Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[44 North]

Putting the station parallel to the railway corridor is almost certainly a non-starter. A station platform is 500 feet long, and once you fill out all of the ancilliary systems that need to be installed in the station you're looking at a station box approaching 600 feet.

The distance between Carlaw and Pape via the railway tracks is give-or-take 835 feet. That doesn't give much distance at all to deal with the curves leading to and from the north-south alignment.

I was thinking there'd have to be a "chicane"-type of approach to a station if built under the rail corridor (not sure the proper terminology). But obviously this kind of extended curvature would mean added length, and having to pass under private properties - essentially resulting in similar issue as the all-Pape alignment.

One thing I'm wondering now is whether these will in fact be the typical 150m platform, or if we'll decide to spec the stations for 7 or 8-car trains (giving a platform of up to ~200m). If so then I guess what you say will be even more true.

 

[torontologist]

Woul it be possible to to run subway in a circle? DRL red line show above on going north and then on Green blue line ? NYC has similar system where different trains sue the same track?

Yep. Glasgow's subway is just one big circle around the city centre.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Of course, if you're auto-addicted (think suburban councillors), they might say that using the Pape Avenue alignment all the way would mean less construction tying up the automobile traffic. The cars be able to use Carlaw Avenue uninterrupted with the construction on Pape Avenue.

 

[smallspy]

Woul it be possible to to run subway in a circle? DRL red line show above on going north and then on Green blue line ? NYC has similar system where different trains sue the same track?

Anything is possible. By why would you bother? With the frequencies that Toronto runs, its more trouble than its worth.

I was thinking there'd have to be a "chicane"-type of approach to a station if built under the rail corridor (not sure the proper terminology). But obviously this kind of extended curvature would mean added length, and having to pass under private properties - essentially resulting in similar issue as the all-Pape alignment.

The other issue that no one here has bothered to consider is that curves cost money to maintain, and sharper ones cost more. This is why the TTC suggested that the alignment runs entirely under Pape - no curves means less maintenance.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Euphoria]

While there are interesting points on here regarding the Carlaw versus Pape alignment for the eastern stretch of the DRL, I think those decisions will be made on the basis of cost, public input/impact, and technical feasibility. I'm more concerned about getting as much subway built in the first phase of DRL as possible. A piece in today's GTA section of The Star argues for retaining the plan to build the Scarborough one-stop subway. While I worry that this pricy project might detract from financing for other transit projects, another Star article on Smart Track made a compelling argument that tax incremental financing of ST may leave more funds for the DRL and other projects. I'm hopeful that this means, even if we get the Scarborough subway, there may still be city funds available to extend the DRL a few stops west of Osgoode Station. Maybe tax incremental financing can play a role in funding a more extensive DRL.

 

[44 North]

The other issue that no one here has bothered to consider is that curves cost money to maintain, and sharper ones cost more. This is why the TTC suggested that the alignment runs entirely under Pape - no curves means less maintenance.

For sure, I get there are problems with curves (particularly tighter ones). Whether it's rail wear, vehicle/wheel wear, noise, reduced speeds, etc. But the City/TTC already got the ball rolling on the concept of making small deviations to the route by using the B1-EQ alignment, so in a way I think the precedent of making alterations to the commonly-accepted alignment has been set somewhat. And I'm trying to mentally balance the costs associated with the straight all-Pape alignment vs the costs of a (currently hypothetical) Carlaw-Pape alignment. The costs for an-all Pape vs Carlaw-Pape alignment could be:

-greater legal wrangling for the subsurface property rights of a few dozen properties on Pape
-greater expropriation costs for exits/ventilation
-reduced development potential and/or usage of air rights leasing
-and perhaps ancillary costs associated with the 72 Pape (e.g maintaining current frequencies or diverting the bus route to access Queen-Pape).

If the costs of these outweighs the maintenance costs and reduced speed when jigging the line between Carlaw and Pape, then perhaps it is in fact worth exploring.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

-greater legal wrangling for the subsurface property rights of a few dozen properties on Pape
-greater expropriation costs for exits/ventilation
-reduced development potential and/or usage of air rights leasing
-and perhaps ancillary costs associated with the 72 Pape (e.g maintaining current frequencies or diverting the bus route to access Queen-Pape).

