I was looking through the Metronauts forum on this title, and a poster called "Karl Junkin" mentioned that with the existing and planned upgrades to Union Station, the 1980s DRL alignment is no longer technically possible. Can anyone comment on this?
 
Whoaccio said:
I was looking through the Metronauts forum on this title, and a poster called "Karl Junkin" mentioned that with the existing and planned upgrades to Union Station, the 1980s DRL alignment is no longer technically possible. Can anyone comment on this?
Click to expand...

I can comment that the poster is an actual person and that is his actual name...:)
 
It is entirely technically possible. The 80s feasibility study showed the station with three platforms for the four tracks, meaning a Yonge platform, University platform, and DRL platform comfortably fitting into the existing moat.
 
Posted by RedRocket191 on the GO Service Improvements thread:

RedRocket191 said:
Richmond Hill will not be one of the first new lines to get all day service.

Stouffville and Newmarket (definitely to Markham GO, possibly Mount Joy GO and definitely to Newmarket GO, possibly to East Gwillimbury GO, respectively), should be up and running in 2010. These two lines will use passing sidings to achieve the service so upgrades beyond 60 minute will not be possible immediately.

Georgetown and Milton will likely see all day service in the next round, as the EAs for those projects are currently underway.

Richmond Hill will likely be the last of GO's current offerings to see all day service.
Click to expand...

I guess that means 15-min REX service on the RH line is not feasible anytime soon. (Even one-way. To run 15-min headways one way for 3 rush hours, 12 trains would be needed, and then they have to be stored somewhere.)

That means RH line cannot provide any noticeable relief for Yonge subway anytime soon.

And that exacebrates the concerns about both the LRT feeders and the Yonge North subway extension overwelming the southern portion of Yonge subway. Looks like the DRL construction must start at the same time as those projects or even before them, rather than after they are finished.
 
I think you've taken my comments slightly out of context. I was referring to two-way service all day (ie Lakeshore line in the midday) being a long time away.

If you're looking at improving uni-directional commuter service, the Richmond Hill line would only need improved layover facilities and agreements with CN to increase service on the portion of the line shared with freights. This could provide relief for the subway in the commuter direction and be implemented in 2 years pending available equipment and EA approval.
 
unimaginative2 said:
It is entirely technically possible. The 80s feasibility study showed the station with three platforms for the four tracks, meaning a Yonge platform, University platform, and DRL platform comfortably fitting into the existing moat.
Click to expand...
Unimaginative, you should write that in the comments of the Metronauts forum!
 
RedRocket191 said:
I think you've taken my comments slightly out of context.
Click to expand...

My apologies, if so : )

RedRocket191 said:
I was referring to two-way service all day (ie Lakeshore line in the midday) being a long time away.

If you're looking at improving uni-directional commuter service, the Richmond Hill line would only need improved layover facilities and agreements with CN to increase service on the portion of the line shared with freights. This could provide relief for the subway in the commuter direction and be implemented in 2 years pending available equipment and EA approval.
Click to expand...

I understand the idea, but see one problem with implementation. One reason frequent services are usually bi-directional is that it allows for better use of rolling stock.

For bi-directional service on the RH line (round-trip about 80 min) at 15-min headways, 6 or 7 trains would be sufficient. For uni-directional service, 12 trains will be needed just to maintain 15-min headways for 3 rush hours.
 
I couldnt find the other DR thread today, but there was some nice conjecture in the National Post today...

"SWEET RELIEF?:

The Downtown Relief Line -- a proposed new east-west subway line through downtown Toronto -- has resurfaced as a potential Toronto transit priority.

The city's executive committee meeting yesterday voted to have staff to rank the relief line and other transit projects in terms of how many people they would serve for the cost. The downtown line would run in a U from between Dundas West station to Pape station in the east, serving some of Toronto's densest neighbourhoods, such as Riverdale, Leslieville, the Distillery and Liberty Village.

Among its fans is TTC chairman Adam Giambrone, who said last year "there will come a time when it's essential." It is in the TTC's long-range plans, but probably not until 2018.

Councillor Joe Mihevc yesterday called for the ranking of transit projects, as the city's executive committee gave a cautious green light to extending the Yonge subway north into York Region but with strings attached and amid concern over suburban riders displacing Toronto passengers. Mr. Mihevc said his request for a report back would help the city articulate its priority projects to the province and its GTA transportation agency, Metrolinx, as unprecedented transit infrastructure investment is expected to take place over the next quarter century. "We need to know and I think Metrolinx and the province need to know that yes, we are going for the Yonge subway extension but let them know these are the downstream costs," said Mr. Mihevc, who is also a Toronto Transit Commission board member."
 
I don't want to believe that Steve Munro has so much influence on Toronto transit planning. I really, really don't.

But it seems to be waaay too much of a coincidence that he makes a number of posts on his blog in the past two weeks stating the need for a downtown relief subway line and asking the city to look into it, and all of a sudden that's exactly what the city has done.

Steve is a good guy and I respect him and his ideas, but he is still a civilian, someone whose job and training isn't in the field of transit planning. If he has influenced this decision, it says nothing of him but instead shows the complete vacuum of leadership at the TTC and the City.
 
^ Perhaps it's the other way around and S.Munro wrote about the DRL because he had been hearing murmurs about it in the halls of power.
 
No .............. well then again :D
 
I bet the City will put the official price tag for the DRL at, about, 8 billion dollars. Why? The Richmond Hill extension is, apparently, 5b (including necessary upgrades). Given the increase in population density around the DRL corridor, I imagine the price will more than reflect this. Can you imagine how much it is going to cost to put the inevitable 30 bay bus terminal 45 m under Pape & Danforth? :)

EDIT: Besides, if the Province/Feds agree to the City's massive demands, it will mean they haven't asked for enough. It's a win win for them. Propose oversized solutions to any problem being funded by the province, if it is rejected the city can claim the province is trying to sabotage it and is anti toronto, if they get it then they can ask for more.
 
Last edited:
BobBob said:
^ Perhaps it's the other way around and S.Munro wrote about the DRL because he had been hearing murmurs about it in the halls of power.
Click to expand...

That seems very plausible, but I'm still skeptical. I'll have to want and see if Steve Munro posts anything on his blog about this. I'll say that I'm really enjoying his logical arguments that subways aren't inherently a bad thing while some of his fans cling to LRT as a one-size-fits-all solution.

autopilot said:
does steve post here?
Click to expand...

He posted here 5 times last August. It's hard to say if he regularly lurks or if he simply dropped by to clear up some things.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top