Eglinton-Crosstown Corridor Debate

[golodhendil]

The Canada line uses regular metro trains. Some examples of LRVs using third rail are the London Docklands system and the SEPTA Norristown High Speed Line.

Yup, and the DLR stock is also manufactured by Bombardier.
And then there is the new rolling stock of the Rotterdam Metro, which are actually in the same general Flexity family as the new TTC LRVs, and can swtich between third rail and pantograph:

 

[gweed123]

Ugh, that's a pretty ugly wiring job. Whatever happened to minimizing the visual impact of overhead wires?

 

[golodhendil]

It might have to do with the fact that the route in the first picture, Randstadrail between Rotterdam and Hague, was formerly a mainline railway that was converted to metro operation, and so is wired with the catenary system typical of mainline and not the simple overhead wires common for urban metro.

 

[Eug]

How does the soil testing work?

I notice the sign for soil testing on Eglinton East is still up. It's been there over half a year IIRC, on and off. Has there been any progress?

 

[officedweller]

It might have to do with the fact that the route in the first picture, Randstadrail between Rotterdam and Hague, was formerly a mainline railway that was converted to metro operation, and so is wired with the catenary system typical of mainline and not the simple overhead wires common for urban metro.

Wow, that is ugly.
Any chance GO train electrification would look like that?

 

[golodhendil]

For where that line is running through (the countryside between Rotterdam and Hague), it really isn't that big of a deal. Once it reaches the newly built urban sections, they decrease the distance between the messenger and the contact wires, like this picture of the Randstadrail viaduct in backward, provicinal Hague:

This catenary setup is pretty standard for mainline rail (and many non-underground urban metro), so I would guess (without having seen any information from Metrolinx regarding this) that the future electrified GO will use the same system.

 

[CapitalSeven]

That's one of the nicer elevated rail structures. The sort of thing that would be planned in Ontario, then scrapped in a cost-cutting exercise, leaving the standard ugly concrete mess we're used to.

 

[Eug]

^^^ What's the cost difference?

P.S. How usable is the space underneath? I see that they do put trees beside it, which could actually work given that there is at least some light penetration through the structure because of its fenestrated design. I'm not sure if Torontonians would like it so close to buildings though.

 

[gweed123]

^^^ What's the cost difference?

P.S. How usable is the space underneath? I see that they do put trees beside it, which could actually work given that there is at least some light penetration through the structure because of its fenestrated design. I'm not sure if Torontonians would like it so close to buildings though.

If placed along Eglinton, I would imagine they would either do grass underneath, or some type of nice gravel with brick, etc. I don't really think it would be a simple slab of concrete underneath.

 

[Eug]

Grass? That's a lot of grass to maintain.

I would have guessed concrete with street furniture, and trees if possible. I just wonder how much it'd actually be utilized. They'd have to do something different to make it not look ghetto. I suppose that could be grass... That's sort of like the Gardner downtown, but even with grass that space is not utilized.

 

[Tulse]

That's sort of like the Gardner downtown

And that's precisely what I think elevated tracks turn into -- an dreary urban wasteland underneath. Perhaps I've seen too many cop films set in Chicago and New York, but the areas under elevated trains seem at best to be empty spaces filled with blown-in garbage and the occasional grocery cart, and at worse an attractant for crime. There are few places in Toronto that feel less welcoming than below the Gardiner, and I'd hate to see that spread throughout the city.

 

[sixrings]

Agreed that it is an eye sore. However West of Jane and East of Victoria Park is No Mans land. There isnt mch pedestrian activity to save in the first place. So if this can be done cost effectively I would probably have to agree with it... I would say the same thing for Sheppard... ONLY if its cost effective.... And on Eglinton ONLY if its east of the Don Valley and West of Jane..

 

[gweed123]

And that's precisely what I think elevated tracks turn into -- an dreary urban wasteland underneath. Perhaps I've seen too many cop films set in Chicago and New York, but the areas under elevated trains seem at best to be empty spaces filled with blown-in garbage and the occasional grocery cart, and at worse an attractant for crime. There are few places in Toronto that feel less welcoming than below the Gardiner, and I'd hate to see that spread throughout the city.

Those tracks were also build in the early 20th century, sometimes even earlier. Just look at the Vancouver Skytrain, I don't think that's an eyesore at all. It also has a psychological effect on both drivers and transit users. Elevated lines are above traffic, giving the semblance of an increased importance compared to the vehicular traffic at ground level. The line is not underground, so it is not 'out of sight, out of mind', and it is not at-grade, at best on-par with the cars. If you can look out the window and see that you're flying by cars who are stuck in traffic, the psychological effect is that transit > car, because transit gets you from point A to point B faster than those schmucks stuck in traffic below me. Elevation gives a sense of importance and priority that you don't get with most other forms of transit.

You're above car travel because you're taking transit, both literally and figuratively.

 

[jwill]

I don't see the value in spending all that money and damaging any chance of an active pedestrian street on the outer ends of Eglinton. Intersections there are widely spaced, so conflicts with traffic are at a minimum. We should only use grade separations where cross traffic is frequent, or the street is too narrow.

 

[gweed123]

I don't see the value in spending all that money and damaging any chance of an active pedestrian street on the outer ends of Eglinton. Intersections there are widely spaced, so conflicts with traffic are at a minimum. We should only use grade separations where cross traffic is frequent, or the street is too narrow.

Remind me again how an elevated guideway in the middle of a 6-lane arterial is going to prevent someone from walking on a sidewalk 18m away from that guideway??