Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

When the Niagara Tunnel was constructed, subsurface rights had to be obtained from a variety of parties

See sections 3.3 and 3.4 of http://www.opg.com/about/regulatory-affairs/Documents/2014-2015/D1-02-01_Att 2_Project Execution Plan R00.pdf for some documentation

EDIT: PS - I can't resist pointing out the difference in the degree of transparency between OPG and Metrolinx. Would ML ever put this amount of information about their projects online for the public to read? Not in a million years. Kudos to OPG.

- Paul
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
44 is spot on. But looking at the city's interactive map, this is what you get:

Using Google to measure the distance between those property lines, that's 17 or 18 m. But as you can see, that's the entire front yard for people on the east side of the street, almost right up to the structure.
Click to expand...

Just a heads up in case you weren't aware, but that City mapping tool also allows you to measure distances. It's a bit better than GMaps in this instance, since you can see the property lines and place your cursor directly on them to get more accurate results. Either way, 18m (or 20m for that matter) is a tight fit.
 
This is just a visual approximation of the footprint of the station box below grade at Queen and Pape (this is from Pape looking south) can they really do all this through mining without the need to make a cut? has that been done before in Toronto? they basically need to be under everyone's front yards and pretty close to some of the basement walls. how deep would this be? I would imagine these mature trees must have some really deep roots as well.
fp.JPG
 

Attachments

  • fp.JPG
    fp.JPG
    212.1 KB · Views: 694
I always thought a station on Pape would have to be stacked platforms rather than the typical layout, but that hasn't come up yet. I keep pointing out that Ottawa is in the process of building a three-station subway with no cut and cover and no TBM either, but then I keep getting yelled at about the geology being different. However they have said this is going to be down into the bedrock, and I can't help thinking that some of these stations would be much less disruptive built the Ottawa way.
 
andrewpmk said:
I think that running the relief line under either King or Wellington would make sense. Queen is north of the vast majority of new development along the waterfront. Also, the King streetcar is busier than the Queen streetcar even though it is shorter. Running along King would result in a more logical streetcar network in the future since if the western end of the DRL is ever built, then most of the King streetcar would be eliminated while the Queen streetcar would remain unchanged. The Broadview section of the King streetcar, the Cherry streetcar and the short section on King east of Cherry would remain and would be consolidated into one streetcar line.
Click to expand...


Queen is a far better choice.

Areas along the Lake Shore will have access in the East at Unilever for DRL, ST, and GO. ST will serve Liberty Village in the west. Having the DRL along King too close to Union which has the best service in the country.

There are a lot of jobs along Queen/Dundas and it will be much more heavily used in off peak times and on weekends when King is a dead zone. Anyone who is also too lazy to walk from Queen to King to get to the office wouldn't take transit anyway.

A tunnel under King would have to be dug half-way to Hades due to the huge underground city while Queen already has a station. Yes it will need to be extended/expanded but that is a hell of a lot easier and much cheaper than digging a very deep tunnel under King. Also the extension to University will be hell on King and Queen would be the easiest of any station as Queen/University station was built with a DRL in mind so there will be no huge utility work saving a lot of disruption, time, and money.
 
andrewpmk said:
I think that running the relief line under either King or Wellington would make sense. Queen is north of the vast majority of new development along the waterfront. Also, the King streetcar is busier than the Queen streetcar even though it is shorter. Running along King would result in a more logical streetcar network in the future since if the western end of the DRL is ever built, then most of the King streetcar would be eliminated while the Queen streetcar would remain unchanged. The Broadview section of the King streetcar, the Cherry streetcar and the short section on King east of Cherry would remain and would be consolidated into one streetcar line.
Click to expand...

You clearly didn't read the city report on the evaluation of the routes.
 
ssiguy2 said:
Queen is a far better choice.

Areas along the Lake Shore will have access in the East at Unilever for DRL, ST, and GO. ST will serve Liberty Village in the west. Having the DRL along King too close to Union which has the best service in the country.
Click to expand...

