Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

You could still start work on it after just 100 days on the known route it would take above ground. Such as setting new tracks along side the GO corridor from Gerrard Square to the GO RH line at Queen.
 
howl said:
I think a "quick 6 month study" is very, very optimistic. The DRL will be a technical nightmare in the core. It will take them a couple of years just to locate and move all the existing underground infrastructure out of the way. It will take them at least as long to acquire or expropriate all the land they need. Remember that modern underground systems have significantly higher safety standards than underground systems built even twenty years ago vis–à–vis ventilation shafts. Look at the vent structures they are building for the Eglinton Crosstown. Look at the new vent structure the TTC is currently building at Lawrence Station. Look at the vent structures they are building for the 2nd Avenue subway in NYC. They are massive. Any new subway through downtown Toronto will have a significant footprint on the surface and subsurface. There will be legal battles and community uproar to deal with before the final route can be chosen.

On top of that the actual impact of constructing a new subway through the core will make the ECLRT construction look like a cakewalk. Many major intersections will be affected for extended periods of time. That is going to require planning and designing substantial detours, which may require road upgrades beyond those roads directly affected by the subway construction. In addition, trying to tunnel between existing underground parking structures and building foundations, and through old tiebacks and other buried remnants of Toronto past, will really slow down the tunneling.

My guess would be if they committed 100% to the DRL this fall the actual tunnel/station construction in the core wouldn't start until 2018 at the very earliest, and completion would be in 2025 or thereabouts.
Click to expand...

nfitz said:
I really thought you knew more about this stuff. If it was as simple as just extending a subway down Sheppard, maybe. But we don't even know WHERE the thing is going. And then you have to figure out HOW, which is going to be difficult downtown.

There's a lot of work required to even start designing the launch shafts - let alone digging them. Besides, how do you meet their promise not to start building subways until the budget is balanced?
Click to expand...

We have to start now then, not in 100 days.
 
M II A II R II K said:
You could still start work on it after just 100 days on the known route it would take above ground. Such as setting new tracks along side the GO corridor from Gerrard Square to the GO RH line at Queen.
Click to expand...
Or you could do what Hudak promised, and start work in 100 days by starting an engineering study.
 
nfitz said:
I really thought you knew more about this stuff. If it was as simple as just extending a subway down Sheppard, maybe. But we don't even know WHERE the thing is going. And then you have to figure out HOW, which is going to be difficult downtown.

There's a lot of work required to even start designing the launch shafts - let alone digging them. Besides, how do you meet their promise not to start building subways until the budget is balanced?
Click to expand...

I was trying to be sarcasm and guess I fail by your response.

As for TBM's, the ones currently being use are for a single track tunnel while I was calling for one tunnel with 2 track that being done around the world.

As for the budget being balance, will not happen until after the next election without major gutting of existing service and back to 1995 future.

As for setting new tracks from Gerrard Square to the GO RH line at Queen, what land is there in the corridor to do this without removing tracks for GO??

I still say taking the DRL to Pape station and stopping the line there is completely wrong in both cases and needs to go to Steeles opening up in phases and using Coxwell Station.

We can only dream of real vision relate to transit in Toronto and the GTHA these days since we are now 35 years behind and heading toward 50 at this rate. More so, will be 50 once the PC come to power.

We are 105+ years behind the original proposal of building the DRL already and 104.5 years after approval come June 1st. So much talk and hot air about building things these days and the guts to do it.
 
drum118 said:
I was trying to be sarcasm and guess I fail by your response.
Click to expand...
Ah .... sorry, that went completely over my head!

drum118 said:
As for the budget being balance, will not happen until after the next election without major gutting of existing service and back to 1995 future.
Click to expand...
That's what I've thought ... but as Hudak HAS promised an even bigger gutting of service and staff than Harris, then perhaps he'll pull it off.
 
M II A II R II K said:
You could still start work on it after just 100 days on the known route it would take above ground. Such as setting new tracks along side the GO corridor from Gerrard Square to the GO RH line at Queen.
Click to expand...

