Tulse
Senior Member
Sure, that's preferable. But in specific, I don't think that we need to route the DRL based on potential TBM extraction points downtown.
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
smallspy
Senior Member
Along what route? And who's going to pay to maintain the tunnels in the interim?
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
Tulse
Senior Member
They only need to go a TBM-length further (and actually most of the machinery apart from the actual cutting head can likely be removed through the tunnel itself.) And, again, if you're talking about the cost of maintaining them in situ versus the cost of creating a huge extraction shaft in the middle of downtown, it's probably a lot cheaper to leave it.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Unless they need to change the heads on the TBMs, it should be considered to keep them boring west from Osgoode, at the least for a headshunt. The headshunt should extend as far as where an access/insertion/extraction shaft can be built. This shaft would be needed whether the tunnel is pushed even further west or not unless the TBMs are abandoned in place, something to be avoided if possible.
Last edited:
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Yea, an Entertainment District station located south east of the Spadina/Queen intersection would get great use in the first phase, then extend it further west beyond that.
Hopkins123
Senior Member
Acquiescence is almost as bad as doing nothing though. And people west of the University Line are already upset. We'd like to see some relief within our lifetimes, not 100 years from now.
If the DRL just becomes another Sheppard "stubway" as a Pape-Osgoode only line posits to be, with no further expansion for another 40-50 years, then it will have hardly achieved much. And even if the Don Mills section is completed between now and that time, it shouldn't really be another half-century wait for a westward extension to even Roncesvalles. That'd be outrageous and the public rightfully should not stand for it.
Hopkins123
Senior Member
Is cut-and-cover construction for the tunnels of the Queen section of the DRL out of the question? The stations will have to be cut-and-cover or mined, but how deep will it be? Do we know if the DRL will be double (like Sheppard) or single (like Scarborough) TBM tunnels?
Is the TTC going to screw up again and not rename Queen Station to Queen-Yonge Station? I know this is a very minor thing in the grand scheme of things, but one has to wonder
Also, any chance Pape Station gets renamed?
The TTC probably underestimates the general public's IQ, why they simply couldn't name the Yonge station, "Yonge Station". Likewise at Eglinton.
In the service announcements, the full name: "Queen-Yonge" is announced like what they do at "Bloor-Yonge". A little name duplication is not a bad thing.
Also, I'd love to see a "Danforth Station" used in the system. So the existing Pape on the BD Line keeps it's name but in the announcements: "Danforth-Pape Station"
rbt
Senior Member
That's exactly how they'll build the section between Yonge and University.
TBMs are not going to be allowed to bore under the existing subway; our soil is shit and it's risky (see Crosstown). It would be silly to spend 5 months building the TBM on the west side of Yonge only to take it out on the east side of University; and to top it off they'll excavate half that distance for the station boxes anyway.
Well the public is getting what it is asking for. Keep electing politicians who refuse to raise taxes to build things and that's what you get.
aquateam
Active Member
I thought that one of the stated benefits of the Queen alignment was that it was closer to bedrock than King.
And it was pointed out in the Pape vs. Carlaw debate that this would be the deepest subway in Toronto, deeper than Sheppard, since it needs to get under the Don River. So either it would have to be very deep cut and cover, or they'd mine the section under Yonge and under University and keep boring?
Attachments
MisterF
Senior Member
The DRL won't become another Sheppard simply because unlike Sheppard, the DRL will actually be financially successful. Extending existing lines is much easier to get done than building new ones. So once the first phase of the DRL is underway future phases are sure to follow.
Forgotten
Active Member
I know I'm replying a month later, but I'd like to state for the record that I was actually so concerned that Pape residents would harm the planning work which had been achieved that last June I spoke at Executive Committee, and tabled a petition to council urging them to adopt the staff recommendations without modification or delay. So, I take more than a little exception at your presumption; and I'm given to wonder what your level of involvement has been that you feel licensed to make accusations.
I've been as heavily involved in the planning process as I could manage, and I made every effort to understand the depth of the various issues and to share those facts with my community--particularly as it related to the trunk sewers on Carlaw. I had every expectation that a Carlaw alignment was going to be infeasible or have a price delta more in the range of half a billion.
I agree that the initial impetus for the Carlaw alignment was pure NIMBYism, but in the end I agree with the conclusion of the Local Segment Study that Queen/Carlaw is a better location for a station--there's just a good deal more space there to facilitate interchange between three transit modes than there is at Pape. Surely, $150M is nothing to sneeze at; but it's not just "appeasement money"--there's a material benefit in the analysis.
That said, my purely personal preference would still be Pape because it'd mean walking one block over instead of three; but this isn't *my* subway. So, you can kindly take your accusations and shove them back in your pocket.
Oh really? The diagrams they've shown this far show a station building at the northeast corner of Queen and Pape as the most likely main entrance. What's more convenient than stepping off the streetcar and right into the station? Stepping off the streetcar, waiting at a signalized intersection, crossing the street, and walking a little bit more?
What's better than 1 station serving 100 Queen Street West? How about 2? The planner error is thinking city hall is the centre of the universe that needs 3 subway lines serving it.
rbt
Senior Member
There is plenty of Queen (and King) that isn't between Yonge and University or under PATH connections. Second, our bedrock isn't exactly stable; better than the soil but care must still be taken with infrastructure above it; particularly when taking the Yonge line out of service for half a year (to reinforce under it) due to damage would be really painful.
DRL will cause more disruption at Queen & Yonge/University than we see on Eglinton & Yonge today.
Last edited:
jje1000
Senior Member
One of the few good things from Minnan-Wong so far:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/ex/comm/communicationfile-69403.pdf
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/ex/comm/communicationfile-69403.pdf
pman
Senior Member
While I disagree with a lot of what DMW has done over the years, OK almost all of what he's done, he is one of the more rational and intelligent members of the suburban caucus.