Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

So it seems the Queen St stretch is actually under Queen and not Richmond.

Actually, only the western portion of the first phase would be under Queen Street. As per the EA:

upload_2018-8-15_14-53-47.png


The Relief Line South subway running structure and station platforms are primarily located within existing road right-of-ways. There is a proposed station at Osgoode Station along Queen Street West. Crossovers which allow trains to switch between the westbound and eastbound tracks are provided west of University Avenue, where the underground tail tracks extend to John Street. The alignment continues east underground along Queen Street to the proposed Queen Station interchange at Yonge Street. Another station is proposed at Queen Street East and Sherbourne Street.

As it approaches Berkeley Street, the alignment turns southeast towards Adelaide Street East, where there is a station at Sumach Street. The alignment continues with a crossing under the Don River south of Eastern Avenue. A station is proposed at Broadview and Eastern Avenues. The alignment continues underground following Eastern Avenue and then begins to curve north-east at Booth Avenue. The curve continues until Queen Street East and Carlaw Avenue where there is a proposed station. The alignment continues to follow under Carlaw Avenue until it curves northeast between Gerrard Street East and Riverdale Avenue towards Pape Avenue, A station is proposed at this location.

The alignment then continues north following under Pape Avenue to Danforth Avenue, where there is a proposed interchange with Line 2 at Pape Station.

Crossovers which allows trains to switch between the northbound and southbound tracks are provided north of Pape Station, where the tail tracks extend to Westwood Avenue. There are proposed Wye tracks connecting the Relief Line South and tail tracks to Line 2 northwest and northeast of the interchange station, which are necessary for trains to access Greenwood Yard.

The subway is proposed as a twin bore tunnel that is generally within the bedrock in the downtown core, with the exception of the Don River crossing. At Dingwall Avenue along the Pape Avenue segment, the alignment rises above the bedrock to transition up to the proposed interchange at Pape Station.​
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-8-15_14-53-47.png
    upload_2018-8-15_14-53-47.png
    167.5 KB · Views: 496
  • upload_2018-8-15_14-54-38.png
    upload_2018-8-15_14-54-38.png
    18.8 KB · Views: 328
The rationale for the depth makes sense in some areas. Broadview Station is immediately east of where they have to tunnel under the Don River, so that's deep. Gerrard was deep to avoid a sanitary sewer.
I wonder if the decision to go on Carlaw led to the Gerrard Station being deeper and I wonder how much cost that added.
 
It's an east-west sanitary sewer, they would have encountered it if they went all Pape or not.
I was thinking the Carlaw sewer, not Eastern.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...e South Horizontal and Vertical Alignment.pdf

  • From drawing 5 and 6, it appears the line needs to be deeper than the Eastern Ave. sewer to go under the Don River.
  • On drawing 6 and 7, it has to go even deeper so that the Carlaw station (and mezzanine) would be below the Carlaw sewer.
  • On drawing 8, the line can only start to ascend after the Gerard station (when it's no longer under Carlaw and the sewer).

  • If it continued on Eastern, only the subway tunnel would have to be below the sewer (and not the mezzanine too). This could bring the elevation at Carlaw up by about 6m (see dwg 7).
  • The elevation of the line could rise even more as soon as it passes under Carlaw, so Gerard Station would not be as deep. There is no section along Pape, so I can't say for sure, but I would guess that 10 to 15m shallower is possible.
  • This would means that the 3.36% grade to get to Danforth would be more gentle. What is the maximum grade for TTC subway anyway. I thought it was 3%.
 
The TTC's guidelines state 5%.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
Found it - it's 3.5%.

This was used for Richmond Hill extension (see page 114). Same 3.5% was used in the Murray aliment along SRT corridor (page 7 of feasibility study - of which I have PDF but didn't find link). I recall TTC complaining about the Murray alignment pushing the limit of both the grade and curve. I took this to mean that approaching the maximums is not desirable as it adds to maintenance costs and/or passenger discomfort.
 
Not too big of a fan of having Yonge an Sherbourne stations positioned as far away as possible from Jarvis. The lack of a Jarvis station was supposed to be remedied by station entrances closer to Jarvis.

Also, it seems that they will be tunneling all the way to the parking lot at John Street, as one would have hoped. They may as well just keep the TBMs in the tunnel though for future western expansion.
 
Thank god they dropped that silly Bay station idea. Yonge and University stations are positioned a bit oddly - would have expected they'd be spared further away from eachother, but not a huge deal. Agree with the above re Jarvis though.

Also its a shame that the interchanges are so much deeper than the existing station - gonna make transfers a bit of a hassle, but I guess theres no way around that. We dig subways a lot deeper these days.
 

Back
Top