daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old November 11th, 2007, 12:12 PM   #481
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Um, no. Your post is proof that you don't want serious discussion about anything. You just say "you don't know, bla bla bla".


I say you don't know because I can prove you don't know. If you want to get your world smashed by a nuclear weapon's worth of backup, I'll gladly blow your argument back to the stone-age. What you posted are only small fish. The real reasons are in the quoted source below:

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bow on Transit Toronto ( [url
http://transit.toronto.on.ca/subway/5104.shtml[/url] )]
References
Bromley, John F., and Jack May, Fifty Years of Progressive Transit, Electric Railroaders’ Association, New York (New York), 1978.
Brown, James A. and Brian West, ‘All about the Bloor-Danforth Subway’ UCRS Newsletter, March 1966, p50-56, The Upper Canada Railway Society, Toronto (Ontario), 1966.
Progress Report No 5: Bloor-Danforth-University Subway, Toronto Transit Commission, Toronto (Ontario), July 1964.

Construction began on the Yonge subway in 1949 with a streetcar-subway station roughed in beneath Queen station on the Yonge line. After the Yonge subway opened in 1954, attention turned to the east-west line, but things had changed since 1946.

For one thing, streetcars had fallen out of favour as a rapid transit medium, and the City of Toronto’s plans for a Queen subway now called for heavy-rail equipment to be used. For another, the TTC was having second thoughts about locating the cross-town line along Queen.

Queen versus Bloor

Politically, the City of Toronto wanted a subway on Queen Street. Queen was the main east-west street running through the downtown, and on that basis the east-west subway had to go there. However, the TTC’s figures showed that ridership on the Bloor streetcar line was increasing rapidly, to almost 9000 passengers per direction per hour. Automobile traffic on Bloor Street and Danforth Avenue was increasing as well, pushing the multiple-unit PCCs to their limits, just as Yonge’s Witt trailer trains had been when the decision had been made to build the first subway beneath them.

The ‘Flying-U’ Proposal.

So, the TTC felt it had no choice but to build the cross-town subway along the Bloor-Danforth corridor. But this change in plan was controversial. The City of Toronto, backed by the towns of Long Branch, New Toronto and Mimico, continued to push for a Queen subway. At one point, the city proposed a ‘flying U’ compromise, running from Keele along Bloor, Grace, Queen, Pape, and Danforth Avenue to Woodbine. Dundas would have had four subway stops in total had this route been built, and the TTC were hard pressed to name them. From west to east, these stations would have been named ‘Vincent’ (now Dundas West), Bellwoods Park, Dundas and Dagmar.

Eventually the TTC proposal won out. Although I have not been able to find out how the TTC convinced the City of Toronto to accept its proposal, I speculate that the fact that the TTC was still financially independent helped. The Yonge subway had been built almost entirely from farebox revenues, and it looked as though the cross-town subway was going to be built from farebox revenues as well. Since the TTC did not require subsidy from Metropolitan Toronto, they may have been shielded from political pressure.


Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Actually, that's a very efficient use. A center platform for exiting, and the two side platforms for entering. Then two levels of course, for the two lines. There shouldn't have to be renovations after this arrangement is in place.
Do some research buddy, the TTC already looked into a platform on the north side of the north track at Union Station. Do you know what the north wall happens to be? THE FOUNDATIONS OF A SKYSCRAPER! Good luck getting a platform there. There is a very good reason for the TTC putting a platform on the south end instead of the north (had the north been available, it might have been favourable over the south with more options available for improved access, but this is simply not realistic). As for the two levels, you'd raise hell during construction. The current tracks would have to be completely removed and relaid after the lower level is made. You cannot simply go under the existing tracks as their foundations are not capable of acting as a span. You, of course, are incapable of considering these important details. The platform would also have a difficult time being kept open during construction, but they can do this in manageable chunks. Your Union Renovations proposal would require, at a bare minimum, running one-track service through Union Station for extended periods of time with reduced platform space to allow room for construction workers and reduced train serviced due to the one-track limitation - a completely unacceptable proposal as Union is already having such capacity issues today that the TTC is already installing a south platform.

