Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[Avenue]

I'm kind of digging this proposal from the Fantasy Thread about how to ultimately address westward expansion of the DRL:

Credit to RyanM12

This targets all the important nodes in the west end, I'd think.

The whole thing should be under King West. I'd add an Entertainment District stop between St. Andrew and Spadina.

 

[44 North]

You raise a good point. The City needs to be preserving the underground clearances to enable some of these lines, even if construction is 20 years or more away. By the time we are ready to undertake these, the options for routing the lines could be limited.

I don't disagree with the western routing suggested, but it takes my breath away to suggest building it under King Street while at the same time we are fighting to make it a key streetcar corridor. The moment shovels go in the ground, streetcar service will end due to excavations. For that matter, I wonder if our debate about whether to exercise an option on additional Flexities is considering that there can be no 501 service once the first phase of the RL begins construction. We could end up with shiny new idle trams with service switched to buses, for up to a decade.

For that reason alone, the most pragmatic routing may be other than directly under King or Queen. Those streetcar routes may be just too essential to disrupt.

- Paul

I think insertname has noted in other threads there's been land assembly for condos around Queen/Parliament. This would be the right time for the City to coordinate in preserving an underground ROW, considering the line is to pass below a number of private properties there as it makes its way from Eastern to Queen.

re: bringing the line down to King in the west. I think there's merit. But I think there'd be more benefit in doing it as a spur, and bringing this branch further south to serve Liberty and also the Ex/BMO Field. The trunk stays on Queen.

 

[facepalming_brooklynite]

I'm kind of digging this proposal from the Fantasy Thread about how to ultimately address westward expansion of the DRL:

Credit to RyanM12

This targets all the important nodes in the west end, I'd think.

It seems redundant though to replicate the route of the Georgetown corridor (Stockyards, Rogers) which will have RER service by the time a Western extension of the DRL is on the table (and the proposal seems to forget about the St.Clair "smart track" station).
It might make more sense to hit areas of high density that are not already served, e.g. going up Dufferin to capture the Dufferin/Dupont area, or going West to Mimico (though that depends on how plans for Waterfront transit pan out)

 

[aquateam]

I'm kind of digging this proposal from the Fantasy Thread about how to ultimately address westward expansion of the DRL:

Credit to RyanM12

This targets all the important nodes in the west end, I'd think.

This fantasy map isn't bad, but I'm not in favour of it for a few reasons:

1. It doesn't integrate well with the streetcar network. If we think that the DRL will completely eliminate the downtown Queen and King lines, then this alignment is fine. But because we have sections on subway on queen and sections on King, if we wanted to maintain coverage to areas that have it now then we would need to run streetcars both on King and Queen, and their ridership would probably be abysmal. If you keep the DRL on Queen, then streetcars can stay on King (where there is a transit mall) to maintain coverage to those areas.
2. The stations are in areas of high residential density instead of commercial density, when commercial density is better for driving all-day ridership, and the pedestrian traffic for the subway helps support the retail. For instance, if you had a station up at Ossington and Queen, then the strip of retail along both Ossington and Queen would be serviced. Commercial/Retail areas are also more easily de-zoned for greater density, as can be seen in the Avenues plan.
3. Jogging back and forth between King and Queen increases the cost since you have more tunnelling to do, and also slows down the subway by adding curves and increasing distance. Generally, transit lines do best when they are straight and direct, and Toronto has a nice legacy of commercial density in a grid along its streetcar corridors, so just by following existing transit routes we have good alignments for subway lines.

Personally, I like the idea of a Parkside alignment because:

1. The curve is much gentler going from east-west to north-south
2. You could keep the streetcar along Roncesvalles, which is part of the "vibe" of Roncesvalles village.
3. The tunnelling could be much shallower since there are fewer utilities and since Keele station is above ground.
4. It would connect with the College streetcar at Howard Park.
5. Fewer construction impacts

But I recognize that Roncesvalles alignment makes more sense from a ridership perspective instead of a map-drawing perspective. My brother will be happy to have a station going from his condo to his work.

 

[Hopkins123]

Jameson and King seems like a really awkward place to have a subway station.. I believe Queen and Landsdowne/Jameson probably has much more demand and development capacity.

