- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
fanoftoronto
Senior Member
True. Then maybe the primary reason would be the utility relocations and not the hatred towards underpinning. Though I would still argue that it played a role in the decision to go deep in the downtown section.
Frankietls
New Member
The bedrock are deeper from the surface at Pape compared to downtown. For transfer to work at Pape the OL station has to be above the bedrock, therefore underpinning is inevitable.
nfitz
Superstar
Also the Ontario Line alignment isn't under Pape Avenue at this point, so there aren't multiple utilities running the length of the station.
adys123
Active Member
IIRC correctly the Queen-Yonge streetcar station excavation will be used as part of the concourse/mezzanine.
81-717
Active Member
Looking at a map, Bay appears to be at least twice as close to Yonge as it is to St. George (the distance between Bay & Yonge appears to be slightly over 300 m, barely over half the distance between Queen–Yonge & Osgoode), with the west end of Yonge station's platform roughly at Yonge st. and the east end of Bay's platform roughly at Bay st, making Bay roughly halfway between Yonge and University/Avenue. Guess it's easy to underestimate the tight turn from Museum to St. George and how far west the latter is offset from the rest of the University line.
Last edited:
Frankietls
New Member
The existing lower lever of Queen station will be refurbished to become paid transfer zone. The current platform level at Queen is also connected to OL stations but passenger would need to exit the fare gate and re-enter.
Looking West from East entrance.
Looking East from West entrance
Under Line 1 platform
adys123
Active Member
Thanks for this, so you are in fact saying that Lower-Queen does have a role in the future as part of OL and Line 1 transfers.
Frankietls
New Member
Yes indeed it plays a important role with 3 functions:
- Paid transfer zone between line 1 and OL.
- Allow passenger from line 1 to change platforms without existing the fare gates.
- Allow passenger from adjacent buildings to access both platforms of line 1 without going up to street level. This is an unpaid zone corridor separated from the above.
TossYourJacket
Senior Member
It's worth noting that they'd possibly have also needed to underpin the PATH connection between the Sheraton Centre and City Hall, in addition to the two stations if the tunnel was that close to the surface.. Plus potential impact on the foundations on the surrounding towers. Underpinning under central Queen St just makes no sense. Pape in comparison, does not have tunnels under the street or any nearby buildings of the scale to the buildings that surround Queen St. The two sites are just not remotely comparable. So I can see why they might do underpinning at Pape but find it overly complex at Queen.
TOtramz
Active Member
we probably won't see any changes to the concourses until well after the platforms are excavated? I can't imagine them finishing that within the next 3 years or so, even if the TBM boring goes well.
nightstreak
Active Member
Question: with such deep stations and tunnelling, more than double the length of the first Yonge Line whose spoil was used for lake infill and longer than the Bloor line whose excavated material filled in the Trinity Bellwoods Park ravine, where is the spoil for the Ontario Line going?
Surely there must already be a plan for that as truckloads of excavated material have already been leaving Ontario Line sites across the city for a year. Would've been a good opportunity to expand Tommy Thompson Park further into the lake which was the result of excavation dumping, including from subways, the Gardiner construction and building demolition since the 50's.
Surely there must already be a plan for that as truckloads of excavated material have already been leaving Ontario Line sites across the city for a year. Would've been a good opportunity to expand Tommy Thompson Park further into the lake which was the result of excavation dumping, including from subways, the Gardiner construction and building demolition since the 50's.
rbt
Senior Member
Good question. For a while Metrolinx was trying to use their own material on other sites. Have they had any simultaneous projects which require a large amount of fill? Between Eglinton West, Scarborough, and Ontario Line it's a huge amount of material.
For Finch and Hazel LRT:
Earth Day 2022: How two Metrolinx LRT projects are going green
Metrolinx LRT projects are making sustainability a priority
www.metrolinx.com
smallspy
Senior Member
I'm reasonably aware of the intricacies of having to wind a subway tunnel through one of the densest parts of the City. My comment was a bit more of a throw-away to people who simply repeat Metrolinx's mantra of "we are trying to avoid the mess of the Crosstown" without realizing that the system is not a monolith.
But it does raise a question.....
Are we building infrastructure for construction's sake? Or are we building it for its long-term and ultimate utility?
Dan
nfitz
Superstar
Perhaps a question for an underground Line 4 extension to the east, or these overbuilt subway tunnels in northern Etobicoke or northern Scarborough.
But the main underground section of the Ontario line, much of it along Queen, is now bein built 80 years after we voted in the referendum to build it. And I'd argue they had little options other than underground from Gerrard to O'Connor.
If only they'd value-engineered the Line 2 and Line 5 extensions, we might not have seen such horrific cost overruns that will delay any future projects from starting