[unimaginative2]

It's all in the three-volume report that should be available at the urban affairs library. The demand study was quite elaborate--O-D surveys, examination of future plans...I'm not sure what else. I'd have to look it over again.

I don't think Ryerson's really a factor for either a Queen or a more southern route since it's north of Dundas. Most of its students would stick to YUS.

I do note that they found Queen to be by far the least effective route at relieving the YUS line because it served by far the least employment, and it was the first to be rejected. They found King to be an effective route, but the constructibility issues precluded that choice. They settled on Wellington/Front or Front/Railway, finding that both were fairly comparable in their effectiveness, but Front/Railway significantly less expensive to build. These were the days when the TTC still looked at cost/benefit.

 

[nfitz]

I do note that they found Queen to be by far the least effective route at relieving the YUS line because it served by far the least employment, and it was the first to be rejected. They found King to be an effective route, but the constructibility issues precluded that choice. They settled on Wellington/Front or Front/Railway, finding that both were fairly comparable in their effectiveness, but Front/Railway significantly less expensive to build. These were the days when the TTC still looked at cost/benefit.

Did it report the corresponding changes in passengers changing at Yonge-Bloor?

 

[Epi]

Anyway all of this is moot anyway. There hasn't been any studies in 25 years to show what is the best alignment taking into account all that has changed in the past 25 years (increased and planned downtown transit, development in downtown). And of course there is no pledge of any money for a DRL.

 

[kEiThZ]

An interesting issue that might decide this could well be cost. After all, cost basically gave us the Sheppard East LRT instead of a finished Sheppard Subway. Ditto for the Kennedy-STC link. So maybe the lower cost of using the rail corridor could be the deciding factor. After all, engineers have found a way to do significant construction on rail corridor without disrupting traffic. They may well find it easier (and cheaper) to construct under the rails.

One of the biggest challenges I think about situating this alignment is the mis-alignment of development along Queen. Queen, east of the core, has nothing to warrant a subway. Add to that the fact that most of the riders coming from the East are indisputably heading for points south of Queen. And it makes a weak case for Queen from the East. Queen West and Queen through the core arguably makes a better case (though I'd say that Cityplace alone has probably changed that argument). Since you can't service Queen west and meet the needs of riders from the East, one has to be sacrificed. And given that the priority is relief of Yonge-Bloor, there's a good argument to be made that if Queen in the East does not deserve a subway then Queen West should be 'thrown under the bus'.

 

[kEiThZ]

Anyway all of this is moot anyway. There hasn't been any studies in 25 years to show what is the best alignment taking into account all that has changed in the past 25 years (increased and planned downtown transit, development in downtown). And of course there is no pledge of any money for a DRL.

It's in Metrolinx's 25 year plan...and there's a lot of talk of getting it moved up to the 15 year plan.

 

[Dan416]

Knowing the TTC, they'd find some way to screw up the DRL. They'll probably decide to go with LRT. And then they'll decide to go along Queen. Halfway through, they'll remember that they already have streetcars on Queen. Then they'll stop, tear out the tracks, refill the hole and forget it every happened.

 

[Epi]

Knowing the TTC, they'd find some way to screw up the DRL. They'll probably decide to go with LRT. And then they'll decide to go along Queen. Halfway through, they'll remember that they already have streetcars on Queen. Then they'll stop, tear out the tracks, refill the hole and forget it every happened.

You left out one important detail... this won't happen until 2025 when funding magically appears before disappearing again

 

[Second_in_pie]

Knowing the TTC, they'd find some way to screw up the DRL. They'll probably decide to go with LRT. And then they'll decide to go along Queen. Halfway through, they'll remember that they already have streetcars on Queen. Then they'll stop, tear out the tracks, refill the hole and forget it every happened.

Oh snap I guess I never thought of that con to using Queen.

The TTC has seemed to be able to screw up pretty much all transit expansions in the past like 40 years. Hopefully they'll change their ways, but I don't expect them to.

 

[CapitalSeven]

The TTC didn't have much of a role in screwing up the major expansion that was aborted in the 90's - Mike Harris did it virtually on his own.

 

[gweed123]

Isn't that kind of why this thread even exists? To talk about other ways the TTC SHOULD be doing things, as opposed to how they are? The collective hard-on for light rail continues...

 

[unimaginative2]

Oh snap I guess I never thought of that con to using Queen.

The TTC has seemed to be able to screw up pretty much all transit expansions in the past like 40 years. Hopefully they'll change their ways, but I don't expect them to.

I dunno...I'd say they were pretty decent right up until the 80s and the fall of Network 2011 at the hands of parochial councillors.

 

[doady]

Knowing the TTC, they'd find some way to screw up the DRL. They'll probably decide to go with LRT. And then they'll decide to go along Queen. Halfway through, they'll remember that they already have streetcars on Queen. Then they'll stop, tear out the tracks, refill the hole and forget it every happened.

LRT is good enough. Instead of DR, the TTC could just hire "pushers" on the Yogne subway line like they do in Hong Kong. Problem solved.

 

[kEiThZ]

Posted from Yone-Richmond Hill subway thread:

I've gotta say I just don't think unfamiliarity is reason enough not to do something. Likewise, it doesn't make sense to do something inferior just because it's the way we've always done it. There are plenty of transit planners in Toronto (never mind bringing people in) who have been to Europe, ridden S-Bahn services in cities a fraction the size of Toronto, and understand how to build them.

There's no reason why the entire GO network would have to be rebuilt to implement regional rail in Mississauga. Just the Milton line. And it's quite reasonable to start there because Mississauga is easily the largest of the 905 municipalities.

+1

I am sick of the narrow-minded transit vision that most Torontonians have of subway or nothing. And the biggest failing in my mind is not the lack of a well developed subway network, but the lack of a well developed regional rail network that spans the GTA. This has made Torontonians equate subways with regional rail leading them to believe that if there's no subway in their area, then transit must be inadequate. It's a terrible waste that we have all these rail corridors that criss-cross the region and provide excellent coverage, but we choose to run only a handful of trains each day on most of these lines.

 

[kettal]

It's a terrible waste that we have all these rail corridors that criss-cross the region and provide excellent coverage, but we choose to run only a handful of trains each day on most of these lines.

To be fair, it's not "choosing" the frequency, it's what the rail gods will allow us to do.

 

[unimaginative2]

Governments and transit agencies have nobody to answer to but themselves on the Uxbridge and Newmarket subs, but conflicts with freight railways are definitely a problem on the other lines. That's why the approach Metrolinx/GO is following right now is pretty bad. They're building more tracks one at a time and then handing them over for free to the freight railways. What they should be doing is acquiring/building a dedicated pair of tracks on all of the corridors, like the GO Sub, that would be controlled by the transit agency. There's no reason CP needs more than a pair of tracks for its freights on the Galt Sub (Milton Line), so this new third track plus one other should be dedicated to passenger service.

The big problem we face here is that GO (and apparently Metrolinx) aren't very bold. They seem to be content to gradually add a few trains per day every couple years, adding new tracks here and there to bribe the freight railways to let them do it. We'll never have real regional rail at this rate.