Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[micheal_can]

The new Rocket trains do not have anything blocking people from going between the cars. Theoretically, you could make much longer trains and never extend the platforms. It could be set up that only certain doors are used for certain stops.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Overcrowded, lack of crush space, byzantine circulation patterns (particularly the pass-under) - and I can't imagine how it can interface with the DRL properly without some serious reworking of the station.

Unfortunately, I think the Yonge-Queen station will be somewhat like a T-arrangement. I can't find the display board online anymore - thanks to the utterly useless Reliefline.ca website:

http://reliefline.ca/the-project/meeting-materials-



Like REALLY??? How much space did that material take up, so much so you need someone to answer an email to have it sent to you? How incredibly retrograde (not like that website is the paragon of good design in the first place)

AoD

Thank you - this is truly appreciated. The Queen station in question:

View attachment 132067

AoD

The planners justified the “T” configuration some time ago. They’re highly sensitive to the pedestrian accessibility to the Relief Line stations, and this configuration puts the most people within walking distance to the DRL. This configuration simultaneously serves both the Yonge Line, and the Bay (including City Hall and the Financial District).

IIRC, this configuration should also help to cut down on surface predestination congestion at Queen/Yonge due to more distributed entrances, and better utilization of PATH infrastructure.

Pedestrian congestion concerns were also one of the reasons planners didn’t want the Relief Line on King Street. Sidewalks in the area are already congested, the addition of new business, residents and GO RER are exacerbating that congestion, and the addition of the DRL would only make it that much more difficult to walk on downtown King Street.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I dont think there is enough room to do the Spanish solution as you would need 30-31 meters in the ROW and Queen or Yonge is no where anywhere near that - you might get that at University though. Are there any diagrams with the existing station boxes for Osgoode and Queen ?

But you might be able to do the next best thing - stacking the east and westbound trains on two different levels - then you can have two platforms on either side for each.

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The new Rocket trains do not have anything blocking people from going between the cars. Theoretically, you could make much longer trains and never extend the platforms. It could be set up that only certain doors are used for certain stops.

Better in theory than practice - given the way flow get blocked within the trains during rush even right now.

AoD

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Better in theory than practice - given the way flow get blocked within the trains during rush even right now.

AoD

It's always fun watching a train pull into the station that's absolutely full in the front and empty in the back.

 

[Streety McCarface]

The new Rocket trains do not have anything blocking people from going between the cars. Theoretically, you could make much longer trains and never extend the platforms. It could be set up that only certain doors are used for certain stops.

But you might be able to do the next best thing - stacking the east and westbound trains on two different levels - then you can have two platforms on either side for each.

AoD

On the 8th avenue line in New York, they do this, with 2 tracks on each level; one level for northbound trains (1 local, 1 express track), then one level for southbound trains (1 local, 1 express track). If they went with single-bore and dug out stations, is something like this a potential option?

Edit: TBM wouldn't be big enough unless you reduced the rolling stock size. Think of East Side Access.

 

[aquateam]

Thank you - this is truly appreciated. The Queen station in question:

View attachment 132067

AoD

The planners justified the “T” configuration some time ago. They’re highly sensitive to the pedestrian accessibility to the Relief Line stations, and this configuration puts the most people within walking distance to the DRL. This configuration simultaneously serves both the Yonge Line, and the Bay (including City Hall and the Financial District).

More like the planners really, really, really, reaaalllyyyyyy wanted a station entrance at Nathan Philips Square, to the point where transferring between lines was a secondary concern. Which is why they originally had a single station smack in NPS, instead of connecting with the YUS.

Now they have two stations at NPS:

By jogging a hundred meters west to NPS, they produce the same pedestrian flow issues that we are going through such pains to fix at Eglinton station:

If servicing the Financial District was such a concern, then it would be running on King, where projected ridership was higher.

