Hopkins123
Senior Member
The CAMH lands at Queen and Ossington would make for a good extraction point, although I too agree that to High Park would be ideal.
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
The CAMH lands at Queen and Ossington would make for a good extraction point, although I too agree that to High Park would be ideal.
jungleboy.ca
New Member
I know I'm replying a month later, but I'd like to state for the record that I was actually so concerned that Pape residents would harm the planning work which had been achieved that last June I spoke at Executive Committee, and tabled a petition to council urging them to adopt the staff recommendations without modification or delay. So, I take more than a little exception at your presumption; and I'm given to wonder what your level of involvement has been that you feel licensed to make accusations.
I've been as heavily involved in the planning process as I could manage, and I made every effort to understand the depth of the various issues and to share those facts with my community--particularly as it related to the trunk sewers on Carlaw. I had every expectation that a Carlaw alignment was going to be infeasible or have a price delta more in the range of half a billion.
I agree that the initial impetus for the Carlaw alignment was pure NIMBYism, but in the end I agree with the conclusion of the Local Segment Study that Queen/Carlaw is a better location for a station--there's just a good deal more space there to facilitate interchange between three transit modes than there is at Pape. Surely, $150M is nothing to sneeze at; but it's not just "appeasement money"--there's a material benefit in the analysis.
That said, my purely personal preference would still be Pape because it'd mean walking one block over instead of three; but this isn't *my* subway. So, you can kindly take your accusations and shove them back in your pocket.
Rainforest
Senior Member
Good point. I did not think about it before.
Extraction will be somewhat problematic everywhere, even west of Osgoode, but the difficulty of extraction should be one of the considerations when choosing the interim western terminus.
44 North
Senior Member
It's possible I was being purposefully obtuse just because I want a western extension. I guess they could leave the TBM underground indefinitely until its reactivated for the western extension, send it downwards to a final resting place like with the Chunnel, or maybe the machine can be dismantled underground and brought up piece-by-piece through the small surface entrance used to mine the station. I actually have no idea, but more answers from the City would be helpful.
Why would extraction be a problem at Queen and University? University is quite wide and they have a massive amount of green space in the front of Osgoode Hall that they can work with. If they can remove TBM's at Yonge and Eglinton they can certainly do the same here.
This talk (not speaking specifically by you) of a western extension is crazy to me. We will be lucky to see the DRL short completed in the next 20 years let alone a DRL long. The western leg will be many decades from now if ever.
crs1026
Superstar
Osgoode is doable, true - but the impact on trees and the Osgoode Hall fence may not be pretty. I wonder what the cumulative end to end disruption on Queen will be. Similar to Eglinton, it will be a mess for a few years. That's one reason to push a bit further west and get it all over with.
I agree we don't need the entire western 'U' quite yet, but it seems like a huge mistake to not access the ridership-heavy zone from University over to Liberty. That area has the present and imminent density to justify a subway. As does the Danforth to Eglinton stretch.
The Relief Line will only reach its true potential once it is longer. I fear that Toronto's transit builders will repeat the mistake of Sheppard and give up after the initial Pape-Osgoode portion is built. To prevent that, I would push for committing to a full Liberty to Eglinton line as Phase I.
- Paul
You act if its as simple as willing it to be. Even extending west to Spadina is big money. In an ideal world yes but considering today's circumstances we'll be lucky with the DRL long. Everything else at this point is pure wishful thinking.
crs1026
Superstar
We will be paying for this for a long time, yes. But take the impact of an extension to Spadina - which is connected to the lakefront by streetcar. You get a huge number of potential riders who don't need to use any of Union, or Bloor/Yonge, or the Line 1 stations on King/Queen, to cross the downtown and reach Line 2. That's a huge improvement in capacity for perhaps another $1B. Similarly, (and I don't have the numbers handy) the number of Crosstown riders that would avoid an Eglinton-Yonge transfer, against the cost of expediting the extension to Eglinton, is likely compelling. That may enable faster progress on the Richmond Hill line. The absolute increment in cost should not be the sole consideration.
- Paul
I understand and agree with you but I'm being practical. There's only so much money. Let's get DRL long done and then worry about going west. Putting west officially into the mix now just muddies the issue. The last thing we need is citizens and politicians on the west getting upset that they aren't getting anything (a la the Scarborough situation) and ending up with a less than ideal compromise on the east.
The biggest issue we are facing now is overcrowding on Yonge especially at Bloor. Fix that and then worry about stuff like getting people on the Spadina streetcar. Yes nice to have but not the problem that will hurt us the most in the next few decades.
The biggest issue we are facing now is overcrowding on Yonge especially at Bloor. Fix that and then worry about stuff like getting people on the Spadina streetcar. Yes nice to have but not the problem that will hurt us the most in the next few decades.
torontologist
Active Member
The amount of traffic disruption caused by a pit at University and Queen would be gargantuan. Even suburban councillors would get behind a bit of extra spending to avoid that disaster. Osgoode Hall is a better option, but I'd be loath to see one of our finest heritage structures possibly be damaged and have its yard dug up.
Too bad Nathan Phillips Square isn't an option. That would take care of those terrible elevated walkways and give us another chance at successfully rehabilitating the square.
There's going to be huge disruption at every station. That's the reality of building a new subway (especially at interchange stations like Osgoode and Queen/Yonge). Just look at Eglinton in the last few years and places along the Spadina extension. Expanding the subway west isn't going to make the disruption at Osgoode go away.
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
Is cut-and-cover construction for the tunnels of the Queen section of the DRL out of the question? The stations will have to be cut-and-cover or mined, but how deep will it be? Do we know if the DRL will be double (like Sheppard) or single (like Scarborough) TBM tunnels?
Is the TTC going to screw up again and not rename Queen Station to Queen-Yonge Station? I know this is a very minor thing in the grand scheme of things, but one has to wonder
Also, any chance Pape Station gets renamed?
Tulse
Senior Member
Do the TBMs even need to be extracted? If the tunnel will eventually be extended west and north, why not simply have them tunnel a bit farther and then park them, to be used later?
MetroMan
Senior Member
Never mind parking them. It's way past time that we institute a continuous subway expansion plan and fund. At the very least, keep tunnelling. We can't continue this stop and go with decades apart if we want to catch up on our transit deficit.
TTC screw up? If you are referring to the Crosstown that's Metrolinx's doing.