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

[sixrings]

I think a route along Dufferin would make a lot of sense given the massive development plans at Dufferin & King, Dufferin & Bloor, and especially Dufferin & Dupont (Galleria Mall).
Going to Dundas West would seem like an unnecessary duplication of the RER/Smart Track route from Bloor GO station.

+ inevitable boom at Eglinton and Dufferin. But Dundas west is seeing development to and so is the junction area and just north of it near st clair. So I dunno. But you are right that Dufferin is seeing a huge boom.

 

[Kitsune]

.... Run it to Jane station, then continue north to Eglinton, and West / Northwest to the Airport.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Should there be a Downtown Transit Fantasy Thread?

 

[W. K. Lis]

The situation regarding the southwest-northwest extension (west of University) would have to wait until fare reductions actually come into effect on the GO and UPX.

 

[Kitsune]

Should there be a Downtown Transit Fantasy Thread?

More like a Relief Line West (Unproposed) thread ...

 

[Hopkins123]

I think a route along Dufferin would make a lot of sense given the massive development plans at Dufferin & King, Dufferin & Bloor, and especially Dufferin & Dupont (Galleria Mall).
Going to Dundas West would seem like an unnecessary duplication of the RER/Smart Track route from Bloor GO station.

A Dufferin alignment serves no real purpose other than the convenience of a hypothetical stop in front of Dufferin Mall, which may not even be proposed.

Parkdale is starved for reliable transit and stopping short of Roncesvalles would be a disservice to that high density, low income community. Plus a station at Queen and Roncesvalles could act as the gateway to downtown for Swansea and South Etobicoke commuters along the Lakeshore and Queensway.

 

[sixrings]

actually between The Downsview Park redevelopment, The Bombardier Sale, 1035-sheppard ave west, The Yorkdale Development, The development on Dufferin between Lawrence and 401, The Dupont Development, The bloor redevelopment the King Dufferin Redevelopment if we place the DRL west, West of dufferin is it going to revive the spadina line (which btw will have to deal with all the new VMC condos) at all in say 40 years?

 

[yin_yang]

A Dufferin alignment serves no real purpose other than the convenience of a hypothetical stop in front of Dufferin Mall, which may not even be proposed.

Parkdale is starved for reliable transit and stopping short of Roncesvalles would be a disservice to that high density, low income community. Plus a station at Queen and Roncesvalles could act as the gateway to downtown for Swansea and South Etobicoke commuters along the Lakeshore and Queensway.

I think Parkdale has 2 streetcars closeby, no? Plus regular cars.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Is this getting off topic, or should the thread be split (again)?

 

[Forgotten]

I see you people are still throwing out the myth that King Street is dead in the core after 5pm.... The same retread planning department talking points over and over.

Ever see King Street after the 81 home Jays dates, 82 Raptors and Leafs home dates or during TIFF? King St west of University and east of Jarvis probably see ten times the amount of street traffic after dark than the corresponding blocks north of it.

If you really need to go to the hospitals I've got a novel idea! Transfer to the University line. Nobody is walking from Queen to College anyway. Leave the new subway for the year round events at the MTCC, BMO, Dome, and St. Lawrence Market. If you want to talk about dead streets the hospitals on University become a graveyard as soon as 5pm hits.

The "psychological heart of the city" is liberal arts trash which 12 year olds would be ashamed of putting to paper but people pretending to be professionals put it in authoritative documents.

Over the next several decades the CBD will shift north to accommodate the subway, so ultimately much of this debate will be moot.

And you will convince the politicians and planners to repeal the stable neighbourhood designations of everything north of Queen Street? I have posted those maps 300 pages back from here and Queen and points north is a no fly zone.

I note that the "Murray Alignment" for the D-B subway extension had curves of 300m radius and grades of 3.5%. TTC said those were excessive.

Here I see a radius of 306.8m and a grade of 3.36%. Are those really that different, or was TTC lying about the B-D extension?