You'd actually have an easier time building directly under the historic Union Station.

Honestly, when you have ideas this absurd, I wonder why I should make the effort to keep this civil.
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek

Last edited by TRZ; November 11th, 2007 at 12:18 PM.
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 12th, 2007, 07:20 AM   #482
Epi
Registered User
 
Epi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,120
Likes (Received): 77

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil View Post
In defense of hkskyline, the majority of the articles are just trawled off the internet from newspaper sites. There hasn't been much in terms of good press for the TTC lately. The only source of occasional good press for the TTC usually comes from Ed Drass' column in the Tuesday and Thursday Metro paper. Hkskyline is simply the messenger. I appreciate the work to sort through all the various press stories and then post them in their appropriate threads, it saves me from having to search through all of them.

If you think the news here is bad, you should see some of the stuff the press in New York write about the MTA!
To further this point, if you read the other forums on skyscraperforums, you'd notice that hkskyline reposts a lot of articles about a lot of different cities and things on every subforum on this place. I don't think he has any particular bias.
Epi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2007, 07:38 AM   #483
Epi
Registered User
 
Epi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,120
Likes (Received): 77

**

Last edited by Epi; November 12th, 2007 at 07:39 AM. Reason: Moved to other thread
Epi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2007, 07:19 PM   #484
noob(but not really)
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,572
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by KGB View Post
"Um, no. Your post is proof that you don't want serious discussion about anything. "

I'm not trying to get in the middle here, but com'on noob...his posts are waaaay to indepth and topic specific to make an arguement that he isn't interested in a serious discussion about the topic....he obviously takes it very seriously.
I didn't say he's not serious, he just doesn't like my posts, and thus doesn't want a serious discussion with me.



Quote:
Originally Posted by TRZ View Post


I say you don't know because I can prove you don't know. If you want to get your world smashed by a nuclear weapon's worth of backup, I'll gladly blow your argument back to the stone-age. What you posted are only small fish. The real reasons are in the quoted source below:
LMAO. I know about Lower Queen and that Flying U crap. You are also oblivious to the fact that I covered the most noteworthy of those issues in my post. But I decided not to quote Transit Toronto verbatim.



Quote:
Do some research buddy, the TTC already looked into a platform on the north side of the north track at Union Station. Do you know what the north wall happens to be? THE FOUNDATIONS OF A SKYSCRAPER! Good luck getting a platform there. There is a very good reason for the TTC putting a platform on the south end instead of the north (had the north been available, it might have been favourable over the south with more options available for improved access, but this is simply not realistic). As for the two levels, you'd raise hell during construction. The current tracks would have to be completely removed and relaid after the lower level is made. You cannot simply go under the existing tracks as their foundations are not capable of acting as a span. You, of course, are incapable of considering these important details. The platform would also have a difficult time being kept open during construction, but they can do this in manageable chunks. Your Union Renovations proposal would require, at a bare minimum, running one-track service through Union Station for extended periods of time with reduced platform space to allow room for construction workers and reduced train serviced due to the one-track limitation - a completely unacceptable proposal as Union is already having such capacity issues today that the TTC is already installing a south platform.

You'd actually have an easier time building directly under the historic Union Station.

Honestly, when you have ideas this absurd, I wonder why I should make the effort to keep this civil.
Perfect. You know what this means? We can still have the three platform configuration if we realign the tracks and expand southward. I know you'll start complaining about cost, but this will allow for a better turning radius on both sides. And don't even get me started on capacity. This is one of the busiest stations on the network, and it already can't handle just one narrow platform. Pretty soon it wouldn't be able to handle a second one either. The current renovations are only a band-aid solution.

