[interchange42]

Does mined station mean that they will be bored like St. Patrick and Queens Park? Also, how is it going straight on Richmond at Power, but by Parliament its running on Queen?

Not bored by a TBM, but actually mined. Some of the Spadina extension was mined between Finch West and York U stations, for example. For the Relief Line, the TBMs can first run through the area, but a temporary support structure would be put in place (instead of tunnel linings) as mining drills carve out the added area that would be needed for each station.

That station area map was possibly made before a "final" decision was made for Queen over Richmond on that part of the route. I wouldn't read anything into it. Remember, these things all remain preferred alignments and are still rather conceptual.

42

 

[interchange42]

A few comments on this:

1) Overall, I like the alignment. Still not a huge fan of using Queen, but it's pretty well done.

Exactly what I'm thinking.

2) The direct connection to the Cherry ROW is a big deal. In the previous iterations, I was strongly suggesting an extension of the ROW, either surface or tunnelled, to connect to the DRL station around Queen & Parliament. Now that it's even south of King & Parliament, that "gap" no longer exists. This will take a huge load off the QQE ROW, as Portlands and Distillery-bound traffic will be split between QQE and Cherry.

Yeah, I think this is a pretty brilliant spot to put this station. Hidden under all that automotive infrastructure, owned by the City already, it's also really smart in that its northwest and southeast entrances will make it useful for those in two neighbourhoods, artificially divided by the bridges.

3) The only thing I don't like is both downtown stations facing 'into' the loop instead of 'out'. IMO, coverage would be much better if they had both stations with ends at Yonge and University respectively, but extending out towards Victoria and St. Patrick. Everything inside of the loop is already very well connected by the PATH network, but extending the stations boxes outwards from the loop effectively extends the walking radii of both Queen and Osgoode stations. Looking towards an eventual westward extension, having Osgoode extending to St. Patrick puts having a Spadina station between Spadina and Peter a real possibility, which effectively makes the entire stretch of Queen between University and Spadina easily walkable to the nearest station.

I'm partly there with you.

I'm okay with the Yonge station having its west end at Bay. That gets them their City Hall station without wrecking the easy transfer between lines. Apparently there were more underground services issues which were going to make a station with the east end near Church rather difficult anyway.

In regards to the University station, I definitely wanted the west end of the station out near Simcoe or St. Patrick, but apparently there are even bigger underground restrictions in that area which are forcing the station to the east side of University.

One thing that people don't generally know is that when the Relief line goes in, they will not be using the "Under Queen" streetcar space for the trains: instead, the TBMs will be going through at a deeper level, and the existing Under Queen level will end up being used as a mezzanine for passengers to transfer from the Relief Line central platform to the separate northbound and southbound platforms of the Yonge line. A happy consequence of not having to use the existing Under Queen level for the trains is that the narrow hallways that currently cross under the platforms can be widened up to serve larger crowds.

42

 

[interchange42]

It doesn't look like they are taking to opportunity to build any streetcar loops within any of these stations (ie like broadview) which is a bit disappointing as it would help regulate service and the integrated stations are much easier to use (and often warmer).

It's probably too early to call Broadview. That station, integrated with the GO RER East Harbour station, may end up being one of the most elaborate in the city. You should see the rendering that First Gulf posted in the 21 Don Roadway thread tonight!

Have they decided if they will be using middle or outside platforms for the stations and if there will be tail tracks for reversing operations and spares, or if they will just go with the Kipling style alternating platforms?

It would be central platforms at all of them, I believe, a result of the line being built by TBM where each tunnel is several metres apart, leaving lots of space for a central platform.

It's too early for them to be figuring out just how long the tail tracks would be at this time. They'll have to figure out where the TBM launch shafts can be most easily excavated, and whey they've got that, they've got their tail-track sections.

Of course, what would be best would be to have 4 TBMs, which each pair being launched from Broadview, with one pair tunnelling west and the other east and north. My dream is that by the time they arrived at the ends of the phase 1 tunnel, we would already have figured out the next extensions, as it would be far cheaper for them to keep driving the machines outwards (to less congested areas where you can more easily build a launch shaft) than to have to pull them out of the ground downtown, then dig a new launch shaft in virtually the same spot some years later to get going again. At minimum, I'd want 2 TBMs starting from the Bathurst/Front area digging east and then north all the way to the edge of the Don Valley north of O'Connor as phase 1.

42

 

[interchange42]

It's done right in most regards but still favours a single station at Sherbourne over two stops at the busier and more densely populated Parliament and Jarvis Streets. Hopefully this can be rectified in time.