What you say is meaningless. If it has the greatest demand and destination density then it is justified.

ssiguy2 said:
There are a lot of jobs along Queen/Dundas and it will be much more heavily used in off peak times and on weekends when King is a dead zone. Anyone who is also too lazy to walk from Queen to King to get to the office wouldn't take transit anyway.
Click to expand...

For someone who has never been in Toronto and is always wrong about anything he says about Toronto, you don't disappoint here. Read the city report. It says there will be many more jobs on King. The same city report also says evening ridership on King will be much higher than Queen. King has more transit service than Queen at almost all times during the week with a few small exceptions so those facts should be a surprise to no one. Except ssiguy2.

Anyone who says King is a dead zone off peak and weekends outs themselves as someone who has never been in Toronto. Stand at King and Spadina, John, Simcoe, Yonge, Jarvis, Parliament on a weekend afternoon and you will see what a fool you are. The entire eastern half of Queen is a wasteland and what you would call a dead zone. Half of the businesses on the strip are out of business and the other half appear to be on its way to being out of business.

Towered said:
You clearly didn't read the city report on the evaluation of the routes.
Click to expand...

It looks like City Planning doesn't even read its own evaluation of the routes so how can you expect anyone else to?
 
W. K. Lis said:
Except that who actually "owns" that portion of "front lawn".

Does the city come around and prune those trees, or do the house owners have to pay someone to prune them?
Click to expand...
All these trees are on private property, the property line is to edge of sidewalk, the platform would need to encroach about 1.5 m into each property. Does it say in any of the documents that the stations will be mined or is this an assumption at this point?
 
Last edited:
andrewpmk said:
I think that running the relief line under either King or Wellington would make sense. Queen is north of the vast majority of new development along the waterfront. Also, the King streetcar is busier than the Queen streetcar even though it is shorter. Running along King would result in a more logical streetcar network in the future since if the western end of the DRL is ever built, then most of the King streetcar would be eliminated while the Queen streetcar would remain unchanged. The Broadview section of the King streetcar, the Cherry streetcar and the short section on King east of Cherry would remain and would be consolidated into one streetcar line.
Click to expand...

The waterfront development will need its own transit, not King st, which is still far. It was fully explained why King st is not the best option all things considered, the most important reason being the cost, so let's not dwell on it. A King subway is unlikely to happen. And it is funny that you think a King alignment can serve the waterfront while Queen being 350 m north of King st can't serve people on King street and the vicinity?

A Queen St alignment strikes a good balance, and it is the one I preferred from day 1. The worst option is go anywhere near Front/Union station.
 
h2k said:
All these trees are on private property, the property line is to edge of sidewalk, the platform would need to encroach about 1.5 m into each property. Does it say in any of the documents that the stations will be mined or is this an assumption at this point?
Click to expand...

Sidewalks are NOT a property line. They generally are on city property, but do not form a border line.

I have a sidewalk and two trees on my front lawn. The first tree is two metres from the edge of the sidewalk. The second tree is five metres from the edge of the sidewalk. The first tree is on city property, the city prunes the tree for me for free. The second tree is on my property, I have to pay to get it pruned.

The first tree was planted by the city (for free). I planted the second tree (I paid), after checking where the boundaries are (and underground utilities).
 
Last edited:
h2k said:
This is just a visual approximation of the footprint of the station box below grade at Queen and Pape (this is from Pape looking south) can they really do all this through mining without the need to make a cut? has that been done before in Toronto?
Click to expand...

It has been done prior in Toronto, twice - the stations at St Patrick and Queens Park. On top of that, 4 of the stations on the Crosstown are set to be mined.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
Why is there so much interest in saving a few houses? The DRL is more important for the greater good than 20 or even 100 houses.

Does anybody still care about the houses that were torn down to build the Yonge line 60 years later?

yongestreet_before_subway_large.jpg
 

Attachments

  • yongestreet_before_subway_large.jpg
    yongestreet_before_subway_large.jpg
    122.3 KB · Views: 817
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top