Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[aquateam]

2. The plan for the TTC is to construct a new yard at Obico as a part of the Line 2 ATC project to accommodate increased service on line 2 and the trains needed for the Scarborough Subway. And yes, Greenwood will then become the DRL yard. ATC and the new yard is about a $1.5 billion project IIRC, and is currently only partly funded from SOGR from my understanding.

3. The wye on the north side of Bloor likely is to accommodate the DRL north phases - once the DRL north is constructed most trains will enter and exit service from the north, not the south.

That was my understanding of their reasoning for it as well. I just find this strange because until DRL north is built, all the trains will need to go north of Danforth then back up to get onto line 2. This also eliminates the possibility of interlining for a direct STC to downtown trip, like with the St. George wye.

Even $4.8 billion is $640 million / kilometre. Quite expensive by global standards at roughly $500m/km USD, though not exactly NYC levels expensive.

Montreal's blue line extension is $670/km. Did subway construction prices somehow double over the past year? They blame the cost increase on property acquisition, but that's only $330 million out of their $3.9 billion price tag.

The planners have no reason to not be looking for an optimal solution, so I have to wonder to what degree these station designs are due to geological or other engineering concerns.

Yonge Station: The station box is quite a bit west of Queen Station. This suggest to me that utilities, PATH, or some other obstruction has forced this configuration

University Station: This station seems to have been placed so that the free space in front of Osgoode hall can be utilized for easier construction. I'd rather it be on the west side of University, but there is an office tower there that might be making that very difficult.

Pape: This arrangement is very similar to B-Y Station (bad!). The optimal arrangement would have the south end of the platform be south of Danforth. Again, I have to wonder to what degree this has been influenced by geography other other engineering constrains. I would like to hear the rational of the engineers and planners.

The satellite maps that they show have PATH and property lines marked, but don't show other underground infrastructure. I doubt that geology or utilities were inputs into this.

Besides, wouldn't relocating utilities be a normal part of construction?

 

[Leo_Chan]

That was my understanding of their reasoning for it as well. I just find this strange because until DRL north is built, all the trains will need to go north of Danforth then back up to get onto line 2. This also eliminates the possibility of interlining for a direct STC to downtown trip, like with the St. George wye.

I don't quite understand why there needs to be a connection from west to north and east to north. Wouldn't a east to north and east to south be better?

 

[Leo_Chan]

Thread split as requested!

Where do we discuss Relief Line West and other Downtown Fantasies now? The Fantasy Map thread?

 

[Kitsune]

I seem to recall the stations where put there in a earlier version based off row width. It was stated that once the detailed engineering is done the station locations may be moved. I am planning on attending the April 30th meeting.

 

[Forgotten]

The planners have no reason to not be looking for an optimal solution, so I have to wonder to what degree these station designs are due to geological or other engineering concerns.

Would these be the same planning clowns who made the #1 justification for this line as putting a station at the "psychological heart of the city"?

 

[aquateam]

Where do we discuss Relief Line West and other Downtown Fantasies now? The Fantasy Map thread?

I think anything related to the relief line south of Bloor/Danforth belongs here (including downtown transit route connections/reorganizations), but anything related to the extension north to Eglinton/Sheppard belongs in the other thread. But yeah, it may be fuzzy to distinguish sometimes when you are talking about the entire line.

 

[jaybe]

City planning decided it was what they wanted a long time ago.



Citizens have been leaving comments and telling those mighty planners that it was a bad idea for several years now at every single event. Planning wants what it wants. I know Planning fans will say having everything up north on Queen won't be a disaster for people flow in the PATH, the streets or the YUS stations but you can't seriously look at this and think it's a good idea or otherwise solve more problems than it causes. City Planning has its head up its ass.

View attachment 141143

I have to agree. A major purpose of the DRL South is to connect two business centers: the existing center built around King & Bay and the new proposed future business center at the Lever site. With this in mind, the Queen alignment makes very little sense, it will require time-consuming additional steps for trips between the two locations. And the rationale is because a stop is needed at the psychological center of TO? Any of the options south would be a better choice, Richmond, Adelaide, King or Wellington.

 

[nfitz]

Pape: This arrangement is very similar to B-Y Station (bad!). The optimal arrangement would have the south end of the platform be south of Danforth. Again, I have to wonder to what degree this has been influenced by geography other other engineering constrains. I would like to hear the rational of the engineers and planners.

