[JSF-1]

I would assume given there depth the stations at platform level may look something like what you see in say Singapore's Downtown Line. Making the most out of the little space we have; nice platform levels with basic surface level facilities. To be honest given the fact that some of these stations will be in dense built up areas, I feel we should be looking to our Asian counterparts to see ways to make the absolute most of the little space we have. We will have a fair bit of vertical space to work with at these stations, so it makes sense to work with it. It's not like the TYSSE where we could throw all the budget at sprawling station buildings. On the DRL the "magic" will be in the vertical space.

 

[Leo_Chan]

I would assume given there depth the stations at platform level may look something like what you see in say Singapore's Downtown Line. Making the most out of the little space we have; nice platform levels with basic surface level facilities. To be honest given the fact that some of these stations will be in dense built up areas, I feel we should be looking to our Asian counterparts to see ways to make the absolute most of the little space we have. We will have a fair bit of vertical space to work with at these stations, so it makes sense to work with it. It's not like the TYSSE where we could throw all the budget at sprawling station buildings. On the DRL the "magic" will be in the vertical space.

The day the TTC has triple extra long escalator setup for a subway station is the day the TTC enters the 21st century.

 

[gweed123]

I agree with the concourse comments. It would be nice if there was an escalator that brought you from the RL platform to at least the upper level concourse directly below street level. This just reminds me of the roundabout way to get from the NE corner of Dundas & Yonge to the NB Dundas Station platform. In, around, down, left, right, straight. It'll take 2-3 mins just to get to street level from the RL platforms.

EDIT: Another thing that's somewhat disappointing is at stations like Carlaw, the entrances are both on the north side of Queen St. That means that if you're transferring from the RL to go EB on Queen, you have to exit and cross the street at street level in order to catch an EB 501. Ideally, there should be an exit on the south side to negate the need for that. AM inbound is covered by the existing entrance, but PM outbound may be problematic.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

My gosh, some of those stations are deep. 3 or 4 escalators to the platform. Gosh, looks like 5 escalators are necessary to change from GO/SmartTrack to subway at Gerrard station!

Honestly, why do we need so many concourses? Is there some kind of fire code? I can't remember having such concourses in European subway stations, correct me if I'm wrong.

The rationale for the depth makes sense in some areas. Broadview Station is immediately east of where they have to tunnel under the Don River, so that's deep. Gerrard was deep to avoid a sanitary sewer.

But the fact that cut-and-cover was not considered for a greater stretch of the line ticks me off. The City shudders at causing disruption on the street or taking people's houses, even if it could save some construction costs and time, and give the City land to sell at a premium once the subway is done. Tunneling is absolutely necessary in the downtown stretch for utility conflicts and the river, but for example, why not cut-and-cover north of Queen/Carlaw to avoid that sewer?

As for concourses, I'm also with @raptor wondering why all stations need a concourse. Here's what the EPR had to say about it:

If it's going to help house operational spaces, and modelling shows it's going to help evacuate people faster, I can see the argument. I also see where they're coming from with the entrances, without a concourse, it's sometimes difficult to arrange them so they can fit around the tunnel.

But I want to see the homework, I'm not going to take it a face value. Show me you can't incorporate operational spaces at the ends of platform level. Show me that you can't make entrances work.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The day the TTC has triple extra long escalator setup for a subway station is the day the TTC enters the 21st century.

At least, the stations will have escalators (plural) and elevators from the opening day. That is also why the stations are more expensive than the original Yonge subway stations (adjusted for inflation).

 

[Leo_Chan]

At least, the stations will have escalators (plural) and elevators from the opening day. That is also why the stations are more expensive than the original Yonge subway stations (adjusted for inflation).

Don’t forget cost of labour, materials, and laws.

 

[BurlOak]

Yes, but Tory will take credit for this, and he doesn't deserve any credit when it comes to the Relief Line; or any transit project for that matter

If not Tory - do you want to give the credit to Rob Ford??

 

[11th]

Argh. I still can't believe Osgoode and Queen platforms are east of University and west of Yonge, respectively. ~425m. I guess both of them connecting directly to NPS isn't so bad though.

I do like the setup of the Queen/Yonge interchange, with the long unpaid zone stretching from Yonge all the way to Bay.

 

[raptor]

If not Tory - do you want to give the credit to Rob Ford??

Jennifer Keesmaat

 

[W. K. Lis]

According to the EA, there will be a wye north of the Danforth Station, built using TBM's.

 

[jje1000]

This depends on the model chosen for the tender (assuming the EA is accepted by government).

If it's done Spadina style or even split like Eglinton, possibly within 24 months for start of excavation of the TBM deployment hole. I don't generally count prep work (moving sewers, gas lines, etc. out of the way) as construction for the same reason I don't count demolition of existing structures as construction.

If it's an AFP model tendered as a single package then it's still at least 40 months away (1 year to put together a tender, 1 year for bidders to evaluate it, + 1 year to ramp up and purchase tools like TBMs). That said, once it hits financial close (around 30 months) then it'll be finished even if we'd prefer it wasn't.

The giant question is will the next provincial budget contain funding for the DRL, or will the DRL be forced to wait for SSE to finish it's EA too (with additional stops).

Good info to know- that's both simultaneously hopeful and depressing because of all the stars that need to align to make it happen.

 

[rbt]

Good info to know- that's both simultaneously hopeful and depressing because of all the stars that need to align to make it happen.

Kinda, yeah.

Here's a timeline for Elignton which partially followed an AFP model (tunnel and pre-work were separate contracts from stations). Of specific interest is when the TBMs are ordered and when they began tunnelling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_5_Eglinton#Timeline

If Doug is serious about doing this as quickly as possible, Metrolinx will follow the Eglinton process for the DRL (and SSE) and at a minimum buy TBMs prior to the rest of the tender being ready. A TBM tender could be up by December with a close date around March for delivery in 2020.

Metrolinx has issued separate tenders for time sensitive RER pieces, a separate TBM order could greatly accelerate the timeline over a strict AFP model.

I'd like to see them do the prep-work (sewer moves) and tunnelling contracts separately too but they're currently being sued on Eglinton over late completion to prep-work so they may not want to do that.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

If not Tory - do you want to give the credit to Rob Ford??

Tory was reluctantly dragged along. Not really inclined to give any politician the credit. Toronto City Planning and Metrolinx have been the primary champions for this project

 

[M II A II R II K]

So it seems the Queen St stretch is actually under Queen and not Richmond.

 

[Leo_Chan]

So it seems the Queen St stretch is actually under Queen and not Richmond.

Why did you think it would run under Richmond? Wasn't the proposed alignment chosen May of last year?