muller877 said:
But to be blunt, City Hall is a small building and there is virtually no commercial density north of this location.
Click to expand...
There's a huge amount of commercial density north of Queen. You have the Eaton Centre, hospitals, Ryerson, UofT, even Queen's Park and nearby provincial office buildings. Have a look at the employment map I posted earlier - there are many thousands of jobs north of Queen that would be well served by the proposed alignment. Its catchment area would be everything from the financial district to College Street or so.
 
dunkalunk said:
Perhaps I'm missing something (the report that's not released yet), but if it has been determined that it would be more economical for Relief Line to cross under the Don River at Queen Street due to soil conditions, what's stopping the alignment from shifting south on King west of the Don River?
Click to expand...

The Don River Park flood protection landform?

AoD
 
WislaHD said:
By the time the Relief Line is built, PRESTO should be in place, which means that you do not need a fare zone, the PATH itself will work just fine for this purpose.

If we do have a NPS station, with PRESTO you should be able to leave NPS station fare zone to the PATH and then enter Osgoode/Queen station with the tap of the PRESTO card and not be charged.

Therefore, the main concern as I see it, is if the added transfer time would add enough to the total commute time to make transferring at Pape not as desirable as with an interchange station at Queen.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it would still be easier to build one giant station box and have walkways between the designated stop areas. That way every building along that entire corridor could have "direct subway access", even if it's midway between the designated stopping areas.
 
dunkalunk said:
Perhaps I'm missing something (the report that's not released yet), but if it has been determined that it would be more economical for Relief Line to cross under the Don River at Queen Street due to soil conditions, what's stopping the alignment from shifting south on King west of the Don River?
Click to expand...

This is an interesting point. Whether the line ran under Queen or under King, both will be crossing below the Don at Queen (considering King and Queen merge west of the Don). Also, in the last relief study both the King and Queen options to Pape had the same comment about depth while crossing below the Don - so presumably both crossings were to be in the same place. So yeah, I'm looking forward to the release of the study to explain things a bit more.
 
dunkalunk said:
Perhaps I'm missing something (the report that's not released yet), but if it has been determined that it would be more economical for Relief Line to cross under the Don River at Queen Street due to soil conditions, what's stopping the alignment from shifting south on King west of the Don River?
Click to expand...

Things other than soil conditions? Not trying to be snarky.

Destinations, constructability...
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
This is why - posted previously:

slack-imgs-com-png.65160


You don't need to align it to King - that's not where the issue is. In fact with a Queen alignment you are basically providing a mass transit line at each of the boundaries of the Financial District.

Also from a development perspective - a Queen alignment may hold more potential for where future development/densification will happen.

AoD
Click to expand...
just divide the distance by 2 and put the line along Adelaide
 
Wasn't it previously discussed that the stations at Queen (because of the streetcar tunnel) and Osgoode (because of good foresight) are already built in a way that their foundations wouldn't be compromised with the addition of another tunnel or platform beneath them? If that's true, that would be a clear vote in favour of doing a Queen alignment. Interfaces are the bane of construction, so build where the interfaces have largely been accounted for.
 
jcam said:
Wasn't it previously discussed that the stations at Queen (because of the streetcar tunnel) and Osgoode (because of good foresight) are already built in a way that their foundations wouldn't be compromised with the addition of another tunnel or platform beneath them? If that's true, that would be a clear vote in favour of doing a Queen alignment. Interfaces are the bane of construction, so build where the interfaces have largely been accounted for.
Click to expand...

I think it was sized for streetcars and kind of minimal otherwise- so it might be sufficient to run trains through (big if), it's probably not good for much else.

AoD
 
They should have a new Queen Station that straddles Bay through Yonge, and a new Osgoode Station that straddles University and York St.
 
dowlingm said:
Wouldn't even be a train length between one and the other. Come on.
Click to expand...

With deep bored stations and diagonal escalators connecting upward with the PATH concourses (plural), it would be positioned adequately. Just like other transfer stations around the world.
 
dowlingm said:
Wouldn't even be a train length between one and the other. Come on.
Click to expand...

That's why I think the "Yonge" or "City Hall" station should take up the block between Yonge and Bay; with a second station existing 500 metres west at McCaul which would have a barrier-free connection to Osgoode Stn.

There's more than enough density through this area to support 2 transfer stations.
 
Hopkins123 said:
There's more than enough density through this area to support 2 transfer stations.
Click to expand...

I agree. I have tramped through enough world-class 700 foot transfers to know that you don't build them unless you have to. But I still think Queen is the wrong choice. I reviewed the station usage numbers recently and of the four east-west "streetcar streets" the Queen-Osgoode pair has the lowest patronage. This line should be going through the core beneath Wellington or King.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top