[Ozman]

Hi guys, I just joined UT and am thoroughly enjoying it. Thanks for all your contributions. I'm fascinated by all the above talk of elevating the east Crosstown. Is there any indication it's being officially considered? Also, any word on whether they are definitely extending the tunnel to Don Mills and eliminating the stop at Leslie? Finally, if the Eglinton and Scarborough RT will NOT be interlined, then are they going to rename the Crosstown the Eglinton Crosstown (i.e. drop "Scarborough")?

 

[BurlOak]

Hi guys, I just joined UT and am thoroughly enjoying it. Thanks for all your contributions. I'm fascinated by all the above talk of elevating the east Crosstown. Is there any indication it's being officially considered?

I think the answer it no. I think we had a poster who said the internally Metrolinx thinks that elevated is the best solution, but because of the politics of the Stintz revolt from a year ago they dare not raise the issue.

Also, any word on whether they are definitely extending the tunnel to Don Mills and eliminating the stop at Leslie?

This is the last I heard based on the revision from this January. Here is some presentation material. http://www.thecrosstown.ca/news-media/whats-new/Online-Consultation-Laird-Don-Valley. If you go back to posts around January of this year, I think there was some scepticism here (maybe only by me) that extending the tunnel was just the fastest way to design (i.e. to get the contract out) the stretch as grade-separated all the way to Don Mills, and not necessarily the best construction option.

Finally, if the Eglinton and Scarborough RT will NOT be interlined, then are they going to rename the Crosstown the Eglinton Crosstown (i.e. drop "Scarborough")?

I didn't even notice that. The website is "thecrosstown.ca", but the logo is still Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown.

 

[innsertnamehere]

They had old maps of the all underground line as late as six months after it was changed to above ground again.

And yes OZman, it will now be travelling to don mms underground and will not have a stop at Leslie. The crosstown is not being considered for elevation, it is just dreaming by some transit fans on these boards.

 

[andrewpmk]

I found this diagram in the Eglinton EA. I was wonding why the station box is 21m wide, even though the platform is 8m and there are 2-2.5m wide trains on either side. Why the extra 3m between the train and the wall.

View attachment 12109

Likely to accommodate the larger loading gauge of subway cars, if the line is converted to subway in the future. Maybe also so that the tracks could be moved a bit further out to make the centre platform wider, I don't know.

 

[nfitz]

Hi guys, I just joined UT and am thoroughly enjoying it. Thanks for all your contributions. I'm fascinated by all the above talk of elevating the east Crosstown. Is there any indication it's being officially considered?

There is absolutely no indication at all that it's being officially considered. In fact they put the surface design out for a RFQ (request for qualification) for contractors, and have said they will actually issue the RFP (request for proposal) soon. The design is very close to being locked.

The elevated fantasies here are just that. They are more transit porn than anything with any base in reality. Should really be in some fantasy thread ...

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

BurlOak:

I thought about centre of the road, but I thought the stations may be too daunting in the middle of the road. Even comparing the SRT, Brimley looks reasonably elegant, but Midland the station just dominates - and that still is not entirely in the median. If the station is in the median, it could have less height with 2 side platforms instead of 1 centre platform, but then passengers could not access both sides of Eglinton. If the station has a separate mezzanine level and platform level, it just becomes that much larger of a structure in the middle of the road.

Bad model - should reference Brentwood Station in Vancouver instead:

http://goo.gl/maps/2G4mR

It's large, but not unbearably so. In any case, looking at the routing of Skytrain it seems to take advantage of a lot of leftover spaces that the Eglinton line doesn't have.

Also, a side station would be much less disruptive during construction and the station could be more easily integrated into adjacent developments when it is at the side of the road. There is not that much there now, so I do not think the adjacent properties would be too negatively affected. Bening on the South, there is less concerns about blocking out the sun. A glass enclosure around the tracks in the vicinity of any building would also reduce the impact.

The issue isn't so much so what's there now, but what might be there in the future - running the elevated line so close to the properties will create resistance and future development problems regardless of whether you put an enclosure or not (and those noise barriers tend to be bulky, which makes the problem even worse).

AoD

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Likely to accommodate the larger loading gauge of subway cars, if the line is converted to subway in the future. Maybe also so that the tracks could be moved a bit further out to make the centre platform wider, I don't know.

When the city had the Prince Edward Viaduct built, opening in 1918, its lower deck was built to accommodate streetcars. When the Bloor-Danforth subway opened in 1966, there was no major structural changes to be made to accommodate the wider heavy rail trains. Looks like provision is being made, just in case, for any kind of wider vehicles in the future.

BTW. The Transit City LRV's are going to be wider (2.65 m wide) than the downtown streetcars (2.54 m wide) and wider than Montréal Metro cars (2.5 m wide).

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

andrewpmk:

The main issue should the line be coverted to "subways" isn't the width of the tunnels - it's the length of the station, which at 150m is half that of existing lines.

AoD

 

[andrewpmk]

When the city had the Prince Edward Viaduct built, opening in 1918, its lower deck was built to accommodate streetcars. When the Bloor-Danforth subway opened in 1966, there was no major structural changes to be made to accommodate the wider heavy rail trains. Looks like provision is being made, just in case, for any kind of wider vehicles in the future.

BTW. The Transit City LRV's are going to be wider (2.65 m wide) than the downtown streetcars (2.54 m wide) and wider than Montréal Metro cars (2.5 m wide).

But Toronto subway cars are 3.14 m. The issue is not the tunnel diameter on Eglinton (which is wider than that of the existing subway system) but the loading gauge at platforms (the platforms would be closer to the track for light rail, and further away for subway).

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I found this diagram in the Eglinton EA. I was wonding why the station box is 21m wide, even though the platform is 8m and there are 2-2.5m wide trains on either side. Why the extra 3m between the train and the wall.

Perhaps it's due to safety regulations?

If you've ever used the Sheppard subway, you'll notice that some of the walls are a metre or two from the train.

I figure that the gaps are designed to allow tunnel crews to stand in between the trains and the wall. Or in the rare case that somebody were to fall onto the tracks whilst an approaching train was coming, they could use the gap to shelter themselves from the train with plenty of room to spare.

 

[andrewpmk]

>In fact they put the surface design out for a RFQ (request for qualification) for contractors, and have said they will actually issue the RFP (request for proposal) soon.

Does this mean that it will be tendered in 2013, or will it have to wait until 2014 or later?

Also the Don Mills station hasn't been designed yet, and will be complicated by any provisions for a future downtown relief line. I suspect that Ferrand will disappear when this happens (I don't think that the implications of making Don Mills underground or the DRL have been fully thought out yet.)

 

[BurlOak]

My guess is since the station walls will be either pile driven or bored straight down from the surface they have to put them outside of the tunnel which will be bored out first.

I think you got the right answer - this seems the most logical.

 

[CDL.TO]

Loading gauge is more than just tunnel width. Do we have any idea whether the vertical and horizontal curvature is compatible with subway conversion?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Loading gauge is more than just tunnel width. Do we have any idea whether the vertical and horizontal curvature is compatible with subway conversion?

I would presume so since the tunnels are larger than any of our subway tunnels.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Tiger:

Size of the tunnel is one thing - the gradient and curvature of the tunnel are independent factors that are optimized for the performance of LRVs (among other things), and it might not be compatible with subway trainsets.

AoD