Let's not forget the cost on the other side though - particularly re: trunk sewer. Plus expropriated property can likely be resold at a later date, at a higher price supporting a greater level of development intensity. The neighbourhood won't like to hear that, but the whole eggs and omelette thing again.

AoD

 

[44 North]

Let's not forget the cost on the other side though - particularly re: trunk sewer. Plus expropriated property can likely be resold at a later date, at a higher price supporting a greater level of development intensity. The neighbourhood won't like to hear that, but the whole eggs and omelette thing again.

AoD

It's a newish trunk storm drain, and from looking at it being constructed a few years back it seemed fairly close to the surface. And IIRC I asked one of the PR ppl at the meeting once and they said that's not a major hindrance with regards to construction (though I'd assume otherwise).

And I'm definitely mentally weighing the prospects of what you propose. But realistically with the expropriation/teardown of any home on Pape between Gerrard and Queen, what do you think will be built in its place? Ignoring any potential heritage designation or NIMBYism and solely focusing on the dynamics of the street itself - I think the greatest redevelopment achievable in such instance would be a couple of triplexes or a very small townhouse complex. It's a very narrow street. Compare that with Carlaw where we have a preexisting plan aimed at revitalizing the avenue, where medium-rise redevelopments have been achieved, where these would be realistically achieved again, and that we have enormous former factories with ample open space stretching as far back as the rail corridor.

I'm not a planner, but just from a casual observation I'd say every point you make in favour redevelopment on Pape between Gerrard-Queen is doubly true when it comes to Carlaw.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'm not a planner, but just from a casual observation I'd say every point you make in favour redevelopment on Pape between Gerrard-Queen is doubly true when it comes to Carlaw.

Carlaw doesn't need help getting redeveloped - it's already happening. Pape will likely never be without a dramatic intervention like DRL. The city should be a little more aggressive about redevelopment of existing neighbourhoods along subway lines. It's not a vote-getter, and it's like swatting a NIMBY bee-hive - but the city can use some of that.

AoD

 

[Forgotten]

Carlaw doesn't need help getting redeveloped - it's already happening. Pape will likely never be without a dramatic intervention like DRL. The city should be a little more aggressive about redevelopment of existing neighbourhoods along subway lines. It's not a vote-getter, and it's like swatting a NIMBY bee-hive - but the city can use some of that.

AoD

I'd suggest you drop a note to John Tory so he can give the order to Jennifer Kesmatt and have her minions strike the term "stable neighbourhood" designation from any official city planning documents.

 

[RyanM12]

On Don Mills, north of Eglinton, isn't there enough room to run the DRL elevated? Definitely around York Mills, and they could expropriate some parking lots, e.g. Shops at Don Mills, Fairview.

 

[BurlOak]

My understanding is that Jennifer Keesmaat does not like elevated transit so it will never be proposed by Toronto. She could care less that we could be build twice as much transit for the money. The key to being a City planner should be to take the concepts of the political direction and find a solution. Her strategy appears to be to take the political direction and fudge the numbers to match.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

My understanding is that Jennifer Keesmaat does not like elevated transit so it will never be proposed by Toronto. She could care less that we could be build twice as much transit for the money. The key to being a City planner should be to take the concepts of the political direction and find a solution. Her strategy appears to be to take the political direction and fudge the numbers to match.

There isn't even any work on DRL Phase 2 done yet.

AoD

 

[WislaHD]

If Don Mills is wide enough for elevated, then it is also wide enough for cut-and-cover.

 

[44 North]

If Don Mills is wide enough for elevated, then it is also wide enough for cut-and-cover.

Perhaps a little bit of both, as well as an open cut (i.e cut/cover minus the cover)? I'm definitely game when it comes to affordable subway-building. But realistically the precedent of having every new line/extension be deep underground has already been set. So I don't think we'll see much in the way of having the DRL elevated or cut/covered along Don Mills. But it'd be nice to have this at least explored, which is something that has been sorely missing in the last 10-20yrs.