[BurlOak]

Exactly what I imagined. He had rails and tie pre-constructed to speed installation. Gromit is non-unionized too.

The only thing I disagree with you is that an 8 to 10m deep station would take the same time and same cost to construct as a 15 to 20m deep station. I believe this is where the savings would come from.

Ventilation may be a bit cheaper for a shallower tunnel, and it would be more convenient to riders with faster time from street to track - but these are smaller factors. What I would like to know is how long did it take to construct a typical station in the 1950's on Yonge or Spadina, and how long did it take to construct one now on the Spadina extension. I think the one from the 1950's can be improved on with modern techniques (i.e precast tunnel components that can be loaded immediately and not require a few weeks to reach adequate strength). The station on the Spadina line is about as good as you can get. My quick guess would be that the station construction time would be cut in half and cost reduced by a third.

 

[muller877]

Exactly what I imagined. He had rails and tie pre-constructed to speed installation. Gromit is non-unionized too.

The only thing I disagree with you is that an 8 to 10m deep station would take the same time and same cost to construct as a 15 to 20m deep station. I believe this is where the savings would come from.

Ventilation may be a bit cheaper for a shallower tunnel, and it would be more convenient to riders with faster time from street to track - but these are smaller factors. What I would like to know is how long did it take to construct a typical station in the 1950's on Yonge or Spadina, and how long did it take to construct one now on the Spadina extension. I think the one from the 1950's can be improved on with modern techniques (i.e precast tunnel components that can be loaded immediately and not require a few weeks to reach adequate strength). The station on the Spadina line is about as good as you can get. My quick guess would be that the station construction time would be cut in half and cost reduced by a third.

At least the city should talk with transit authorities in Spain and China where there have been huge projects of late and done fairly cheaply. And not a "fact finding" mission by politicians but Skype calls.

From what I gather in certain builds they close down the street, send all the residents away (hotels I'm guessing) and a week or two later the block stretch is done through a cut and cover technique. They then reopen the block and go to the next one.

The best way to do this is a PPP with incentives based on speed for the entire project (without any limitation on which firms can bid). Private industry knows how to construct things fast if they are given the right incentives (and won't go fast if people interfere or there are no incentives to speed up the project).

 

[crs1026]

The only thing I disagree with you is that an 8 to 10m deep station would take the same time and same cost to construct as a 15 to 20m deep station. I believe this is where the savings would come from.

I agree with you, a shallow station is cheaper. What was in my mind was that compared with the 1950's, today's stations will have more entrance, utility, and other aspects that would make for a more complicated construction process. If one could pour the outer box first, and fill in the remaining pours afterwards, then it could still be speedy.

We are likely thinking of pretty utilitarian designs - nothing artsy like TYSSE got - in interest of construction speed and minimal structural complexity.

- Paul

 

[Hopkins123]

Has anyone else noticed this:

http://www.drlnow.com/routedetermination.html#queen

Seems the author sees the value in doing a Jarvis/Parliament stoppage versus Sherbourne/Sumach. He also seems to think the first phase should go to Dufferin where a new GO connection could be just as usual as one at Dundas West/Bloor GO, even more so since Barrie-bound GO trains could also be served.

 

[W. K. Lis]

At least the city should talk with transit authorities in Spain and China where there have been huge projects of late and done fairly cheaply. And not a "fact finding" mission by politicians but Skype calls.

From what I gather in certain builds they close down the street, send all the residents away (hotels I'm guessing) and a week or two later the block stretch is done through a cut and cover technique. They then reopen the block and go to the next one.

The best way to do this is a PPP with incentives based on speed for the entire project (without any limitation on which firms can bid). Private industry knows how to construct things fast if they are given the right incentives (and won't go fast if people interfere or there are no incentives to speed up the project).

Not the city, but the federal government and official opposition. Actually, all the party hierarchy, since both Spain and China's federal government fund both operation and capital projects for transit.

 

[Hopkins123]

Here's a print screen of the proposed Queen subway map from DRLNow with stations identified:

 

[44 North]

Has anyone else noticed this:

http://www.drlnow.com/routedetermination.html#queen

Seems the author sees the value in doing a Jarvis/Parliament stoppage versus Sherbourne/Sumach. He also seems to think the first phase should go to Dufferin where a new GO connection could be just as usual as one at Dundas West/Bloor GO, even more so since Barrie-bound GO trains could also be served.

That's just some guy's website, and it's a bit dated (pre-2010). Since then the City has studied the relief line considerably, and weighted the value of different station locations. And they've apparently narrowed things things down even more (though we're yet to see a report of this). Personally I'd really like a Parliament station, but I have faith that the City has done their homework in ruling it out.

