Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

Hopkins123 said:
Borrowing from the image you've sourced, it becomes even more abundantly clear how a station at Sherborune St makes absolutely no sense:



As depicted, Jarvis St lies at the eastern end of the skyscraper developments and would be the best suited location for a station to handle that density as it also neighbours three major institutions (St Michael's Hospital, Ryerson University and George Brown College).

That map also illustrates how Parliament St is a major secondary corridor and should be directly served by a station.

Sherbourne/Queen as shown on that map has zilch, nada, nothing worth serving with a direct subway stop. Please TPTB apply some common sense here and think of average walking times for the majority of transit users downtown. 2 stations are better than one and sometimes, as the Carlaw alignment today demonstrates, going the more expensive route benefits the most people in the long run.
Click to expand...

Parliament will be 200m from Sherbourne secondary exit and no station is possible as the line needs turn south ahead of the intersection. Jarvis is just stuck in an awkward spot. They are not going to spend the 300 to 350 million for a station that would be 200 to 300m from Sherbourne, and 300 to 400 from Yonge, which would be the closest in the system except for Yonge-Queen and Osgoode, where that situation is forced due to building constraints (unless they go the Sydney route and start tearing down Office Towers for subway stations).
 
Hopkins123 said:
Borrowing from the image you've sourced, it becomes even more abundantly clear how a station at Sherborune St makes absolutely no sense:



As depicted, Jarvis St lies at the eastern end of the skyscraper developments and would be the best suited location for a station to handle that density as it also neighbours three major institutions (St Michael's Hospital, Ryerson University and George Brown College).

That map also illustrates how Parliament St is a major secondary corridor and should be directly served by a station.

Sherbourne/Queen as shown on that map has zilch, nada, nothing worth serving with a direct subway stop. Please TPTB apply some common sense here and think of average walking times for the majority of transit users downtown. 2 stations are better than one and sometimes, as the Carlaw alignment today demonstrates, going the more expensive route benefits the most people in the long run.
Click to expand...

What is the source of this image?
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Indeed - the whole thing is wrapped up on the "better fit" argument when it is in essence an unwillingness to disturb the status quo, added cost and complexity be damned.
Click to expand...

To be fair we don't yet know how much costlier it will be. And I don't think many thought it'd be all that complex. If anything one could easily conclude that the wider ROW would in fact make building along Carlaw less complex. The issue with the Gerrard interceptor sewer is a surprise, and was probably a surprise for the City too. But the smaller sewer along Carlaw was supposed to be a non-issue, or at least that's what they told me. So I guess let's see how this plays out and is costed before we get the pitchforks.

One thing that could be a benefit of the Carlaw-Pape jig (theoretically at least) is if we ever decided to route a nonrevenue spur to Greenwood Yd via the rail corridor. South of the Gerrard station the NE-SW alignment could make this more optimal if a Line 2 wye is cost prohibitive. That's just my theory tho.

RL-Carlaw-Greenwood-Yard-Spur.png
 

Attachments

  • RL-Carlaw-Greenwood-Yard-Spur.png
    RL-Carlaw-Greenwood-Yard-Spur.png
    528.7 KB · Views: 311
Cobra said:
The cheapest option isn't always the best one. I think the Spadina line being in the middle of Allen Road instead of Dufferin would have taught us as much. If there's one new line we can't afford to get wrong it's Relief Long
Click to expand...
The cheapest option has a significantly greater chance of being built.

If the West leg of Line 1 went under Dufferin, would it be stopped at Eglinton now due to prohibitive cost to extend?
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
Why would you destabilize any area, residential neighbourhood or not, if you could align your subway to fit into an existing higher-density corridor with development potential? Why aren't we aiming for better urban form?

I think this whole argument for staying on Pape is wrapped up in a demonization of single-family housing and some view that a curve in the subway line is a catastrophic concession.
Click to expand...

The point being - how much extra are we willing to pay for that privilege, and how come we are not treating impact on Carlaw - which is hosting several buildings with greater number of residents - to the same standards of impact? If one is going to complain about NIMBYism in Scarborough, one better be just as willing to do so in the core/shoulder - and they have even less excuse.

44 North said:
To be fair we don't yet know how much costlier it will be. And I don't think many thought it'd be all that complex. If anything one could easily conclude that the wider ROW would in fact make building along Carlaw less complex. The issue with the Gerrard interceptor sewer is a surprise, and was probably a surprise for the City too. But the smaller sewer along Carlaw was supposed to be a non-issue, or at least that's what they told me. So I guess let's see how this plays out and is costed before we get the pitchforks.
Click to expand...

That's hoping and praying even though the studies have already point to it being a higher cost. The fact that the complexities have already been pointed out with a big question mark should be ringing alarm bells instead of full speed ahead.

AoD
 
Last edited:
I have to laugh at some of the dreaming on here, sorry. The first phase of the DRL is planned to end at Osgoode Station. I'd love to see it extended a few stops west, ideally as far as Gladstone/Dufferin, but that's a pipe dream right now when we don't even know how Phase One to Osgoode will be funded. Given this context, how on Earth could we justify extending the DRL north of Eglinton when Line One already runs north-west from the Allen and Eglinton? Don't forget that the rail corridor through Mount Dennis and Weston also already runs north-west and will have Smart Track.

