Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[aquateam]

Here's the thing though: Queen and Osgoode won't be huge interchange stations. They're destinations. Bloor-Yonge is a major pinch point because most people's trips go through it to get somewhere else. For most people getting off trains at Queen or Osgoode, their next move is to head for the exits, not the other platform. Where the exits are located is far more important than where the platforms are relative to each other.

Then why build on Queen, disrupting the second busiest surface transit line, when we could just build on Richmond or Adelaide and actually be closer to the final destinations of more people?

There is no singular destination, not city hall, not the four season centre, not the Shangrila, which is going to be the destination of as many riders as Line 1 will be. So the station box can go east or west of Yonge/University, but it still needs to overlap the station boxes of the transfer stations. There's still plenty of room to play around with the exit locations, so I don't think this is an extreme constraint.

The idea that transfers aren't important goes back to how the DRL has been marketed in order to win suburban support (and Steve Munro is partly responsible for perpetuating this): the idea that this is only a north-south line TO downtown instead of also an east-west line THROUGH downtown.

The original conception of the DRL as a downtown east-west trunk line is not politically marketable because: 1) it means that we are spending money on subways downtown instead of in the 'burbs when downtown "already has enough subways", 2) transit advocates who romanticize streetcars like Steve Munro are afraid with how a full "downtown U" will cannibalize streetcar ridership, which is why they gerrymander their fantasy alignments to avoid stealing streetcar riders and 3) it will enable and perpetuate densification of the "shoulder areas" of downtown, when downtown homeowners are already fighting development tooth and nail and when suburban municipalities want some of that development in their floundering downtowns (like STC or NYC.) City planning is firm on making sure that development peters out west of Spadina, and having rapid transit continue west of University would undermine that.

Any idea to extend the first phase construction west of University will not happen. Save these ideas for phase 3/4 of the Relief Line.

That's really unfortunate, considering the value that the western section has. According to TTC demand projections in the DRTES, the western section of the DRL has more non-transfer ridership than the eastern section. Spadina and Liberty Village would be two of the most heavily used stations on the line. This also has the potential to relieve Union by getting riders from the western GO lines to transfer to the DRL.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Then why build on Queen, disrupting the second busiest surface transit line, when we could just build on Richmond or Adelaide and actually be closer to the final destinations of more people?

There is no singular destination, not city hall, not the four season centre, not the Shangrila, which is going to be the destination of as many riders as Line 1 will be. So the station box can go east or west of Yonge/University, but it still needs to overlap the station boxes of the transfer stations. There's still plenty of room to play around with the exit locations, so I don't think this is an extreme constraint.

The idea that transfers aren't important goes back to how the DRL has been marketed in order to win suburban support (and Steve Munro is partly responsible for perpetuating this): the idea that this is only a north-south line TO downtown instead of also an east-west line THROUGH downtown.

The original conception of the DRL as a downtown east-west trunk line is not politically marketable because: 1) it means that we are spending money on subways downtown instead of in the 'burbs when downtown "already has enough subways", 2) transit advocates who romanticize streetcars like Steve Munro are afraid with how a full "downtown U" will cannibalize streetcar ridership, which is why they gerrymander their fantasy alignments to avoid stealing streetcar riders and 3) it will enable and perpetuate densification of the "shoulder areas" of downtown, when downtown homeowners are already fighting development tooth and nail and when suburban municipalities want some of that development in their floundering downtowns (like STC or NYC.) City planning is firm on making sure that development peters out west of Spadina, and having rapid transit continue west of University would undermine that.



That's really unfortunate, considering the value that the western section has. According to TTC demand projections in the DRTES, the western section of the DRL has more non-transfer ridership than the eastern section. Spadina and Liberty Village would be two of the most heavily used stations on the line. This also has the potential to relieve Union by getting riders from the western GO lines to transfer to the DRL.

View attachment 140539
View attachment 140540

These pictures keep on reminding my how unsymmetrical Line 1's Downtown U is. If it was a Spadina Line instead of a University Line, the Relief Line West and South would almost be completely symmetrical and centered around Line 1.

 

[Vanalla]

Yeah, but the question is more: why would you go through the trouble of renaming a station (Queen) just so you can replace an unambiguous name (Carlaw is the only stop on Carlaw in the entire rapid transit network) with an ambiguous one. "Queen East" isn't an especially informative name, given that the DRL runs under Queen, Queen extends much further east than the DRL station, and that the neighbourhood is called Leslieville.

