[aquateam]

That article isn't very clear one way or the other, but this other article seems to say more definitively that the exits are for tunnels between stations:

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2011/03/rocket-riders-rejoice-quick-exit-has-never-looked-better

[...]There aren't that many of them on the system either: the TTC has generally only built the exits when the underground distance between stations is greater than one kilometer.

 

[44 North]

I happened to come upon one of the emergency exit buildings. This one is at Sheppard & Chesswood Dr.

These are the renderings:

These are pretty cool. Surprised they haven't been posted before. I wonder if any others are completed yet?

Having said that, I can't say I fully agree with the frills and flair. This is an emergency exit. Not a station, not a second exit. It's located in the middle of nowhere, and will (hopefully) never be used. How much would something like this cost in comparison to an ivy-covered brick or concrete box - both for capital and maintenance? What happens if a car smashes into it, and the tiles need replacing? Or when the steel panels are etched by a tagger? These components are probably custom ordered, and I doubt would be found in a TTC yard.

Yes, I'm sure this makes me sound petty and cheap. But TYSSE is our first subway project since Sheppard, which was a long gap. And we haven't had a subway project start since TYSSE (other than the Crosstown, which is technically a pre-metro and not a subway line). Not to mention we have a serious capital repair backlog, and numerous major projects which have been delayed or dropped entirely. Obviously funds are scarce, so it's hard for me to fully appreciate this extravagance.

 

[nfitz]

Yes, I'm sure this makes me sound petty and cheap. But TYSSE is our first subway project since Sheppard, which was a long gap. And we haven't had a subway project start since TYSSE (other than the Crosstown, which is technically a pre-metro and not a subway line). Not to mention we have a serious capital repair backlog, and numerous major projects which have been delayed or dropped entirely. Obviously funds are scarce, so it's hard for me to fully appreciate this extravagance.

I'm pretty sure Eglinton is a pre-Loblaws, not a pre-Metro.

Though despite what fantasy terms we may call it ... much of the Eglinton line is a twin subway tunnel with underground stations, which are a similar magnitude in cost as the Yonge-University line extension.

 

[Johnny Au]

The emergency exits could have resembled warehouses (and have one emergency exit be built next to an existing warehouse if it were possible), just like the Kendal entrance to Spadina station being a repurposed house (albeit one that is designated as heritage property).

 

[44 North]

I'm pretty sure Eglinton is a pre-Loblaws, not a pre-Metro.

Though despite what fantasy terms we may call it ... much of the Eglinton line is a twin subway tunnel with underground stations, which are a similar magnitude in cost as the Yonge-University line extension.

For sure, and I'm basically splitting hairs there. Investment-wise, it's just like a subway. But you know my past posts, so I tend to break rapid transit down into subway/metro/light-metro (e.g our existing subway and SRT), then pre-metro (e.g Crosstown), then LRT/BRT/etc. So unless the Crosstown is only operated between Mt Dennis and Laird, or we switch back to the Ford-McGuinty plan, I can't exactly say the Crosstown is an expansion of the "subway" system.

 

[nfitz]

But you know my past posts, so I tend to break rapid transit down into subway/metro/light-metro (e.g our existing subway and SRT), then pre-metro (e.g Crosstown), then LRT/BRT/etc.

I don't know that from your posts actually - I seldom read them far enough to have realised that such categorization was occurring. I don't see the need to make lists. You've managed to create more categories than we have have forms of rapid transit!

All the lines are different. But all are lines!

 

[44 North]

I don't know that from your posts actually - I seldom read them far enough to have realised that such categorization was occurring. I don't see the need to make lists. You've managed to create more categories than we have have forms of rapid transit!

All the lines are different. But all are lines!

I'm fairly certain you were part of a discussion a month or so back re: the classification of RT, whereupon I posted this screenshot from Pembina (not sure which thread it was in). This classification of transit is pretty standard the world over, and I was under the impression most transit enthusiasts accepted it.

 

[salsa]

Having said that, I can't say I fully agree with the frills and flair. This is an emergency exit. Not a station, not a second exit. It's located in the middle of nowhere, and will (hopefully) never be used. How much would something like this cost in comparison to an ivy-covered brick or concrete box - both for capital and maintenance? What happens if a car smashes into it, and the tiles need replacing? Or when the steel panels are etched by a tagger? These components are probably custom ordered, and I doubt would be found in a TTC yard.

The vast majority of the cost of these emergency exits are unrelated to the aesthetics, so I don't think much money could have been saved by going cheap. But that being said, I agree that the frills here are not exactly a high priority. Then again, the same could be said about the whole subway extension.

 

[nfitz]

I'm fairly certain you were part of a discussion a month or so back re: the classification of RT, whereupon I posted this screenshot from Pembina (not sure which thread it was in). This classification of transit is pretty standard the world over, and I was under the impression most transit enthusiasts accepted it.

I haven't seen it before. Being part of a discussion doesn't mean I don't ignore many posts. Especially those more than 100 words, or those that discuss pre-IGAs.

