Needless to say that's not something that Toronto has to worry about.

 

[Kyle Campbell]

Yeah, I don't get why people keep saying we should build 4 track subway lines in Toronto. I'm not aware of any outside NYC either. When you have a city with anemic subway coverage, the answer to congested lines is clearly to build new ones. A 4 track subway only makes any kind of sense if the city has such a high density of subway lines that there isn't room to build new ones. Needless to say that's not something that Toronto has to worry about.

Philadelphia also has a 4 track setup on the Broad street line

 

[BurlOak]

It just occurred to me that an elevated ICTS rapid transit line was “planned” for Spadina Avenue in the 70s or 80s. So that’s not quite a crazy idea after all

And I say “planned” in dramatic quotes, because so far as I’ve seen, it never went beyond the concept stage. I don't think there was ever noteworthy support for it. But it was a proposal at the time from Queens Park.

I think they just viewed Spadina as yet another place to market ICTS.

If the Spadina extension was built in the late 1970's, would this have become the "Spadina" line - going from Yorkdale to downtown. That would have allowed them to return to the interlining option and the transfers from B-D line to Y-U line would not be nearly the problem it is now.

 

[M II A II R II K]

ICTS seems better for express stop type spacing especially since it’s high speed and off of the road and in suburban settings that don’t warrant a full subway.

The Sheppard Line should have been that instead and be elevated between Sheppard and the 401 and go all the way to Rouge Hill via the universities and zoos and stuff.

 

[junctionist]

Here is an image of the proposal, posted by Laurence Lui on Twitter. This image is literally the one and only piece information about the proposal I can find online. Might have to visit the Toronto Archives to find more information about it. To think there was a time where absolutely everything wasn't uploaded to the information superhighway...

Personally, I don't think I would've supported this, based on aesthetic reasons alone. This render minimizes the visual impact of the proposal, and even here nothing looks pleasant about it. But if it were built underground, it would have been a fantastic addition to the network. The line could've been shallow and cut-and-cover to minimize costs.

This line would've certainly moved significantly more people than the SRT or Sheppard Subway, since the 510 Spadina already matches those lines for ridership. All-day ridership might even have been comparable to the Eglinton Crosstown, as western Downtown continued to develop in the new millennia.

Steve Munro on the proposal:
View attachment 133493

A similar system was also proposed for Hamilton: http://www.trainweb.org/hamtransithist/ICTS.html

It would have looked better with high-quality streetscaping: buried utilities, ornamental street lights, trees, large planting areas, public art on the viaduct structure, and attractive modern minimalist stations. That's what they did when they built the streetcar ROW. It would have been a more efficient system than the streetcar line.

But ultimately, Spadina would benefit the most from buried transit. Transit would be more efficient, and the city could build perhaps its greatest boulevard with the space and landscaping of University Avenue but also the liveliness of Queen West thanks to Spadina's commercial-oriented character.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It would have looked better with high-quality streetscaping: buried utilities, ornamental street lights, trees in silva cells, large planting areas, public art on the viaduct structure, and attractive modern minimalist stations. It would have been a more efficient system than the streetcar line.

But ultimately, Spadina would benefit the most from buried transit. Transit would be more efficient, and the city could build perhaps its greatest boulevard with the space and landscaping of University Avenue but also the liveliness of Queen West thanks to Spadina's commercial-oriented character.

It probably wouldn't have been great for the downtown portion of the project - and most ROWs in the core are narrower than Spadina.

AoD

 

[Rainforest]

Yeah, I don't get why people keep saying we should build 4 track subway lines in Toronto. I'm not aware of any outside NYC either. When you have a city with anemic subway coverage, the answer to congested lines is clearly to build new ones. A 4 track subway only makes any kind of sense if the city has such a high density of subway lines that there isn't room to build new ones. Needless to say that's not something that Toronto has to worry about.

Fair enough; but on the other hand, it will be just as difficult to get "Relief Line #2" through downtown funded when such a line becomes necessary.

Therefore, I wouldn't mind to build the downtown portion of Relief Line with 4 tracks, in the assumption that the two pairs will part ways outside downtown. Eventually they will turn into two separate lines that just happen to share the downtown section.

I'm sure it is still a lot cheaper to build one 4-track tunnel in one shot than to build two 2-track tunnels on two separate occasions.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Perhaps a 2 storey tunnel where the express tracks are underneath but have access tracks to the main level, which would also make for totally customizable express.

 

[BurlOak]

Fair enough; but on the other hand, it will be just as difficult to get "Relief Line #2" through downtown funded when such a line becomes necessary.

Therefore, I wouldn't mind to build the downtown portion of Relief Line with 4 tracks, in the assumption that the two pairs will part ways outside downtown. Eventually they will turn into two separate lines that just happen to share the downtown section.

I'm sure it is still a lot cheaper to build one 4-track tunnel in one shot than to build two 2-track tunnels on two separate occasions.

For the first part, do you want to wait another 20 years to start Relief Line construction because we need to wait in order to accumulate the extra money needed to build a 4 track tunnel.
The Present Value of the money is much cheaper if the second 2-track tunnel is built 50 years in the future. It would also be built on an adjacent parallel route to provide even better transit coverage.

 

[junctionist]

It probably wouldn't have been great for the downtown portion of the project - and most ROWs in the core are narrower than Spadina.

AoD

Which portion in particular? Spadina is wide from College to the Gardiner. The ICTS requires a relatively narrow guideway.

 

[Kyle Campbell]

For the first part, do you want to wait another 20 years to start Relief Line construction because we need to wait in order to accumulate the extra money needed to build a 4 track tunnel.
The Present Value of the money is much cheaper if the second 2-track tunnel is built 50 years in the future. It would also be built on an adjacent parallel route to provide even better transit coverage.

Given the dithering that's gone on for so long, and no actual firm commitment for construction yet we mayb still have that 20 years to save up.

I'm sure the "self driving cars will make mass transit obsolete" crowd will real its ugly head when it comes to securing funding

 

[Rainforest]

For the first part, do you want to wait another 20 years to start Relief Line construction because we need to wait in order to accumulate the extra money needed to build a 4 track tunnel.
The Present Value of the money is much cheaper if the second 2-track tunnel is built 50 years in the future. It would also be built on an adjacent parallel route to provide even better transit coverage.

Definitely not. If it can be built with 4 tracks in roughly same time frame, then it is worth the effort. But if the decision to do 4 tracks results in any significant delay, then we have to give priority to the problem currently at hand, and build with 2 tracks.

My hope is that the extra cost (of adding 2 more tracks) is substantially less than 50%, and thus the funding can be secured for either choice.

 

[rbt]

My hope is that the extra cost (of adding 2 more tracks) is substantially less than 50%, and thus the funding can be secured for either choice.

I don't think it would be. Platforms width, stairways, etc. are all sized for fire. Specifically, they assume there is a station fire and both trains are forced to empty at that station.

So, with 4 tracks they'd need to assume that 4 trains need to empty at the station on fire. This would double the amount of platform space and stairway required. So in addition to double the tunnel cost, station cost would also increase more than a trivial amount (station box needs to be wider to allow for much bigger exits from the upper floor).

I'm pretty sure neither St. George or Bloor/Yonge would meet modern fire code if built today.


That said, it is an interesting suggestion.