But I do very much agree with the author's idea of bringing the line much further west in its first phase. I'd actually take it a step further and blast the DRL all the way to Roncey or Humber Bay, and possibly branch it up to Dundas West and beyond as well. There's significant potential with this line, and the public deserves to know what it can do. The Waterfront West LRT is dead, or on life support. And the sad part is that few even know what that project was or how important it would be for many. The same fate has befallen LRT in the eastern waterfront as well, but nobody currently lives there so even less people care about that.

If we are to officially kill off the WWLRT, then there needs to be something to pick up the current and ever growing demand. A DRL could be just that lifeline. Big Move numbers say WWLRT would've carried 29.2M riders/yr (that's damn near close to 100,000 riders per avg wkday!). This future ridership is more than twice as much as Jane or Sheppard East LRTs, it's more than Finch West, and it's more than the future Shepp Stub, TYSSE or Yonge North. Withouth WWLRT, there needs to be something there to pick up the slack. And the current situation where we're putting faith in Mlinx to maybe build an RER stop (without us really knowing how their RER will work or be priced)....that's not enough. There's no question that a westward extension of a subway on Queen could be very beneficial to those in the SW, and I think we should figure that out pronto.

IMO the City is doing an excellent job in their Relief study. But it's definitely unfortunate that their doing it timidly and only planning one small Phase I between University and Danforth.

 

[salsa]

Has anyone else noticed this:

http://www.drlnow.com/routedetermination.html#queen

Seems the author sees the value in doing a Jarvis/Parliament stoppage versus Sherbourne/Sumach. He also seems to think the first phase should go to Dufferin where a new GO connection could be just as usual as one at Dundas West/Bloor GO, even more so since Barrie-bound GO trains could also be served.

For the record, the author ultimately decided on this cockamamie alignment that wanders up and down between different streets and then hops onto the Metrolinx rail corridors.

Your screenshot of the Queen street alignment was an option that the author rejected. So when you say that the "author sees the value in doing a Jarvis/Parliament stoppage versus Sherbourne/Sumach", it's hard to know why that is the case when he hasn't provided any explanation for choosing those locations that we can compare with the city's preferred stations.

In his preferred alignment, none of the stations are on Queen street, not even close. Their locations are: Jarvis & The Esplanade, Parliament & Mill St, and Cherry & Mill St.

 

[Hopkins123]

For the record, the author ultimately decided on this cockamamie alignment that wanders up and down between different streets and then hops onto the Metrolinx rail corridors.

Your screenshot of the Queen street alignment was an option that the author rejected. So when you say that the "author sees the value in doing a Jarvis/Parliament stoppage versus Sherbourne/Sumach", it's hard to know why that is the case when he hasn't provided any explanation for choosing those locations that we can compare with the city's preferred stations.

In his preferred alignment, none of the stations are on Queen street, not even close. Their locations are: Jarvis & The Esplanade, Parliament & Mill St, and Cherry & Mill St.

Regardless, the author seemingly prefers the stop placeholder triplet of Jarvis/Parliament/Sumach (Cherry) over simply the Sherbourne/Sumach pairing. There's enough density in east downtown to support three stops.

And check out how each potential station could fare in terms of daily ridership:

Jarvis/Queen fed by 75 Sherbourne, 141 Downtown/Mt Pleasant and an extended 74 Mt Pleasant (removed from St Clair Stn): % of 7500, 160/1200 passengers per weekday
Parliament/Queen fed by 65 Parliament: % of 4500 passengers per weekday
Sumach/Queen fed by 172 Cherry: % of 1200 passengers per weekday

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/reports/ttc_ridership_and_service_stats_2014.pdf

So as you can see, Sumach has the lowest feeder traffic potential of the three; Jarvis has more ridership potential than at Sherbourne; and Parliament captures a sizable built-in customer base that'd have to be redirected quite a distance west or east to connect with the nearest DRL stop if skipped/omitted.

I'm all in favour of expediting construction of a DRL, but that shouldn't come at the expense of quality. We are presently building a Eglinton-Crosstown with perhaps too many stops (Ferrand, Lebovic, Ionview) where density doesn't warrant it yet the City proposes too few - only 4 stations between Danforth-Pape and Queen-Yonge when 6 could more than be accommodated without significantly slowing down the speed of trips.

 

[crs1026]

If we are to officially kill off the WWLRT, then there needs to be something to pick up the current and ever growing demand. A DRL could be just that lifeline. Big Move numbers say WWLRT would've carried 29.2M riders/yr (that's damn near close to 100,000 riders per avg wkday!).

A west extension of the DRL, plus sensible enhancement of 501 into south Etobicoke, may actually be a better idea than the old WWLRT. The WWLRT route was a bit tortuous, has all those Queens Quay trackage complexities, and ends at Union hence adds congestion where we don't want it.

I'm having a hard time envisioning building heavy rail beyond Roncy, ridership isn't likely to reach that volume. IIRC the high ridership numbers for WWLRT reflected the Liberty area, which DRL can serve instead.

