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

ssiguy2 said:
King would be a lousy choice. PATH is to elaborate so it would be a technical nightmare, cost a king's ransom, and the tunnels would be 10 feet short of China to make it all possible. Also King will already have ST /RER/GO so it already has the best transit connections in the city.

Queen is the natural alternative not only because it would more new riders but Queen is a more important commercial and pedestrian strip than King. Also Queen would be the easiest to build under. The biggest problem when building underground is interchange stations with other subway lines and Queen will be as easy as it gets as opposed to any other downtown street. The Queen underground station is there and yes it would have to be completely redesigned and expanded but it is still there. It would get rid of the most of the tunnelling under Yonge station.

Due to Queen station, Osgood was also designed with a Queen subway in mind. The assumption was made that it would be the crosstown route and hence Osgood station has all clearances for plumbing, sewer, electrical etc for the eventuality of a station and this is a bonus that other stations don't have. Queen's PATH system is relatively small and I think there should be subway access to City Hall.

To me Queen is not only the superior choice but also the easiest, less disruptive, and cheapest to boot.
Click to expand...

Queen is NOT the commercial strip. I've never heard of it as such and it is not. You don't hear MBA grad's saying I want to work on Queen. It's KING & BAY. Queen is in the hinterland for the business district and is getting even more so with South Core adding to the southern end of the business district.

And looking at the growth in the shoulders to the west and east King has a lot more development than Queen and a lot closer to where people want to go.

The other problem with Queen is the connections to the PATH. Have you tried to get from Queen or Osgoode to the office towers? (wait...you can't at Osgoode!). And the Queen one you have to wander though the Bay. The PATH doesn't have the size required for subway loads of office workers. King is the actual destination and where they want to go and has sufficient connections already there.

Both Queen and King will have to be dug via TBM (below the current subway). This means that only the station envelope will require significant utility and pedestrian disruption. King's PATH connections are above the current subway so they will not be disrupted by the TBM and are plentiful enough that if one needs closing to build the station there is enough slack for alternative routes.
 
Euphoria said:
An elevated expressway in a city like Paris or London would be unthinkable. If we're going to tunnel through the city anyway for DRL, let's have provision for a buried Gardiner. Whether or not to put tolls on it is up for debate. The reason why Toronto is such a poorly planned city is because of the kind of planning in isolation you think should continue. All aspects should be taken into account: development over train tracks and land made available through the removal of the Gardiner, options for bike lanes along a revamped Lakeshore Rd. and other roads, tying in transfers between DRL and Yonge-U Line with the PATH system, etc. I can tell the bloggers who've looked at multiple considerations from the ones who haven't. You'll get out of this exercise what you put into it. Don't think for a second that the Gardiner Hybrid is anything other than a temporary solution. Also, stop proposing adding DRL stops in low ridership locales just because you happen to live in them.
Click to expand...

The problem here is cost. There's a cost to building the DRL. There's a cost to adding a highway to that DRL tunnel. And it's not some small amount. Who will pay that? The City? The province? Drivers? Next, how does a tunneled highway fit the general intention of the province and the city to increase transit ridership. Where exactly are all those extra cars going to park downtown?

There's a lot more to this, than just building the highway. And that's why I wouldn't want this highway tied to the DRL. Keep that separate.
 
kEiThZ said:
The problem here is cost. There's a cost to building the DRL. There's a cost to adding a highway to that DRL tunnel. And it's not some small amount. Who will pay that? The City? The province? Drivers? Next, how does a tunneled highway fit the general intention of the province and the city to increase transit ridership. Where exactly are all those extra cars going to park downtown?

There's a lot more to this, than just building the highway. And that's why I wouldn't want this highway tied to the DRL. Keep that separate.
Click to expand...

The ventilation requirements alone would be huge. You don't need to expel exhaust fumes from a subway tunnel (aside from equipment designed for fire smoke). Highway tunnels require massive infrastructure for that kind of stuff.

The Big Dig had the advantage of digging under an existing highway, so there were already locations that were pretty well suited for ventilation requirements. Richmond/Adelaide doesn't have that.

That is compounded by that fact that it's an incredibly stupid idea, so there's that too.
 
Euphoria said:
An elevated expressway in a city like Paris or London would be unthinkable. If we're going to tunnel through the city anyway for DRL, let's have provision for a buried Gardiner. Whether or not to put tolls on it is up for debate. The reason why Toronto is such a poorly planned city is because of the kind of planning in isolation you think should continue. All aspects should be taken into account: development over train tracks and land made available through the removal of the Gardiner, options for bike lanes along a revamped Lakeshore Rd. and other roads, tying in transfers between DRL and Yonge-U Line with the PATH system, etc. I can tell the bloggers who've looked at multiple considerations from the ones who haven't. You'll get out of this exercise what you put into it. Don't think for a second that the Gardiner Hybrid is anything other than a temporary solution. Also, stop proposing adding DRL stops in low ridership locales just because you happen to live in them.
Click to expand...
Paris and London don't have expressways near their city centres period. I wish we had done the same with the Gardiner by going with the boulevard option instead of the elevated option.
 
Mark your calendars!

Screen shot 2016-01-29 at 1.38.01 PM.png


June PIC Advert.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2016-01-29 at 1.38.01 PM.png
    Screen shot 2016-01-29 at 1.38.01 PM.png
    23.5 KB · Views: 848
  • June PIC Advert.jpg
    June PIC Advert.jpg
    280.3 KB · Views: 878
Last edited:
Queen sounds good to me. And I've never thought about Nathan Phillips Square being the “the geographic and psychological centre of the city.” I guess that kinda makes sense. Maybe not geographic, but if there were one "centre" for Toronto NPS would probably be it.
 
Assuming it will be at Bay St and called "City Hall" station. Wonder what will happen to the connections with Osgoode and Queen Station.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
I'm happy with the recommendations. But I suppose this means no more Queen Streetcar. It's hard to imagine Queen without streetcars. It's part of the identity of that street.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. They should at least keep the streetcar tracks, perhaps give it a heritage designation :p.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
I'm happy with the recommendations. But I suppose this means no more Queen Streetcar. It's hard to imagine Queen without streetcars. It's part of the identity of that street.
Click to expand...

I would hope that they keep the Queen streetcar. Sort of like local/express service options.

AlvinofDiaspar said:
The big surprise is no linkage to Unilever.
Click to expand...

Probably easier to service that with Smarttrack/RER? Swinging the subway down there would probably be redundant if ST happens.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top