[rbt]

Agreed. It is foolish to think that the only problem area on the Yonge subway exists south of Bloor. I get on at St. Clair, and before a single soul from the BD subway has even boarded, the Yonge line is already full enough to force some people to wait on the platform for the next train.

That, in fact, is due in part to Yonge/Bloor. Finch and Downsview are also to blame.

Decrease dwell times at those 3 stations and the potential capacity of the entire line will be increased at each point along it. The extensions, if funded (Yonge isn't yet) will cover the first two problems.

Solving the Yonge/Bloor dwell issue can be resolved by allowing people to board faster (triple platforms) or removing a large number of people from the station.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

If the DRL goes far enough north of Bloor, many of the people who currently ride down Yonge and then along Bloor/Danforth would make a similar transfer at Pape instead.

It'd be interesting to see what kind of Danforth interchange design might be used...since they'd be renovating the station anyway, a triple platformed Pape could be useful.

 

[Amphibius]

We are deviating...and I apologize for contributing to it. Back on topic, does anyone else have ideas about the DRL running on VP vs. Don Mills. There's some huge upcoming development on Don Mills that I'd like to see supported...but if the LRT is going to be in place then perhaps shifting the subway to Vic Park makes sense.

Transit City is not set in stone. In fact its being tweaked as we speak (for instance, the latest image from the Toronto Star depicts the Don Mills LRT alignment apparently running down Donlands now instead of Pape, Jane LRT down South Kingsway, arrows branching towards Woodbine Live and Westwood for Finch West LRT). I don't see why subway couldn't replace the LRT sections south of Eglinton (ditto for Jane St), maintaining TC along the less demanding sections north to Steeles. Thorncliffe/Flemingdon/Wynford Hts easily has more passengers per square kilometre than all of the Victoria Park corridor does in the absence of long-distance feeder routes bussing customers in.

Also the 25 Don Mills bus preforms better on average than 24 Victoria Park. Even when coupled with Route 224 service, VP only sees 24,400 in contrast to 38,100 for the 25 bus alone. Add to that the numbers for 100 Flemingdon Park (15,100) and 70/22 (approx. 10,000 combined along Coxwell Ave) and it becomes apparent which alignment benefits the general public the most. (Source). Route realignments spurred on by a Coxwell-Don Mills subway would see everywhere to the immediate east of that right-of-way within 10 minutes feeder range. And VP is already one of the next corridors prioritized for LRT once the first wave of Transit City is completed.

 

[andomano]

And VP is already one of the next corridors prioritized for LRT once the first wave of Transit City is completed.

I didn't realize that the second wave begun? Is there a source for that, or is it just hearsay? What other corridors are being prioritized for the second wave?

In trying to revive this thread... If the DRL was built along Queen in the East end far enough, say to Coxwell or Woodbine just as an example, would the tunnels be affected by being beneath lake level, that close to the lake?

 

[drum118]

I didn't realize that the second wave begun? Is there a source for that, or is it just hearsay? What other corridors are being prioritized for the second wave?

In trying to revive this thread... If the DRL was built along Queen in the East end far enough, say to Coxwell or Woodbine just as an example, would the tunnels be affected by being beneath lake level, that close to the lake?

Not only is there a 2nd wave of LRT routes, but buses/BRT/Express to come

 

[Railization]

If the DRL was built along Queen in the East end far enough, say to Coxwell or Woodbine just as an example, would the tunnels be affected by being beneath lake level, that close to the lake?

Engineers can handle it. It's an issue but it's not insurmountable. The same thing takes place at Queen's Quay.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Transit City is not set in stone. In fact its being tweaked as we speak (for instance, the latest image from the Toronto Star depicts the Don Mills LRT alignment apparently running down Donlands now instead of Pape, Jane LRT down South Kingsway, arrows branching towards Woodbine Live and Westwood for Finch West LRT). I don't see why subway couldn't replace the LRT sections south of Eglinton (ditto for Jane St), maintaining TC along the less demanding sections north to Steeles. Thorncliffe/Flemingdon/Wynford Hts easily has more passengers per square kilometre than all of the Victoria Park corridor does in the absence of long-distance feeder routes bussing customers in.

