[W. K. Lis]

The Downtown Relief Line shows that we really should have built the Queen Subway in the 1950's/1960's, instead of the Bloor-Danforth Subway (Line 2).

As originally designed, it would have used streetcars underground, evolving into light rail vehicles for today. We could have seen extensions built over time, (see link).

 

[ehlow]

The underground tunnel for Queen St where the streetcars are at-grade to the east/west and underground downtown (similar to Eglinton), would've been a huuuge upgrade over the current Queen streetcar.

 

[nfitz]

The underground tunnel for Queen St where the streetcars are at-grade to the east/west and underground downtown (similar to Eglinton), would've been a huuuge upgrade over the current Queen streetcar.

Though the tunnel was only planned to run from about Bond to York. From Bond to Broadview and York to Trinity Park they would have built a trench along the north side of Queen Street. That would have been a disaster.

 

[innsertnamehere]

the streetcar line that needs a tunnel the most right now is Dundas. Queen would be nice, but dundas is ridiculous all day long.

 

[44 North]

the streetcar line that needs a tunnel the most right now is Dundas. Queen would be nice, but dundas is ridiculous all day long.

Correct, from Yonge to Spadina service is pretty much reduced to shreds all day long. But I think another line would be better to tunnel than Dundas, since the 505's ridership is lower than Queen, King, and Carlton/College.

Though I'd be interested in knowing which crosstown streetcar route is the slowest/least reliable. I think just looking at the ridership numbers alone, many cities would consider each one being tunnel-worthy.

 

[gweed123]

the streetcar line that needs a tunnel the most right now is Dundas. Queen would be nice, but dundas is ridiculous all day long.

It would be interesting to see that. Through the tunnel, theoretically the Queen streetcar could divert north at Spadina and then back south again at Parliament, and the Carlton streetcar can do the same. Both of those routes could have "overlap" routes put in place though, which would run a straight shot and not divert.

It would also be far enough away from King to not interfere with the DRL.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I would think that for this project you would construct a tunnel on both Dundas and Queen, and leave College running straight through. College generally moves fairly quickly across downtown, and doesn't really need it.

 

[MisterF]

Though I'd be interested in knowing which crosstown streetcar route is the slowest/least reliable. I think just looking at the ridership numbers alone, many cities would consider each one being tunnel-worthy.

Interesting that you say that. A lot of cities have a lot more rapid transit tunnels through their downtowns than Toronto does, and because of that far better transit coverage making it easier to get around. If we were governed the same way as Madrid or Munich or even Montreal, we'd probably have twice as many rapid transit lines through the core as we do. Maybe King and Dundas would both have had their own subways or LRT tunnels by now. The demand sure is there.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Though the tunnel was only planned to run from about Bond to York. From Bond to Broadview and York to Trinity Park they would have built a trench along the north side of Queen Street. That would have been a disaster.

Really? The tunnel for the Bloor-Danforth Subway (Line 2) is actually a covered trench dug north of Bloor Street and Danforth Avenue. They even covered parts of the trench of the original Yonge Subway (Line 1) south of St. Clair Avenue. Today, that "trench" are parking lots or parks (and stations).

The Queen Subway trench could have been covered over during the years to become parking lots and parks, as well. I can see a "trench" being built for a DRL and getting covered over, wherever the route diverts away from roads.

 

[nfitz]

Really? The tunnel for the Bloor-Danforth Subway (Line 2) is actually a covered trench dug north of Bloor Street and Danforth Avenue. They even covered parts of the trench of the original Yonge Subway (Line 1) south of St. Clair Avenue. Today, that "trench" are parking lots or parks (and stations).

Much of that cut-and-cover Danforth tunnel was under streets, such as Strathmore, Hurndale. Most of it was covered when constructed, and this wasn't the plan for Queen.

The Queen Subway trench could have been covered over during the years to become parking lots and parks, as well.

Some of it might have. Much of the similar trenches built for the Yonge line from Eglinton to Rosedeale hasn't, almost 70 years after construction started.

