News   Jul 31, 2024
Resubmission Modifies Massing for More Density on Keele Near Wilson
 454     0 
News   Jul 31, 2024
News Roundup for July 31, 2024
 446     0 
News   Jul 31, 2024
Wards Island Summer Sunset
 373     2 

Lower Queen Station

Darkstar416 said:
Yup, it is.

But I think the term "subway" here is being used as it would in Britain. It doesn't mean an underground rail system, it simply means a pedestrian tunnel to get somewhere.
Click to expand...

it is also a place where one can get a decent sandwich for a few bucks. :)
 
Prometheus The Supremo said:
i think this topic came up before and one of the problems is the prohibitive costs associated with working around all the path tunnels.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, then why not use TBMs to build deeper tunnels 100 feet below grade? This was done along the University line in the vicinity of St. Patrick and Queen's Park stations which are very deep. Perhaps it has to do with the hospital tunnels.
 
When the University line was built, TBMs were used in the vicinity the hospitals just so that the noise and vibrations associated with constructing a subway via the cut-and-cover method would be greatly reduced if not eliminated altogether. Don't want to disturb the patients naturally.

In regards to the Queen subway in the downtown core - I don't think it's a case of PATH tunnels being an unsolvable problem for them (there are only a couple under Queen, and they are fairly shallow, and already built under at Yonge anyway) - it's just the expense of putting in anything underground at all that has stopped them from tying the bit of concrete box under the Yonge line into any kind of underground Queen transit line. Oh, if only we had the money for something, anything...

42
 
They weren't actually TBMs, which didn't really exist back in the 60s. Those tunnels were dug out with more traditional methods. But you're right, there was no cut-and-cover.

A Queen subway was studied in detail during the Downtown Rapid Transit study (which produced the Downtown Relief Line) and it was determined that Queen is the worst east-west routing through the downtown area for a new subway line. Front Street was deemed to be the best and most cost-effective.
 
samsonyuen said:
Really? Front St.? Why would that be? Is there a copy of the reports somewhere?
Click to expand...

Technically, not Front Street but close by in the rail corridor. I believe stops would exist at:

Queen/Roncesvalles
Dufferin Gates
Exhibition GO
Strachan
Bathurst (Fort York Stn)
Spadina (Skydome Stn)
John/Front
Bay/Front (Union)
St Lawrence Market
Distillery
Basin (Carlaw)
Leslie/Lakeshore
Queen/Coxwell

A line was originally planned for Queen St but it would be too expensive to construct nowadays. Ideally a subway that encircles the immediate downtown bordered by Dundas/Gerrard; Parliament; Roncesvalles; and Queen/King or Rail corrdor accompanied by LRT feeder lines would be the best solution as far I see.
 
The Downtown Rapid Transit reports (3 volumes, volume 2 being the most useful) are available in most large libraries, including the Urban Affairs library at Metro Hall.

The corridor was along Front Street west of Bay and along the rail corridor east of Bay.

Front was recommended for several reasons. It would be cheaper as it could use the rail corridor east of the downtown core. It connected directly with Union Station as well as other major trip generators like the SkyDome and convention centre among others. It also best served (along with a possible Wellington/Front alignment) present and future development areas north and south of the rail corridor and best connected with the PATH network. Queen was deemed the worst, as there was rather little existing or proposed development north of Queen, and most of the existing development was concentrated around King and south to Front.
 
What I have never known (and is not explained in that video) is how far east/west of Queen and Yonge did they actually build that streetcar tunnel (if at all) and while I "get" that the decision at the time was to build B-D rather than continue with Queen why at no time since has someone said..."mmm, wonder if we should go back now an revisit that idea of running part of the Queen streetcar line under ground".

Cost is likely prohibitive but if, say, either/or/both of queen car or king car ran undgerground from, say, Jarvis to Bathurst it sure would move more people more efficiently than they do now.
 
TOareaFan said:
What I have never known (and is not explained in that video) is how far east/west of Queen and Yonge did they actually build that streetcar tunnel (if at all) and while I "get" that the decision at the time was to build B-D rather than continue with Queen why at no time since has someone said..."mmm, wonder if we should go back now an revisit that idea of running part of the Queen streetcar line under ground".

Cost is likely prohibitive but if, say, either/or/both of queen car or king car ran undgerground from, say, Jarvis to Bathurst it sure would move more people more efficiently than they do now.
Click to expand...

I think all they did was rough in a space for the station to be built. The walkways they built under the current tracks and platforms to change sides of the platform are where the streetcar station was going to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbt
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top