Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

So wait, the DRL alignment was announced as Queen so we are debating for pages and pages why this is the right or wrong decision? Is this alignment announcement not final, like am I missing something and they will still be examining other alignments in the process of moving forward in the planning process?

Also, regarding the Western leg these areas are already serviced by streetcars along a strong grid of East-West roads so we could get bigger bang for buck in the short-term by optimizing these routes with street-car rights-of-way etc. However, considering local factors for station consideration (as opposed to exclusively looking at the commuter relief function) there is no doubt that the Western leg would be one of the only areas of the city that has a justifiable density of population and trip generators to warrant subway construction.
 
It's final. People just like to discuss the decision and its implications.

Hopefully by the end of this year funding can be secured and it can move towards construction.
 
TrickyRicky said:
So wait, the DRL alignment was announced as Queen so we are debating for pages and pages why this is the right or wrong decision? Is this alignment announcement not final, like am I missing something and they will still be examining other alignments in the process of moving forward in the planning process?
Click to expand...

I'd say yes and no. What we know is that last week Keesmaat posted some vague info on Twitter about the City favouring a Queen alignment, and simultaneously the G&M posted an article about this alignment and station location. But so far we don't have much else (until the actual report and ridership data is released in the coming weeks).

There's also the issue of the Prov/Metrolinx, who are undertaking their own relief study separate from the City's. Their ideas are broad in scope, and cover a larger area (from Sheppard to downtown instead of Danforth). IMO there's no definitive sign that they're wedded to the City's idea of this 'relief' line being a genuine subway, and from what I gather they also don't like working alongside the City.

Earlier I gave an explanation about why I think the City wants a station located at Sumach (instead of River St, which would make more sense). My guess was that it was to allow the considerable depth needed to travel below the Don to reach the Broadview South station on the opposing side. But I have another theory: Perhaps it's optimally located so that at any point in time, the City can switch from using Pape as their terminus, and instead decide to route the line up River St, then head diagonally across the valley to Broadview station. This could cut down on costs, and keep in line with some of the Relief ideas M'linx has presented. This is just a theory though. But I honestly don't think things are set in stone yet. The Prov and City still need to come to an agreement on this line - and I think that's quite a ways away yet.
 
lead82 said:
Building the DRL under Queen is going to be a disaster for constructions for a decade. It would be a slot smarter if they actually dug the line under Richmond and just had the stations exit towards Queen, which is less that 70m away. I'm sure it would be cheaper to dig the tunnel under a one way street than one under a tram line. We'd have to reroute the Queen tram for 10 years during construction.

Also, I think it's a big mistake ending the first phase of DRL at University. If phase 1 is being built it needs to go all the way to Liberty Village. That neighbourhood is dying for rapid transit. Sure they have the Exhibition GO but the service is not frequent enough and the fare to Union is too steep.
Click to expand...
In thought SmartTrack would take care of Liberty Village
 
Palma said:
In thought SmartTrack would take care of Liberty Village
Click to expand...
So far there is no announcement and no decision. The news last week mentioned this being the preferred option, winning in several categories, including cost (but no mention of "transportation").
 
lead82 said:
Building the DRL under Queen is going to be a disaster for constructions for a decade...
Click to expand...

s0574_fl0011_id49303.jpg


s0574_fl0011_id49308.jpg


s0574_fl0012_id49319.jpg


s0574_fl0046_id49674.jpg


s0574_fl0029_id49505.jpg


Wonder how those shops on Yonge Street survived, when they built the original cut-and-cover subway? They'll likely use tunnel boring machines for the tunnels, and mine the station boxes and entrances.
 
Maybe that's why King transit mall has to be implemented as a stop gap while Queen is shut down for construction - and on the bright side, there is minimal street level retail to disrupt at the central portion of Queen.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Maybe that's why King transit mall has to be implemented as a stop gap while Queen is shut down for construction - and on the bright side, there is minimal street level retail to disrupt at the central portion of Queen.

AoD
Click to expand...

Barf. Didn't think about that. The construction period will be hellish on Queen.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Maybe that's why King transit mall has to be implemented as a stop gap while Queen is shut down for construction - and on the bright side, there is minimal street level retail to disrupt at the central portion of Queen.

AoD
Click to expand...

