[Leo_Chan]

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 the station.

It would probably require a triple platform setup for both levels as the people traffic would be insane. Getting people exiting one platform and to another platform on the other level and opposite side efficiency would be a logistical nightmare. The circulation from the centre platforms to the surface would require insane capacity.

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).

If need be, a split platform setup could work, but it would require a lot for vertical space and 4 level stacking of tracks.

Like this but doubled:

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

100% not to modern standards. Not enough vertical circulation, horizontal circulation, nor platform width.

That said, it is an interesting suggestion.

One that would never happen unless the demand was through the atmosphere.

 

[smallspy]

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.

There was never, ever a plan to put ICTS down Spadina.

What did happen was that when the TTC started making the plans to build what became the Spadina streetcar that they called it the "Spadina RT", in the same vein as the "Scarborough RT" was supposed to be before it got upgraded to the ICTS technology. The problem was that when the technology changed in Scarborough the nomenclature didn't, and so the people against the Spadina line used the confusion to their advantage. The image of the SRT soaring over a congested Spadina Ave. was just one of their many falsehoods that they tried to use to sway public opinion in their direction.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Johnny Au]

There was never, ever a plan to put ICTS down Spadina.

What did happen was that when the TTC started making the plans to build what became the Spadina streetcar that they called it the "Spadina RT", in the same vein as the "Scarborough RT" was supposed to be before it got upgraded to the ICTS technology. The problem was that when the technology changed in Scarborough the nomenclature didn't, and so the people against the Spadina line used the confusion to their advantage. The image of the SRT soaring over a congested Spadina Ave. was just one of their many falsehoods that they tried to use to sway public opinion in their direction.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

There goes the Toronto EL.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

There was never, ever a plan to put ICTS down Spadina.

What did happen was that when the TTC started making the plans to build what became the Spadina streetcar that they called it the "Spadina RT", in the same vein as the "Scarborough RT" was supposed to be before it got upgraded to the ICTS technology. The problem was that when the technology changed in Scarborough the nomenclature didn't, and so the people against the Spadina line used the confusion to their advantage. The image of the SRT soaring over a congested Spadina Ave. was just one of their many falsehoods that they tried to use to sway public opinion in their direction.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Interesting. Do you suppose Steve Munro somehow misremembered the events surrounding this render? He seems quite adamant that this originated from the provincial government to promote the proposal, even claiming that the government went as far as suppressing reports on the negative visual impact the proposal would have on Spadina.

This is total speculation, but I suppose this render could have come out of UTDC, as a concept of what could be possible with the technology. UTDC would have wanted to suppress reports on the visual impact of the technology. And opponents of the Spadina (L)RT could have used this same render to lie to the public about the visual impacts of the LRT proposal.

 

[MisterF]

It's such an amateurish rendering, even by 1980s standards. The system looks like it was drawn in with pencil crayons, the angle and perspective of the guideway is all wrong, and the support pillars are randomly placed in different parts of the street, blocking different lanes. I wouldn't put it past local businesses to make stuff up to oppose a streetcar project; just look at the crap that restaurants on King Street are pulling.

 

[smallspy]

Interesting. Do you suppose Steve Munro somehow misremembered the events surrounding this render? He seems quite adamant that this originated from the provincial government to promote the proposal, even claiming that the government went as far as suppressing reports on the negative visual impact the proposal would have on Spadina.

This is total speculation, but I suppose this render could have come out of UTDC, as a concept of what could be possible with the technology. UTDC would have wanted to suppress reports on the visual impact of the technology. And opponents of the Spadina (L)RT could have used this same render to lie to the public about the visual impacts of the LRT proposal.

I suppose that perhaps someone in the Government may have mused about it, and maybe even publicly so. But there is no evidence to support that an ICTS was ever seriously planned for Spadina Ave. Even UTDC didn't seem to consider it when marketing it.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[jcam]

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.

If you're talking about doubling the width of the tunnel to accommodate four tracks, then that means a bore with 4x the cross-sectional area. That means it has to be deeper and with a thicker wall. Maybe you can squeeze it to 3x the area if you stack the tracks, but that adds immense cost in the stations and complicates emergency access. Either way, significantly more expensive than 'less than 50%'.

Anything to do with quadruple tracking or using standard gauge over TTC gauge is really just fantasy thread discussion.

 

[aquateam]

Interesting. Do you suppose Steve Munro somehow misremembered the events surrounding this render? He seems quite adamant that this originated from the provincial government to promote the proposal, even claiming that the government went as far as suppressing reports on the negative visual impact the proposal would have on Spadina.

Human memory is completely awful. Eyewitness testimony of details of events that happened yesterday is practically useless, let alone 40 years ago. That's why court cases have such a strong focus on physical evidence. When you remember something, you are reconstructing events, you aren't playing back a recording. So unless there is some kind of record showing that the province wanted the line to be ICTS, I would take that statement with a grain of salt.

 

[micheal_can]

The problem with the Yonge side is that it draws from such a dense area.