I hear you on that. When I was hoping for a Wellington/Front alignment, I wanted to see a Jarvis station at St. Lawrence Market. For the sake of not repeating station names, I was thinking that Jarvis and Parliament stations would be perfect on that count too, but you can't plan subways that way.
Now that a Cherry station is in the works, adding more expense to build the line and more time to run trains on it, plus both Yonge and University stations back on, I cannot see yet another station added in.

Transportation Planning wants a highly travelled line (enough new stations, good network connectivity) that's not too expensive (not too many stations), while also being measurably faster for those transferring at the Pape to get Downtown than it has been transferring at Yonge (again, not too many stations).

As much as I would have liked them, I don't think you'll see Jarvis and Parliament.

42

PS: Parliament is too close to Cherry anyway.

 

[salsa]

Yes, in the February-March round of consultations, "City Hall" station was the proposal. It would have had walkways to Queen and Osgoode stations. I hammered away at them at three of the consultations, telling them that everywhere else they were saying "network, network, network" in regards to this huge proposed buildout of new transit, but when it comes to actually making for easy transfers, they were shooting themselves in the foot here. I emphasized that true network planning meant that City Hall station should not only be seen as a way to get Scarberians to the core, but also a way for those getting on the line at stations like Pape & Queen to make an easy transfer at Osgoode if, for example, they wanted to get to Yorkdale Mall. City Hall station just was not planned with network usefulness in mind. I also labeled it the City Hall vanity station, which I think got them to look more critically at their reasons for locating it right there, and told them that a station under Queen running from Yonge to Bay could have a west entrance at the southeast corner of Nathan Phillips Square, effectively acting as City Hall station without killing quick transfers from the Relief Line to the Yonge Line.

I'm not saying I was the only voice that called for what's come out in this update, but I am feeling right now that they heard what I was saying.

More responses coming below.

42

I salute you.

 

[alps]

It's done right in most regards but still favours a single station at Sherbourne over two stops at the busier and more densely populated Parliament and Jarvis Streets. Hopefully this can be rectified in time.

I had the opposite thought. It seems like there is an opportunity to delete 1-2 stations while still putting most within a 500 metre walking radius. Why are the stations in Toronto always so close together compared to modern systems in cities like Hong Kong?

I think I have asked a similar question here or on reddit before but I was basically called an idiot without getting any real answer. Some of the stops along the Eglinton LRT also seem ridiculously close together. This is an earnest question - I don't live in Toronto and I don't know this area very well. But being more prudent with the provision of stations lowers the construction cost, ongoing maintenance burden, and speeds up travel times. This would also increase the attractiveness of the service as an alternative to driving once the line is extended to areas like Don Mills.

The Hong Kong MTR, by comparison, is much more prudent with the provision of stations. They seek a minimum of 30-50k residents surrounding the station, versus the much smaller developments that seem to be used as justification for new stations on these panels. I don't really understand it, given that the TTC seems to have severe issues with maintenance and funding, and a more commercially-driven approach would help address this. On a related note, how come transit stations in Toronto usually do not include provision for topside development?

 

[interchange42]

Not all of Toronto's stations are "so close together". Most of the north Yonge line stations are 2 km apart. There are other stations with significant distances between them, but in Toronto, feeder surface lines are often the reason for a station location where a high density cluster of homes may not exist in the immediate area. Surface lines can feed as many people into a station as can walk-ins from a high density area.

Hong Kong has a newer system, in a very, very different city, built in different economic circumstances. You're trying to compare very different situations and not recognizing the huge number of variables at play.

As for topside development, well, don't get us started…

42

 

[alps]

Hong Kong has a newer system, in a very, very different city, built in different economic circumstances.

Yes they are different cities, but I don't see why many of the successful practices of the Hong Kong MTR would not apply in Toronto. Greater commercialisation of TTC-owned properties, partnership with private developers to undertake topside development, more prudent approach to providing new stations, etc.

 

[interchange42]

As I acknowledged, "don't get us started" on the topside development issue, that is something that the TTC does not do, but "more prudent approach" again? Which of the stations being proposed on the Relief Line is not so prudent?

42

 

[alps]

As I acknowledged, "don't get us started" on the topside development issue, that is something that the TTC does not do, but "more prudent approach" again? Which of the stations being proposed on the Relief Line is not so prudent?

42

I was hoping there would just be one station between Yonge and the Don River. I think if you placed the Queen station box on the eastern side of Yonge and moved the "King and Sumach" station farther from the Don River you would still cover the bulk of that area within a 500 metre radius.

