Hopkins123
Senior Member
Did you not see my follow-up map which shows a zoomed in alignment? Clearly the City Hall station is connected to the Queen subway station, offering relief.
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
Did you not see my follow-up map which shows a zoomed in alignment? Clearly the City Hall station is connected to the Queen subway station, offering relief.
44 North
Senior Member
I definitely support your proposal. I'd love to see closer station spacing, and particular the station at Carlaw seems like a nobrainer considering like you say it intercepts core-bound 501 riders further east. It could also be helpful for future Port Lands development. I just envision problems with the latter in how the curves needed to get to up Carlaw might be too broad -thus requiring subsurface property rights to make the curve. Either way, more stations equals more midrise developmet and infill - so there's obviously merit.
However I can't help escaping the need to follow below the lake shore/stouffville corridor to directly access Gerrard square, and as a means of accessing Greenwood yard from the southside (as opposed to a complex interchange at Pape/Danforth to Greenwood Yard). All the same, we're building close station spacing on Crosstown - so I don't see why the DRL needs to be second rate in comparison.
But hopefully we can see more proposals when we get more info. As it stands now we have a crude map presented to council, and there may be more in-depth options presneted by Feb 25th. Not to mention months later when McWynnetyLinx presents their YRNS proposal.
salsa
Senior Member
Guys, I have an even better idea, please hear me out on this. The rail corridor is a barrier to our waterfront just as much as the Gardiner is, therefore I'm calling for both the Gardiner and the rail corridor to be buried underground in a new super tunnel below Richmond/Adelaide, and put the DRL in the same tunnel. Anyone still with me?
My plan would be fully paid for by scrapping the much cheaper Gardiner hybrid, hosting the Olympics, and beginning construction of a second underground highway (i.e Allen Rd extension) for which I will charge sky-high tolls. Charge even higher tolls than Highway 407 if that's what it takes. Also charge sky-high fares on the buried GO lines and SmartTrack, because honestly who the hell expected that SmartTrack was actually gonna use TTC fares in the first place?
So rather than doing three digs, paying three engineering firms, having three sets of EAs and various other forms of duplication and waste, why not kill three birds with one stone by doing it all at the same time under the same street? If we're going to tunnel through the city for the DRL, then lets bury the Gardiner, SmartTrack and the rail corridor along with it. In fact why not also bury Richmond/Adelaide itself and build condos on top to generate even more revenue? Just relocate the existing bike lane to the shoulder of the Gardiner tunnel to make this possible.
I'm no engineer, but I demand that I be taken seriously by the people on this forum. Whoever thinks this would be hard to build just needs to look at Paris. Yes, I know that Paris has never actually done this before, but you people need to think outside the box. Because damn you Toronto you are too small minded to see the value of my fantasy.
Last edited:
LNahid2000
Senior Member
Underground bike lanes?? I fully support this idea!
kEiThZ
Superstar
@Euphoria
My question would be why are you wedded to the idea of a downtown highway. A lot of European cities don't have them. And in an environment where we have GO RER, Smart Track and the DRL, I'd actually love to see removal of the Gardiner and implementation of a core area congestion charge. As it is, most 416 residents use transit to access the core. Once transit is improved for the 905, the need to depend on a car for access to downtown Toronto is further ameliorated.
And I actually support the Gardiner. Believe it or not. But we only need it because our transit system is inadequate. Fix the transit system and we do not need as much road capacity in the core. If all the above transit projects come to fruitition, I'd love to see a return to the concept of a grand avenue on Lakeshore.
Last edited:
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
Toronto can into cycling highways!
P23
Active Member
I'm not sure you really know what you're talking about. There are plenty of trip generators near City Hall, as well as City Hall itself which hosts many large events throughout the year. Not to mention if a second phase along Queen gets built I don't see how it could avoid being one of the busiest lines in the city. Maybe city planners have actually researched ridership potential rather than building themselves a personal subway station as you claim?
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
It would also serve other locations like the Eaton Centre, top of the Financial District., etc. Would be better to have 3 separate stations between Yonge and University though.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Wonder if it is possible to build a full length mezzanine with a significant retail component while connecting Queen and Osgoode station at both ends and replacing/renewing the current entrances.
AoD
LNahid2000
Senior Member
Or we could just build a really long platform like the 3500ft long platform on the Red Line in Chicago to connect both sides!
muller877
Senior Member
The problem is that it is now not a DRL (relief and downtown are key words). Downtown trip generators during the busiest time for transit is commercial. And the largest concentration of commercial trip generators are along King St. Take a walk to Queen St and King St. Check out the foot traffic from 8-10 and 4-6 (both above ground and in the PATH). Also check it out from 12-1. Hands down is King St.
On the weekends it is Queen St but Boor-Yonge is not at capacity on the weekends.
There are a few trip generators along Queen. But to be blunt, City Hall is a small building and there is virtually no commercial density north of this location. One office tower at King & Bay will have twice the number of users than City Hall. And there are 4 buildings at King & Bay with dozens surrounding them. Why build a line at the far northern end of a district? Doesn't make sense (other than for transit planners who want to get to work faster and actually ignores the other users)
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
This is why - posted previously:
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
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
Last edited:
That would actually work quite well. It would allow people to walk anywhere from University to Yonge, and get out at the exit that serves them best. It would basically be an E-W PATH connection, but inside of the fare paid area. I've used that section of the Red Line in Chicago, and it was quite convenient.
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
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.
dunkalunk
Senior Member
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?