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

[Forgotten]

We are talking about Queen vs Eastern, not Queen vs King.

The term you're looking for is cognitive dissonance.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

The term you're looking for is cognitive dissonance.

There will be a huge disparity between Eastern and Queen once Unilever is built out, meaning there is one clear frontrunner here for alignment.

There is not a huge disparity between King and Queen in terms of employment, access, etc. meaning that both options are far more than adequate alignment options.

And you seem to be forgetting that besides a quick walk to Queen subway, King street is slated to become a streetmall with the King streetcar being given right-of-way.

 

[aquateam]

I don't think disposing of fill is a major problem or environmental concern.

We could use the fill to expand the runway on the island airport for the new jets

There will be a huge disparity between Eastern and Queen once Unilever is built out, meaning there is one clear frontrunner here for alignment.

There is not a huge disparity between King and Queen in terms of employment, access, etc. meaning that both options are far more than adequate alignment options.

I'm okay with both, but once you've picked Eastern you've favoured a King alignment, since now it has to double back to Queen. Why would you do extra tunnelling (which translates to additional travel time, additional cost) just to get people further from their destinations?

And you seem to be forgetting that besides a quick walk to Queen subway, King street is slated to become a streetmall with the King streetcar being given right-of-way.

The whole street-mall thing seems backwards. Shouldn't the highest ridership line (King) be upgraded to a subway , and the second highest ridership line (Queen) become the transit mall?

Queen has all the cafés, retail, cultural attractions, city hall, human-scaled historic street fronting buildings. It would be perfect for a transit mall with street-level transit and all the pedestrian uses to keep the expanded sidewalks animated. In general, stores thrive when more people can see them (i.e. above ground transit). The subway on Queen would harm the retail landscape.

King has windswept bank tower plazas, office towers, and condos. Great for generating ridership but not as great for taking full advantage of the roadspace that has been reappropriated for pedestrians, since pedestrians already have the PATH and the plazas. Most of the retail is already below grade so they don't benefit from the improved transit line.

Basically, I'm arguing that the transit mall will appear unsuccessful if it goes on King, regardless of how it speeds up transit vehicles, because people will see all that "wasted" roadspace. On Queen, you are more likely to see people using that converted roadspace (whether for stores, cafés, extending out Nathan Philips Square, etc.)

Would this picture look better on Queen or on King?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I don't see the point of fighting over King vs. Queen - either will do. Creating delays because of these fights is the worst possible outcome and distracts from the far bigger issue of getting it built.

AoD

 

[Hopkins123]

I don't see the point of fighting over King vs. Queen - either will do. Creating delays because of these fights is the worst possible outcome and distracts from the far bigger issue of getting it built.

AoD

Agreed. It's important to note too that a Queen aligned DRL alleviates all three corridors of the 504 King, 501 Queen and 505 Dundas throughout the central core (Ossington to Broadview). And places like SouthCore/CityPlace, St Lawrence and Liberty Village all have the benefit of being proximal to the preexisting GO corridor where additional stations can be built to meet demand.

A King aligned DRL becomes redundant when considering those variables.

 

[Edward Skira]

Relief line update:

Relief Line Update
While the Relief Line is not the subject of the cost-share terms recommended by this report, work on the Relief Line project is still on track.

In July 2016, City Council approved a Pape-Eastern-Queen alignment for phase 1 of the ReliefLine subject to further examination of an alternative alignment west of Pape Avenue, generally between Gerrard Street East and Queen Street East. Council also directed that this work include an assessment of optimal connections between SmartTrack/RER and Relief Line.

Alignment options along Carlaw are currently being developed and evaluated. Public and stakeholder consultations are being planned for late 2016/early 2017. We will keep you posted as plans are finalized and hope that you will participate.

Following completion of the technical analysis and consultation, staff will prepare a report to Executive Committee and City Council before proceeding to the Transit Project Assessment Process for approval under the Environmental Assessment Act. We anticipate that this report will be considered in early 2017.

At the July meeting, City Council also authorized the City Manager, in consultation with the CEO, TTC to develop a Terms of Reference with the Province of Ontario and Metrolinx for the next phases of planning and design for the Relief Line, including future extensions north to Eglinton Avenue East and Sheppard Avenue East, and west to the Bloor Subway line.This work is in the early stages – stay tuned.

