[ssiguy2]

I think it would be a lot more expensive and problem plagued then you think and it will most certainly, regardless of whether it can cut-n-cover or not, be very expensive and time consuming.

I can see the logic of wanting to serve the areas od SouthCore/Waterfront but I think it is a waste of money to do so when there are rail corridors already there. I have always been a big Queen supporter as Queen is the downtowns east/west "main drag". Yet another major peeve I had with that supposed DRL report that the TTC just released which was purely a public relations exercise..................it completely ignored Queen as a potential DRL route. Whether you support Queen or not, it is most certainly one of the most suggested routes for a DRL and to not even consider it is a gross oversight bordering on incompetence.

The other big hurdle for any DRL north of Union is of course trying to tunnel under the University Line. That is where Queen also has an advantage as there is no "secret" underground station on the University line but Osgoode is the only station that actually had an underground interchange in mind when built. There is no roughed in station but all the pipes, wiring, and other underground infrastructure was rearranged and put on one side of Queen in case of such an eventuality. That would cut some costs but would really cut down on time and especially disruption.

Question..........does anyone know how large the platforms are on Lower Queen?

 

[BurlOak]

I think it would be a lot more expensive and problem plagued then you think and it will most certainly, regardless of whether it can cut-n-cover or not, be very expensive and time consuming.

I can see the logic of wanting to serve the areas od SouthCore/Waterfront but I think it is a waste of money to do so when there are rail corridors already there. I have always been a big Queen supporter as Queen is the downtowns east/west "main drag". Yet another major peeve I had with that supposed DRL report that the TTC just released which was purely a public relations exercise..................it completely ignored Queen as a potential DRL route. Whether you support Queen or not, it is most certainly one of the most suggested routes for a DRL and to not even consider it is a gross oversight bordering on incompetence.

The other big hurdle for any DRL north of Union is of course trying to tunnel under the University Line. That is where Queen also has an advantage as there is no "secret" underground station on the University line but Osgoode is the only station that actually had an underground interchange in mind when built. There is no roughed in station but all the pipes, wiring, and other underground infrastructure was rearranged and put on one side of Queen in case of such an eventuality. That would cut some costs but would really cut down on time and especially disruption.

Question..........does anyone know how large the platforms are on Lower Queen?

I see 3 options.

1. The TRZ proposal is a shallow line above the YUS line, with shallow cut-and-cover tunnels and stations that can be completed faster than deep stations. Relocating a few PATH tunnels under this new line would not be a huge deal.

2. Go under the YUS line and use Queen - with the benefits that you stated.

3. Tunnel under YUS and use Wellington - but have one super station near Bay so that no station is required directly under an existing station.

Choose the least expensive of the 3.

I no not think we want any more traffifc passing through Union Station.

 

[Jaye101]

I think it would be a lot more expensive and problem plagued then you think and it will most certainly, regardless of whether it can cut-n-cover or not, be very expensive and time consuming.

I can see the logic of wanting to serve the areas od SouthCore/Waterfront but I think it is a waste of money to do so when there are rail corridors already there. I have always been a big Queen supporter as Queen is the downtowns east/west "main drag". Yet another major peeve I had with that supposed DRL report that the TTC just released which was purely a public relations exercise..................it completely ignored Queen as a potential DRL route. Whether you support Queen or not, it is most certainly one of the most suggested routes for a DRL and to not even consider it is a gross oversight bordering on incompetence.

The other big hurdle for any DRL north of Union is of course trying to tunnel under the University Line. That is where Queen also has an advantage as there is no "secret" underground station on the University line but Osgoode is the only station that actually had an underground interchange in mind when built. There is no roughed in station but all the pipes, wiring, and other underground infrastructure was rearranged and put on one side of Queen in case of such an eventuality. That would cut some costs but would really cut down on time and especially disruption.

Question..........does anyone know how large the platforms are on Lower Queen?

Richmond is about 60m from Queen. It would be less desirable to construct the line on King or Queen because using the cut and cover method would cause too much disruption, especially to transit vehicles. Any alignment chosen whether it's Wellington, Richmond, or Adelaide wouldn't be far away from King or Queen.

I'll just add that the reason the TTC chose king is because it has a higher residential and office population, and it's growing faster. But regardless, they are only a couple blocks away from each other.

The tunnels in Lower Queen were built for streetcars and would most likely require reconstruction whatever technology used.

 

[dunkalunk]

If the intention is to reduce the impact that construction will have on traffic, would it not be best to stick to a single road? I would think that cut and cover of two roads plus the expansion of station boxes and relocation of utilities would be a significant impediment to running an underground rapid transit line along two rights-of-way. Ultimately, any subway corridor should be constructed to where the demand is as first priority.

 

[rbt]

The tunnels in Lower Queen were built for streetcars and would most likely require reconstruction whatever technology used.