If we can guarantee that is going to be the route. The rail corridor is tight through there.
 
While it's true that a tunnel along King thru the Financial Core would be a nightmare as well as extremely expensive and if the GO corridor is at capacity there is an effective alternative to King, namely Queen.

Queen has many benefits not the least of which is that it would be far far easier and cheaper to build because it, unlike roads south of it, would not be a logistical nightmare.

First, the Queen subway station is already there. Yes it would need to be upgraded and possibly expanded but that isn't even remotely as time consuming or expensive as building a new one from scratch.

Second, the PATH system is far smaller and contained then the King/Bay/Union area. It will be a nightmare and incredibly expensive to negotiate a tunnel under that area and the tunnel would have to be so deep a few more meters would land you in China.

Third, the University line, while not having a station at Queen would still be much easier than any other location. This is because when building the line they, like everyone else, thought a Queen subway was imminent so they built the station accordingly by moving all underground infrastructure to accommodate a new interchange station. It would not have a fraction the number of logistical problems than a station south towards King would have.

As far as not serving those booming areas near the Gardiner or Waterfront as some say, well that is just crap. The reality is that the stations would still be nearby and anyone who won't walk to Queen to get to a subway wouldn't take transit regardless.
 
The Queen station is not "already there". The roughed-in streetcar stop would be totally inadequate, even if the space hadn't already been partially reclaimed for things like ventilation equipment and elevators. Do you even know if the platform is long enough? Would a mid-century "station" really be accepted with respect to fire safety, ventilation, etc? I think you'd probably have to rip the whole thing out.
 
ssiguy2 said:
While it's true that a tunnel along King thru the Financial Core would be a nightmare as well as extremely expensive and if the GO corridor is at capacity there is an effective alternative to King, namely...
Click to expand...

Wellington.

The downside(?) here being is that you wouldn't be able to get direct connections to the existing subway stations. (in a Presto-run TTC, out-of-station connections are not nearly as much of an issue as they would be otherwise)

The upside is you can close down large swaths of Wellington without effecting local traffic/pedestrian conditions nearly as bad as on King.
 
M II A II R II K said:
Maybe where it was originally intended to go, south of the current Union Station.
Click to expand...

that was just one of the options, not the original intention.
I still think Adelaide makes more sense. There is obivously more office space within walking distance to these streets than somewhere south of Union station, despite the hype about Southcore (which will not be able to challenge the traditional CBD for a very long time).
Union is too crowded. Do we want to expand it once more in 10 years? It is old fashioned thinking that one big hub should assume all the connection needs. We are not a city of 1M.
 
ksun said:
that was just one of the options, not the original intention.
I still think Adelaide makes more sense. There is obivously more office space within walking distance to these streets than somewhere south of Union station, despite the hype about Southcore (which will not be able to challenge the traditional CBD for a very long time).
Union is too crowded. Do we want to expand it once more in 10 years? It is old fashioned thinking that one big hub should assume all the connection needs. We are not a city of 1M.
Click to expand...

Some cities are spending billions to get the "one hub" that Toronto already has. Running the DRL along Wellington won't really affect Union that much. Most of the riders will be bound for the CBD, and even those that are bound for Union would be reverse-flow commuters (DRL to Union, GO train out type of pattern). The benefits of having near-direct access to Union far outweighs the negative impacts of a slightly increased counter-flow commuting pattern.
 
dunkalunk said:
Wellington.

The downside(?) here being is that you wouldn't be able to get direct connections to the existing subway stations.
Click to expand...
On Yonge, there are already entrances to King Station as far south as Colborne St. It would be relatively (for some definition of relatively) easy to build a fare-paid connection there. You should see some of the labyrinthine fare-paid connections that exist on the NYC subway. Though, I'd agree that it would be a tall order to figure something out to connect to Union, without massively sacrificing PATH capacity.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top