I have always thought a line along Bay-Avenue-Bayview would be a relief line. Still gets you downtown. Still connects with line 2. Still can connect with the York Region.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The problem with the Yonge side is that it draws from such a dense area.

I have always thought a line along Bay-Avenue-Bayview would be a relief line. Still gets you downtown. Still connects with line 2. Still can connect with the York Region.

Cons - provide very little benefit outside a corridor that already have mass transit service; ignores areas with high growth potential (e.g. East Harbour) or areas with existing/emergent clusters of density (Cosburn, Thorncliffe, Flemingdon/Eglinton)

AoD

 

[micheal_can]

Cons - provide very little benefit outside a corridor that already have mass transit service; ignores areas with high growth potential (e.g. East Harbour) or areas with existing/emergent clusters of density (Cosburn, Thorncliffe, Flemingdon/Eglinton)

AoD

I am not suggesting a larger U should not be built. I am suggesting that a line parallel to Yonge St is needed. I am suggesting that the line I suggest would be the most effective at reducing ridership on Yonge.

 

[tayser]

For the DRL, I think Metrolinx will {and certainly should} go with the single deck EMUs like Melbourne's Metro trains. By using catenary the DRL could also be used by RER trains. Anyone who thinks an alternative downtown tunnel will not be needed is delusional. RER could easily pass the current subways in ridership levels within 40 years and Union simply wouldn't be able to handle it/ If the DRL downtown section gets eventually extended to roughly Dufferin to meet up with the rail corridors of RER then you could have continuous RER service thru the entire downtown.

By-the-by, the mock-up and internals were unveiled for the new HCMT (high-capacity metro train) recently, and will on public display next week if any of you want to hot foot it to the southern hemisphere to get away from winter

Current train sets in Melbourne are around about the same dimensions as TTC subway trains (6 car) - 3m x ~144m. The HCMTs will start with 7 carriages and pushing a length of ~160m with ~500 seats and total capacity around the 1100 range. Ultimately with a second phase of platform extensions (15+ years away) the new HCMT sets will be extended to 10 car and probably pushing upwards of 1500 capacity.

More internal images of the mock-up here: https://urban.melbourne/transport/2018/01/24/new-metro-train-designs-finalised

 

[steveintoronto]

By-the-by, the mock-up and internals were unveiled for the new HCMT (high-capacity metro train) recently, and will on public display next week if any of you want to hot foot it to the southern hemisphere to get away from winter
[...]
More internal images of the mock-up here: https://urban.melbourne/transport/2018/01/24/new-metro-train-designs-finalised

I've been following the Sydney debate on the Metro (single) v what it replaces in sections (DD) and I must admit, also following Crossrail closely, longer trains but single deck seem to have tipped into favour. Safety in emergencies is a very real but often not discussed point for single decker.

Crossrail, being in deep tunnel, was adamant to plan for further expansion, so the station tunnels are bored/excavated to accept 12 car trains eventually, but just ten length platforms being built in the bores for now. Even though the Paris RER was the template in many ways, for the Brits, at least, with their smaller loading gauge and through-running of mainline services, single deck was the only practicable choice. Excellent links and heads-up. Many thanks for that.

Addendum: At your link now, and besides the "surfer" reference, the safety aspect is chillingly made clear with this:
"The streamlined design is quite appealing, and is really a consequence of the coupler cover, to help prevent train surfing, as well as the front being designed to cushion any impact from a collision.

Emergency evacuation ladders will make it easier to get everybody out of the train if ever necessary."

It's an awful thing to have to plan for, but DDs in tunnel would be an absolute disaster in some crises...

 

[pman]

Melbourne’s Metrotunnel project is adding five new stations in the core area, because there, unlike in Toronto, downtown doesn’t have enough subways.

 

[steveintoronto]

Melbourne’s Metrotunnel project is adding five new stations in the core area, because there, unlike in Toronto, downtown doesn’t have enough subways.

lol..."there"? Melbourne is exquisitely served with a multiplicity of surface rail transit.

It's like claiming the South of London (UK) is poorly served by subways. It's covered with surface tracks.

Addendum: Apologies to @pman if I'd misunderstood the intent, here's some clarification:

Relieve Swanston Street tram services[edit]
With the proposed route expected to run directly under Swanston Street and towards the south-eastern suburbs, the project will provide much needed relief to existing and overcrowded tram services that run from St Kilda Road into the CBD. Currently, St Kilda Road is the busiest tram thoroughfare in the world, with up to 10 tram routes running into the CBD via Swanston Street. The Melbourne Metro is expected to relieve this pressure by allowing commuters to catch the train into the Domain Interchange and CBD from either the north-west or south-eastern suburbs, avoiding already congested tram routes. In particular, many of the existing tram routes that run through St Kilda Road terminate at Melbourne University, which will be more easily accessible from the nearby Parkville station when the Melbourne Metro is complete.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_Metro_Rail_Project#Relieve_Swanston_Street_tram_services

We'd be so lucky as to have such 'problems' in TO. We have to improve the "tram" lines (King) and dream about Relief.