In truth, I thought having a station at King and Jameson would help address serving that cluster of apartment buildings that line Jameson from the Gardiner to Queen. And of course the 47 bus could be extended south on Jameson to meet the station.

This alignment ensures maximum usage at all the stations. I disagree with having the DRL divert away from Queen immediately after Osgoode. A stop at Queen and Spadina would serve Chinatown and Kensington really well, which would be lost on a more southerly route. Likewise, Alexandra Park and Toronto Western Hospital would be a 10 minutes walk up from Queen and Bathurst. The Trinity Bellwoods Stn would cater to that cluster of apartment buildings near Queen and Niagara and be a relatively easy walk from CAMH.

The Liberty Village Stn will be important, not just for the condo communities, but new GO connections. A new interchange with the Kitchener Line plus possibly a PATH-like link to Exhibition GO Stn.

Dufferin /Parkdale Stn will be a winner whether at King or Queen.

Furthermore, this alignment allows for a natural curve up Roncesvalles which is a big plus. I just see too many positives not to touted this proposal and hope that if we ever get this far, something like this sees the light of day.

 

[Streety McCarface]

You raise a good point. The City needs to be preserving the underground clearances to enable some of these lines, even if construction is 20 years or more away. By the time we are ready to undertake these, the options for routing the lines could be limited.

I don't disagree with the western routing suggested, but it takes my breath away to suggest building it under King Street while at the same time we are fighting to make it a key streetcar corridor. The moment shovels go in the ground, streetcar service will end due to excavations. For that matter, I wonder if our debate about whether to exercise an option on additional Flexities is considering that there can be no 501 service once the first phase of the RL begins construction. We could end up with shiny new idle trams with service switched to buses, for up to a decade.

For that reason alone, the most pragmatic routing may be other than directly under King or Queen. Those streetcar routes may be just too essential to disrupt.

- Paul

Well, the 501, 502, and 503 streetcar lines won't be terminated when the subway is built. I personally think they should keep the lines for local services along the subway route, but they can also have them run into a streetcar subway terminal at Queen-Sherbourne station.

This fantasy map isn't bad, but I'm not in favour of it for a few reasons:

1. It doesn't integrate well with the streetcar network. If we think that the DRL will completely eliminate the downtown Queen and King lines, then this alignment is fine. But because we have sections on subway on queen and sections on King, if we wanted to maintain coverage to areas that have it now then we would need to run streetcars both on King and Queen, and their ridership would probably be abysmal. If you keep the DRL on Queen, then streetcars can stay on King (where there is a transit mall) to maintain coverage to those areas.
2. The stations are in areas of high residential density instead of commercial density, when commercial density is better for driving all-day ridership, and the pedestrian traffic for the subway helps support the retail. For instance, if you had a station up at Ossington and Queen, then the strip of retail along both Ossington and Queen would be serviced. Commercial/Retail areas are also more easily de-zoned for greater density, as can be seen in the Avenues plan.
3. Jogging back and forth between King and Queen increases the cost since you have more tunnelling to do, and also slows down the subway by adding curves and increasing distance. Generally, transit lines do best when they are straight and direct, and Toronto has a nice legacy of commercial density in a grid along its streetcar corridors, so just by following existing transit routes we have good alignments for subway lines.

Personally, I like the idea of a Parkside alignment because:

1. The curve is much gentler going from east-west to north-south
2. You could keep the streetcar along Roncesvalles, which is part of the "vibe" of Roncesvalles village.
3. The tunnelling could be much shallower since there are fewer utilities and since Keele station is above ground.
4. It would connect with the College streetcar at Howard Park.
5. Fewer construction impacts

But I recognize that Roncesvalles alignment makes more sense from a ridership perspective instead of a map-drawing perspective. My brother will be happy to have a station going from his condo to his work.

Eliminating either streetcar route along the entire corridor in my eyes is a terrible idea for the current DRL, there are far too few stations for it to be justified, however, if we have to end up splitting the queen or King streetcars, we can rename them 501-Neville (Terminates at Queen-Sherbourne), 502-Kingston Rd (terminates at Queen-Sherbourne), 503-Downtowner (current alignment or reroute it along Parliament to Union. 504-King (The subway station west of University on King if Built to Broadview), 507-Long Branch (wherever the end of the DRL on queen is to Long Branch), 508-Lakeshore OR Roncessvales (End of DRL West on King to Dundas West), 514-Cherry (Same terminus at the DRL as the 504).