Ugh, will we never have a Danforth line station with an entrance on Danforth? So many missed chances (Broadview second exit, Coxwell ... even a connection from Main to Danforth GO could have a Danforth entrance.

But I'd have though a new station at Pape and Danforth would be a no-brainer!

 

[Kitsune]

The problem with the King alignment is the foundations of the office towers - it would make it extremely difficult to put in stations and even the subway itself.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Ugh, will we never have a Danforth line station with an entrance on Danforth? So many missed chances (Broadview second exit, Coxwell ... even a connection from Main to Danforth GO could have a Danforth entrance.

But I'd have though a new station at Pape and Danforth would be a no-brainer!

Maybe if the Bloor-Danforth Line was built using cut-and-cover directly under Bloor St and Danforth Ave instead of sightly north of it, then maybe there'd be station entrances on the main street and maybe it would allow for intensification north of the corridor. Never going to happen though.

The problem with the King alignment is the foundations of the office towers - it would make it extremely difficult to put in stations and even the subway itself.

Just go deeper

 

[aquateam]

Maybe if the Bloor-Danforth Line was built using cut-and-cover directly under Bloor St and Danforth Ave instead of sightly north of it, then maybe there'd be station entrances on the main street and maybe it would allow for intensification north of the corridor. Never going to happen though.

But the relief line is north-south, so it could be used to bridge that gap and have station exits/entrances onto Danforth. Right now the station box is even further north!!!

According to the station fit study, this is why they built it so far north (and presumably the wye too)

• Entrances and are located to minimize impacts on the Green P soft site.
• North (Located in church parking lot)
• South (Located on small houses in poor state of repair)
• Ventilation integrated into station entrances
• North entrance pushed away from the church
• Both entrances sited to preserve access to the lane
• Bank building to the south of the southern entrance is a listed heritage
resource

So they wanted to avoid impacting the Green P site and preserve access to this lane

 

[innsertnamehere]

The point of the Queen Alignment was that it would hit more than just the financial district - there is significant demand from the northern portions of downtown such as Ryerson University and the Eaton Centre which would be within walking distance of Queen street, but not King. For someone coming from say, Kennedy, and travelling to Ryerson, they can take the DRL and walk 3 minutes up Yonge to avoid bloor yonge.

 

[aquateam]

The point of the Queen Alignment was that it would hit more than just the financial district - there is significant demand from the northern portions of downtown such as Ryerson University and the Eaton Centre which would be within walking distance of Queen street, but not King. For someone coming from say, Kennedy, and travelling to Ryerson, they can take the DRL and walk 3 minutes up Yonge to avoid bloor yonge.

If they are coming from Kennedy, it would make more sense for them to transfer to line 1 and get off at Dundas to get to Ryerson/Eaton centre anyway...

There may be many destinations in the north of downtown, but you have to trade-off against the significant number of destinations in the south of downtown. SouthCore, the Financial District, St. Lawrence Market, Distillery, etc., mean that there are more destinations south downtown than north downtown, which is why ridership projections showed greater ridership for a King DRL (173 000) than for a Queen DRL (128 000).

If the DRL is too far north from those destinations, then that means that riders will either need to walk further from the stations (reducing ridership) or will choose to stay on line 2 and transfer to line 1, reducing the "Relief" aspect.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The point of the Queen Alignment was that it would hit more than just the financial district - there is significant demand from the northern portions of downtown such as Ryerson University and the Eaton Centre which would be within walking distance of Queen street, but not King. For someone coming from say, Kennedy, and travelling to Ryerson, they can take the DRL and walk 3 minutes up Yonge to avoid bloor yonge.

They also did it to spread out rapid transit access, rather than concentrating it in the King/Union area. Long term (and I mean several decades from now) I think this is the best option

 

[Leo_Chan]

If they are coming from Kennedy, it would make more sense for them to transfer to line 1 and get off at Dundas to get to Ryerson/Eaton centre anyway...

There may be many destinations in the north of downtown, but you have to trade-off against the significant number of destinations in the south of downtown. SouthCore, the Financial District, St. Lawrence Market, Distillery, etc., mean that there are more destinations south downtown than north downtown, which is why ridership projections showed greater ridership for a King DRL (173 000) than for a Queen DRL (123 000).

View attachment 141273

If the DRL is too far north from those destinations, then that means that riders will either need to walk further from the stations (reducing ridership) or will choose to stay on line 2 and transfer to line 1, reducing the "Relief" aspect.

Would a Spadina-King-Sherbourne alignment for a second Relief Line serve the “relief” purpose?