News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 1.4K     0 

robmausser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
3,154
Reaction score
4,003
Okay then.......

Not on the 'engage' site where consultation is supposed to happen, but on their Blog.........Metrolinx has revealed they do not intend to run trains through Queen Lower.

They are intending the platform be underneath, and that the existing space become a new mezzanine.

This may be workable; though there will still be vertical access challenges.

Over the years, various plans to run streetcars through the downtown core under Queen have come and gone. Eventually, some of the space was used to run utility lines and underpass corridors.
This means that the Ontario Line will have to be drilled out of rock deeper below the PATH, but the plans unveiled today will still make use of the tunnelled sections below the TTC’s Queen subway station.
“We are envisioning that the old underground streetcar station will be reused to provide a convenient transfer for passengers between the Ontario Line and Line 1,” said Michael Tham, Metrolinx deputy technical director for the Ontario Line.



That would make sense from a foot-traffic standpoint too; it would be the middle between accessing each of queens platforms above.
 

Northern Light

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
9,750
Reaction score
13,162
That would make sense from a foot-traffic standpoint too; it would be the middle between accessing each of queens platforms above.

It would, though, you still face the vertical access challenge.

The existing mezzanines are at or over capacity.

So they will need to be enlarged somehow.

The Platforms and Tracks for Line 1 are directly under Yonge Street.

But I believe the mezzanines are directly under Queen.

That poses a problem of adjacent foundations in terms of finding space for more vertical access.

In fairness, this to M/L this was always going to be a challenge.

But it was one that was partially mitigated in the R/L design by having 'City Hall' station, and vertical access up and out not having to conflict with transfer access.

I will be interested to see their solutions.
 

Northern Light

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
9,750
Reaction score
13,162
Given they highlight that on their plans, presumably they don't conflict vertically. I can imagine that there is a lot they'd miss ... but that doesn't seem likely.

I don't think so either.

But the question of how that conflict is addressed in design, will have impacts that should be examined and weighed by the public.

The paucity of usable information from them is beyond irritating.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
29,134
Reaction score
18,632
City:
Toronto
That was in an earlier proposal. Something has changed there, as with the new portal west of the Don, the Ontario Line is no longer going to go on a bridge - and therefore also won't have the promised cross-platform transfers to the Lakeshore line.

Going over the Don, was supposed to be a big part of making East Harbour to Gerrard station above-ground. Now that East Harbour will be underground (assuming there's still a station there) ... does this mean that they've also moved the track from East Harbour to Gerrard underground ... and presumably no longer alongside the Lakeshore line ... perhaps back to the old Carlaw alignment?

I am not sure why having a portal west of the Don lead to East Harbour being underground - I thought it is an enabling move to allow an underground OL in the core to an above ground alignment at East Harbour and beyond?

AoD
 

nfitz

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
23,592
Reaction score
3,778
City:
Toronto
I am not sure why having a portal west of the Don lead to East Harbour being underground - I thought it is an enabling move to allow an underground OL in the core to an above ground alignment at East Harbour and beyond?
Absolutely right ... I've lost my mind! Deleting that post ... :)
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
18,416
Reaction score
7,229
City:
Toronto
Absolutely right ... I've lost my mind! Deleting that post ... :)


From link. Sorry, couldn't resist.
 

TossYourJacket

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 22, 2018
Messages
441
Reaction score
869
Oh thank god they fixed the "Osgoode and Queen stations must both service City Hall because of the ego of City Council" plan that was the stupidest part of the Relief Line. Really like the improved alignments for both of them a lot more. Queen should actually be a reasonable transfer, and Osgoode always made more sense to me as a station that stretched out towards the shops on Queen West. Even if the rest of the planning around this line is a mess, that's a very welcome improvement.

Also I still wish they'd add a Cherry St station, Corktown to East Harbour is a decent gap, but I assume that's not happening since the tunnels are climbing to the surface in that section.
 

Steve X

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 17, 2016
Messages
1,950
Reaction score
1,322
I'm glad that ML has some sense to move the station closer to the ground than to bury them deep deep away from civilization. BY the time you get down to those deep tube stations, you might as well taken the streetcar, especially if it is a short trip.
 

warrens

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
67
Reaction score
173
I'm glad that ML has some sense to move the station closer to the ground than to bury them deep deep away from civilization. BY the time you get down to those deep tube stations, you might as well taken the streetcar, especially if it is a short trip.

Try getting that through to angry Leslievillians who still want their stations underground, even though the geotechnical situation would've resulted in this monstrosity that was originally proposed at Gerrard. I've circled the four large escalators one would have to take to get from track level to ground level:

1600951864062.png
 

nfitz

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
23,592
Reaction score
3,778
City:
Toronto
I'm glad that ML has some sense to move the station closer to the ground than to bury them deep deep away from civilization. BY the time you get down to those deep tube stations, you might as well taken the streetcar, especially if it is a short trip.
Don't you want people taking streetcars for shorter trips, with the reduced capacity of these lines, and the relatively small streetcars?
 

DKB

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
48
Reaction score
8
Oh thank god they fixed the "Osgoode and Queen stations must both service City Hall because of the ego of City Council" plan that was the stupidest part of the Relief Line. Really like the improved alignments for both of them a lot more. Queen should actually be a reasonable transfer, and Osgoode always made more sense to me as a station that stretched out towards the shops on Queen West. Even if the rest of the planning around this line is a mess, that's a very welcome improvement.

Also I still wish they'd add a Cherry St station, Corktown to East Harbour is a decent gap, but I assume that's not happening since the tunnels are climbing to the surface in that section.
Where is the exact location of the portal in this area?
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
29,134
Reaction score
18,632
City:
Toronto
I'm glad that ML has some sense to move the station closer to the ground than to bury them deep deep away from civilization. BY the time you get down to those deep tube stations, you might as well taken the streetcar, especially if it is a short trip.

Fairly certain most would not trade it on a reliability (wait AND travel time) basis. Cost of deep stations aside, I think the impact of travel time within stations (particularly when it is assisted) on ridership is overstated (obviously there are exceptions when you get to the extremes - e.g. YUS-BD interchange at Spadina)

AoD
 
Last edited:

Top