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

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I support the Wellington Street Alignment.

 

[pstogios]

This is an environmental assessment, which as far as I know, has never been done for the line before. When the current work is done, it can move towards construction. Having an environmental assessment means it's basic design, it's the next step up from lines on a map.

And how many EA's are gathering dust on shelves as we speak?

 

[44 North]

A map from Globe and Mail, source is apparently the briefing to city councillors earlier today:

from here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/a-new-downtown-toronto-subway-map/article28468565/

 

[Hopkins123]

A map from Globe and Mail, source is apparently the briefing to city councillors earlier today:
from here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/a-new-downtown-toronto-subway-map/article28468565/

Hallelujah!

Looks like a Queen St alignment is prevailing. Only thing I'd change is the stop spacing (instead of Sherbourne and Sumach; I'd place stations at Jarvis, Parliament and River). But this is as close to perfection as I can suspect we'll get from the political classes.

 

[44 North]

Hallelujah!

Looks like a Queen St alignment is prevailing. Only thing I'd change is the stop spacing (instead of Sherbourne and Sumach; I'd place stations at Jarvis, Parliament and River). But this is as close to perfection as I can suspect we'll get from the political classes.

I'd like to see that too. But I think they ignored River St in place of Sumach for logical reasons. This being that the depth needed to get below the Don River is substantial, and if they want to keep within the shale bedrock (which dips well below the river) they have to go deep. So between Sumach and Broadview stations, this line may be doing a significant rollercoaster descent maxing out at 100ft or more below the surface. A station at River probably would impede the gradients needed, and would cost too much.

 

[pstogios]

Hallelujah!

Looks like a Queen St alignment is prevailing. Only thing I'd change is the stop spacing (instead of Sherbourne and Sumach; I'd place stations at Jarvis, Parliament and River). But this is as close to perfection as I can suspect we'll get from the political classes.

Wow. You have a pretty low threshold to please

That map would fit excellently in the Transit Fantasy Maps thread here.

Once again, why the hell should we assume any of these are developments that will ultimately lead to an actual, built RL?

 

[ssiguy2]

An excellent choice.

Queen is the main east/west corridor in the downtown and Yonge and Osgoode are the easiest stations for any DRL. King would be a stupid choice with GO/RER/ST already serving it and a lot of people work/shop/play along Queen with NPS and the Eaton Centre.

This will have to take a back seat to ST but there is not reason the line can't start some construction once they get financing without the endless environmental reviews and community consultations namely building the 3 busiest stations............Yonge, Pape, and Osgood.

 

[Jaye101]

this?

View attachment 65162

I remember thinking at the time if you are going to dip the drl south to Bathurst Yard station and terminate GT (now KW) and Barrie service there, why not terminate Lakeshore West there too?

Also, I thought the whole thinking on ReR was that KW and Stouffville would effectively become one through line....I guess that would not be possible if KW terminated at Bathurst and Stouffville was at Union?

It would make more sense to use 2 TBMS big enough to hold 2 tracks each, and interline the Georgetown, Stoufville lines through it express from Queen + Dufferin to Queen + Logan via CITY HALL

This would be more effective than burying the Lakeshore line through the Union station corridor and succeeds in diverting significant traffic away from Union and it effectively adds an alternate route for the RER trains getting through downtown during service disruptions.

 

[allabootmatt]

I am of two minds about this.

On the one hand, Queen is clearly an excellent place for a subway on most metrics, all things being equal. It should have had one decades ago.

On the other, the bulk of development is so dramatically further south, and I wonder if a Queen route would actually put more pressure on the lower Yonge and University lines as passengers transfer to reach offices along King, Wellington, or below Union. I liked the idea of a Wellington alignment for this reason: far enough south to comprehensively serve the Financial District, but not via Union.

My second concern is the impact on the streetcar network, which could be so much better used and is an intrinsic part of Toronto's identity. It's hard to see the Queen car surviving a (full) DRL along the same street, and it could probably threaten Dundas and King too.