 

[Kitsune]

I think - so long as it keeps with 700m or less stop spacing that a westward extension to Ronsa-something it should remain on Queen, with the 504 being retired and the 501 taking over for the 504. King could then have a dedicated row for streetcars along its entire route.

 

[M II A II R II K]

How about a northwest alignment that starts at Liberty Village, then Dufferin & Queen, then a Brockton stop on Landsdowne between Dundas and College to connect with both those streetcars and then Dundas West.

 

[aquateam]

Well, the 501, 502, and 503 streetcar lines won't be terminated when the subway is built. I personally think they should keep the lines for local services along the subway route, but they can also have them run into a streetcar subway terminal at Queen-Sherbourne station.


Eliminating either streetcar route along the entire corridor in my eyes is a terrible idea for the current DRL, there are far too few stations for it to be justified, however, if we have to end up splitting the queen or King streetcars, we can rename them 501-Neville (Terminates at Queen-Sherbourne), 502-Kingston Rd (terminates at Queen-Sherbourne), 503-Downtowner (current alignment or reroute it along Parliament to Union. 504-King (The subway station west of University on King if Built to Broadview), 507-Long Branch (wherever the end of the DRL on queen is to Long Branch), 508-Lakeshore OR Roncessvales (End of DRL West on King to Dundas West), 514-Cherry (Same terminus at the DRL as the 504).

The "current DRL" stub definitely won't be replacing the streetcars anytime soon.

Just to be clear, this is what I had in mind with regards to streetcar route integration:

 

[innsertnamehere]

You raise a good point. The City needs to be preserving the underground clearances to enable some of these lines, even if construction is 20 years or more away. By the time we are ready to undertake these, the options for routing the lines could be limited.

I don't disagree with the western routing suggested, but it takes my breath away to suggest building it under King Street while at the same time we are fighting to make it a key streetcar corridor. The moment shovels go in the ground, streetcar service will end due to excavations. For that matter, I wonder if our debate about whether to exercise an option on additional Flexities is considering that there can be no 501 service once the first phase of the RL begins construction. We could end up with shiny new idle trams with service switched to buses, for up to a decade.

For that reason alone, the most pragmatic routing may be other than directly under King or Queen. Those streetcar routes may be just too essential to disrupt.

- Paul

The city has preserved the ROW for the Sheppard subway. there is a development proposal at 1680 Brimley Road that cuts off a chunk of its parking garage to allow for the Sheppard Subway extension on it's original EA approved alignment from the 90's.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I don't disagree with the western routing suggested, but it takes my breath away to suggest building it under King Street while at the same time we are fighting to make it a key streetcar corridor. The moment shovels go in the ground, streetcar service will end due to excavations.

That might not necessarily be true. As we see with the Crosstown, road access above the station boxes have been maintained, while station excavation occurs below.

 

[smallspy]

That might not necessarily be true. As we see with the Crosstown, road access above the station boxes have been maintained, while station excavation occurs below.

The problem is that the last time we saw subway construction interfere with streetcar lines was in the mid-1970s, during the construction of the Spadina Extension. And back then, the TTC was far more willing to build temporary tracks and shoo-flies to allow the streetcar service to continue than they've proved to be today.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Leo_Chan]

That might not necessarily be true. As we see with the Crosstown, road access above the station boxes have been maintained, while station excavation occurs below.

TIL cars use tracks.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The problem is that the last time we saw subway construction interfere with streetcar lines was in the mid-1970s, during the construction of the Spadina Extension. And back then, the TTC was far more willing to build temporary tracks and shoo-flies to allow the streetcar service to continue than they've proved to be today.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Yes, that’s was the solution I was envisioning. I wonder why the TTC is less willing to do it today. I’ve come cross a few photos of the TTC doing that 50s/60s/70s, but nothing from the modern era.

Another potential solution is for the DRL stations to be mined, rather than dug. After the tunnel boring is complete, station mining would begin from inside the tunnels, and they would mine the station up to the surface. I believe that’s how we’re building Avenue Station, and it’s resulted in very minimal surface traffic disruption. The only lane closure there has been rightmost westbound lane.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Avenue and Laird are mined.

I can't imagine the DRL east being built without an extensive 501 conversion to buses.