muller877 said:
Because we should NEVER have density around a subway station!

Seriously? To the east just across Yonge is condo's and apartments (including along Morton, Balliol and Davisville). To the SW is the Beltline and more high-rises. To the west is Oriole park. There would need to be a step-back on the north end with the houses along Chaplin Cres. But huge opportunity for 5-8 highrises.
Click to expand...

I thought you can't build high rises if it's decked over because you can't go deep underground.

If you look at the places on the Bloor line which was built cut & cover it's always parking lots and parks above the subway line.
 
ehlow said:
I thought you can't build high rises if it's decked over because you can't go deep underground.

If you look at the places on the Bloor line which was built cut & cover it's always parking lots and parks above the subway line.
Click to expand...

You definitely can - see how Hong Kong does it:

800px-MTR_KOWLOON_BAY_DEPOT.JPG

(Wikicommons)

It all depends on how you design the structure to accommodate towers above. See:

http://www.checkerboardhill.com/2015/01/railway-depots-hong-kong-property-development/

Also keep in mind that we have current developments that are literally atop the tunnels - Exhibit on Bloor and upcoming TeaHouse on Yonge.

AoD
 
Tulse said:
The Davisville site is very large, and development of the Yonge side would not impinge on the people to the west. It is kinda absurd that a major artery in the city has a stretch that is nothing but open tracks to one side.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the traffic and density concerns would come to the forefront pretty quickly by those living to the west. I'm for it but I don't think the locals would be.
 
ehlow said:
I thought you can't build high rises if it's decked over because you can't go deep underground.

If you look at the places on the Bloor line which was built cut & cover it's always parking lots and parks above the subway line.
Click to expand...

Of course you can. I know that Greenwood Yard was actually built with high-rises in mind so the foundations can accommodate.
 
ehlow said:
I thought you can't build high rises if it's decked over because you can't go deep underground.

If you look at the places on the Bloor line which was built cut & cover it's always parking lots and parks above the subway line.
Click to expand...

I encourage everyone to check out the Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project in NYC. Definitely possible here in Toronto.
 
interchange42 said:
I'm a little surprised that no one in this thread has commented on Mayor Tory's thoughts regarding the Relief Line from our front page story of last week.

42
Click to expand...

I did! I just did it in the John Tory thread, rather than here...

I did think his comments were significant in clarifying his ongoing support for the DRL, and implicitly even the DRL Long.

I think we will definitely keep seeing this file move forward over the course of Tory's term. Even if it's not the centrepiece of his transit vision, he is not going to purposefully sideline it. I actually think that when the YRNS and the City's Relief Line studies are complete, he may actively champion the Relief Line.
 
Last edited:
kotsy said:
I love this project. So incredibly ambitious. NYC kicks ass.
Click to expand...

NYC may kick ass, but the developer is our own favourite Canadian pension fund-backed Oxford!

This is why while Oxford Place is not going ahead now, I believe Oxford might propose something even more ambitious later on, leveraging their expertise from Hudson Yards (if that is successful) to build towers over the tracks in Toronto.
 
Question about the Yonge Relief Network Study: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20150625/2015-06-25_Yonge_Relief_Network_Study.pdf

Page 20 of the document shows only 2,400 pphdp being added to Yonge Line because Yonge North Subway Extension.

In the 2013 Yonge North Subway Extension Benefits Case, usage on the line was expected to be about 25,000 pphpd (page 34).

My question is why does the Yonge Relief Network Study only show 2,400 pphpd in new usage because of the Yonge North Subway Extension. I understand that a lot of the 25,000 pphpd ridership will come from converted bus traffic ( these riders would not contribute to the number of new trips on Yonge Line), but I think it's reasonable to expect a lot more than 2,400 pphpd in new usage to be generated from 25,000 pphpd total usage on YNSS. These numbers don't add up for me.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Question about the Yonge Relief Network Study: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20150625/2015-06-25_Yonge_Relief_Network_Study.pdf

Page 20 of the document shows only 2,400 pphdp being added to Yonge Line because Yonge North Subway Extension.