I'm actually pretty happy with the naming so far, although I'm sure the situation is like with the Eglinton LRT or TYSSE where the working names are good but then they get finalized as something silly.

Wouldn't a solid name choice be 'Eaton Centre Station' as well? My reasoning is the current Queen station box runs from Queen and Yonge and goes up to Shuter, and the proposed box for the DRL would occupy Queen and Yonge to Bay. That junction could not engulf the Eaton Centre more IMO.

Also, can we please as a collective society get away from naming subway stations after streets? It causes confusion with parallel subway stops and pays too much homage to the automobile, which is arguably against the goal of a subway - reducing dependence on cars.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Also, can we please as a collective society get away from naming subway stations after streets? It causes confusion with parallel subway stops and pays too much homage to the automobile, which is arguably against the goal of a subway - reducing dependence on cars.

Streets are the most first type of transportation infrastructure that we built. They are the are the oldest and most stable elements of cities. We built streets back in the days when we only ever got around by foot. We continued using them through the era of the horse and carriage, streetcar, and we'll continue to use them long after the fad of personal automobiles has passed. 200 years from now, it's unlikely you'll see a car in Toronto, but Yonge Street will almost certainly still be there.

So, no, naming transit stops after streets does not pay homage to the automobile.

 

[Edward Skira]

Here we go with the western extension talk again. Yes it'll be useful and will reach some very dense areas. But the DRL isn't primarily being built for that purpose. Its being planned to relieve the Yonge line. And that won't be accomplished going west. In an ideal world the whole thing would be built immediately. But living in a realistic world let's get Osgoode to Don Mills built and then we can worry about the west.

 

[JSF-1]

There really isn't anything wrong with using street names for Stations. They are probably the first thing people will recognize besides landmarks.

 

[Hopkins123]

It can then have a stop at Bathurst, and then skip over 2km to have the next stop at Dufferin, and skip Landsdowne and have a stop at Ronvesvalles.

This is just plain wrong. In no way should Strachan, Ossington and Lansdowne be skipped. Likewise Parliament on the east side. This is the problem I find with rushing through a DRL plan on a limited budget. It's overall value and worth potential gets compromised.

 

[JSF-1]

I know its still early in development but what are the chances the DRL gets built with platform doors (be it Half-height or Full)? Since the line is being built from scratch and will be built with ATC pre-installed I can't really see a reason not to besides cheaping out and kicking the can down the road for another generation to deal with.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I imagine it will be.

 

[Kitsune]

Was last nights meeting just blah blah blah with no maps or anything ?

 

[rbt]

I know its still early in development but what are the chances the DRL gets built with platform doors (be it Half-height or Full)? Since the line is being built from scratch and will be built with ATC pre-installed I can't really see a reason not to besides cheaping out and kicking the can down the road for another generation to deal with.

It would be cheaper to design with platform doors than without any. Vertical supports can be moved adjacent to the tracks (since you know exactly where doors are) which reduces the strength of the horizontal spans required.

Spadina stations got non-trivially more expensive (something like 5%) when TTC realized they couldn't rely on ATC being installed for opening.

 

[JSF-1]

Yea I can see the DRL as being built with Full-Height doors. For the other lines they would obviously benefit more from Half-Height doors, but that is still a non-starter at the moment.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Was last nights meeting just blah blah blah with no maps or anything ?

I don’t think much would have been shown yesterday about RLN. I’m more excited about the RLS meeting on Monday.

 

[Amare]

I dont see the DRL being built with any kind of platform screen doors, especially with all of the talk of operating the line with 4-car trains instead of full length 6-car trains. Since the city is already looking into ways of cheapening the project as much as they can through shorter trains and reduced station numbers, I highly doubt they will be looking into platform screen doors.

 

[Leo_Chan]

I dont see the DRL being built with any kind of platform screen doors, especially with all of the talk of operating the line with 4-car trains instead of full length 6-car trains. Since the city is already looking into ways of cheapening the project as much as they can through shorter trains and reduced station numbers, I highly doubt they will be looking into platform screen doors.

Shorter trains but normal platforms are compatible. Just keep the edge doors closed.