That's a good point. Yes, the transit mall certainly would make sense. I had actually envisioned something similar, only reversed when I drew up my map, whereby Queen would get a transit/pedestrian mall, and King would get the subway. The Queen mall opened just as subway construction started, in order to shift the bulk of the King riders onto Queen. Naturally, the opposite would hold true as well.

I could see Queen cars diverting south at either Bathurst or Spadina, and running along King through downtown, returning to Queen when they merge at River. A minor disruption, but hardly a dealbreaker if the King mall can handle it.
 
This does beg the question of where the insertion/extraction shafts will be (assuming TBM construction). The insertion point is where the tailings are removed, so sees heavy dump truck traffic. There are far fewer open spaces along this route than on Eglinton.

My theory would be to insert from the east, perhaps at Moss Park or near the Don. Extract from in front of Osgoode Hall. If we buy a single station midway between Yonge and University, there is room to extract just west of the west end of the future station. Don't close up the extraction shaft until the Phase II west leg has arrived - timing the arrival of the Phase II TBM for just after the Phase I TBM has been dismantled and removed. In effect, we reuse the extraction shaft.

Phase II would go into the ground near Shaw where Queen is wide and the CAMH lawn is available. It could also be used to launch westwards.

That puts the dump truck routes down Strachan and on the Bayview extension. We don't want to totally mess up the central area with these.

EDIT - I realise that Phase II is not a given, but nothing will mess up downtown as much as ripping up Queen St twice. There is a good argument that the economic impact of two tunnelling projects is worse than just borrowing another $1-2B and doing the whole thing in one pass.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
lead82 said:
Building the DRL under Queen is going to be a disaster for constructions for a decade. It would be a slot smarter if they actually dug the line under Richmond and just had the stations exit towards Queen, which is less that 70m away. I'm sure it would be cheaper to dig the tunnel under a one way street than one under a tram line. We'd have to reroute the Queen tram for 10 years during construction.

Also, I think it's a big mistake ending the first phase of DRL at University. If phase 1 is being built it needs to go all the way to Liberty Village. That neighbourhood is dying for rapid transit. Sure they have the Exhibition GO but the service is not frequent enough and the fare to Union is too steep.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the DRL could expedite the King Street-Mall plans. If the King streetcar is giving its own right of way, we could potentially have the Queen streetcar operate on King street for a bit before rising back up to Queen street further to the west.

edit: Maybe I should've clicked next page before posting. :p
 
crs1026 said:
My theory would be to insert from the east, perhaps at Moss Park or near the Don. Extract from in front of Osgoode Hall. If we buy a single station midway between Yonge and University, there is room to extract just west of the west end of the future station. Don't close up the extraction shaft until the Phase II west leg has arrived - timing the arrival of the Phase II TBM for just after the Phase I TBM has been dismantled and removed. In effect, we reuse the extraction shaft.

Phase II would go into the ground near Shaw where Queen is wide and the CAMH lawn is available. It could also be used to launch westwards.
Click to expand...

They will have to dig the overrun to the west anyways - and couldn't they have pulled a Crosstown here and build the Phase II tunnel first, considering it doesn't account for the majority of the project cost.

AoD

EDIT - I see you came to the same conclusion re: preemptively constructing the tunnel. The issue of course is the need then to come up with an alignment for Phase 2 prior.
 
Last edited:
WislaHD said:
I wonder if the DRL could expedite the King Street-Mall plans. If the King streetcar is giving its own right of way, we could potentially have the Queen streetcar operate on King street for a bit before rising back up to Queen street further to the west.

edit: Maybe I should've clicked next page before posting. :p
Click to expand...

LOL - I don't think it expedite the plan - it is the other way around - I think the plan is an enabler of the RL construction.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I see you came to the same conclusion re: preemptively constructing the tunnel. The issue of course is the need then to come up with an alignment for Phase 2 prior.
Click to expand...

The Scarboro discussion has made me wonder if we should just go ahead and start tunnelling a whole bunch of routes, and then bank the tunnels for when we have the money to dig the stations and finish the lines. It would get us closer to the "build a mile a year for 20 years" approach - which we should have been doing all along - and it would take some of the shifting sands out of the planning process. So long as we don't elect another Mike Harris to fill them all in again, anyways. By the end of Crosstown, Toronto will have scrapped eight perfectly good TBM's.....why not just keep boring?

- Paul
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top