,
15 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
@CBCQueensPark @metromorning I was just listening to Mike Crawley's Mar 28 interview about the rationale behind the Ford subway plan. There is a howler of an error fairly early in the piece. cbc.ca/listen/shows/m…
2. Mike says (at about 1:45) that according to his sources trains would turn off of line 2 onto the RL in effect providing a through service from the Danforth subway to downtown. This is **NOT** true. The proposed track layout does not even support such an operation.
3. The only moves between the lines would for trains moving to/from Greenwood Yard to the RL. The yard entrance tracks split off from the Danforth line just east of Donlands. Trains would not come west from Kennedy (or STC) and go directly downtown.
4. If Mike's sources at Metrolinx or Queen's Park think this is the case, this is another example of how they simply do not understand what is proposed, or even worse are actively misrepresenting this. This brings me to issues about technology on the "old" and "new" lines.
5. Line 2 has not yet been converted to automatic train control (ATC) yet, a project now underway on Line 1. But the existing signal system would **not** be used on the new RL which would get ATC signals and ATC-capable trains.
6. There is an alternate route to Greenwood Yard from the RL by way of a tunnel under the GO rail corridor east from Gerrard Station (at Carlaw/Pape) entering the yard from the south. This was rejected early in RL studies because CN did not want a tunnel under their tracks.
7. The corridor is now owned by Metrolinx, and so the option of a tunnel under it is probably more warmly received today. This would eliminate a costly, complex junction at Pape and Danforth along with construction effects.
8. The DRL as shown in its EA is a twin bore tunnel with cut-and-cover boxes at stations just as on the Vaughan extension and on Eglinton. We know the upheaval that brings.
9. City staff at Council acknowledged that they are looking at alternate tunnel technology. This would allow tracks to be stacked in the tunnel and stations to be substantially contained within the bore needing much less construction for access to the surface. This saves $$$.
10. However, there are implications for a larger tunnel that are specific to the geology through which it would pass, and no comparison of the two schemes for the RL alignment has been published.
11. Another way to save money on tunnels is to use smaller trains such as the Skytrain in Vancouver. However there are capacity issues with smaller trains, and being too cheap on that account can bite you as Van has found with the Canada line to YVR.
12. Mike makes the key point that the province has done a bad job of explaining just what it is proposing, and I cannot help thinking that their own lack of understanding of the existing and proposed system, or possibly misrepresentation, have fouled them up.
13. They also claimed that the city has not done serious work on tunneling Eglinton West, when in fact the City has evaluated such options in detail and will report to Council soon on this.
14. The degree to which Michael Lindsay had to walk back claims in his March 22 letter shows either that he doesn't know what he is doing, or is misrepresenting some projects for political reasons, i.e. to support the claim that the TTC/City "cannot build subways".
15/15 But to finish off where I started, it is completely invalid to claim that trains from Line 2 would be through routed for revenue service onto the DRL. Anyone who makes this claim is "badly advised" to use parliamentary terminology.
