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

[DonValleyRainbow]

Wow, a lot of pitchforks out among the Pape NIMBYs at tonight's meeting. I hope it doesn't derail the process.

I made the suggestion to the team for a station at Queen-Carlaw instead of Queen-Pape so that there wasn't a station proposed amongst a bunch of single-family houses, but that was before the alignment was finalized. An eastern alignment kind of screws up that idea.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Was there any talk about a train yard?

What are the options?

1. Build a giant Y at Danforth-Pape
2. Have a separate tunnel from Pape/Gerrard or Eastren/Broadview to the Greenwood yard - this is 1 or 2 kilometres
3. There will likely be a cross-over and tail tracks north of Danforth so you are half way to Cosburn already. Continue the tunnel north on Pape to the Don Valley, bridge across the valley, and put the yard near the water treatment plant. A bit more costly, but greatly reduced disruption when phase 2 begins - and the cost is not wasted because that length needs to be built eventually (and the sooner the better).

The other question is whether there are plans to rough-in the DRL station at Eglinton. Has nobody asked this at the open houses?

Isn't Greenwood Yard at capacity? I don't think using it is a viable option for most of the trains on a (Phase II) RL. We can rule out Davisville (too small) and Wilson (too far) as well.

A new yard will be required, but perhaps they will explore it as part of Phase II, and in the design work that was just funded by the province. I see some candidate sites in Thorncliffe Park, Don Mills and Leaside where there's lots of employment lands.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I do kinda get where they're coming from though. The majority of Pape between Queen and Danforth is non-developable, a very narrow quiet leafy street, nor is it through street. South of Riverdale Ave, Carlaw seems most logical from both a construction and development perspective IMO. If living on Pape, I'd wonder too where things like emergency exits and ventilation shafts would fit. It's not exactly a suburban arterial with a 100m roadway allowance

Everything is redevelopable - and quite frankly, it should be redeveloped. The case for massive amounts of single detached housing this close to the core - right by subway lines at that is increasingly untenable and skews our development patterns (i.e. cram everything elsewhere).

AoD

 

[crs1026]

Phase I will require enough trains to require a yard somewhere. Another option would be to build a new yard on the CP property in Etobicoke, move some Line 2 storage/maintenance there, making room at Greenwood for DRL.

In a perfect world, I'd plan Phase I all the way to Thorncliffe and build a yard up there. Line 2 does not need the traffic from deadheading DRL trains, and the junction at Pape/Danforth could be that much simpler.....if a junction is needed at all. A landlocked fleet is not the end of the world.

- Paul

 

[44 North]

Its a subway that's underground. Who cares how wide the road is above? And exits and ventilation are easy. Any number of individual houses that could be taken down. How's this?

Not so much talking about 'care'. More issues to do with ease of construction, variances in alignment that may take the route outside the public ROW, legal wrangling w/ obtaining subsurface property rights, obtaining surface properties, location of vents/ducts with little wiggle room, etc.

But yeah, that Annex mansion is probably the coolest second entrance in the system. Would love to see something like that integrated within a Victorian or Edwardian on a 14ft lot. Buy it, hollow it, put in a escalator and elevator...it'd no doubt be a very attractive entrance/second entrance.

Everything is redevelopable - and quite frankly, it should be redeveloped. The case for massive amounts of single detached housing this close to the core - right by subway lines at that is increasingly untenable and skews our development patterns (i.e. cram everything elsewhere).

Agreed, to an extent. Because I don't think everything is redevelopable. If there's heritage designation on some homes, or an entire block, it could rule that out. But I was more specifically talking about the difference between Carlaw and Pape Aves, not some much the neighbourhoods as a whole. Carlaw I believe has a trunk storm sewer (not very deep though), but can't recall if that was a reason it was ruled out.

 

[44 North]

Phase I will require enough trains to require a yard somewhere. Another option would be to build a new yard on the CP property in Etobicoke, move some Line 2 storage/maintenance there, making room at Greenwood for DRL.

In a perfect world, I'd plan Phase I all the way to Thorncliffe and build a yard up there. Line 2 does not need the traffic from deadheading DRL trains, and the junction at Pape/Danforth could be that much simpler.....if a junction is needed at all. A landlocked fleet is not the end of the world.

- Paul

It's funny that all these things were discussed thirty-some years ago. In the 1984/85 DRL studies a new yard near Kipling was brought up for Line 2, as was using Greenwood, and also a new yard in East York (Brickworks was highlighted in that case, not Thorncliffe Pk). IIRC it was decided at the time a new yard near Eastern was the best bet. But I fully agree with bringing the line north as far as we can get it, then plonking a new yard in the Thorncliffe area. But I am still wondering if it was answered as to how the connection with Line 2 would work - if there would be one.

