[ARG1]

The stations on the Eglinton extension are pretty bare bones…. Perhaps too bare bones. The need to cross busy streets to get to the entrance is regrettable - it would not be bad economics to have more underground paths and entrances on all four corners at each station.

- Paul

I'd agree, but also this is probably the kind of thinking that endlessly baloons project costs. The BD works perfectly fine for instance with stations that are not only on one side of Bloor St, but also offset by like 60m. Same story with projects like the Canada Line where costs were kept low due to only having 1 station entrance.

That being said, at least maybe having a 2 corner entrance solution to at least have access to the busses would be good enough as well (basically have all cross street bus stops on the north side of Eglinton, and only have entrances on the north side).

 

[TossYourJacket]

I'd agree, but also this is probably the kind of thinking that endlessly baloons project costs. The BD works perfectly fine for instance with stations that are not only on one side of Bloor St, but also offset by like 60m. Same story with projects like the Canada Line where costs were kept low due to only having 1 station entrance.

That being said, at least maybe having a 2 corner entrance solution to at least have access to the busses would be good enough as well (basically have all cross street bus stops on the north side of Eglinton, and only have entrances on the north side).

Yeah, 2 entrances on the north side, plus moving N-S bus stops to the North side would have been the best compromise. At most, people only need to cross these wide suburban roads once to get to an entrance in that scenario, thus reducing risk.

With the B/D line, Bloor and Danforth are both much less highway-esque than Eglinton West, and the cross streets themselves are mostly narrower as well. There's just a better pedestrian environment there that makes it safer to have fewer entrances.

 

[BrenWilson]

Roundabouts

Don't want to derail the discussion much but roundabouts as we see them in Ontario and NA in general are NOT safer for pedestrians than a signalized intersection. In a signalized intersection pedestrians cross with a signalized phase and are generally free of conflicts except for right and left turns and those can be controlled with their own phases. Roundabouts in ontario are typically uncontrolled pedestrian crossings, at the most they will have Rapid Flashing Beacons which unsurprisingly are not as effective at stoping a car than a red light.

Roundabouts in Ontario are primarily to reduce car collisions and improve traffic flow. While the speed throught he junction may be reduced, it is *increased* for the conflict with the pedestrian - the pedestrian must wait for traffic to stop specifically for them, whereas at a traffic signal the cars are otherwise stopped. If ontario adopted more dutch style roundabouts (radial, crossings set back, single lane) and considered actual signals for the pedestrian crossings they could be safer *overall*.


To add some relevant discussion: the west extension station designs are only in concept form currently, the winning proponent will take them into detailed design and there would still be time to add platform doors but it would likely be at extra cost if they aren't already in the concept design.

 

[Steve X]

I really don't know how roundabouts would even work on Eglinton. If they went with one for some fantasy reasons, traffic and pedestrians would be fighting for priority. It's uncontrolled flow makes it very difficult for highly utilized intersections. Perhaps if this is Martin Gove and Rathburn, this might work.

At the moment.

Plans for the Eglinton West area, particularly with the Eglinton Crosstown West Extension project, prioritize improved pedestrian access with new stations, wider sidewalks, accessible pathways, and enhanced pedestrian crossings along Eglinton Avenue West, aiming to make walking more convenient and safer for residents in the area; this includes features like curb extensions, pedestrian head start signals, and improved street lighting.

Expect more street front stores. For example, Nottingham Hill Condominium 4000 Eglinton Ave W is to be a MIXED-USE development.
View attachment 629719

TO roads are already safer than 905 region roads. The problem isn't all about road designs anymore build driving behaviours. Simply lower the speed limit will not result in safer roads. People simply ignore the limit.

 

[kotsy]

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

The main reason for not using a TBM on this section (Jane to Weston) is because the ground is mostly landfill or sand. When they built the
third concession road north of Queen Street in the original Township of York, ending at Jane Street, they created a garbage dump on the side of the cliff next to Weston Road into Eglinton Flats, and built the 3rd concession road on top. When they widened the roadway for the future (now cancelled) Richview Expressway, they added more landfill for create a more wider and gentler slope, for Eglinton Avenue West today.

Now they have to dig through that landfill and dump, and build a deep foundation at the same time.