The two levels of course, are necessary because this will be the future interchange with DRL. Why splitting up the lines? So that commuters from either Don Mills or Weston can access downtown easier(especially the northern part) instead of getting dropped off at Union and being forced to walk a long ways to their destination. This arrangement also uses University a lot better. Yonge was pretty much extended haphazardly, and because of this, you get the odd phenomenon of empty seats downtown as you make the loop. This will put an end to that.
noob(but not really) no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2007, 08:09 AM   #485
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,925
Likes (Received): 18186

Being a follower of TTC news regularly, it's very obvious that the general trend of coverage is negative, and there are plenty of concrete reasons behind it, which leads to the big picture over how government is involved in investing in cities across the country.

I'm highly critical of how the TTC is run. I don't have that much positive to say about them at all. While I constantly hear arguments that the TTC is the most self-sufficient system on the continent and all that, making it seem like a good thing, the fact is it's not. Being self-sufficient is not the same as providing good service. We need to be clear on what the TTC's objective and mandate should be.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2007, 09:57 AM   #486
AmiDelf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 187
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
These are from Toronto ? ;p









These are from Oslo, Norway.


Oslo wagons were built from 1960s to 1980s. Is Toronto inspired by Oslo design or the other way? In Oslo wagons you can also look at the track ahead of you, while the cabin is on the right side.

Also, the pre-metro wagons was all red also, before they choose this design.
AmiDelf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2007, 02:38 PM   #487
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
I didn't say he's not serious, he just doesn't like my posts, and thus doesn't want a serious discussion with me.
If I liked your posts (implying rather "If I didn't disagree with noob"), then there'd be no debate. Disagreeing with you has nothing to do with not being serious. It'd be far easier to have a serious discussion with you if the contents of your posts weren't so absurd.





Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
LMAO. I know about Lower Queen and that Flying U crap.
The man who wants the Queen Subway so bad refers to the Flying U as "crap", when it would have run along Queen . OK, so you don't support a Queen Subway? The Flying U wasn't that bad of an idea - as Jaye on here has pointed out before, and I think he has a point on this, is that if the Flying U had been built, we wouldn't have the over-capacity issues at Yonge/Bloor and south of Bloor on Yonge. This is hard to argue against, and gives added truth to the old saying of hindsight is 20/20, the Flying U may have actually been smarter in the end, if only we had a crystal ball in the late 1950s. I think the Flying U might have faced some potential alignment difficulties, but then again, the city worked in a completely different manner back in those days, where tough decisions were actually made by politicians, unlike these days where all politicians suck out and look for the easy [cheap, low-risk, poor-on-return] way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
You are also oblivious to the fact that I covered the most noteworthy of those issues in my post. But I decided not to quote Transit Toronto verbatim.
Transit Toronto is a respectable source, as are the additional hardcover references I also pointed to. You, on the other hand, are far from a reliable source.

As for your issues being "noteworthy", puh-leeze. Don't take my word for it though, take a look for yourself in a proper comparison and you'll see the error of your ways:

Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Bloor was chosen due to the fact that east of Queen, only Kingston would feed into the line, while there were already several routes terminating at Luttrell Loop(near today's Main Street station), to feed into the streetcar.

Queen in the east is also cut off by the lake, and Kingston Road provides the only alignment to extend the line.
VS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRZ View Post
TTC’s figures showed that ridership on the Bloor streetcar line was increasing rapidly, to almost 9000 passengers per direction per hour, pushing the multiple-unit PCCs to their limits, just as Yonge’s Witt trailer trains had been when the decision had been made to build the first subway beneath them.
It is obvious that the need to maintain current service at an acceptable and attractive level and provide adequate supply to meet the crushing demand is a far higher priority than looking at potential extensions. To suggest otherwise, as you did try to argue that potential extensions was a major reason, is simply crazy talk. The limited options for extensions had squat to do with the decision, the most important reason was the PCCs being unable to meet the current demand in the very-near future at the time - Bloor had already turned into a Yonge was the reality of the day. Queen hadn't turned into Yonge, still hasn't, and perhaps never will (King on the other hand, is already just about there).