 

[Tulse]

The case for massive amounts of single detached housing this close to the core - right by subway lines at that is increasingly untenable and skews our development patterns (i.e. cram everything elsewhere).

That argument could be made even more strongly for the Danforth as a whole. I really like the character of Greektown, but it seems a bit absurd to me that Chester station is plopped in the middle of single detached houses.

 

[Skeezix]

The majority of Pape between Queen and Danforth is non-developable, a very narrow quiet leafy street, nor is it through street. South of Riverdale Ave, Carlaw seems most logical from both a construction and development perspective IMO. If living on Pape, I'd wonder too where things like emergency exits and ventilation shafts would fit. It's not exactly a suburban arterial with a 100m roadway allowance.

Yes and no. Pape north of Gerrard is okay - there is a small stretch north of Gerrard Square that is relatively narrow, but then there is a large stretch beyond that all the way to the Danforth that is quite nice and wide. The problem stretch is south of Gerrard.

The ideal route would be to follow the old streetcar route up Carlaw, then veering east to Pape. The streetcar used to turn from Carlaw onto Pape on Riverdale - not sure if that's feasible or desirable for a subway. Would Gerrard work better?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yes and no. Pape north of Gerrard is okay - there is a small stretch north of Gerrard Square that is relatively narrow, but then there is a large stretch beyond that all the way to the Danforth that is quite nice and wide. The problem stretch is south of Gerrard.

The ideal route would be to follow the old streetcar route up Carlaw, then veering east to Pape. The streetcar used to turn from Carlaw onto Pape on Riverdale - not sure if that's feasible or desirable for a subway. Would Gerrard work better?

I am not sure why we need to treat SDHs as sacrosanct avoid affecting them at all costs. The structures are not superlative by any sense of the word - and while nice they are not irreplaceable or even an appropriate building form along a transit route this close to the core. This is no different from Glencairn - and at some point we need to draw the line and accept that changes are necessary - otherwise we look like utter hypocrites demanding that others densify.

AoD

 

[Skeezix]

When did I say we need to treat single-detached homes as "sacrosant"?

 

[44 North]

Yes and no. Pape north of Gerrard is okay - there is a small stretch north of Gerrard Square that is relatively narrow, but then there is a large stretch beyond that all the way to the Danforth that is quite nice and wide. The problem stretch is south of Gerrard.

The ideal route would be to follow the old streetcar route up Carlaw, then veering east to Pape. The streetcar used to turn from Carlaw onto Pape on Riverdale - not sure if that's feasible or desirable for a subway. Would Gerrard work better?

This is pretty much exactly what I was wondering. If the route were to follow Carlaw where it's widest (and more developable) south of Gerrard, then veer to Pape where it's widest (and more developable)...could that be deemed more optimal for both the City and area residents? Obviously a hard 90deg turn at either Riverdale Ave or Gerrard is out of the question. But perhaps a gentle curve below the plaza/school/ped bridge could work.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

The ideal route would be to follow the old streetcar route up Carlaw, then veering east to Pape. The streetcar used to turn from Carlaw onto Pape on Riverdale - not sure if that's feasible or desirable for a subway. Would Gerrard work better?

We want to have a station at Gerrard Square.

If you ask me, the alignment in East York is good.

 

[BurlOak]

In a perfect world, I'd plan Phase I all the way to Thorncliffe and build a yard up there. Line 2 does not need the traffic from deadheading DRL trains, and the junction at Pape/Danforth could be that much simpler.....if a junction is needed at all. A landlocked fleet is not the end of the world.

- Paul

The cost of a tunnel going to Greenwood, or the cost and inconvenience of connecting DRL to BD at Pape are quite high. A cut-and-cover extension to the Don Valley, with roughed-in Colburn station, and bridge over the Don, would likely be more, but not exorbitantly more. This track would be needed for phase 2 anyway, plus it avoids Greektown being dug up twice in the same decade when phase 2 actually happens.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Must not forget that the City may own that patch of grass, sidewalk, and tree on "your" property. Pape Avenue maybe narrow south of Gerrard, but it may widen Pape Avenue or make use of their property. without expropriating any land.

As they did with Dufferin Street around Dundas Street West in the early 1950's.

 

[Skeezix]

We want to have a station at Gerrard Square.

If you ask me, the alignment in East York is good.

Then veer east at Gerrard. (I say that not knowing at all whether it is even remotely feasible from an engineering or financial perspective. )

By alignment in East York, you mean later phases north of Pape Station?