Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
Yup, probably because they've been busy with the side streets up until last Friday when they started working on Eglinton.
|
|
|
Molybdenum
Active Member
The space that the Eglinton platform will be extended north into is currently a third "pocket" subway track, used to store or turn around trains just north of the station. When the ECLRT is built, the pocket track will be removed and the space converted into subway platform. Unfortunately, making the platform wider would require moving the tunnels to each side, not only for the length of the new north part of the platform, but also for the part of the existing platform that would remain and for the approaches on either end, which is not practical.
nfitz
Superstar
They aren't. It will still be a single centre-platform. They can't make it any wider without moving one of the tracks - and that's not planned.
Even after this, Eglinton platform will still be as crowded. Just will be different location. Moving platform may help it not get as worse as it would get otherwise - but doesn't make it any less crowded than today.
They need to find a way to make it practical. Stagger the platforms maybe. It's not impossible ... just a lot more $$$.
But they otherwise, they are setting themselves up for another Bloor-Yonge problem.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Instead of making the platform wider, they could make it longer to fit 7 or 8 car trains. This is needed only at the major stations on the line - at all others, the front and/or last cars from each train would not line up at the platform and would not have doors open.
nfitz
Superstar
So basically your saying they should spend tens of billiions in modifying the entire subway line, rather than spending an extra half-billion on the station ... :facepalm:
Markster
Senior Member
nfitz
Superstar
One there demand at Eglinton West is lower. Two is that there are already 2 platforms on Line 1, compared to 1 at Eglinton.
Johnny Au
Senior Member
What a wasted opportunity to build a Spanish solution at Eglinton station.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Maybe you could read before posting.
And this would increase the capacity of the entire line too.
nfitz
Superstar
It says exactly what I thought it said.
You'd need to change the entire signalling system, all the pocket storage, reconfigure the yards, spend massive amounts of money expanding several stations, and then create huge bottlenecks at some shorter stations, with those in the back door filing in and out.
Please tell me that either your trolling, or you've been Rob Fording.
edmundoconnor
Active Member
Ahahaahahahahaha. Haahaha.
Ha.
That's funny.
What were these guys smoking when they came up with those numbers? I want some of it
Well back then, there was a certain guy in Etobicoke who could fix you right up.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
they were smoking huge job growth numbers for NYCC and STC, back then the city of Toronto assumed for some reason that most office employment growth in the GTA would continue to happen in the city of Toronto (this was the early 80's.. the 905 was just beginning to be a thing), and the anti development crowd downtown wanted all the growth in the burbs of Metro Toronto. Thus the huge job growth numbers. Through planning and bad politics, transport planners most job growth in Toronto would occur in 4 centre, NYCC, STC, Etobicoke centre (around Islington), and York centre on the Eglinton subway at the Kodak lands. Of those two, NYCC and STC were considered to be the larger two. While NYCC somewhat succeeded, its employment is still roughly 1/10th of what it is supposed to be at right now according to those 1980's plans, York centre doesn't exist, then Etobicoke and Scarborough Centre are barely anything more than a particularly large cluster of condos.
The job growth largely still occurred, just downtown and in the 905. Developers struggled to justify building in expensive urban centres (higher land costs, parking costs, etc.) when they didn't have access to the centralized access of downtown. It then became the option of cheap land with cheap parking costs out in the 905, or expensive land and little parking in downtown with easy transit access. The 416 was generally considered a no-go.
The job growth largely still occurred, just downtown and in the 905. Developers struggled to justify building in expensive urban centres (higher land costs, parking costs, etc.) when they didn't have access to the centralized access of downtown. It then became the option of cheap land with cheap parking costs out in the 905, or expensive land and little parking in downtown with easy transit access. The 416 was generally considered a no-go.
Last edited:
CITY_LOVER
Active Member
I'm sorry if this has been asked already (recently) but do we have any reasonable idea as to when the Eglinton line can potentially be extended westward to the Airport and eastward past Kennedy? I wish this was happening all at once so we would have a full-fledged cross-city train line right from the start......
innsertnamehere
Superstar
not for a long time, if ever. its not on any priority lists for funding and from my understanding doesn't have a particularly good cost benefit ratio. Its essentially dead along with the other transit city lines that didn't receive funding.
ehlow
Senior Member
Yes, especially if UPX gets a stop connecting to Eglinton at Mt Dennis. They'll just run a bus line on Eglinton West connecting the giant bus bay & mobility hub at Mt Dennis. Maybe they could run an Eglinton West Express bus as well, that drives into the airport?