Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

jcam said:
Long long long term, maybe you have DRL morph into the Circle Line by merging it with Sheppard.

Circle line segments
-Sheppard stubway
-DRL short Pape to Spadina
-extend to Eglinton
-extend to Don Mills
-extend to Sunnyside
-extend to Jane (Line 2)
-extend up Jane, past Lambton (St. Clair LRT, Milton GO) to Mount Dennis
-extend Yonge-Sheppard to Sheppard West
-complete loop, Jane north to Sheppard, east to Sheppard West.


We talking needs waaaaaaaaay into the future (or arguably never at all), but a circulator sure is nice to dream of.
Click to expand...
In that long-long-term, that area will be well served by GO-RER.

I maintain in that future scenario, it would be best to send the line to south Etobicoke. That is where large growth will likely take place.
 
gweed123 said:
It was actually studied by Metrolinx back in 2011, when looking at options to relieve future congestion at Union. That was pre-RER though.
Click to expand...

Well I stand corrected. Seems it was an initial study option that was never carried forward. A Queen Street tunnel was picked for further evaluation, but seems it was dropped because an engineering feasibility review found "construction and operational issues, and high capital cost constraints".
 
Queen and Roncesvalles would be the natural terminus for the line, IMO. It's the perfect spot for a massive Go/subway/streetcar station. Riders from the west would transfer from RER trains and Queensway streetcars onto the subway to go the rest of the way downtown. It would divert quite a few GO riders from going all the way to Union.

I don't think there's any need to extend it west from there. The Queensway streetcar is already an LRT with it own lanes and, combined with a transfer to the DRL or RER at Roncy, would offer a fast ride downtown. Two GO lines serve that part of the city too, including one near Sherway and another going right by the high density along the lakeshore. If a subway extension directly to Sherway is deemed necessary, it's a lot shorter to extend Line 2 from Kipling. I couldn't see the Queensway itself ever warranting a subway - they barely run two buses an hour on that street.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
Well I stand corrected. Seems it was an initial study option that was never carried forward. A Queen Street tunnel was picked for further evaluation, but seems it was dropped because an engineering feasibility review found "construction and operational issues, and high capital cost constraints".
Click to expand...

Yes, it wasn't carried forward because, I believe, at that time RER wasn't really envisioned to be as grand as it was in the 2014 election platform, and SmartTrack (GO RER Local) wasn't on the radar either. I really believe that kind of setup deserves another look at.

Using RER technology, it also makes RER-ifying the Richmond Hill line much easier, since it could just be done as a northward extension of the DRL from Pape or Donlands, connecting to the existing RH line north of Lawrence. Solves the Yonge capacity issue, boosts service on the Richmond Hill line, and does it for less than the "DRL Long" budget.
 
On the western end perhaps it could dip south to first terminate at Liberty Village that can also scoop up all the interconnecting bus and streetcar routes.
 
gweed123 said:
Yes, it wasn't carried forward because, I believe, at that time RER wasn't really envisioned to be as grand as it was in the 2014 election platform, and SmartTrack (GO RER Local) wasn't on the radar either. I really believe that kind of setup deserves another look at
Click to expand...
The option was dropped because an engineering feasibility review found "construction and operational issues, and high capital cost constraints". How does the weather or not RER is in play change the engineering feasibility?
 
is the path map accurate for station placement ? It shows the south end of the queen station on queen, and Osgoode being dead centre. I assume the station alignment on Queen would be a no go, hence a Bay Street and then possibly a Osgoode transfer point.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
There is very much such thing as PATH capacity - there is a reason why they built the Northwest PATH. As to transfers - as long as you don't have to pay again, subway transfers are most benign to ridership - no one talks about not taking the Bloor line because they have to transfer from Yonge to get to where they need to go, period.

AoD
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as "direction" when you're talking about sidewalks or PATH. I don't see any lane markings on the ground. Talking about taking advantage of "capacity in both directions" 100% disingenuous. If that is how the department of planning is thinking then god help us all. Their batting average is low as it is.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
The option was dropped because an engineering feasibility review found "construction and operational issues, and high capital cost constraints". How does the weather or not RER is in play change the engineering feasibility?
Click to expand...

How does the engineering change if it's an RER subway vs a TTC subway? It's not like we're comparing a subway tunnel to a highway tunnel. The City prefers a subway along Queen, so clearly the engineering challenges aren't insurmountable. All that would change is what kind of trains you're running through the tunnel. Yes, the RER tunnel under Queen was the most complex of the options examined in 2011, but if the TTC is keen on building a subway anyway, would it not make sense to really study what system the tunnel would best interface with?
 
W. K. Lis said:
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.
Click to expand...

Look at the date on those pictures. It appears that the road was covered over with temporary decking pretty fast. The question has to be asked whether modern precast prestressed concrete construction, high strength and rapid strength gain concretes, etc. could allow a cut-and-cover operation to be run as a continuous operation.
10m cut excavation
10m bedding
10m install tunnel culvert
10m splice culvert segments
10m backfill
10m paving.

This 70m long operation would pass through an area at maybe 20m per week (thus every portion of road closed for 3.5 weeks). When they get to a station, then it would be much shallower construction that reduces these major construction areas significantly - in terms of both cost and time. Smaller cross streets could simply be closed. Larger cross streets without station could have Bailey Bridges built across to maintain traffic - with the same bridges being continually relocated. At cross streets with intersections, either the bridge option could be used, or more conventional decking. Give it a high tech fancy name (rapid Trenching Backfill Method - rTBM) because cut-and-cover sound like its centuries old.
 
For those of us who are a bit weak on our civil engineering - are you suggesting a continuous pour operation, or is this an open-air assembly of pre-cast tunnel segments, kind of like the tbm does but out in the open?

I would think that the disruption at the station locations would be the same - those excavations would take longer and be more intensive. The question would be whether a rolling cut and cover is cheaper than tbm, and is the rolling impact better than having static extraction/insertion shafts but sparing disruption along the way?

Here's an old favourite - still the gold standard in rapid track construction


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

Back
Top