[cacruden]

I have my list of destinations that I would like to have fast travel too (St. Lawrence Market -- although that one is not too important since it is a 20 minute walk; T&T downtown; a small Laos grocery store up near Weston & Sheppard; Chinatown - also for asian grocer; hmmmm - of course I would sacrifice it all - if Metro (beneath me) was just a better T&T (i.e. Chinese and South-east asian vs Chinese focus)

I very rarely take the subway though. I walk to work (35 minutes if I am slow; walk to the market - 20 minutes; walk to china town - 30 minutes) - of course it is still DAM COLD there for me ..... zero degrees is going to feel like -20 degrees to me

 

[nfitz]

Except it isn't at 2/3rds capacity now, it will be in 2031.

You're splitting hairs. Clearly it isn't at 2/3 capacity now ... thing hasn't been built yet! Your talking about 2/3 capacity only 10 to 15 years after the thing opens. Obviously one needs to be thinking further in to the future than that; Yonge subway is 55 years old.

They'll be fine for at least 40 years if not 60.

Precisely. I'm glad you agree.

It's not "plenty of space." You cannot fit platforms with 4 tracks.

I didn't say you could. You said that you can't put 4 tracks in 20 metres. I proved you wrong. Now you say you can't put 4 tracks and platforms in 20 metres. Do you have some kind of pathological need to always be right or something? Of course you can't get 4 tracks and 2 platforms in 20 metres! Why would you even say something so obvious?

 

[nfitz]

T&T downtown

Where is there a T&T downtown? I only know of the one in the portlands near the Rochester ferry terminal.

 

[Anth]

Just because they vote doesn't mean they understand. This is why these things aren't decided by popular opinion.

If you weren't so new here, you'd understand who voted for the Front alignment. Most of this board's respected transit heavyweights are represented there, so a Queen alignment can't be as obvious as you'd like to believe.

 

[cacruden]

T&T downtown - there name for it - is the one on Cherry St. It is more downtown than the others

 

[kEiThZ]

If you weren't so new here, you'd understand who voted for the Front alignment. Most of this board's respected transit heavyweights are represented there, so a Queen alignment can't be as obvious as you'd like to believe.

Don't you know...the rest of us were ignorant fools who were relying on data from the 80s. That's why our opinions don't count. All hail Railization, our new GTA transit czar.

 

[Dan416]

Personally I'm very much for having the DRL go in along Front/Union so that we can get a (proper) Queen subway in the far off future. I know it takes a little bit of foresight to see it this way, but if you try REALLY hard, you might get it. Just like if York Region bashes the TTC over the head multiple times with the Yonge Extension, eventually they get the idea that the DRL really should be built after all.

 

[afransen]

Yay!!! Personally, I'd rather see more lines built than spending money on express tracks. Leave the job of express service to GO. If GO was fare and network integrated (ie with the crosstown line) it'd be a far more efficient express service inside the 416 than any express subway line.

If we are to have express subway service, then let's have it on the BD and YUS lines first where there'd be more bang for the buck. Along the DRL it'd be a waste of resources. The time savings would not be that significant at all.

I think a reasonable compromise would be to build the line so that express service would not be unduly difficult to add later. That really ought not cost very much at all.

 

[kEiThZ]

Personally I'm very much for having the DRL go in along Front/Union so that we can get a (proper) Queen subway in the far off future. I know it takes a little bit of foresight to see it this way, but if you try REALLY hard, you might get it. Just like if York Region bashes the TTC over the head multiple times with the Yonge Extension, eventually they get the idea that the DRL really should be built after all.

Agreed. Were Metrolinx better run, they would be making some hard decisions, perhaps including the need for two transit lines in the core or what you have you. I don't buy all this no money bs. That's Metrolinx's job. Come up with a regional transport plan and then come up with a funding plan to pay for it. If we go back to not building lines simply because we don't want to raise the funds, then we are right back where we started.

Anyway, wait for it...any minute now Railization will come along and tell you how wrong you are and that you've been using stats from the 80s that show we don't need more than one transit line in the core and that Metrolinx, a provincial body needs dollars from the the province, so therefore can't build more than one transit line in the core.

I think a reasonable compromise would be to build the line so that express service would not be unduly difficult to add later. That really ought not cost very much at all.

It depends on the marginal cost involved in 'roughing in' the express tracks. Would that cost be 5%, 10%, 20%? How would most folks feel spending that premium and not getting any extra service out of it? Also, could those dollars be deployed better elsewhere...for example on a second line through the core.... I don't know what the answers are. Those are all value judgments I suppose. I do like the idea of a third track for skip stop service. That would seem to have the least marginal increment to me.

 

[Railization]

You're splitting hairs. Clearly it isn't at 2/3 capacity now ... thing hasn't been built yet! Your talking about 2/3 capacity only 10 to 15 years after the thing opens. Obviously one needs to be thinking further in to the future than that; Yonge subway is 55 years old.

10 to 15 years isn't opening day, either. You said "now" which would mean as soon as it opens, which isn't necessarily 2031 (it could 2021, or earlier), which is what the projection was for. You also don't understand that you can't do projections for 50 years ahead. 25 years is the max you can really do with any realistic degree of probability. The farther off into the future you go, the less reliable the projections become. The 15-year projection is more reliable than the 25-year projection, for example.

Precisely. I'm glad you agree.I didn't say you could. You said that you can't put 4 tracks in 20 metres. I proved you wrong. Now you say you can't put 4 tracks and platforms in 20 metres. Do you have some kind of pathological need to always be right or something? Of course you can't get 4 tracks and 2 platforms in 20 metres! Why would you even say something so obvious?

Do you have some kind of pathological need to always backpedal or something?