Thus, you did not state the most noteworthy reason, not by a long shot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
The reason there is no talk of extending B-D right now is because the SRT is in the way, and they apparently decided to replace the current fleet. If it weren't for that, B-D would've already been extended to STC and maybe even Malvern.
We've been over the physical impossibility of this one already. The SRT is not "in the way" as the current Kennedy Subway Station cannot turn onto the SRT's alignment, nor would it be able to turn at the Ellesmere/Midland area.






Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Perfect. You know what this means? We can still have the three platform configuration if we realign the tracks and expand southward. I know you'll start complaining about cost, but this will allow for a better turning radius on both sides.
The change in turning radius would be negligible, you don't understand how slight such a realignment actually is and does not address the issues with the curve between King and Union. "Perfect" is hardly the word I'd use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
And don't even get me started on capacity. This is one of the busiest stations on the network, and it already can't handle just one narrow platform. Pretty soon it wouldn't be able to handle a second one either. The current renovations are only a band-aid solution.

The two levels of course, are necessary because this will be the future interchange with DRL. Why splitting up the lines? So that commuters from either Don Mills or Weston can access downtown easier(especially the northern part) instead of getting dropped off at Union and being forced to walk a long ways to their destination. This arrangement also uses University a lot better.
Well, it might be a band-aid 20-years from now, I can agree with that. However, if you wanted to make a Wye interchange and remove the problems of the curve, and imporve connectivity with Union Station in general, why not go all out, especially if you are not concerned about cost? Frankly, your proposal would cause so much disruption that building a new alignment could actually be cheaper and easier since the complications of keeping service running during construction would be virtually a non-issue - and that's enormous savings in time, project management details, construction phases, co-ordination, among other things. Service would be disrupted for a weekend or two, and that's about it (to install new junctions).

To Illustrate:



The Yellow Line is obviously the current alignment. The Purple branches are your DRL. The Green outlines are rough outlines of the new Stations - East Teamway (Union Station East Exit) and West Teamway (Union Station West Exit). The brackets are displaying text in the same style as "Yorkville" appears under Bay (so if I were describing Bay here I would type it as "Bay (Yorkville)"). The West Teamway Station is two levels segregated by direction. The East Teamway Station is most likely two islands, not sure if it should be segregated by Line or Direction though (I'd prefer by Direction). The U around the ACC is where the Wye would be. The light blue line is LRT - the one on Bay Street by East Teamway is existing. The West Teamway one is a possible alignment the WWLRT would be using (maybe, this is of course not yet known). The dark yellow station along the Yellow Line is of course the existing Union Station. This space, I propose, be converted into a small yard for the downtown. Since downtown has seen a residential explosion, there is now a good argument to have a yard in the core, and this is a very recent development. The original Yonge Line terminated at Eglinton, so it is no surprise that the yard was put towards the northmost end of the line, since peak travel times would make that the best place to put it - same for Wilson, Greenwood, and Keele area yards. With downtown now not only a place to work but to live as well, a yard in the core makes sense.

The two new stations will also provide way better GO Train connections as platform access can be obtained directly from the fare gates. East Teamway would also result in an exceptionally convenient Subway Connection for the GO Bus terminal.

It also gets rid of the King Curve.

It also provides a solution to the possible capacity conflicts with the existing Union Station LRT station when WWLRT opens. The two lines would still connect at Queen's Quay and Bay, so the two lines serving two different subway stations would not result in a loss of connection between the two lines themselves.

Given that this also provides even more capacity than you had originally proposed noob, I think you'd agree with something like this.

This is a prime solution for Union Station, but extremely expensive (but whether or not it is as expensive as noob's proposal is debatable).


Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Yonge was pretty much extended haphazardly, and because of this, you get the odd phenomenon of empty seats downtown as you make the loop. This will put an end to that.
??? What are you talking about?
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek

Last edited by TRZ; November 13th, 2007 at 02:56 PM.
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2007, 02:50 PM   #488
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
I'm highly critical of how the TTC is run. I don't have that much positive to say about them at all. While I constantly hear arguments that the TTC is the most self-sufficient system on the continent and all that, making it seem like a good thing, the fact is it's not. Being self-sufficient is not the same as providing good service. We need to be clear on what the TTC's objective and mandate should be.
I agree with this somewhat - not as strongly as hkskyline, but the TTC does have problems despite its good standing.
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2007, 09:59 PM   #489
canadave87
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 327
Likes (Received): 15

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmiDelf View Post
Oslo wagons were built from 1960s to 1980s. Is Toronto inspired by Oslo design or the other way? In Oslo wagons you can also look at the track ahead of you, while the cabin is on the right side.

Also, the pre-metro wagons was all red also, before they choose this design.
Those are the Gloucester cars, which the TTC ran from the subway's first opening in 1953 up until the late-1980s. Can't find any info on if Norway used the same trains at all, though.
canadave87 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 06:04 AM   #490
AmiDelf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 187
Likes (Received): 3

No, they didnt. As the wagons in Oslo was produced in Norway. But the design is pretty alike. Maybe some travelled to Toronto or to Oslo in 1960s ;=) Who knows, hehe
AmiDelf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 07:37 AM   #491
Gil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,120
Likes (Received): 38

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRZ View Post
To Illustrate:
The WWLRT, I thought was supposed to continue through the ACC to Bay St. and then turn up into Union Station. I've wondered if they could possibly add a station at Lake Shore to serve both the ACC and the new condos in the area. There's been some discussion as to where the line would go underground.

A relocated Union Station with a rough-in for a DRL station would also require a new, hopefully larger streetcar station to serve the various routes which will eventually run into Union once all the waterfront development has happened.

I've considered a DRL as well with a tie-in with Union. One option, which would be less than ideal but still offer transfers is to run it parallel to the Yonge-University line and have the transfer through the mezzanine level. (Similar to the Berri-UQAM station in Montréal or a bit like the Spadina stations.) It'd mean that they wouldn't have to support the Y-U Union while they dig the DRL Union. Tie it all in with whatever Union train and streetcar station redevelopment plans that eventually make it to reality. This way the DRL can run under the rail corridor/Esplanade.
Gil no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 07:47 AM   #492
UD2
A very cool person
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,294
Likes (Received): 31

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmiDelf View Post
No, they didnt. As the wagons in Oslo was produced in Norway. But the design is pretty alike. Maybe some travelled to Toronto or to Oslo in 1960s ;=) Who knows, hehe
non whatsoever

just because they look the same doesn't mean they're the same cars.

Plus, the Toronto train has a different gauge.
__________________
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed" - President Eisenhower
UD2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 10:27 AM   #493
allurban
All Urban
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto, Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 4,348
Likes (Received): 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRZ View Post
To Illustrate:



This is a prime solution for Union Station, but extremely expensive (but whether or not it is as expensive as noob's proposal is debatable).
Interesting ideas, TRZ...

would there be room for a TTC yard in the area tho, with the current GO yard to the west and the future GO yard to the east?

I can imagine that this would be expensive and yet, I just think that it would be worth it if it just makes the turn quieter.

besides, Lower Toronto (ie. south of Front Street) is getting busier and busier. This would be an interesting solution.