Building/Fire code has changed enough that they wouldn't work for streetcars even if they were still intact. The underpass from East to West used part of the tunnel space.

 

[nfitz]

I think it would be a lot more expensive and problem plagued then you think and it will most certainly, regardless of whether it can cut-n-cover or not, be very expensive and time consuming.

I've no doubt that wherever it passed through the core, it's going to be a complex dig. No doubt about that. I just think the PATH will be a very small concern. Sewers are going to be much more serious ... you can't just board up the entrance, and tell the sewage to walk on the surface somewhere for 4 years. But they'll figure out how to engineer it for enough $, I'm sure.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I think that given the constraints of the DRL we might have to opt for a very expensive cavern station construction in the central-most parts, similar to the 2nd Avenue subway stations in New York. We might only have to do this once: somewhere in the financial district, deep below King and Bay, because expropriation of billion-dollar Class A office towers to build a station box is simply out of the question, and a 5 year-long complete blockage of King Street, or even a street like Wellington, has big financial repercussions of its own. The stations to the immediate east and west, at Spadina and Sherbourne, could probably involve the construction of your standard station box.

I think that there should be one, giant transfer station in the financial district with pedestrian connections to St. Andrew, Union and King. That station alone might cost over a billion, but it would be one of the linchpins in the city's transportation system.

Of course, if we had had some foresight and maybe $200M extra lying around, we would have reconstructed the Union subway station (which we're doing anyway) to be configured into a Lionel-Groulx setup so we could easily fit a connection to the DRL. But, like a lot of things with the Union station redo, we completely missed the boat on that one.

 

[balenciaga]

If the intention is to reduce the impact that construction will have on traffic, would it not be best to stick to a single road? I would think that cut and cover of two roads plus the expansion of station boxes and relocation of utilities would be a significant impediment to running an underground rapid transit line along two rights-of-way. Ultimately, any subway corridor should be constructed to where the demand is as first priority.

Why not just construct under Richmond, which is quite close to Queen, utilizing the Queen/Osgood stations and at the same time avoiding disrupting business on Queen and King.
Close Richmond st for whatever time it takes and make Adelaide a two way street during that time (banning street parking at all time of course). There is hardly any retail business on Richmond St anyway. Of course traffic on Adelaide will worsen but there is such a cost in any situation.

The last thing we want to do is to add more lines to Union station. I don't know why many lean toward making Union an all-in-one solution. It will only make things worse when too much people are forced to enter/exit at the same station, unnecessarily adding more stress. Once off Richmond, passengers are a short walk from any office towers any way. It only takes 3 minutes to walk from Richmond to King and 5 minutes to Wellington, while at the same time it serves whoever needs to get to Queen. I just think which option we choose, Queen st should be easily accessible. The current streetcar system simply isn't enough.

 

[diminutive]

Station design in the core is obviously going to be a complicated technical issue regardless of the exact alignment. Some factors to keep in mind.

First, transfer demand(s) at any notional core station(s) shouldn't actually be soo huge. Given that the bulk of AM peak ridership should be people trying to avoid YUS, I doubt they will hop back on downtown. It wouldn't make sense for someone going to, say, Queen's Park, to transfer onto a DRL at Pape then back onto the YUS in the core. It'll be a busy station, no doubt, but more St. George than Bloor-Yonge.

Second, demand at notional core station(s) could be thinned out a bit by building stations around Church and John. I think you could justify a John street station regardless because of the trip generators there, but especially if this west downtown trend continues then it could provide some relief to core station(s). Church is probably more marginal.

Third, the City does own a very large bit of open land along this corridor at Nathan Phillips Square. If we went for a Richmond option, the line could veer north to meet a station box towards the front of NPS. This seems a lot simpler than excavating a mega station under King-Bay.

The best way to address these questions would be for the City to open up a competition; set broad goals (connect B-D to the core, X capacity, Y travel times, Z cost) and let different consortiums bid on it.

P.S. Actually, a fourth point could be that the City/TTC should look at integrating stations in the various mega developments. Depending on route, the Oxford Casino casino proposal or Mirvish-Gehry are in the right place for a John street station. Could save some money. I guess the boat has already sailed on the Bay-Adelaide 2 site...

 

[gweed123]

Personally, I'm more in favour of two new stations downtown (assuming a separate DRL line of course) than one massive one. First off, that 1 station will be without a doubt the busiest terminus station in the City. If we do go that route, we're talking about triple platform station, where people exit onto the side platforms and enter via the centre one. Massive undertaking right there, especially building that right in the heart of the CBD.