 

[robmausser]

I think we should have the DRL replace the King Streetcar entirely, have the Queen West street be a pedestrian walkway (basically an outdoor mall) free from cars and the Queen Streetcar in an ROW, and bury the Dundas Streetcar in a tunnel from say, Bathurst to Parliment.

The tunnel could be as simple as the one for the 509

 

[AlbertHWagstaff]

I think we should have the DRL replace the King Streetcar entirely, have the Queen West street be a pedestrian walkway (basically an outdoor mall) free from cars and the Queen Streetcar in an ROW, and bury the Dundas Streetcar in a tunnel from say, Bathurst to Parliment.

The tunnel could be as simple as the one for the 509

The disruption would be about the same as for a subway tunnel. Do you remember Bay St. being closed from Front to Queens Quay for most of 1988-1989? If you went with a bored tunnel it would probably be a fair bit deeper than the 509 tunnel. For it to be shallow like the Bay St. tunnel it would have to be cut and cover.

 

[robmausser]

The disruption would be about the same as for a subway tunnel. Do you remember Bay St. being closed from Front to Queens Quay for most of 1988-1989? If you went with a bored tunnel it would probably be a fair bit deeper than the 509 tunnel. For it to be shallow like the Bay St. tunnel it would have to be cut and cover.

My concern isn't disruption its cost. Cut and cover is a lot cheaper than tunneled

I'm not sure the ridership limits of a streetcar would justify the cost of bored tunnel.

 

[nfitz]

Cut and cover is a lot cheaper than tunneled

Cut-and-cover is a tunnelling technique. Cut-and-cover is tunnelled. I assume you are referring to other tunnelling techniques, such as TBM.

In a farmer's field perhaps. In a downtown area, cut-and-cover requires a huge amount of utilities to be moved for the entire line, rather than just at stations, which can quickly make TBM cheaper, depending on station density.

Cut-and-cover would be challenging on Dundas, as there's not enough clearance to go over the Yonge line, so you'd have to go under, which would be relatively deep.

 

[44 North]

My concern isn't disruption its cost. Cut and cover is a lot cheaper than tunneled

I'm not sure the ridership limits of a streetcar would justify the cost of bored tunnel.

Although it's well after the 1950s-1970s plans for streetcar subways (and is focused on intermediate/heavy rail), this info I transcribed from the 1984/85 DRL report may be of interest to some here since it touches on the issue of tunneling along King or Queen. From p.29:

An underground system on King or Queen Streets would require passing underneath, and underpinning, the Yonge-University subway system…Underpinning (and station construction) must be done by cut and cover. At the Yonge and King intersection this would require at least a 17m (56’) deep trench. Alternatively, to tunnel underneath the existing subway, at least one diameter separation must be maintained. With tunnelling, top of rail elevation therefore would be about 20m (66’) below street level. For the Queen Street option, construction impact at Yonge/Queen and the University/Queen intersection would be minimized because:​

i) A station (designed to accommodate streetcars) was constructed below the Yonge subway when the Yonge line was built, and​

ii) The University line was underpinned during construction to accommodate a Queen Street subway.​

The pros and cons of cut-and-cover versus tunnelling were briefly discussed with City of Toronto Public Works staff. The Works Comission expressed a definite preference for tunnelling in order to minimize disruption to surface traffic during construction, and to minimize relocation of utilities. …The TTC’s preference for cut-and-cover is related to the higher cost generally associated with tunnelling.​

It is not necessary at this time to make any decision regarding the issue of cut-and-cover versus tunnelling. That decision applies equally to all three options, and therefore, should not have a bearing on selection of a preferred alignment(s). ​

There is a great deal of flexibility associated with the Front Street alignment. Construction of either underground, elevated or combined elevated/underground systems are all considered feasible for that alignment. Furthermore, the Front option offers an opportunity to mix-and-match segments of its alignment with that of the railway option.​