The only negative would be the need to transfer from 501 to DRL.A solution might be to have DRL terminate at Roncy, and bring the 501 east onto King, with an underground segment under the intersection, and traffic segregation from that point eastwards. That gives a fairly fast one-seat ride to King and Bay for those not transferring to DRL.

I worry about bringing DRL up Roncy, because it would trigger development that would kill the character of that neighbourhood. Maybe that's inevitable.

- Paul

 

[WislaHD]

I worry about bringing DRL up Roncy, because it would trigger development that would kill the character of that neighbourhood. Maybe that's inevitable.

Maybe some midrises in underutilized lots, but beyond that, I find it doubtful. The city's strict zoning laws will (rightfully) prevent that.

I'm having a hard time envisioning building heavy rail beyond Roncy, ridership isn't likely to reach that volume. IIRC the high ridership numbers for WWLRT reflected the Liberty area, which DRL can serve instead.

Not yet anyway. I envision this entire corridor will be heavily developed one day:

A spur of WWLRT would serve The Queensway well even with development, but, it should be rather easy to tunnel through here, so I say, why not?

 

[MisterF]

I think people on this site tend to overemphasize the relationship between subways and intensification. Much of Bloor and the Danforth have avoided any kind of intensification, despite having a subway for decades. And the condo boom of the last 15 years has happened as much in areas far from the subway as in areas close to it. A new subway line in an established neighbourhood doesn't mean that the area will be overrun with development and lose its character.

 

[muller877]

I think people on this site tend to overemphasize the relationship between subways and intensification. Much of Bloor and the Danforth have avoided any kind of intensification, despite having a subway for decades. And the condo boom of the last 15 years has happened as much in areas far from the subway as in areas close to it. A new subway line in an established neighbourhood doesn't mean that the area will be overrun with development and lose its character.

There is a big difference between Danforth/Bloor and Queensway. If the city decides that the Queensway should be intensified it can be done very quickly due to the concentration of ownership there. Unlike Danforth where you have to acquire property from 3 or 4 owners just to build a mid-rise Queensway was industrial (or at least south of Queensway). There by buying one lot you can develop a half a dozen properties at once (and the cost savings for economies of scale). Mid-rise on the Queensway moving towards 25 story buildings by the QEW.

Exactly what they are doing in one lot shown here but replicated 20 times from Royal York to the 427 and beyond (past Kipling it can be done on both sides of the road). We have to make sure industrial doesn't get pushed out of the city so we will have to figure out how to make mid-intensity industrial a priority but most of this is low-intensity.

That being said, Queensway will need a BRT and then a LRT (and a serious street makeover to make it very retail friendly). It's a street that can be a blank canvas that the city/developers can make into either a great road or a faceless strip. There is not enough here for a subway nor ever will be. But a BRT or a LRT that serves a community that can be created and can go all the way to Sherway (terminating at Dixie GO). Eventually as a branch of the 501 connecting via the Humber loop.

 

[crs1026]

Maybe some midrises in underutilized lots, but beyond that, I find it doubtful. The city's strict zoning laws will (rightfully) prevent that.

I wish I believed in the zoning process. It's true that the entire Roncy corridor is zoned for 14M maximum height, but I can see Roncy-Queen as being proposed as a high rise location, especially if DRL or LRT goes there. If the developers get that, the dominoes will fall.

I'm a bit hyper about the possibility that the tracts of 2-3 story, treelined streets in the old City are more vulnerable than we recognize. If we had intensive development along Roncesvalles itself, it would drive a wedge down the middle of that district. You could see some form of build - even 3-4 story condo or development blocks - spreading westward to Parkside. Call me paranoid today, but you'll be calling me ahead of my time if it happens

A spur of WWLRT would serve The Queensway well even with development, but, it should be rather easy to tunnel through here, so I say, why not?

A small amount of the land in that picture is zoned for employment, but much of it is zoned by specific by-law.....which leaves developers free to wheel and deal, with the very real threat to City Planning that the OMB won't care. So yes, I expect it will all go to condo's before long. That might actually trigger some interest in developing the employment lands south of the QEW.....especially if there were good transit linking to downtown business districts. Wouldn't it be great if people lived along the Queensway but worked within walking/cycling distance in the same part of town?

Having said that, I'm also very opposed to building residential so close to the Gardiner, but that ship has sailed.

- Paul

 

[WislaHD]

I'm curious as to the aversion to extend a subway to Queensway. Certainly, it has much greater redevelopment and densification potential than Vaughan and Scarborough Town Centre. Humber Bay Shores already shows this area is viable for development, and within the next decade the Six Points Interchange will do too. Pretty much the entire area between the 427 and Islington along Dundas is set for development. It's foolish to think that The Queensway, with it's proximity to downtown commerce and employment (i.e. the main driver of growth in this Global City Region, that will doubtfully ever be shared with Vaughan or Scarborough) will not share a similar fate in the long-term.