I've said before that there's an opportunity to extend the Allen as an underground toll route to the Gardiner, and to include the western leg of the DRL in the build. This is a way to pay for a substantial portion of the DRL and to fast track its extension. It also opens up the possibility of removing the elevated Gardiner in the future, as an exit from the western Gardiner to the city grid would be built in this Allen extension. The tolls could even eventually be removed on those off/on-ramps from the Gardiner.

Before attacking this idea, consider what it makes possible without adding a single cost to taxpayers or users of existing transportation infrastructure. The dig is easy as there are no structures with deep foundations along this route and there are sections of roadway wide enough to accommodate modest on/off ramps without impacting the pedestrian experience. It would improve all transportation flows in the west. Adelaide, Richmond, and Front are the obvious connections to this underground system downtown. I've already sent route ideas which you're welcome to criticize. I don't care, because I've seen enough inane ideas on here to realize that this DRL is going nowhere fast under the current plan or lack thereof.
 
Last edited:
The DRL should be built as standard catenary Metro and not 3rd rail. Even if it's not extended to be part of the wider RER {which it should be} it would offer the same service as standard subway but could also be used by RER in both regular service and very importantly if there is a problem Union. RER service is going to put massive pressure on Union and a 3rd rail DRL will do little to relieve that and absolutely nothing if an emergency {or even major upgrades/maintenance} are needed at Union.

A catenary RER tunnel would also allow all trains to use the tunnel or alternate service between heading to Union or Queen/Yonge relieving traffic at Union. #rd rail would greatly limit the ability to extend the service west or east/north as it would require extending the entire subway line while a catenary subway could exit downtown and use the existing RER lines. If DRL is built as 3rd rail then it will only take you up north via Don Mills while catenary would allow someone to take a train from Q&Y to Stoufville, Oshawa, Don Mills, and maybe STC with no transfer.
 
I don't think every 15-minute RER SmartTrack type service will be sufficient. The February 2016 modelling was showing 2041 ridership of the short DRL line as up to 16,000 per hour per direction at peak hour, depending on alignment. It only gets worse as the line gets longer. This needs to be subway.
 
Sorry to set the discussion back by 500 pages but why is it that the favoured DRL alignment is Queen and not King?
 
Avenue said:
Sorry to set the discussion back by 500 pages but why is it that the favoured DRL alignment is Queen and not King?
Click to expand...

Depends on your perspective - there is a weighting system based on a whole range of variables (ridership, cost, city building, social equity, etc) which happened to favour Queen. Some argues (not entirely without reason) that it was loaded to ensure Smarttrack didn't get the short end of the ridership stick.

AoD
 
Last edited:
ssiguy2 said:
The DRL should be built as standard catenary Metro and not 3rd rail. Even if it's not extended to be part of the wider RER {which it should be} it would offer the same service as standard subway but could also be used by RER in both regular service and very importantly if there is a problem Union. RER service is going to put massive pressure on Union and a 3rd rail DRL will do little to relieve that and absolutely nothing if an emergency {or even major upgrades/maintenance} are needed at Union.
Click to expand...

Yes, let's unnecessarily increase the costs by a huge factor for a project that is already fighting to get the funding it needs.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
ssiguy2 said:
The DRL should be built as standard catenary Metro and not 3rd rail. Even if it's not extended to be part of the wider RER {which it should be} it would offer the same service as standard subway but could also be used by RER in both regular service and very importantly if there is a problem Union. RER service is going to put massive pressure on Union and a 3rd rail DRL will do little to relieve that and absolutely nothing if an emergency {or even major upgrades/maintenance} are needed at Union.

A catenary RER tunnel would also allow all trains to use the tunnel or alternate service between heading to Union or Queen/Yonge relieving traffic at Union. #rd rail would greatly limit the ability to extend the service west or east/north as it would require extending the entire subway line while a catenary subway could exit downtown and use the existing RER lines. If DRL is built as 3rd rail then it will only take you up north via Don Mills while catenary would allow someone to take a train from Q&Y to Stoufville, Oshawa, Don Mills, and maybe STC with no transfer.
Click to expand...
There's a lot to be said for this. A common adage nowadays is that if you're boring a tunnel, a larger one is of little more expense. And do this full heavy rail passenger loading gauge. This would work in conjunction with the line(s) down the Don Valley which could remain 'express' and the locals would go into tunnel to do DRL. This is furthered by there not being plans to interconnect running rails with other subway lines. The day of building TTC gauge is probably over. I would further your point by making the DRL compatible to running both heavy RER and lighter LRV as a number of European and now Australian cities do. This would of course require the 'off-the-shelf' available dual voltage/current LRVs produced by all the major European manufacturers. (and that includes Bombardier Rail Division in Germany)

Edit to Add: Interesting discussion here for LA going heavy rail v subway in tunnel:
http://la.streetsblog.org/2013/05/0...nd-greuel-discuss-options-for-sepulveda-pass/

Discussion also examines the funding from State level v City level, a point abjectly relevant in Toronto's case due to almost complete absence of municipal funding. DRL should be a Metrolinx competence, and compatible with run-through options onto LRT and GO lines.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top