In the 2013 Yonge North Subway Extension Benefits Case, usage on the line was expected to be about 25,000 pphpd (page 34).

My question is why does the Yonge Relief Network Study only show 2,400 pphpd in new usage because of the Yonge North Subway Extension. I understand that a lot of the 25,000 pphpd ridership will come from converted bus traffic ( these riders would not contribute to the number of new trips on Yonge Line), but I think it's reasonable to expect a lot more than 2,400 pphpd in new usage to be generated from 25,000 pphpd total usage on YNSS. These numbers don't add up for me.
Click to expand...

The 25,000 pphpd figure is the amount of traffic immediately south of Finch Station at 2031. If you continue reading they figure that all else being equal, that would result in a total of about 44,000 pphpd at Yonge-Bloor.

The 2,400 pphpd figure from the Yonge North Extension report is the number of people that the North Yonge Extension would add to the traffic at Bloor-Yonge, after factoring in all of the subtractions from the various lines that they want to see built.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
Carried over from a discussion in the SRT thread about the original DRL routing:

CDL.TO said:
Network 2011 Final Report and the Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study (1985) are both available at the Reference Library IIRC.
Click to expand...

So earlier in the week I made a quick trip to the Reference Library. Man, they got everything there. So many mothballed plans, and completed EAs for projects that I thought were only speculated. While there I skimmed the Network 2011 Final Report. It’s weird how so much work could go into identifying priorities and phasing - with Sheppard first, DRL second, and Eglinton West RT (either bus or rail) last. But a few years later this being easily flipped to EWRT being first (and upgraded to heavy rail subway), Sheppard second, and DRL dropped completely. If anyone wants more info that I gleaned from the Network 2011 report, I may post it elsewhere at some other time.

Before reading the 1985 DRT study I flipped through a 1984 technical report on possible alignments (which was more of a preliminary study of routing options). The follow-up 1985 Metro/TTC DRT Study however was a three-part report that was more in-depth and gave a proper conclusion. It should be noted however that my focus was on the Central and Eastern sections (i.e - I ignored the western portion of the DRT/DRL).

In looking at relief, GO improvements along western and n/s corridors were looked at – which both offered some diversion potential. Also, there were proposals for LRT along Parliament and Spadina, and an underground line on Bay; as well as a Don Mills Express Bus through the valley. With the exception of Spadina (and later addition of a Sherbourne Express Bus idea bundled with relief proposals in Network 2011), these were easily canned.​

Initially there were six DRT routes identified for the Central Section, and three ID’d for the Eastern Section. Of those, one was preferred: consisting of a tunnel along Front between Spadina to east of Union, switching to an at-grade-section atop the Union rail corridor to the Don yard, switching to an elevated portion south of the yard to Eastern, and a tunnel along Eastern to Pape station.​

Greenwood Yard was seen as a better option for a DRT yard. It was also a longstanding option for a DRT (and which led to a 1971 purchase of land near Bloor/Kipling for another B/D yard). However, using Greenwood yard meant only a Donlands route could work. In the end a new yard was proposed at Eastern and Pape.​

Eastern Section routes

Don Valley route​

This is an odd one and came as news to me. It was initially seen as a low-cost solution, but because of the amount of transportation corridors and bridges in the valley it meant the line had to be underground south of Bloor – and not at-grade as originally envisioned. It would be aligned below Bayview from Front to north of Gerrard. Here a complicated tunnelling procedure (probably similar to Yonge’s crossing at York Mills) would have the line cross below the Don where it would continue on to pass 15m below Broadview Stn – requiring extensive escalators. Although this connection would theoretically have the most diversion potential (8-9% higher than Pape), this probably would’ve been offset by the inconvenient 15m vertical transfer.​

North of Bloor the line would become elevated and connect with a new yard at the Brickworks. However, this site had already been purchased by a developer for residential and commercial, and the length of the spur to access the yard meant the line should logically be built to Overlea in one go (instead of the preferred plan of extending there at a later stage).​