 

[Kyle Campbell]

I'd agree, but also this is probably the kind of thinking that endlessly baloons project costs. The BD works perfectly fine for instance with stations that are not only on one side of Bloor St, but also offset by like 60m. Same story with projects like the Canada Line where costs were kept low due to only having 1 station entrance.

That being said, at least maybe having a 2 corner entrance solution to at least have access to the busses would be good enough as well (basically have all cross street bus stops on the north side of Eglinton, and only have entrances on the north side).

Are there any provisions for knockout panels for future connections in the station? Couldn't find any info online.

 

[northyorker1]

 

[kamira51]

The main reason for not using a TBM on this section (Jane to Weston) is because the ground is mostly landfill or sand. When they built the
third concession road north of Queen Street in the original Township of York, ending at Jane Street, they created a garbage dump on the side of the cliff next to Weston Road into Eglinton Flats, and built the 3rd concession road on top. When they widened the roadway for the future (now cancelled) Richview Expressway, they added more landfill for create a more wider and gentler slope, for Eglinton Avenue West today.

Now they have to dig through that landfill and dump, and build a deep foundation at the same time.

Very interesting, is there a source for this?

 

[smallspy]

Very interesting, is there a source for this?

Of course there isn't, it's Walter.

The actual reason why they aren't using a TBM is that it doesn't make sense for the short run to match up with the existing tunnel. While they are quicker to actually create the tunnel, the set-up and tear-down time would negate the speed at which they work, plus there is the minor issue of requiring an exit shaft to pull the device out of the ground at the other end. Mining the tunnel resolves the latter issue, and doing it this early in the process means that it won't have an effect on the total timeline for the project.

Dan

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Mount Dennis is an old sandbar for Lake Iroquois, predecessor of Lake Ontario. Conn Smythe operated gravel yards in the area in 1958. Developed into Jane Park Plaza/Smythe Park. Smythe gravel yards were owned and operated by Maple Leafs owner, Conn Smythe. Many of the players would work in this gravel yard during the off seasons. Tim Horton in second photo. credit: Toronto Public Library. ‬

 

[ProjectEnd]

Mount Dennis is an old sandbar for Lake Iroquois, predecessor of Lake Ontario. Conn Smythe operated gravel yards in the area in 1958. Developed into Jane Park Plaza/Smythe Park. Smythe gravel yards were owned and operated by Maple Leafs owner, Conn Smythe. Many of the players would work in this gravel yard during the off seasons. Tim Horton in second photo. credit: Toronto Public Library. ‬

View attachment 631007

That's a great shot. Those three houses in the background would be 83, 85, and 87 Rockcliffe Street which still stand today:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.678...try=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIxMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Once they tunnel past all the garbage, tires, bricks, etc. that was dumped in the olden days at the side of the hill towards Weston Road, they should be able to hit cleaner sand and gravel. That sand and gravel could be recycled into aggregate for the concrete on site to line the tunnel being dug, with some left over for the concrete pillars west of the tunnel.

 

[Towered]

Once they tunnel past all the garbage, tires, bricks, etc. that was dumped in the olden days at the side of the hill towards Weston Road, they should be able to hit cleaner sand and gravel. That sand and gravel could be recycled into aggregate for the concrete on site to line the tunnel being dug, with some left over for the concrete pillars west of the tunnel.

That sounds impractical.

 

[jcam]

Of course there isn't, it's Walter.

The actual reason why they aren't using a TBM is that it doesn't make sense for the short run to match up with the existing tunnel. While they are quicker to actually create the tunnel, the set-up and tear-down time would negate the speed at which they work, plus there is the minor issue of requiring an exit shaft to pull the device out of the ground at the other end. Mining the tunnel resolves the latter issue, and doing it this early in the process means that it won't have an effect on the total timeline for the project.

Dan

There are TBMs that are designed to be deconstructed into themselves and dragged out of the tunnel. I had done that for a large diameter TBM used to dig some escalator shafts down to an existing deep station. But it is incredibly time consuming to demobilize and the internals and shells need to be constructed to facilitate that dismantling (e.g. the shells would have a reverse keystone top segment that gets lowered, then the side segments could be rotated inwards).