Granted the stop spacing here is much better than parts of the Eglinton LRT or the Bloor Danforth line. I have family in Toronto and visited often growing up. My cousins lived near McCowan Station and my grandparents lived near Kipling Station and we didn't have a car. So that is probably where my disdain for the super tight station spacing on the Bloor Danforth line originates.

I am really curious why TTC does not do topside development. Any thread you recommend that would enlighten me?

 

[gweed123]

We keep hearing how if they'd realised how busy Yonge-Bloor was, they'd have centred the newer platform on Bloor under the Yonge for better flow. And we hear how they are moving the current Eglinton platforms on Yonge to centre them with the new LRT.

So how come these new stations on Queen are not centred over the existing Osgoode and Yonge stations? They'll both be busy transfer points. Perhaps busier than Eglinton

Will they be, though? Both Eglinton-Yonge and Bloor-Yonge are gateways. The majority of people's trips go through them, not end at them. I would venture to say a much higher percentage of the trips going through Queen-Yonge or Osgoode will terminate there, with only a small percentage transferring to Line 1.

As such, I think station box placement relative to logical exit points is more important than station box location to provide an optimal transfer setup.

 

[gweed123]

I'm partly there with you.

I'm okay with the Yonge station having its west end at Bay. That gets them their City Hall station without wrecking the easy transfer between lines. Apparently there were more underground services issues which were going to make a station with the east end near Church rather difficult anyway.

In regards to the University station, I definitely wanted the west end of the station out near Simcoe or St. Patrick, but apparently there are even bigger underground restrictions in that area which are forcing the station to the east side of University.

42

Did they mention what the underground restrictions were? Are they man-made or natural? I would think that going deep enough would solve a lot of the man-made issues, but soil conditions may be another matter.

 

[interchange42]

I was hoping there would just be one station between Yonge and the Don River. I think if you placed the Queen station box on the eastern side of Yonge and moved the "King and Sumach" station farther from the Don River you would still cover the bulk of that area within a 500 metre radius.

Granted the stop spacing here is much better than parts of the Eglinton LRT or the Bloor Danforth line. I have family in Toronto and visited often growing up. My cousins lived near McCowan Station and my grandparents lived near Kipling Station and we didn't have a car. So that is probably where my disdain for the super tight station spacing on the Bloor Danforth line originates.

I am really curious why TTC does not do topside development. Any thread you recommend that would enlighten me?

For the quickly increasing densities of both residential and new office commercial on the east side of downtown, I think only one stop down here would be 1) just swamped, and 2) inconvenient to too many people. By putting in a station at King & Sumach, you're fairly close to Regent Park (service of which is a social justice aim of the City), while being located right on both the King and Cherry Street streetcar lines. When the Cheery streetcar track is extended south of the Gardiner in the future to connect with the Waterfront East LRT and the Port Lands LRT lines, that station will be an incredibly important transfer point.

In regards to Sherbourne, once you have a station established at King & Sumach, it's just too far to go all the way to Yonge without another stop. The Sherbourne bus is quite a busy one, and a station there will serve George Brown College students and more lower income areas very well. The land just to the southeast (245 Queen East) which is currently getting into a rezoning battle, will certainly benefit from a stop there too. (We'll see what kind of density ends up on that patch of land.)

As I mentioned in another post re: Yonge, I was told there were underground services issues east of Yonge which would make construction more difficult there than on the east side of it.

In regards to topside development, does anyone know if we have a general thread for that? I don't have time to search that out right now myself unfortunately. First Gulf seems to be on top of that at East Harbour at least, and Metrolinx is looking at that at a grand total of two, count 'em, two Crosstown LRT stations. We certainly need more of it, but I think that the transit agencies are reticent to get into local rezoning battles at every station: right now, they just want to get lines built.

42

 

[interchange42]

Did they mention what the underground restrictions were? Are they man-made or natural? I would think that going deep enough would solve a lot of the man-made issues, but soil conditions may be another matter.

Water mains, sewers, and such. Without having maps at the consultations of the underground services to look at, there was little point in me pursuing that further at the time. I'm certainly curious as to where the lines are exactly. Apparently it was underground services which effectively killed the Wellington/Front alignment, which was my preferred route.

42

 

[Cobra]

Is there any indication that they will continue the planning for the rest of the Relief Line Long?

I'd hate to learn that they plan to only pitch Phase 1 and not bother to pitch the whole thing (Dundas West to Sheppard) all at once.