hw621 said:
We are talking like Amazon in Toronto is a thing....
Click to expand...

Amazon in Toronto is definitely a thing (they have offices here; with 89 full-time openings at the moment). HQ2 in Toronto is unlikely. HQ2 in East Harbour is a poor fit; so less probable than unlikely.
 
44 North said:
I agree. Not that I discount what @Forgotten is writing, and am glad he's banging that drum. Certainly does seem silly to skirt past the financial district, even if only a few hundred metres. But I think on the whole Queen is good. Provides a buffer between Line 2, waterfront LRT, and USRC. And I tend to agree with Planning that City Hall is the general heart of the city.
Click to expand...

If the RL is under Queen, my preference for King would actually be to build a Streetcar Tunnel from say Corktown Station on the RL to around Bathurst, with a connector to the Spadina line (bring the grand union underground). Run the King line directly through it, have the Queen line divert into it via Spadina (merging naturally back onto Queen at the Don River), and create a Waterfront circulator route (King-Cherry-QQE-QQW-Spadina). That should handle the demands for transit south of Queen. It would also reduce the capacity required at the Union Loop, since this Waterfront circulator would bypass it entirely.

Since it'd be a streetcar tunnel and not full subway, you wouldn't need platforms that are nearly as long. Something akin to the Canada Line would likely be sufficient, since capacity on the line would still largely be dictated by the surface sections of the line. The Green Line in Boston would be another good example.
 
gweed123 said:
If the RL is under Queen, my preference for King would actually be to build a Streetcar Tunnel from say Corktown Station on the RL to around Bathurst, with a connector to the Spadina line (bring the grand union underground). Run the King line directly through it, have the Queen line divert into it via Spadina (merging naturally back onto Queen at the Don River), and create a Waterfront circulator route (King-Cherry-QQE-QQW-Spadina). That should handle the demands for transit south of Queen. It would also reduce the capacity required at the Union Loop, since this Waterfront circulator would bypass it entirely.

Since it'd be a streetcar tunnel and not full subway, you wouldn't need platforms that are nearly as long. Something akin to the Canada Line would likely be sufficient, since capacity on the line would still largely be dictated by the surface sections of the line. The Green Line in Boston would be another good example.
Click to expand...
my preference for King would be once the Subway opens on Queen to move the Street Car priority to king the way it is on queen today.
 
Timeline

I still can't believe it takes 5 years to design.
 

Attachments

  • RL Timeline April 2018.pdf
    498 KB · Views: 397
Last edited:
Am looking at the RL panels; is the plan seriously to wye at Pape-Danforth with this being the connection to and from Greenwood Yard? That seems a bit Sheppard stubway like compared to a full scale RL north extension, pushing large numbers of trains into/out of service *without significantly limiting Line 2 operations*.
 
upload_2018-4-26_13-30-4.png


So, based on this, it looks like the station locations have already been finalized?? Considering that the previous phase was the conceptual design.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-4-26_13-30-4.png
    upload_2018-4-26_13-30-4.png
    42.3 KB · Views: 643
Last edited:
dowlingm said:
Am looking at the RL panels; is the plan seriously to wye at Pape-Danforth with this being the connection to and from Greenwood Yard? That seems a bit Sheppard stubway like compared to a full scale RL north extension, pushing large numbers of trains into/out of service *without significantly limiting Line 2 operations*.
Click to expand...

RLN may come with a yard, we don't know yet. But unless you locate a yard in the Portlands, a RLS yard would be prohibitively expensive given land costs.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top