Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[Eug]

Interesting avatar Prometheus.

Does anyone know where the likely Bayview & Eglinton LRT "subway" station would be? It seems to me there could be two likely entrances, one in the Sunnybrook Plaza parking lot (NE corner) or one in the Metro parking lot (NW corner) or both.

How does the city buy the space for this? I'm sure both would love to have a station entrance on their property, but the loss of a few parking spots could hurt a bit.

 

[officedweller]

For the Canada Line, costs were saved by using the "underpass" method of connected outside platforms @ Langara Station and @ Oakridge Station rather than a mezzanine (less excavation). King Edward Station is stacked, which limits connections to the opposite side of the street, but minimizes footprint. All the other underground stations have mezzanines.

 

[adma]

Does anyone know where the likely Bayview & Eglinton LRT "subway" station would be? It seems to me there could be two likely entrances, one in the Sunnybrook Plaza parking lot (NE corner) or one in the Metro parking lot (NW corner) or both.

I'd bet on Metro, because Sunnybrook's lot is notoriously tight and primitive (it's one of those "earliest shopping centre in Toronto" candidates, you know). Don't bet against a buyout of the SE corner McDonald's, either.

 

[JPG]

For the Canada Line, costs were saved by using the "underpass" method of connected outside platforms @ Langara Station and @ Oakridge Station rather than a mezzanine (less excavation). King Edward Station is stacked, which limits connections to the opposite side of the street, but minimizes footprint. All the other underground stations have mezzanines.

One of the options the TTC should be considering is a single bore tunnel instead of two tunnels. Line 9 in Barcelona is a single bore tunnel and almost equivalent to the Eglinton LRT route with respect to planning. Station platforms would be built within the bored tunnel structure.

This is a departure from standard TTC thinking. Typically the TTC will bore two separate tunnels and use cut and cover construction at each station including a mezzanine level. The Spadina extension and Sheppard line are examples. Along Eglinton, they can bore one continuous tunnel and the station excavation would be reduced to building elevator shafts and stairwells to the surface only...no mezzanine level. Any excavation is equivalent to typical building construction outside the right-of-way. The key benefit to a single bore tunnel is that there is "almost" NO disruption along the public right-of-way because all the crossovers and platforms are in the tunnel. There is NO cut and cover construction in this scenario except where the TBM's are launched and extracted. The launching coincides with the portals. Just count how many stations plus the portals and special trackwork areas there are and that will tell you how many cut-and-cover locations there will be in the two tunnel scenario...in the middle of the road! Compare that to potentially only 3 cut-and-cover locations for a single bore tunnel.

This is very innovative IMO! I plan to press the TTC at the PIC's for the advantages of single bore tunnels. Granville, Burrard and King Edward stations have all been built in this "stacked" format. I can't see how they can bore two separate tunnels within the narrow Eglinton right-of-way without having property impacts. One tunnel - one very big tunnel should fit within the right-of-way nicely and avoid disruption of business activities and traffic.

Any thoughts? And let's ask the TTC what they think!

 

[unimaginative2]

Sounds great! I'm glad to see them thinking this way.

 

[Voltz]

Seems like using one tunnel that could accommodate stations would require a very large and expensive tunnel, It would be rather wasteful to bore a tunnel that is several times wider than is needed for trains just to avoid open cut construction for stations.

 

[Republic of Toronto]

Large Bore

Just because something is bigger doesn't mean it's more expensive.
One must factor the entire job and associated acitivities including the time required to construct. Cut-and-cover stations are extremely lengthy to construct and the disruption to business acitivities, pedestrian and vehicular traffic is insurmountable. Plus, the larger tunnel can accomodate and consolidate utilities and the like which otherwise would require separate smaller underground conduits.

 

[W. K. Lis]

One of the options the TTC should be considering is a single bore tunnel instead of two tunnels. ...

Like the tunnels used by the Montréal Metro, which have the same width as a CLRV or ALRV.

 

[CodeMonkey]

Looks high-tech, the green look

 

[nfitz]

Montreal's tunnels are primarily drilled through bedrock. It's a lot cheaper, and a lot different structurally than the overburden materials - a lot of sand - that Toronto is stuck with. If you look in Montreal, in some sections where the tunnel isn't in bedrock, such as between Place St-Henri and Vendome, where it is getting shallow near the escarpment, there is also a central wall (not sure if it's two tunnels, or just a structural wall in the centre).

You are stuck with your geology. In Montreal they go a bit deeper, so they can work in the bedrock. In London all those deep-level tubes are deep, because there's fantastic clay layer to drill in.

In Toronto ... we're screwed.

 

[kettal]

Thanks for the insight, nfitz. There's no one size fits all on this planet.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Montreal's tunnels are primarily drilled through bedrock. It's a lot cheaper, and a lot different structurally than the overburden materials - a lot of sand - that Toronto is stuck with. If you look in Montreal, in some sections where the tunnel isn't in bedrock, such as between Place St-Henri and Vendome, where it is getting shallow near the escarpment, there is also a central wall (not sure if it's two tunnels, or just a structural wall in the centre).

You are stuck with your geology. In Montreal they go a bit deeper, so they can work in the bedrock. In London all those deep-level tubes are deep, because there's fantastic clay layer to drill in.

In Toronto ... we're screwed.

I dont know about that.....Where there is a will there is a way, and money talks bullshit walks. At the moment i am working on a island where they are boring many 2-3km huge transportation tunnels through a mountain chain of volcanic basalt,1500 meters above sea level. It would make any future Toronto tunneling a piece of cake. To boot much of this technology (Tunnel Boring Machines) is by LOVAT Inc. which is a Canadian company.
Building a Subway in Toronto may be a bit more complex than say Montreal or New York, but come on if the funds are there, its all possible.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v706/joao74/madeira/madeira_376.jpg

http://media.photobucket.com/image/madeira island tunnels/dljgmail/madeira/P8172750.jpg

 

[DavidH]

In Toronto ... we're screwed.

Well, it's not as if we have sand and overburden right down to the core of the planet underneath us. The question is how deep is bedrock here? What is the cost of going down to it versus dealing with the overburden?

 

[hkric88]

Could be a LOT of stairs to climb.

 

[nfitz]

I dont know about that.....Where there is a will there is a way, and money talks bullshit walks. At the moment i am working on a island where they are boring many 2-3km huge transportation tunnels through a mountain chain of volcanic basalt,1500 meters above sea level. It would make any future Toronto tunneling a piece of cake. To boot much of this technology (Tunnel Boring Machines) is by LOVAT Inc. which is a Canadian company.
Building a Subway in Toronto may be a bit more complex than say Montreal or New York, but come on if the funds are there, its all possible.

I don't disagree at all. I was simply pointing out why we need the double tunnels in Toronto, and why it's a bit more expensive to build subway here than in Montreal. Of course it's possible!