That's not just a nostalgic concern. By the end of the current renewal program for tracks, stops and vehicles, we will have spent many billions setting up the streetcar network for the next 50 years. What happens to that investment?

I suppose this might be a bit alarmist. After all, a full-length DRL is probably decades away. But still...

 

[aquaman66]

There is actually a Lower Queen Station, well rather the shell of one , which was built in the 50's (?) as part of a then proposed Queen St TTC line. The door is still there on the bottom crossover below the tracks at Queen Station. The proposed name was "City Hall" and those giant steps leading down to the City Hall View attachment 65195 View attachment 65195 View attachment 65197 car garage in front of Nathan Phillips Square were to be the westernmost TTC entrance to the station. All the infrastructure is still there so it makes sense to finally put it into service.

There is also a rumour that there is a shell of a Lower Osgoode Station as well, and although no records seem to exist, however when Osgoode Station was built, sewer pipes and electrical lines were moved to one side of Queen Street to make the construction of a Lower Osgoode station easier (just in case it was built).

 

[W. K. Lis]

The Lower Queen Station was built to accommodate a 1950's underground streetcar. It may not be able to accommodate the wider width of a Transit City light rail vehicle, and definitely will not accommodate a heavy rail vehicle. They may have to bypass it completely, except for passenger access.

 

[MisterF]

I am of two minds about this.

On the one hand, Queen is clearly an excellent place for a subway on most metrics, all things being equal. It should have had one decades ago.

On the other, the bulk of development is so dramatically further south, and I wonder if a Queen route would actually put more pressure on the lower Yonge and University lines as passengers transfer to reach offices along King, Wellington, or below Union. I liked the idea of a Wellington alignment for this reason: far enough south to comprehensively serve the Financial District, but not via Union.

My second concern is the impact on the streetcar network, which could be so much better used and is an intrinsic part of Toronto's identity. It's hard to see the Queen car surviving a (full) DRL along the same street, and it could probably threaten Dundas and King too.

That's not just a nostalgic concern. By the end of the current renewal program for tracks, stops and vehicles, we will have spent many billions setting up the streetcar network for the next 50 years. What happens to that investment?

I suppose this might be a bit alarmist. After all, a full-length DRL is probably decades away. But still...

This line is no threat to the streetcar network as a whole. It may eventually replace the Queen car, but that's no reason not to build it. The demands on this corridor are simply too much for a streetcar to handle and if it gets removed at some point in the future it will have served its purpose. Someone said that the streetcar is part of Queen Street's identity but you could have said the same about Bloor, Yonge, and the Danforth. Queen will be fine.

 

[dowlingm]

I just spent a bit of time looking at either side of Queen-Broadview.

• To my mind, crossing the GO-LSE alignment is madness when origin and terminus are north/west of it, plus the west-east/north-south transition needs a certain curve radius, preferably not minimum (approach to Union?) so as to keep track and wheelset wear in check.
• Digging up Queen for a station east of Broadview severs direct downtown access from Russell and Leslie yards. Let's assume the back route through Commissioners isn't done and widening and railing Leslie to Gerrard isn't either.
• Even if you do dig up Queen, is there room for a station box by the time the tunnel straightens up before impinging on the diamond at Broadview? Doubt it.
• Look at how long fixing the footings at the King side of the streetcar bridge over the Don took. Wanna mess with that again?

All of that says to me that the Queen/Broadview station should not be on Queen. Warning - major wrecking ball crayoning ahead. Apologies to all property owners in the vicinity.