Cheers, m
allurban no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 01:20 PM   #494
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil View Post
The WWLRT, I thought was supposed to continue through the ACC to Bay St. and then turn up into Union Station. I've wondered if they could possibly add a station at Lake Shore to serve both the ACC and the new condos in the area. There's been some discussion as to where the line would go underground.
Yes, you are correct, the discussions are still going and no final decision is yet made (AFAIK). An EA is currently in progress for Bremner which includes investigations for a new portal, and before it is finished, no final decisions will be made as I understand it. While it is true that running it up Bay into the current loop is what they want, there is an awareness at the TTC already that this will put too much strain on the current loop at Union and something needs to be done to expand capacity, not easy with an underground station like this one.

One of the other LRT projects in the works though, is the Queen's Quay East-Cherry St route, which I am running with as an extension of the WWLRT (eventually dropping the "West" from its name and just making it the Waterfront LRT), but this is a presumption on my part in the above schema. For that through service, I am running it down York to allow it to serve (close to) Harbourfront in addition to the ACC and the new subway station in the schema.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil View Post
A relocated Union Station with a rough-in for a DRL station would also require a new, hopefully larger streetcar station to serve the various routes which will eventually run into Union once all the waterfront development has happened.
I believe we are thinking alike here. I am proposing with the above the 509 (plus occasional 510) continue to use their current loop, while the WWLRT and Cherry routes use the new loop by West Teamway. This way the old loop can continue to function in its current state, although a new platform will probably be recommended to extend to the new station as it is on the opposite side of the loop from the current station. The existing platform need not be discontinued though (necessarily, it needs to be conceded that it would not be conveniently located relative to the new station at East Teamway).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil View Post
I've considered a DRL as well with a tie-in with Union. One option, which would be less than ideal but still offer transfers is to run it parallel to the Yonge-University line and have the transfer through the mezzanine level. (Similar to the Berri-UQAM station in Montréal or a bit like the Spadina stations.) It'd mean that they wouldn't have to support the Y-U Union while they dig the DRL Union. Tie it all in with whatever Union train and streetcar station redevelopment plans that eventually make it to reality. This way the DRL can run under the rail corridor/Esplanade.
You mean run parallel on the south side of the existing subway station? That might be too tight a fit. I strongly suspect you'd encounter interference with the foundations of Historical Union Station (specifically, the foundations of the Great Hall). The new platform being added to the existing station is going to at least come up to the moat's north edge, if not protrude under the moat already, and there is no way to fit both two tracks and a new platform within the width of the moat (the moat's foundations are workable, as the main concern here are the retaining walls). Dealing with a Heritage Structure, there's gonna be a lot of opposition to something that could potentially threaten its foundation supports (lord forbid there were ever an accident in that scenario).
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 01:32 PM   #495
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by allurban View Post
Interesting ideas, TRZ...

would there be room for a TTC yard in the area tho, with the current GO yard to the west and the future GO yard to the east?
Thanks The yard would be small, but the space for such I believe is there. The GO yards would not conflict since the existing Union Station is where the new yard would go. This allows the existing to track to remain in use for non-revenue purposes after the new south-side swing is in service. Using the two existing tracks, you should be able to squeeze in 4 trains. Take out the island platform to squeeze in at least 1 more train. Take out the new platform being built and run a new track there and store another 2 trains. If there is room, which is unclear, add one more track, which would bring it right up to the foundations of Heritage Union Station (but not modify or otherwise disturb the foundations), which would allow 1 more train. So you should be able to store 8 trains in this little yard. Keele's yard is also about this size, though certainly not as cramped as this one would be. This yard would be for marshalling only, no vehicle maintenance could occur here. I believe Keele is the same story, as is GO Bathurst Yard (as Willowbrook is where vehicle maintenance occurs)

Quote:
Originally Posted by allurban View Post
I can imagine that this would be expensive and yet, I just think that it would be worth it if it just makes the turn quieter.

besides, Lower Toronto (ie. south of Front Street) is getting busier and busier. This would be an interesting solution.