If it is so obvious, why would you suggest the opposite? You have to eventually put platforms in somewhere, or are no stations going to have both lines stop at it at the same time? Kinda defeats the purpose as it makes the system very inconvenient to use. Your scheme is a total non-starter due tot he lack of space.

Besides, you still said "plenty of room" which is far from true when you only have less than 1m to spare on each side of the street. You are not giving a single thought to constructability.

If you're going to do any express track, it has to be double-decker, as in one track directly atop the other. That's a huge cost that isn't worth the money.

 

[Railization]

If you weren't so new here, you'd understand who voted for the Front alignment. Most of this board's respected transit heavyweights are represented there, so a Queen alignment can't be as obvious as you'd like to believe.

First off, I never supported a Queen alignment. I support Richmond/Adelaide, not Queen, big difference (it's called existing streetcar service).

Second, about who's voted where. Drum118 voted for Richmond. Jamesbow sees Adelaide as one of the two most sensible options. Even Steve Munro leans towards Richmond/Adelaide. These are the bigger heavyweights in transit.

Also, I've met some of the heavyweights you refer to face-to-face. They're cool people. One of them in particular has done a lot of research on the old Network 2011 DRL. However, this is based on research of a plan from the 1980s, and their support is to some extent based on the studies of the day. I disagree with them because I am not convinced they are taking enough of the changes that have taken place over the last quarter-century into consideration. That includes Union Station proposals and projections in particular, but also the Waterfront LRT plans.

I may be new to UT. That hardly means I'm new to transit.

 

[Railization]

Don't you know...the rest of us were ignorant fools who were relying on data from the 80s. That's why our opinions don't count. All hail Railization, our new GTA transit czar.

Why don't you actually articulate your argument instead of just point to how many people voted the same way you did? You still haven't backed up your position beyond this southward shift of downtown (for which you grossly exagerate the demand for transit) and this supposed inferiority of LRT service to the Portlands (which I've already debunked).

There's only 4 votes between Queen and Front alignments. Obviously lots of people see where the real relief needs to go. I disagree with Queen because of constructability, and because of the King factor, but the Queen supporters know where the real relief would be best harnessed, and it isn't at Union.

Don't forget that part of Union's ridership is coming from GO Train connections transferring to subway. That means that Union isn't their final destination.

 

[kEiThZ]

Why don't you actually articulate your argument instead of just point to how many people voted the same way you did? You still haven't backed up your position beyond this southward shift of downtown (for which you grossly exagerate the demand for transit) and this supposed inferiority of LRT service to the Portlands (which I've already debunked).

You haven't debunked anything. You have yet to show that future development along Queen will be greater than what's happening along our Waterfront. Please show us where in the official plan the rest of Queen is supposed to become condo heaven. If the city changes it's designation of Queen St neighbourhoods as 'stable' I'll accept that we should move the line north. Till then, from what that official plan says, the city is developing southward in my books.

And I never said that LRT was supposedly inferior. I said that development along the Portlands warranted a nearby subway station...presumably one to which the Portlands LRT would run. I don't think building one precludes the other or that it's an issue of sufficient demand for the line....it's a question of if there is demand for that subway stop, imho.

There's only 4 votes between Queen and Front alignments. Obviously lots of people see where the real relief needs to go. I disagree with Queen because of constructability, and because of the King factor, but the Queen supporters know where the real relief would be best harnessed, and it isn't at Union.

Notice I haven't called them misguided like you have the rest of us....

Sadly on this poll, only three of the choices are represented (Queen, Richmond/Adelaide, Front/Wellington/Rail). Should we have grouped them accordingly we would have gotten a much more accurate result. As you can see, at this point 55% of folks prefer a Front/Wellington/rail corridor alignment. And that's likely because the majority of glass palace workers coming in from Scarbarough will be working south of King...and the vote recognizes that. Queen street boosters are not supporting this as a relief line project for Yonge/Bloor (where those commuters go through now) they are attempting to graft a relief line for the Queen streetcar on to the DRL. And that still does not make sense as Queen is not the busiest route through the core. That's King I believe.

Don't forget that part of Union's ridership is coming from GO Train connections transferring to subway. That means that Union isn't their final destination.

Indeed. All the more the reason for the DRL to connect to Union. Those folks would be riding north irrespective of where the DRL lies. But if it's at Union you are giving them the choice to connect to one more line. Either way, they are 'moving against traffic' so they aren't as big a concern.

 

[nfitz]

You said "now" which would mean as soon as it opens ...

I said now, as in the estimate now. Pull the cucumber out.

 

[PSC]

Sadly on this poll, only three of the choices are represented (Queen, Richmond/Adelaide, Front/Wellington/Rail). Should we have grouped them accordingly we would have gotten a much more accurate result. As you can see, at this point 55% of folks prefer a Front/Wellington/rail corridor alignment. And that's likely because the majority of glass palace workers coming in from Scarbarough will be working south of King...and the vote recognizes that. Queen street boosters are not supporting this as a relief line project for Yonge/Bloor (where those commuters go through now) they are attempting to graft a relief line for the Queen streetcar on to the DRL. And that still does not make sense as Queen is not the busiest route through the core. That's King I believe.

Were you to bother reading Railization's post, you'd see that he's not grafting Queen streetcar relief onto the DRL, and he recognizes that King's relief is essential to the package - but what he's saying (and I concur) is that Union or points south do nothing to relieve congestion as it now exists on the subway.

This DRL proposal is to divert people away from Yonge-Bloor, no? I don't believe that serving Union directly with a subway provides the sort of connections that any of King/Richmond/Adelaide/Queen would do, that would provide actual relief to the system as it now exists (or will by 2020).

Take out the relief, and there's no current political reason for this debate to even exist. Heck, beyond a single council sitting and this thread, it really doesn't exist at all in the first place.