Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

rbt said:
They won't tunnel under Yonge or University on the DRL for the same reason they are not for the Eglinton line.
Click to expand...

I would imagine they would just cut-cover the 600m between Yonge and University. Seems impractical to build launch and extraction sites so close to each other downtown. That would be expensive though because of all the PATH tunnels it would have to deal with...

I wonder if it wouldn't be cheaper just to intersect with Union.
 
diminutive said:
I wonder if it wouldn't be cheaper just to intersect with Union.
Click to expand...

I wonder that too. I also think that we were quite shortsighted in rebuilding Union's subway station without a DRL connection in mind. I know we made these planning decisions over 10 years ago, but still.
 
diminutive said:
I would imagine they would just cut-cover the 600m between Yonge and University. Seems impractical to build launch and extraction sites so close to each other downtown. That would be expensive though because of all the PATH tunnels it would have to deal with...

I wonder if it wouldn't be cheaper just to intersect with Union.
Click to expand...

Intersection with Union will probably require just as much work. One benefit of reworking Yonge-University is the potential to actually improve the existing stations as well.

Hipster Duck said:
I wonder that too. I also think that we were quite shortsighted in rebuilding Union's subway station without a DRL connection in mind. I know we made these planning decisions over 10 years ago, but still.
Click to expand...

Definitely, but as much as we spent on the whole Union Station project, it was still done on the relative cheap.

AoD
 
Just got to thinking... IF the UPX eventually morphs into a DRL West, is there a way to connect the UPX Station and the current TTC Union into a unified 'fare paid' station area? I'd have to take a walk over and look, but I can't quite visualize in my head if there is a way to make this happen. It may not even really matter with Presto, but still curious.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Intersection with Union will probably require just as much work. One benefit of reworking Yonge-University is the potential to actually improve the existing stations as well.
Click to expand...

Well, obviously this is speculative, but I could see it being cheaper.

Intersecting with (say) King & St. Andrew would require two large stations under downtown plus either cut covering between them ($$$$$$$) and somehow avoiding the PATH network or building a bunch of launch and extraction sites downtown ($$$$$$$$$$) and even bigger, lower level stations.

A Union interchange would benefit from relatively few PATH obstacles and, due to the YUS E-W alignment there, would have a better alignment for an interchange with the DRL.

The new YUS platforms could have vertical circulation to a lower DRL station at the west and east ends of the platforms (which are currently service areas).

Intuitively, I have a hard time imagining that two stations can be cheaper than one.
 
JasonParis said:
Just got to thinking... IF the UPX eventually morphs into a DRL West, is there a way to connect the UPX Station and the current TTC Union into a unified 'fare paid' station area?
Click to expand...

Though, another idea, we don't automatically need a fare-paid connection. The marginal increase in fare evasion would work out to a rounding error on the TTC budget. Given the huge capital costs of creating a massive fare-paid area downtown, it may well be cheaper to just eat the insignificant decrease in revenue.

For instance, if the DRL followed the rail corridor, Union's northernmost platforms could be modified. Passengers would disembark and use the expanded GO concourse to transfer to Union Station (TTC), which wouldn't have fare gates between it and Union Station. The transfer time would be similar to what's being planned at Yonge and Eglinton with the Crosstown.
 
Why would you need four extraction sites downtown?

One thing I really like about how they are constructing the Confederation Line in Ottawa is that they are excavating the stations from below. I'm not sure if such a thing would be possible in the case of the DRL, but it would certainly minimize disruption on the surface and to travellers. Considering this method was proposed by the consortium constructing it, I also imagine the economics must be reasonable as well.
 
Ottawa sits on the Canadian shield, so its easy to dig the stations out. Toronto sits on shale, a very soft rock, something that is unable to support itself above a cavern unlike Canadian shield.
 
jamincan said:
The bedrock in Ottawa is actually Paleozoic limestone, not Precambrian shield rock. Your point is valid nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's kind of ironic that one of the only sites in Ottawa that is actually good rock for tunnelling is downtown Ottawa. If you get anywhere beyond the Old City of Ottawa (into Nepean, Gloucester, Orleans, etc) the soil conditions are actually pretty crappy. They couldn't even build the underpass at Woodroffe & Fallowfield Station without a boatload of extra work because of the soil conditions. That extra work ran the budget up to the point where it was impractical at the time.

Toronto, relatively speaking, has pretty bad tunnelling soil conditions across the city. But at least it doesn't have to deal with the potential for large earthquakes like LA, San Francisco, or Vancouver.

JasonParis said:
Just got to thinking... IF the UPX eventually morphs into a DRL West, is there a way to connect the UPX Station and the current TTC Union into a unified 'fare paid' station area? I'd have to take a walk over and look, but I can't quite visualize in my head if there is a way to make this happen. It may not even really matter with Presto, but still curious.
Click to expand...

I don't think that subway-subway transfers at Union would actually be that popular, if the DRL does actually go through there. For the vast majority of DRL riders, Union would either be the destination, or would be the first leg on a multi-modal trip (GO, VIA, etc). It's not like you need to build Bloor-Yonge here. As long as there's a relatively direct connection, it should be ok.
 
Is there any indication at all that city planners are looking at a King-St. Andrew path for the DRL as opposed to Union anyway?

I've seen it said often around here but I don't remember seeing it in official documents.
 
WislaHD said:
Is there any indication at all that city planners are looking at a King-St. Andrew path for the DRL as opposed to Union anyway?

I've seen it said often around here but I don't remember seeing it in official documents.
Click to expand...

I hope it will be King (or nearby Adelaide).
Union is busy enough. Imagine adding a new subway stop to it (and the one where everyone gets off rush hour!). It will be total chaos everyday. For those who think "It is more expensive to build 2 stops King and St Andrew than 1" -- who said it HAS to intersect at St Andrew? Plus subways doesn't have to follow street grid, but we seem to be stuck with this idea. Actually non grid subway system usually work better and more efficient by covering larger area (London, Montreal etc)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top