Interesting that the extension to Bloor is also being studied.

At the July meeting, City Council also authorized the City Manager, in consultation with the CEO, TTC to develop a Terms of Reference with the Province of Ontario and Metrolinx for the next phases of planning and design for the Relief Line, including future extensions north to Eglinton Avenue East and Sheppard Avenue East, and west to the Bloor Subway line.This work is in the early stages – stay tuned.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Interesting that the extension to Bloor is also being studied.

So, you know, like, the original 'U' that's been on the books for a while?

 

[Forgotten]

I'm okay with both, but once you've picked Eastern you've favoured a King alignment, since now it has to double back to Queen. Why would you do extra tunnelling (which translates to additional travel time, additional cost) just to get people further from their destinations?

The whole street-mall thing seems backwards. Shouldn't the highest ridership line (King) be upgraded to a subway , and the second highest ridership line (Queen) become the transit mall?

Queen has all the cafés, retail, cultural attractions, city hall, human-scaled historic street fronting buildings. It would be perfect for a transit mall with street-level transit and all the pedestrian uses to keep the expanded sidewalks animated. In general, stores thrive when more people can see them (i.e. above ground transit). The subway on Queen would harm the retail landscape.

King has windswept bank tower plazas, office towers, and condos. Great for generating ridership but not as great for taking full advantage of the roadspace that has been reappropriated for pedestrians, since pedestrians already have the PATH and the plazas. Most of the retail is already below grade so they don't benefit from the improved transit line.

Basically, I'm arguing that the transit mall will appear unsuccessful if it goes on King, regardless of how it speeds up transit vehicles, because people will see all that "wasted" roadspace. On Queen, you are more likely to see people using that converted roadspace (whether for stores, cafés, extending out Nathan Philips Square, etc.)

Would this picture look better on Queen or on King?

You'll better understand it once you realize Scarborough and downtown subway planning was an exercise in protecting Tory's turf (ScamTrack) and avoid making it look bad, in however ways possible.

Of course if you pave over road space for pedestrians and bicycles it would make more sense to pave over Queen so the hipsters can ride their bicycles to the Drake hotel, cat cafes, and board game rooms on Queen West but that wasn't the point of the exercise.

Agreed. It's important to note too that a Queen aligned DRL alleviates all three corridors of the 504 King, 501 Queen and 505 Dundas throughout the central core (Ossington to Broadview). And places like SouthCore/CityPlace, St Lawrence and Liberty Village all have the benefit of being proximal to the preexisting GO corridor where additional stations can be built to meet demand.

A King aligned DRL becomes redundant when considering those variables.

Dundas is a minor line that will have the lowest amount of service and ridership of any all day line once Bombardier finishes delivering the goods next year. It does not belong in the conversation with the real lines. With no stops between Union and Don River GO is not a real replacement.

 

[44 North]

Agreed. It's important to note too that a Queen aligned DRL alleviates all three corridors of the 504 King, 501 Queen and 505 Dundas throughout the central core (Ossington to Broadview). And places like SouthCore/CityPlace, St Lawrence and Liberty Village all have the benefit of being proximal to the preexisting GO corridor where additional stations can be built to meet demand.

A King aligned DRL becomes redundant when considering those variables.

This is sorta how I feel as well. Not so much because of the GO corridor and any new stations/service, but rather the waterfront LRT. Feel that if the RL were on King the investment would be seen as too heavy when considering the waterfront LRT (potentially denuding the investment of both projects). However I'd actually be interested in whether a Queen line can offer some type of service to the waterfront by way of branching the line in the east (Unilever) and west (Exhibition).