Basically, the streetscape along Clark and Thompson is gonna need major revisions to become akin to Strathmore north of Danforth. The tunnel would curve off, under Degrassi to straight up under (or possibly south of) Clark with the station box being constructed under the Thompson Street Parkette, the houses west of it and the parking lot and 4 storey redbrick building west of that, maybe a slice of the street itself too. Major property taking all the way along, but it does not sever Queen at all and minimises disruption to 504. At least the rebuilt Jillys can take the construction pounding right? The TTC's decision not to go ahead with a loop at the TPA lot becomes an advantage at this point since that is available as a staging area assuming the station box won't need to extend into it anyway to give a longer exit tunnel to the Don crossing - would immersed tube work I wonder to allow the station be less deep?

The tunnel would run north of the bridge, under the Richmond Hill line, but then dodge south under the Toronto Humane Society but I have doubts it can successfully avoid all of the Queen/King junction without impacting the rather nice 550 Queen St East at the NW corner of Queen and River. The tunneling would be under Queen from there on, with the next station at Parliament.

Of course, if they had gotten on with DRL years ago, Leslieville property acquisition would have been a lot cheaper!

 

[DKsan]

Maybe with a Sumach stop, the can extend the Cherry car up to Queen?

 

[44 North]

I just spent a bit of time looking at either side of Queen-Broadview.

• To my mind, crossing the GO-LSE alignment is madness when origin and terminus are north/west of it, plus the west-east/north-south transition needs a certain curve radius, preferably not minimum (approach to Union?) so as to keep track and wheelset wear in check.
• Digging up Queen for a station east of Broadview severs direct downtown access from Russell and Leslie yards. Let's assume the back route through Commissioners isn't done and widening and railing Leslie to Gerrard isn't either.
• Even if you do dig up Queen, is there room for a station box by the time the tunnel straightens up before impinging on the diamond at Broadview? Doubt it.
• Look at how long fixing the footings at the King side of the streetcar bridge over the Don took. Wanna mess with that again?

All of that says to me that the Queen/Broadview station should not be on Queen. Warning - major wrecking ball crayoning ahead. Apologies to all property owners in the vicinity.

Basically, the streetscape along Clark and Thompson is gonna need major revisions to become akin to Strathmore north of Danforth. The tunnel would curve off, under Degrassi to straight up under (or possibly south of) Clark with the station box being constructed under the Thompson Street Parkette, the houses west of it and the parking lot and 4 storey redbrick building west of that, maybe a slice of the street itself too. Major property taking all the way along, but it does not sever Queen at all and minimises disruption to 504. At least the rebuilt Jillys can take the construction pounding right? The TTC's decision not to go ahead with a loop at the TPA lot becomes an advantage at this point since that is available as a staging area assuming the station box won't need to extend into it anyway to give a longer exit tunnel to the Don crossing - would immersed tube work I wonder to allow the station be less deep?

The tunnel would run north of the bridge, under the Richmond Hill line, but then dodge south under the Toronto Humane Society but I have doubts it can successfully avoid all of the Queen/King junction without impacting the rather nice 550 Queen St East at the NW corner of Queen and River. The tunneling would be under Queen from there on, with the next station at Parliament.

Of course, if they had gotten on with DRL years ago, Leslieville property acquisition would have been a lot cheaper!

Although it'll be deep as hell and costly, I don't think it will be overly complex with the line having to deviate off of Queen. So I believe you're right that the TPA lot and Thompson Parkette will be the staging area, but not with a station-sized box carved into the ground. Two of our current stations (Queen's Park and St Patrick) were excavated/mined/bored from the surface, with less open than a typical 150m box. And I believe recently we've learned that some of the stations for the Crosstown will be built in a similar manner. With this hypothetical Broadview South station, I'd imagine they'd dig at the TPA lot and parkette, then excavate laterally/southward toward the station proper at Queen. Other than maybe Gerrard, all stations may be built in a similar manner.

To get the line north from Queen to Pape/Gerrard, I think we'll keep on Queen with one large curve below Jimmie Simpson Park. This curve could be wide enough that it could double-back somewhat to align below the rail corridor toward Gerrard. This would keep the entire section within public subsurface property rights (City for the roads and park, and Prov for the rail corridor). But who knows at this point.