The culprit seems to be Carlaw Station (and Gerrard). Getting under the sewers there means the line must go over 30m deep. This has a huge spillover effect and forces everything lower. Both the tight radius and steep grades are also related to this fact. I wonder if Pape alignment would have yielded different results?

Paula Fletcher caving to the NIMBY's is going to cost taxpayers a lot of money for this but it's exactly what's expected of someone from the NDP. If forcing the deep station at Carlaw caused these dominos to fall it's not surprising they said the changes are going to suck another $200 million out of taxpayers.

Well... I'll discuss with them tomorrow, but Queen between University and Bathurst is Heritage District, and almost everything is hertiaged list too. The nearest two properities that are not actually listed are right across from 250 (apartment complex) and 278... although unless it was new build to look old, I dont see why that one is not heritage listed too. And .... Bathurst to Jamieson is under study for a Heritage District along Queen too.

So how will they build stations there? The wankers at planning said avoiding heritage sites at and around Jilly's was a priority, I wonder what their tune this week will be? Will they magically be able to build multiple stations in a heritage preservation district which stretches for over 4km now that they got their stop at city hall? By the way with tail tracks out to John there's no way the subway can dive down to King without bypassing the major node at Spadina... another loser from planning.

 

[Kitsune]

I'm back from today's relief line south meeting... only stayed 10 minutes as I did not bring the right glasses for fluorescent lights (I have photophobia aka light sensitivity)...

a) I asked about the substation that is shown going over a hertiage property. They had me sticky it... and when I mentioned the heritage district, the guy took a step back and said "oh".

b) On everyone's favourite subject - stations - I was told that the station locations are only a draft - and they could be adjusted. This fits what I was told before, basically the stations are there based off basic engineering. Once detailed design / engineering is done, they may be adjusted. That means we wait till Q4 2019.

 

[44 North]

Into service - not really. There is very little issue with inserting an additional train into the current service stream.

Out of service? Again, not really. Trains running out of service at peak times will turn to the west, run to the centre track west of Chester, then turn back east to run to the yard at Greenwood.

By the way, at one point they were talking about storing the unneeded trains at mid-day in the tail tracks past the terminals. I suspect that they are still planning on that. That would minimize or eliminate all deadhead moves on the B-D during the busiest part of its service.

I can't see them building a crossover east of Pape Station to allow trains to crossover there, but even if they did they wouldn't use it until the headways were wider after the rush - especially considering the fiasco that's been going on with the north end of the University Line over the past 4+ months.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Still doesn't seem like a great solution, at least for the long-term. Having an out-of-service RL train head all the way from Pape to Broadview storage tracks, then double-back to Greenwood is a bit convoluted. Tbh I wouldn't have thought it was a big deal until I read your explanation a few weeks back re: U/S trains crossing tracks into Wilson leading to current service headaches.

Here's Relief Line Horizontal and Vertical Alignment-Draft Drawings PDF uploaded.

I combined the sections (lower quality though):

Oh man this is awesome. I honestly thought we were well over a year away from getting this kind of detail.

Under the don river, it seems as if they're not boring into the bedrock. Since this is the case, why is this line so deep?

There's a massive bedrock chasm there, so it wouldn't be under bedrock regardless. Though I'm actually surprised the line isn't deeper in this spot. Seems like the ground would all be mucky slurry even 100ft deep.

 

[Amare]

b) On everyone's favourite subject - stations - I was told that the station locations are only a draft - and they could be adjusted. This fits what I was told before, basically the stations are there based off basic engineering. Once detailed design / engineering is done, they may be adjusted. That means we wait till Q4 2019.

Seems to me they are pretty dead set on the Osgoode/Queen and Yonge/Queen station positioning stupidity. For whatever reason, city planning is dead set on having a connection with City Hall (no matter how inadequate the connection may be), as well as having a connection with York St, so I dont see those two aforementioned stations shifting.

As for the others, we'll see what happens.

 

[micheal_can]

Are they going to be using Lower Queen?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Are they going to be using Lower Queen?

No