Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[gweed123]

My main concern is how well of an interchange function with YUS the central Bay station option provides. By default that would have to happen at both ends of the station, but it's unclear how that will be integrated - Yonge is fairly shallow, with no mezzanine worth talking about and everything have to happen underneath (which might be a plus, given how awful that space is); University has limited mezzanine space which would presumably be able to provide a bit more flexibility in terms connection. If you are talking about that level of construction, you might not end up saving that much in terms of costs.

No doubt the connection would need to be from underneath the platform levels at both locations, seeing as how Bay would need to be a pretty deep station. For University you may end up with a St. George-like connection, where someone would walk down to the University platform first, and then there would be a 2nd set of stairs to take them a level lower. For Yonge, the connection could be similar to Bloor-Yonge, with stairs in a recessed area off the side platforms.

These would be secondary exits though, primarily used for transfers. The main exits would be away from the existing subway stations, and would offer direct access.

And given the amount of proposed development (office commercial, retail and residential) putting a station there is almost a no-brainer. Depending on the alignment, burying a chunk of the Spadina LRT to make a fully underground interchange could be worthwhile.

AoD

Agreed. And yes, I would think that an underground connection would be better for transit connections, pedestrians, and drivers. It may be worth it to actually have the LRT go under the rail corridor and surface south of Bremner (using the natural slope to its advantage).

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

No doubt the connection would need to be from underneath the platform levels at both locations, seeing as how Bay would need to be a pretty deep station. For University you may end up with a St. George-like connection, where someone would walk down to the University platform first, and then there would be a 2nd set of stairs to take them a level lower. For Yonge, the connection could be similar to Bloor-Yonge, with stairs in a recessed area off the side platforms.

These would be secondary exits though, primarily used for transfers. The main exits would be away from the existing subway stations, and would offer direct access.

The cost will probably be astronomical - though it's really, really important to get this station right to avoid future headaches.

Agreed. And yes, I would think that an underground connection would be better for transit connections, pedestrians, and drivers. It may be worth it to actually have the LRT go under the rail corridor and surface south of Bremner (using the natural slope to its advantage).

I am not sure if putting it underneath is an option, given the depth of the rail corridor.

AoD

 

[GenerationW]

It was only a decade ago when downtown used to be significantly less developed and had many parking lots to work. But soon enough, downtown will be lined with highrises all the way to the Don River to the point that building the DRL will come at great cost, difficulty and disruption to many more people thanks to all the time we wasted doing nothing. And just when momentum was starting to build for the DRL, Dumbtrack had to come along and completely undermine the cause.

Momentum? There WAS no momentum.

 

[gweed123]

The cost will probably be astronomical - though it's really, really important to get this station right to avoid future headaches.

If the DRL gets rolled into SmartTrack, and there are multiple branches, it could very easily end up being the busiest underground station in the city.

I am not sure if putting it underneath is an option, given the depth of the rail corridor.

AoD

It just may be hard to get it back up to grade by the time it reaches Front and the bridge, unless it's a really shallow tunnel (like Dundas Station type of shallow).

 

[44 North]

Anyone else notice that in the study area, the Richmond Hill GO corridor has been diverted to the abandoned Don Branch? And just outside the study area north of Broadview, the line does a 90deg turn (and 15m drop) back onto the existing line? I noticed this error on their maps months ago, yet it hasn't been rectified.

 

[innsertnamehere]

My guess on final alignment is going to be Pape - Gerrard / Pape - Queen / Broadview - Front / Cherry - King / Sherbourne - King / Bay - St. Andrew.

King / Bay would really be more of an extension of King station, with only a short tunnel between the new station and the existing yonge line station.

St. Andrew would likely be somewhat similar, constructed on the west side of the station in front of Roy Thompson Hall.

 

[rbt]

My guess on final alignment is going to be Pape - Gerrard / Pape - Queen / Broadview - Front / Cherry - King / Sherbourne - King / Bay - St. Andrew.

King / Bay would really be more of an extension of King station, with only a short tunnel between the new station and the existing yonge line station.

I suspect it'll be more northerly to slash costs and make room for inner city GO RER/Smart Track stations: Queen & Bay, Queen & Sherbourne, Dundas & Sumach, Gerrard & Broadview, Gerrard & Pape (GO interchange), Pape & Danforth (Line 2 interchange).

Keeping this far north takes $500M off the price tag due to simple downtown station construction and a shorter tunnel. It also opens up quite a bit of Smart Track funding/ridership space for stations closer to Front.

If you assume that GO RER is a guaranteed thing, then separating the DRL from it by a few hundred meters is perfectly reasonable and there are plenty of northerly green dots to hit.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Yea, SmartTrack should take the King alignment freeing up the DRL to be aligned further north.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

You guys want two downtown tunnels?

I'm down.

 

[rbt]

You guys want two downtown tunnels?

I'm down.

I think it's inevitable that phase 2 of GO RER (4 minute peak frequencies, most lines), well after Wynne has retired, will include a tunnel on one side of Union Station or the other to increase the catchment and spread out the crowds.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I think it's inevitable that phase 2 of GO RER will include a tunnel on one side of Union Station or the other to increase the catchment and spread out the load.

Maybe so.

I have my own vision of combining the DRL and SmartTrack laid out here. Essentially the SmartTrack trains from the Richmond Hill and Stouffville lines will enter a downtown tunnel, while the GO-RER trains from those same corridors head towards Union.

 

[CDL.TO]

That makes sense. The problem is that you'd get a Bloor-Danforth - style transfer between the DRL and the Yonge line. I think the reason that King and Queen did so well in this assessment is to avoid repeating the mistake of inconvenient transfers.

It's okay to have the station box not overlap perfectly, though, if you're not expecting many transfers at this location. I know with the Eglinton LRT they're "moving" the station box of Eglinton station (shifting the platform forward) so the Yonge line lines up perfectly with the new Eglinton line, so passengers won't all be flowing the same direction to transfer.

I've considered this and I think it could still be fine. First, there's never going to be as many people transferring there as at Yonge-Bloor simply due to geography. Besides that, Yonge-Bloor is simply woefully under-scaled. There are other ways you can design a station with a transfer at one end that offers much greater capacity than how Y-B is designed.

Also, both the transfer and the primary entrance/exit at Yonge-Bloor (which is a very busy station in its own right) are at the north end of the Yonge platform. While the busiest entrances and exits at Wellington-Yonge would be at the opposite end of the platform from the transfer (either King or Bay).

 

[CDL.TO]

It always bugs me when people say that Union is a bad choice because it would be too busy. The reason why it's busy is because that's where people want to go! It's the main transportation hub!

If the analysis says that Union would offer the greatest benefit to travellers, they should serve Union and design the station so that it has sufficient capacity. Not refuse because it would be too popular.

I'd love to show some European (or Asian) engineers the passenger number projections that some Torontonians consider to be unmanageable. I'm sure they'd have a good laugh.

 

[nfitz]

It always bugs me when people say that Union is a bad choice because it would be too busy. The reason why it's busy is because that's where people want to go! It's the main transportation hub!

It's the main transportation hub. But it's not the primary destination in AM peak. Last time I checked, there were more AM peak destinations at Dundas subway station than any other on the downtown loop - with King close behind.

 

[M II A II R II K]

A good tradeoff would be SmartTrack going to King, and DRL going to Dundas which would also hit the Eaton Centre and the hospitals and universities and stuff.