IIRC, this configuration should also help to cut down on surface predestination congestion at Queen/Yonge due to more distributed entrances, and better utilization of PATH infrastructure.

Pedestrian congestion concerns were also one of the reasons planners didn’t want the Relief Line on King Street. Sidewalks in the area are already congested, the addition of new business, residents and GO RER are exacerbating that congestion, and the addition of the DRL would only make it that much more difficult to walk on downtown King Street.

But King has way better PATH access to distribute pedestrians, unlike most of Queen. King also has way more plaza space.

And "pedestrian congestion" is a pretty contrived reason for a $7+ billion transit line not to be built there. If that was really such a concern (and it would be a concern whether or not a DRL is built) then the appropriate response is to WIDEN THE SIDEWALKS. Drivers can't complain if they lose a lane but gain back use of the street from the transit mall.

 

[innsertnamehere]

The main rationale for a Queen St. alignment was better access to destinations north of Queen such as the hospitals, Ryerson, etc. King provides access to the financial district, but only the financial district.

That said, the DRL West should probably dip down to king. Past University, the amount of destinations north of Queen drops dramatically.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Prepare to have your mind blown, what if we built the interchanges with nine car platforms and the others with knockout walls to allow easy extension. Then if we used the earlier plan of having the DRL turn at Spadina we would seriously shorten the Yonge Line which could then have its platforms more easily extended.

Huh?

 

[Hopkins123]

The main rationale for a Queen St. alignment was better access to destinations north of Queen such as the hospitals, Ryerson, etc. King provides access to the financial district, but only the financial district.

That said, the DRL West should probably dip down to king. Past University, the amount of destinations north of Queen drops dramatically.

I'm kind of digging this proposal from the Fantasy Thread about how to ultimately address westward expansion of the DRL:

Credit to RyanM12

This targets all the important nodes in the west end, I'd think.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I'm kind of digging this proposal from the Fantasy Thread about how to ultimately address westward expansion of the DRL:

Credit to RyanM12

This targets all the important nodes in the west end, I'd think.

I wonder if the subway can get under all those building foundations.

Do we have any subway lines running under significant structures (I don't care about a bike shed)? So far as I can see, all of Toronto's subway are either under roadways or running in ravines.

 

[am29]

I'm kind of digging this proposal from the Fantasy Thread about how to ultimately address westward expansion of the DRL:

Credit to RyanM12

This targets all the important nodes in the west end, I'd think.

Jameson and King seems like a really awkward place to have a subway station.. I believe Queen and Landsdowne/Jameson probably has much more demand and development capacity.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I've pictured it dropping south immediately after university to a first station at King and Spadina.. then bathurst, strachan, Atlantic, Dufferin, Jameson, Queensway, and somewhere in Roncesvalles.

 

[smallspy]

Do we have any subway lines running under significant structures (I don't care about a bike shed)? So far as I can see, all of Toronto's subway are either under roadways or running in ravines.

The TYSSE was built under quite a number of existing structures, including several buildings at the Commons at York U.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[crs1026]

I wonder if the subway can get under all those building foundations.

Do we have any subway lines running under significant structures (I don't care about a bike shed)? So far as I can see, all of Toronto's subway are either under roadways or running in ravines.

You raise a good point. The City needs to be preserving the underground clearances to enable some of these lines, even if construction is 20 years or more away. By the time we are ready to undertake these, the options for routing the lines could be limited.

I don't disagree with the western routing suggested, but it takes my breath away to suggest building it under King Street while at the same time we are fighting to make it a key streetcar corridor. The moment shovels go in the ground, streetcar service will end due to excavations. For that matter, I wonder if our debate about whether to exercise an option on additional Flexities is considering that there can be no 501 service once the first phase of the RL begins construction. We could end up with shiny new idle trams with service switched to buses, for up to a decade.

For that reason alone, the most pragmatic routing may be other than directly under King or Queen. Those streetcar routes may be just too essential to disrupt.

- Paul