 

[Euphoria]

Keep the DRL on Queen AND eventually turn Queen into a transit mall for streetcars with wide boulevards. King, Queen, and College should be set up like this. Don't forget that ST will pick up some of the transportation to the south. As for having a breach that goes south to the waterfront, the opportunity is already there with Cherry St. and Broadview. Both streets will eventually have streetcars that reach into the Portlands, intersecting with the LRT on Queens Quay. The Broadview streetcar will intersect three important east-west transit thoroughfares: Queens Quay, Unilever ST, and the DRL. It's harder to see the same connections in the west. I think that an additional ST/GO RER station with its western platform terminus at Bathurst and its eastern terminus almost at Spadina, would be the missing link. The Bathurst streetcar would be the connect, as it will intersect the DRL along Queen eventually, and it could also intersect with the western end of the platform of the GO RER/ST. The Spadina streetcars would intersect with the eastern end of this station. It would be interesting because having a station there means that the rail-deck park gets built on top of it. My other hope is that the Liberty Village ST station has the southern end of its platform at King St. to intersect with the King streetcars and the northern end of its platform to eventually intersect with the DRL on Queen. A DRL station intersecting with ST in the west is key. That DRL station should have the eastern ends of its platforms at Queen and Gladstone and the western ends of its platforms at the entrance to Parkdale, just west of Dufferin. That network would provide a fulsome transit loop in the core. Of course, if the Gardiner ever gets demolished, Lakeshore is another potential east-west transit thoroughfare. Being a clean slate, there are opportunities for something really monumental, a kind of University Ave with wide boulevards and streetcars.

 

[PMT]

A little late but...

Relief Line Study - Preliminary Field Testing
November 21 to 26, 2016

The project
The City of Toronto and the TTC are planning a new subway line that will connect Line 1 Yonge-University (downtown) to Line 2 Bloor-Danforth, east of the Don River. This line will relieve crowding on Line 1, at Bloor-Yonge Station, and on the surface transit routes coming in and out of downtown.

Field testing in support of planning and design work
As part of the investigative phase for planning and design of the Relief Line, soil tests will be conducted within the study area to gather essential data, and help the study team understand the potential for noise and vibration impacts from the future subway line. The work will involve contacting small steel plates on the road pavement with a steel rod from a hydraulic unit mounted on a truck. The testing assesses soil and bedrock conditions below ground. Monitoring devices will be set up and rotate through multiple locations as testing progresses.

Test locations
Testing will occur along Eastern Avenue between Adelaide Street East and Carlaw Avenue, and between Parliament Street and the Don River. Testing will occur on the road pavement only.

Testing hours
Pending weather, work will take place between approximately 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. The testing is scheduled to avoid significant traffic impacts and to enable the work to be carried out as quickly as possible. The nature of the testing entails obtaining clear sound waves with the least amount of outside sound interference such as noise from passing traffic.

What you may experience during testing
There will be no drilling, but you may notice a limited amount of noise. There is a pulse initiated at the front of a string of sensors that is recorded by equipment in a truck. Each test will take approximately 15 minutes to generate results. The process will be repeated at 100 metre increments along the route. The road pavement will not be cut during testing.

For further information:
Diego Sinagoga, Community Liaison, 416-393-2197; diego.sinagoga@ttc.ca.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

In addition what other projects are on the books that will form links between Toronto's other rapid transit lines?

Well the Eglinton Crosstown for one.

GO-RER will do something towards this manner as well.

I don't think anything will benefit network redundancy quite like building the Relief Line to Sheppard/Don Mills would however.

 

[TransitBart]

Well the Eglinton Crosstown for one.

GO-RER will do something towards this manner as well.

I don't think anything will benefit network redundancy quite like building the Relief Line to Sheppard/Don Mills would however.

The long Relief line creates - in essence a third heavy rail north-south line. Completing the Sheppard line would create a third east-west line and give you a way to get from Malvern to Humber College (or back) without travelling south on Line 1, across Line 5 and then back up Line 1. No one here believes this scenario, but I just can't figure out where all the cars on the 401 are coming from (or going to). They ain't all coming from the 905.

 

[Leo_Chan]

but I just can't figure out where all the cars on the 401 are coming from (or going to). They ain't all coming from the 905.

You can't figure out where all the cars are coming from and going to because they are coming from everywhere and going to everywhere, that's why its so busy

 

[BurlOak]

I do not think it is fair to compare Toronto to London, Paris, New York or Tokyo.

A more fair comparison is Madrid, Barcelona, or Berlin.