 

[44 North]

I haven't seen it before. Being part of a discussion doesn't mean I don't ignore many posts. Especially those more than 100 words, or those that discuss pre-IGAs.

Meh. A few months back you and I had a very similar discussion concerning light metros, whereupon you spent a lengthy time on Wikipedia in a vain attempt to refute my post (I remember this vividly because it's the only time anyone ever used the word "nazi" to insult me). This was on top of the various long-winded arguments concerning useless minutiae that you've dragged me into. So I think it's safe to say that we both know you read my posts verbatim. Otherwise, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[nfitz]

Meh. A few months back you and I had a very similar discussion concerning light metros, whereupon you spent a lengthy time on Wikipedia in a vain attempt to refute my post (I remember this vividly because it's the only time anyone ever used the word "nazi" to insult me). This was on top of the various long-winded arguments concerning useless minutiae that you've dragged me into. So I think it's safe to say that we both know you read my posts verbatim. Otherwise, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

I have no idea who I responded to months ago. I seldom read any long detailed posts unless directed directly at me. The only thing I really recall about your posts in particular, is your excellent spoof about trying to put a DRL up Broadview, but failing to build any new stations east of the Don River, and then running it right through the Ontario Science Centre - I still laugh about that one; I don't think most people realised the humour in it.

Yes, I think I made light of someone using the foreign term "metro" recently ... perhaps it was you.

Anyway, no need to derail this discussion any further ...

 

[salsa]

Anyway, no need to derail this discussion any further ...

You can stop anytime.

 

[aquateam]

I'm fairly certain you were part of a discussion a month or so back re: the classification of RT, whereupon I posted this screenshot from Pembina (not sure which thread it was in). This classification of transit is pretty standard the world over, and I was under the impression most transit enthusiasts accepted it.

View attachment 53610

Pembina doesn't use your pre-price chopper classification. What you called full metro (the SRT) they call light metro. The only difference to them between light and full metro is a difference of scale (size of cars/stations), rather than a qualitative difference in technology.

It's the same thing between LRT and enhanced Streetcar, it seems to just be a relative scale based on how often the LRT has to stop.

Some LRT advocates might not like your pre-No frills terminology because it implies that the LRT is only a temporary solution and that it needs to transform into a full Food basics, when the LRT is perfectly appropriate for the urban setting, going underground where needed and staying above ground when there is available ROW.

That being said, I do agree that it's silly that we spend $6 billion on a transit line that can be held up by red lights and stopped cars. Elevated or Calgary-style railroad arms would be an improvement.

 

[nfitz]

You can stop anytime.

Sometimes one doesn't stop in time. Accidents happen. Though then the discussion becomes a bit of a train wreck.

 

[44 North]

I have no idea who I responded to months ago. I seldom read any long detailed posts unless directed directly at me. The only thing I really recall about your posts in particular, is your excellent spoof about trying to put a DRL up Broadview, but failing to build any new stations east of the Don River, and then running it right through the Ontario Science Centre - I still laugh about that one; I don't think most people realised the humour in it.

Yes, I think I made light of someone using the foreign term "metro" recently ... perhaps it was you.

Anyway, no need to derail this discussion any further ...

LOL

Pembina doesn't use your pre-price chopper classification. What you called full metro (the SRT) they call light metro. The only difference to them between light and full metro is a difference of scale (size of cars/stations), rather than a qualitative difference in technology.

It's the same thing between LRT and enhanced Streetcar, it seems to just be a relative scale based on how often the LRT has to stop.

Some LRT advocates might not like your pre-No frills terminology because it implies that the LRT is only a temporary solution and that it needs to transform into a full Food basics, when the LRT is perfectly appropriate for the urban setting, going underground where needed and staying above ground when there is available ROW.

That being said, I do agree that it's silly that we spend $6 billion on a transit line that can be held up by red lights and stopped cars. Elevated or Calgary-style railroad arms would be an improvement.

Yes, Pembina doesn't use "pre-metro" in their classification. And perhaps like you've said the Crosstown may not qualify as a technical pre-metro because the at-grade portion won't ever be upgraded. But the takeaway is that it's not a subway/metro, so my post where I said that it's not an expansion of our subway system is apt. And yes, $6bn for a line that can be easily lumped into the same category as St Clair or Spadina is a lot of money.

Having said that, I really don't get the problem with the term "pre-metro", nor why it needs derision. It's actually a fairly smart concept and IMO worthy of being a quasi-classification of its own. If we're spending subway-level amounts of money for something that's not a subway, I think it would've been wise to have left the door open for a conversion at a later date, and/or when ridership warrants it. Obviously "some LRT advocates" might not like the idea, but that means nothing.

*I may be wrong on this, and I'm only going on memory, but during the TC days I thought a component of the Crosstown was to have the SLRT and central tunnel connected by the at-grade portion - which would've/could've been upgraded/grade-separated when ridership on the line grew. Obviously that turned out to be an operational impossibility, but was that ever considered?​