*Worth noting is that the only acknowledgement of tunnelling below the Don River that I’ve seen – in this report and every preceding report of a Queen Line/DRL - was with this specific alignment. The location between Gerrard and Bloor was probably chosen because it was wide enough to not disturb railway/highway corridors while the river could be diverted - with the tunnel being built as separate sections at different times. Also worth noting is that the Don Branch was still active and not Provincially-owned at this time. ​

Donlands route

The Donlands route had problems because the rail ROW is restrictive, with a minimum width of 24m. CN said it required five tracks (i.e all 24m), thereby necessitating the DRT to be elevated above the corridor with supporting piers outside the 24m. Even if CN reduced their requirement to four tracks, an elevated guideway would still be needed. This would follow the corridor to the Greenwood Yard, with elevated stations at Queen and Gerrard.​

*Worth noting if you don’t know the area: take a look at the following rendering to see how enormous and high an elevated route would be if built above an existing elevated/embankment rail corridor, in an area with almost zero buildings above 5-stories.​

Pape route

The preferred Eastern/Pape route would be underground cut-and-cover, with an interchange above the existing Pape station, and a small new yard in the area of Eastern and Pape. Pape has 10-12% more diversion potential than Donlands (though this can be changed by rerouting buses to Donlands). This route would cost $18M less than the Donlands route (which would require retention of Kipling Yard). It was also favoured by the borough of East York.​

For the future north eastern section, all plans would involve an elevated guideway above Overlea and Don Mills Rd to Eglinton.​

Central Section

It was noted in the preceding DRT report that the TTC likes elevated, but City Staff and the Works Dept don’t. City Council on the other hand was more open - provided that it’s not ugly like systems in Chicago and NYC, and that it shouldn’t create barriers or affect open space and pedestrian linkages in the railway lands.​

Long and short, of the six routes the preferred one was bridged over the Don on an elevated structure to Cherry, went alongside USRC between Cherry to Union, and underground along Front between Union to Spadina. However the rail corridor segment would require negotiations with TTR between Bay and the Don that could potentially rule it out. This led to the alternative backup alignment if this were to happen. This was a route to be tunnelled along Wellington and Front between Spadina and Cherry (but costing $8-16M more).​

Capital costs (including construction, vehicles, property) for the recommended USRC/Front + Pape route was $538M, and $546M for the tunnelled Front/Wellington alternative. I believe these numbers differ from the $565M used in Network 2011 because of the subsequent plans to include accessible stations (though I’m not sure).​

Techonology:

This was deemed not an essential factor, and the study assumed ICTS to provide the framework for geometric planning and environmental impact. It was noted however that a switch to subway technology would’ve involved minimal changes to the existing plans. Capacity of technology would obviously be the final determining factor, particularly with ridership studies forecasting the DRT having 18k peak by 2001.​

*Worth noting that ICTS had two forms, 13m vehicles on SRT (with 18k peak capacity at Level of Service E using 90sec headways); or 22m ALRT cars (with 30600 peak using 6-car configuration run at 120sec headways). Keep in mind that at this time the Prov’s ALRT program was still ongoing.​

Alignment options
*note interesting ones like a Parliament LRT or the Don Valley + Brickworks yard route
DRT-alignment-maps.png


Technical info
*note the preferred route uses a mixture of surface and elevated alongside the rail corridor before dipping underground along Front from Union to Spadina, the side-by-side track configuration at Union, and that at Pape the DRT was to be slotted above the current station. Also note the dearth of stations east of Union.
DRT-technical-info.png


Renderings
*note how high a Donlands route would’ve been if elevated above an existing elevated rail corridor, or what Front St would’ve been like with a subway above it
DRT-donlands-route+elev-renderings.png
 

Attachments

  • DRT-alignment-maps.png
    DRT-alignment-maps.png
    2.2 MB · Views: 514
  • DRT-technical-info.png
    DRT-technical-info.png
    2.6 MB · Views: 482
  • DRT-donlands-route+elev-renderings.png
    DRT-donlands-route+elev-renderings.png
    2.1 MB · Views: 718
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top