Cheers, m
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 06:03 PM   #496
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,925
Likes (Received): 18186

What's the cost going to be like to build such an alignment?
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 06:33 PM   #497
Gil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,120
Likes (Received): 38

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRZ View Post
You mean run parallel on the south side of the existing subway station? That might be too tight a fit. I strongly suspect you'd encounter interference with the foundations of Historical Union Station (specifically, the foundations of the Great Hall). The new platform being added to the existing station is going to at least come up to the moat's north edge, if not protrude under the moat already, and there is no way to fit both two tracks and a new platform within the width of the moat (the moat's foundations are workable, as the main concern here are the retaining walls). Dealing with a Heritage Structure, there's gonna be a lot of opposition to something that could potentially threaten its foundation supports (lord forbid there were ever an accident in that scenario).
Wasn't one of GO's proposals for Union Station if they had their way to excavate their concourse to give it some more headroom? How would lowering the concourse to the TTC's level affect the foundations? Assuming they got the approval, how low can they go without drastically affecting the foundations of the Great Hall and the rest of the building?

Given the amount of stuff the DRL would have to go around (sewage, hydro, the LRT lines), would it be possible to build the station deep enough say at or below the old lake bed that was filled in? Given the complexities of trying to thread another line downtown there aren't much options other than to dig deep or go above ground.
Gil no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 10:40 PM   #498
noob(but not really)
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,572
Likes (Received): 2

TRZ, you selectively quoted me to back up your allegations. Here's where I covered that most noteworthy issue:

Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Bloor was chosen due to the fact that east of Queen, only Kingston would feed into the line, while there were already several routes terminating at Luttrell Loop(near today's Main Street station), to feed into the streetcar. The suburbs were growing out of Danforth Road in the east, and traffic on Bloor-Danforth(both transit and cars) was increasing more rapidly. Queen in the east is also cut off by the lake, and Kingston Road provides the only alignment to extend the line. It was felt(and with good reason) that Kingston is too far south to adequately serve Scarborough with HRT, so for these reasons, Danforth was chosen.
Of course, I didn't provide statistics, but I did cover it to some degree. BTW, I've read that article on TT several times.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TRZ View Post
We've been over the physical impossibility of this one already. The SRT is not "in the way" as the current Kennedy Subway Station cannot turn onto the SRT's alignment, nor would it be able to turn at the Ellesmere/Midland area.
You proposed a way that this can be done though.



Quote:
The change in turning radius would be negligible, you don't understand how slight such a realignment actually is and does not address the issues with the curve between King and Union. "Perfect" is hardly the word I'd use.
It would still affect it to a noticeable degree.


As for that Union proposal you posted, I am speechless. That would definitely be an improvement. However, my preferred alignment for DRL is incorrect. I'd have it come in from the west along the rail corridor(sloping downwards from the viaduct west of Jarvis to dip underground), then continue along Front Street.



Quote:
??? What are you talking about?
You know when you get past King, everyone has gotten off, then the subway is empty as you go around the loop, then takes a while to fill up again? This is an inefficiency in the system. If the lines are split at Union(either the current one, or your proposal), then both University and Yonge will be used to their full potential.
noob(but not really) no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 15th, 2007, 12:58 PM   #499
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil View Post
Wasn't one of GO's proposals for Union Station if they had their way to excavate their concourse to give it some more headroom? How would lowering the concourse to the TTC's level affect the foundations? Assuming they got the approval, how low can they go without drastically affecting the foundations of the Great Hall and the rest of the building?
Modifying floor levels within the foundations (i.e. within the building footprint) can be done without modifying the foundation walls or footings themselves, this is quite safe to the structure so long as you are not going to or below the footings. Also, small openings (such as those used for pedestrian traffic) can be made in the foundation walls to allow travel perpendicular to the axis that the foundation wall runs along and still be structurally sound with some reinforcement at jambs and lintels.
Union Station's foundations are actually quite deep, as there's a basement level that is not widely known, and apparently there's a generating station within said basement.
While small openings can be made in a foundation wall, a subway along the same axis as the foundation wall is pretty much impossible.
Going under the footings is also not recommended. Not only would it be a very deep station to do so, but it is complicated and risky redesigning the load-transfer system of Union Station's structure, unless you go to unreasonable depths to avoid that being necessary. I'd argue it is not worth it.
As for going in on one end of the building footprint and out the other, also no good since you'd encounter column footings to navigate around as well.

