denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
You know what, since toronto wanted subways so bad, I would go with what Ford wanted (+extension to Pearson) if they did cut and cover. If Toronto wants subways they should pay up for them.
|
|
|
I'd much rather they just dig a trench in the middle of the roadway (the same spot where the at-grade LRT was going to be), and use the money saved compared to tunnelling to push the line further west. The area is already an eyesore, and if the trench was landscaped properly (trees between the trench wall and the roadway, possibly a 1m buffer on each side of the trench), I think it would look not half bad. And if you want sections with a nice stylized wide median, you can deck the trench over.
BMO
Senior Member
Would there be substantial savings if a trench was dug and just decking over it with some shrubs and greenery? I think most people would be all for this actually, it would create quite a nice boulevard feel on Eglinton I'd imagine.
On a side note...I can't believe I'm the only person who really doesn't understand why so much emphasis is being put on the eastern section of the line. I would much rather have them go from Yonge all the way to Pearson, before they go east to Kennedy. I mean there is already an existing SRT (why don't they just repair that and leave provisions for an extension along eglinton towards Yonge in the future). People in scarborough already have a link downtown (bloor subway/ SRT link). Etobicoke and the west really, and especially the north-eastern part of Toronto could really benefit from an eglinton subway in the west that connects to Pearson. Pearson is a huge employer in the area (much more so than STC). Why is everyone obsessed with STC? Not to mention that Pearson stands to benefit from local connections just as much as longer connections (ARL). It also seems to be much more built up along eglinton in the West as opposed to the eastern portion.
I don't mean to come off as a douche or anything, I just really have a hard time understanding why there is so much emphasis on the STC area?
Riverdale Rink Rat
Senior Member
Well, 'our' end of the DRL, assuming it drops from Pape Station to the shopping centre then follows the rail line rather than Queen, would probably be pretty popular. Pape is wide enough to accommodate, but not really an arterial as it jogs to Carlaw at the tracks.
If, on the other hand, they want to run it along Queen for as long as possible east of the Don, I think the businesses that would disappear would squawk VERY loudly.
The savings would come from not having to equip the line with ventilation and expensive emergency exit tunnels (the EE's would just be a set of metal stairs every x metres). Stations would need to be partially underground, but because of track depth, they wouldn't be double-levelled stations. Think Dundas Station, only right beyond the end of the platform it would become open air.
And yes, the boulevard effect could be quite nice in certain spots. I would imagine that at stations especially having them decked over would be nice and would have a double benefit (nicer street presence, and covered platforms). Of course, the decked sections should be short enough as to not require any ventilation. As soon as you start adding that the price jumps.
The emphasis on the eastern stretch of Eglinton is so high because putting that section at-grade, especially if the two lines are connected, could place a pretty severe choke point on the entire line. Think of it like a roadway where everyone is trying to get from Point A to Point F. If the road between Point A and Point C is 4 lanes in each direction, but from Point C to Point D is only 2 lanes, and then from Point D to Point F back to 4 lanes again, does it really matter that the majority of the road is 4 lanes? Not really. The capacity of the road in that case is limited to it's narrowest point.
This is the issue with Eglinton East. It doesn't matter that the tunnelled and elevated sections can support 3 car trains using ATC, if the at-grade section can only support 2 car trains. It effectively kills any possibility of increasing capacity further down the road.
As for the STC thing, it's not just a density hub, it's also a transit hub for the entire Eastern GTA, something that is only going to increase in importance with time. I agree that the line should be pushed as far west as possible right off the bat, but I also want to see it designed properly, something that the last western section plan was not.
BurlOak
Senior Member
It seems TTC does everything possible to build deep tunnels and stations. I understand the reason is they want to go under utilities (sewer, water, natural gas, telephone). Is this really the case or is it to minimize surface disruption? I do not think it really accomplishes the latter since the deeper stations lead to more massive excavations, although not continuous along the route, there are much longer construction times. Would these utilities generally be located under the centre of the road, or more typically under the sidewalks and edge of road?
I am not sure how a section would be decked over or covered. It would have to be fully below grade in order to pass the cross streets. With an open decking, salt and slush would enter affecting the life and possibly performance of the trains. I imagine there may be open deck size requirements to ensure people do not fall through (or things do not get dropped onto the tracks) – if the openings are too small, they may become clogged with snow and loose their ventilation abilities. I think it would be better to have a solid decking – essentially, a tunnel immediately below the road. I imagine ventilation needs increase with the depth of the tunnel, so it would still be significantly less onerous than for the deep tunneling. Although I could be wrong, I see the ventilation opening being on the side of road or sidewalk, with a vertical shaft and horizontal section leading to the tunnel itself. This keeps the slush of the tracks.
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
That would be so nice. Have each station be decorated as well.
Gweed you really need to be involved with the process at city hall. You have to many ideas to be wasted on some message board.
Haha, thank you. But to be fair a lot of the ideas I post on here are rehashed and/or tweaked ideas that other forum members have posted.
I think it would vary depending on the situation. Certainly some utilities would need to be relocated, but a lot of them would need to be relocated no matter what you do (storm sewers for example).
When I say decked over I mean like a solid roof on top of the trench. The roof doesn't need to support much weight, just park land above it. For an example of this, look at the decking over of the Yonge line between Summerhill and St. Clair stations. Or if you prefer, look at the Tremont St. Subway in Boston when it passes underneath Boston Common. The roof of the tunnel is covered by a couple feet of topsoil, and then it's green space above.
What you described in the 2nd half of your post there is what I'm going for. Although Re: ventilation, I would imagine that it would have more to do with tunnel length than depth. The length of the covered section would need to be relatively short (I would guess about the length of a train, maybe a little longer), so that fans and stuff aren't needed to ventilate the area. If the tunnel is short enough, the wind can ventilate it.
Nick.
Banned
you seem to be missing the point, the drivers aren't going to like losing a lane to "park land" any more than dealing with streetcars
Who ever said the drivers would be losing a lane? Sounds like you've been listening to Ford too much...
Darwinkgo
Active Member
Trenches with straight walls are still very expensive compared to at grade. if you have lots of room you can use stable slopes for walls and it is cheap. Most of the trench you can see when you ride YUS is this type of very wide trench, even where it is now decked.
While you would have a savings due to ventilation and exists compared to tunnels with a narrow trench, it would still likely be more expesnive than elevated.
While you would have a savings due to ventilation and exists compared to tunnels with a narrow trench, it would still likely be more expesnive than elevated.
This is very true, however for a lot of people in Toronto elevated is a non-starter, even on a stretch like the Golden Mile. Either trenched or elevated would work with me personally, I'm just suggesting the one that has the best chance of actually being adopted.
11th
Senior Member
Wouldn't a road with trenched railway in the middle, look like the Décarie in Montreal?
Sort of, except 1/5th the width, and with a hell of a lot less noise. And it's not a trench through a vibrant neighbourhood like the depressed portion of the Spadina expressway was to be, it's an LRT trench that would be surrounded by power centres.