What I would prefer to see is 1 platform under Wellington that extends from Yonge to Bay, and then another than extends from Orillia St (just east of University) to Simcoe. But I would almost be tempted to actually push the DRL 1 stop beyond that, with a station between Spadina & Blue Jays Way. Especially with things like the convention centre redevelopment, not to mention the condo boom in the area, I think that station would be a wise investment now. Also, by terminating the line there, there are many options for future extension: curve up towards King or Queen, curve down towards the rail tracks, curve down even further towards CityPlace and the Ex.

Again, this is all assuming that a completely separate DRL is built. And given the complexity of these stations, I'm still not convinced that all of this construction in the centre of the CBD is the best option.

 

[M II A II R II K]

I say the Lakeshore tunnel that was proposed should do it for the CBD and since it's close to that rail corridor anyway to have the South covered. Also not to discount short range subway bridges like a line from Gerrard Square along Dundas to St. Patrick which would also take a load off of those travellers unnecessarily having to go to Union and also add to the YUS Line.

The other Markham and Richmond Hill lines can handle the northerly relief part.

 

[andrewpmk]

Station design in the core is obviously going to be a complicated technical issue regardless of the exact alignment. Some factors to keep in mind.

First, transfer demand(s) at any notional core station(s) shouldn't actually be soo huge. Given that the bulk of AM peak ridership should be people trying to avoid YUS, I doubt they will hop back on downtown. It wouldn't make sense for someone going to, say, Queen's Park, to transfer onto a DRL at Pape then back onto the YUS in the core. It'll be a busy station, no doubt, but more St. George than Bloor-Yonge.

Second, demand at notional core station(s) could be thinned out a bit by building stations around Church and John. I think you could justify a John street station regardless because of the trip generators there, but especially if this west downtown trend continues then it could provide some relief to core station(s). Church is probably more marginal.

Third, the City does own a very large bit of open land along this corridor at Nathan Phillips Square. If we went for a Richmond option, the line could veer north to meet a station box towards the front of NPS. This seems a lot simpler than excavating a mega station under King-Bay.

The best way to address these questions would be for the City to open up a competition; set broad goals (connect B-D to the core, X capacity, Y travel times, Z cost) and let different consortiums bid on it.

P.S. Actually, a fourth point could be that the City/TTC should look at integrating stations in the various mega developments. Depending on route, the Oxford Casino casino proposal or Mirvish-Gehry are in the right place for a John street station. Could save some money. I guess the boat has already sailed on the Bay-Adelaide 2 site...

Not everyone works at King & Bay. Thus, I would expect that transfer volumes between the DLR, Yonge Line and GO Transit would be pretty high, caused by people working further north along the Yonge line, or in the Portlands and Don Mills/Eglinton areas, or people reverse commuting to Mississauga and using GO, etc. A station on the DRL in the downtown core should be designed for high transfer volumes similar to Bloor/Yonge.

 

[ssiguy2]

Capacity at Union is certainly a major issue but the reason I have often mentioned the Airlink route is it's much affordable cost and the Union station platform is already built. Using current rail infrastructure is a common sense approach considering how little Toronto has to spend.

If I had my way thou I have always been a Queen supporter. The Yonge station is already there and although it will need some upgrades that will still be far less expensive than building a whole new one. The amount of time and disruption it would cause would be very slight while any station interconnecting with Yonge is going to be a disaster. Osgoode will also be a relatively easy station to construct and seeing most of the section between the two is used up by Natham Phillips, it would be less disruptive to traffic than a street where there is no large public space along the corridor.

I can very much see using Richmond as the main route from the DVP to roughly Church but it should head up to Queen. Richmond is more an autoroute than an urban street so cut-n-cover is a definate option. I also agree with what DIMINUTIVE stated above that the City should put out a competition to see how much each route would cost, the cost benefit, street disruption, and how fast the line could be built. The last thing they need is another useless TTC report like the last one.

That report is an insult to the word. They completely omitted the disruption levles, technology choice, construction method, didn't even mention Queen alignment, and of course offering cost effective choices wasn't even on their agenda. All that report did was state the obvious.............Toronto needs a DRL badly.

 

[smallspy]

If I had my way thou I have always been a Queen supporter. The Yonge station is already there and although it will need some upgrades that will still be far less expensive than building a whole new one.

Have you actually ever seen the "station"? It was only of very dubious use until the 1990s, and is now completely useless as any part of a future transit line.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[BurlOak]

Have you actually ever seen the "station"? It was only of very dubious use until the 1990s, and is now completely useless as any part of a future transit line.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Question..........does anyone know how large the platforms are on Lower Queen?

I guess the answer if NO - nobody know how large the platforms are, but they know that they are completely useless .

From Transit toronto (http://transit.toronto.on.ca/subway/5006.shtml)

"Lower Queen Station is also a lot shorter than a typical subway station, designed to handle a few streetcars, rather than a full subway train." There is no quantitative indication of the length.

There is no indication of any kind of the platform width.