EDIT: Or, if not columns, stairwell foundations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil View Post
Given the amount of stuff the DRL would have to go around (sewage, hydro, the LRT lines), would it be possible to build the station deep enough say at or below the old lake bed that was filled in? Given the complexities of trying to thread another line downtown there aren't much options other than to dig deep or go above ground.
Sewers and hydro and gas lines can be relocated. This is not uncommon for subways. As for the LRT, the current subway's current depth is already almost low enough to go under anyway, another meter deeper and it'll probably be able to clear it. Going below the old lake bed should not be a requirement. The best option, I'd argue, is to go under existing streets and parking lots (while they're still there), where foundations of buildings are not going to be a problem - anything underneath those can be worked with, somehow.
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek

Last edited by TRZ; November 15th, 2007 at 03:13 PM. Reason: Stair foundations add-on
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 15th, 2007, 01:49 PM   #500
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
TRZ, you selectively quoted me to back up your allegations. Here's where I covered that most noteworthy issue:
You did not cover the most noteworthy issue. You sited traffic, not ridership, and that is the big difference. Traffic added insult to injury, true, but the main reason was the fact that the multi-unit PCCs would simply be unable to cope with the demand, far more serious than just "an increase in traffic", and you did not identify this issue. You did not identify the fact that Bloor had more or less turned into a Yonge, and this is the most noteworthy issue, which you completely missed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Of course, I didn't provide statistics,
You should try it some time.




Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRZ
We've been over the physical impossibility of this one already. The SRT is not "in the way" as the current Kennedy Subway Station cannot turn onto the SRT's alignment, nor would it be able to turn at the Ellesmere/Midland area.
You proposed a way that this can be done though.
No, I did not propose a way that the CURRENT Kennedy Station can turn into the SRT's alignment, there is no way, to do it would require a new Kennedy Station to be built, but that is not practical at all unless an Eglinton Line is available to take over the existing B-D station. Nothing was proposed for the Ellesmere curve either - I challenged you to solve it.

A New Kennedy:



Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
It would still affect it to a noticeable degree.
No, it wouldn't solve it all, the green line in this large image would be your only feasable option, and it does absolutely nothing to address the curve. Not mentioned in the last reply to you, but mentioned in a reply to Gil and illustrated rather clearly in the above linked image, your triple track idea also does not have enough space as the new south track is more or less already at the foundations of Union Station's Great Hall which you simply cannot possibly carve a platform into (Union Station would fail structurally).
Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
As for that Union proposal you posted, I am speechless. That would definitely be an improvement. However, my preferred alignment for DRL is incorrect. I'd have it come in from the west along the rail corridor(sloping downwards from the viaduct west of Jarvis to dip underground), then continue along Front Street.
Well, wasn't too concerned about what alignment you want, East Teamway station's alignment is so close to the same apprach it is compatible. I can tell you right now though that you cannot turn from the West Teamway station onto Front, I'd suggest using the rail corridor until Spadina, at which point you can easily slide onto Front. The main concern is Yonge-Uni, and that's what I was focused on in the idea. In anycase, glad you like it, I'm surprised you actually agree





Quote:
Originally Posted by noob(but not really) View Post
You know when you get past King, everyone has gotten off, then the subway is empty as you go around the loop, then takes a while to fill up again? This is an inefficiency in the system. If the lines are split at Union(either the current one, or your proposal), then both University and Yonge will be used to their full potential.
What you are talking about is entirely dependent on the time of day.
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
canada, ontario, toronto

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium