News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.8K     0 

syn said:
Sorry, I wasn't clear.

Do you mean building this line above ground partially, or building another line after this one is done as a supplement?
Click to expand...
I mean like just the eastern portion of eglinton. we now have this huge median right of way. that easily fits the concrete pillars later on.

IIRC this option was shot down by residents back in like 2010, but dont see why we could upgrade the line for more capacity in the future
 
generalcanada said:
I mean like just the eastern portion of eglinton. we now have this huge median right of way. that easily fits the concrete pillars later on.

IIRC this option was shot down by residents back in like 2010, but dont see why we could upgrade the line for more capacity in the future
Click to expand...

I agree, taking advantage of a ROW that already exists to build above ground makes a lot of sense.

At this point though, they're going to go under ground and that isn't likely to change. I just wish they'd apply the same standards to all projects.
 
syn said:
I agree, taking advantage of a ROW that already exists to build above ground makes a lot of sense.

At this point though, they're going to go under ground and that isn't likely to change. I just wish they'd apply the same standards to all projects.
Click to expand...
It's Toronto we dont think like that.

Where an easy alternative exists, the politicians complicate things and make it seem like we're performing nuclear physics so things need to be tunneled automatically. Thus raising the costs of a project by 5-10 times.
 
generalcanada said:
hypothetically though, in the future, 20 years from now when ridership is high enough, is it possible to build a separate elevated track? like what we have on the west side near black creek?
basically is the at-grade section basically permanent? dont see why wed need to tunnel when we already created a pretty good segregated area where elevated pillars can run?
Click to expand...
They'd definitely do it in Japan or Europe, not confident we could pull it off affordably
 
superelevation said:
They'd definitely do it in Japan or Europe, not confident we could pull it off affordably
Click to expand...
It's not like we can't afford it because the price is naturally high. We can't afford it because we ourselves artificially make it high due to the red tape and political bs that's tied into it. Not to mention the word elevated is akin to the apocalypse for some unlearned politicians in toronto
 
cplchanb said:
It's not like we can't afford it because the price is naturally high. We can't afford it because we ourselves artificially make it high due to the red tape and political bs that's tied into it. Not to mention the word elevated is akin to the apocalypse for some unlearned politicians in toronto
Click to expand...

Kind of like "LRT".
 
ARG1 said:
Now, Brussels. Brussels would've been an AMAZING comparison to Eglinton, however there is one thing separating Brussels from Eglinton - that being Brussels was designed from the beginning to eventually be converted to Metro. Eglinton was not. We are forever going to be stuck with Low Floor LRVs that even if we eventually fully grade separate the line, we will never be able to get rid of, unless we choose to completely rebuild every single station on the line. Granted, this is feasible to some extent and could be done given a 6 month shutdown of the line (although I doubt it wouldn't be delayed), but its politically difficult to justify and would be extremely expensive considering how much of the line is buried, even if we only consider the central portion of the line.
Click to expand...
Why should we spend money repeatedly 'evolving' a line when it could have been built as SkyTrain-style light metro day one, with a tunnelled central section through midtown and elevated east and west, for a similar or perhaps lower cost than the abomination we are getting currently?
 
afransen said:
Why should we spend money repeatedly 'evolving' a line when it could have been built as SkyTrain-style light metro day one, with a tunnelled central section through midtown and elevated east and west, for a similar or perhaps lower cost than the abomination we are getting currently?
Click to expand...
Oh I ABSOLUTELY agree that that's what we should have done. My point with that comment is that failing that, we could've at least done the Brussels method where we concede that we're getting LRT, but we have an easy path to upgrade it to a Light Metro in the future, rather than requiring a yearlong shutdown and complete rebuild of all of our stations.
 
afransen said:
Why should we spend money repeatedly 'evolving' a line when it could have been built as SkyTrain-style light metro day one, with a tunnelled central section through midtown and elevated east and west, for a similar or perhaps lower cost than the abomination we are getting currently?
Click to expand...
Light metro is good. Just not the SRT/skytrain tech
 
superelevation said:
LRT is actually bad - you don't see them building trams as "rapid transit" in the London's, Shanghai's or Tokyo's of the world
Click to expand...
This is objectively false. London has the Overground - a high speed LRT - and it's popular, as an example.

LRT was bad in the political context it was used for in Toronto, but the technology itself is fine.

Again, if Crosstown was HRT, there would have been no debate and both Scarborough LRTs would have been in operation for 5 plus years now.

And it's not as if HRT doesn't have it's issues as well.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top