Also the 25 Don Mills bus preforms better on average than 24 Victoria Park. Even when coupled with Route 224 service, VP only sees 24,400 in contrast to 38,100 for the 25 bus alone. Add to that the numbers for 100 Flemingdon Park (15,100) and 70/22 (approx. 10,000 combined along Coxwell Ave) and it becomes apparent which alignment benefits the general public the most. (Source). Route realignments spurred on by a Coxwell-Don Mills subway would see everywhere to the immediate east of that right-of-way within 10 minutes feeder range. And VP is already one of the next corridors prioritized for LRT once the first wave of Transit City is completed.

But I would like to note that the basic Transit City routes are generally set in stone (i.e. the Don Mills LRT will be going down Don Mills for most of the ride.)

I think that right now, the DRL just needs to go to Eglinton (not mattering whether it gets built as LRT or Subway.) If you ask me, the Don Mills LRT would work very well along with the DRL. They could have a shared station at Don Mills & Eglinton, and while the DRL runs down to Pape with, say one or stop, the Don Mills LRT could run down, then turn onto Donlands to Broadview station, where it could meet up with King and Dundas. This would be more convenient to people closer to Bloor than the DRL would be and the LRT wouldn't awkwardly stop at Eglinton.

 

[nfitz]

In trying to revive this thread... If the DRL was built along Queen in the East end far enough, say to Coxwell or Woodbine just as an example, would the tunnels be affected by being beneath lake level, that close to the lake?

They didn't have any concerns when they did the design in the 1960s for the Queen subway as far as Greenwood. Coxwell would be easy. Now there's obviously that between Coxwell and Woodbine where the lake used to be - but I can't imagine it would be any more problem than Union. The trunk sewer under Coxwell ... that might be more of an issue - but I'm sure if you throw enough $$ at it.

Not only is there a 2nd wave of LRT routes, but buses/BRT/Express to come

Is there a list? BRT may be sooner than one thinks. BRT from Victoria Park to Eglinton on Danforth/Kingston Road is the preferred option in the Kingston Road transit study.

 

[Second_in_pie]

... that might be more of an issue - but I'm sure if you throw enough $$ at it.

That reminds of the whole idea of putting the DRL alignment along Front St. so that it would cost less money, therefore being more attractive to just about everything. It has been pointed out that this is rather pathetic on the city's part, right?

 

[Tewder]

This thread is pretty dense with info so I'm not sure if this has been proposed or not, by my proposal for the east/west section of DRL would combine a Front/King alignment:

- Along Front in the east end, west to Spadina which would servce the CN Tower/Convention Centre/Rogers Centre/John St. and City Place

- Swing North to King and Spadina (can trains do that?).

- West along King Street with a terminus hub where King/Queen/Roncesvalles meet. This stretch would serve the Fort York/Liberty Village/Exhibition areas as well as Parkdale and High Park which would have the Bloor Line to the North and a Front/King Line to the south.

 

[catcher_of_cats]

Any one who doubts the immediate need for the DRL should have stood on the eastbound Bloor subway platforms this morning. All the trains where packed like sardines, making it impossible for commuters from at least Keele to Bathurst from actually boarding. I personally stood for 30 minutes waiting for a spot to squeeze in until the TTC decided to short turn at Dundas. This empty train was packed to the breaking point from just picking up passengers from Dundas West, Landsdowne, and Dufferin, then proceeded to leave potential passenger waiting at every stop until St George where the problem ceased. The vast majority of people in the far west end use the subway like an improved GO train. Something must be done for those riders who actually live in the old city of Toronto's boundaries.

Edit: This problem was caused by 'a signal problem at Christie going eastbound.'

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Just as an OT aside - I don't know what's wrong with the TTC but there was a signal problem at Old Mill last night which resulted in the same sort of stop-go situtation along Bloor West, that's on top of a similiar event at the same station during rush hour just two weeks or so ago.

AoD

 

[Voltz]

Any one who doubts the immediate need for the DRL should have stood on the eastbound Bloor subway platforms this morning. All the trains where packed like sardines, making it impossible for commuters from at least Keele to Bathurst from actually boarding. I personally stood for 30 minutes waiting for a spot to squeeze in until the TTC decided to short turn at Dundas. This empty train was packed to the breaking point from just picking up passengers from Dundas West, Landsdowne, and Dufferin, then proceeded to leave potential passenger waiting at every stop until St George where the problem ceased. The vast majority of people in the far west end use the subway like an improved GO train. Something must be done for those riders who actually live in the old city of Toronto's boundaries.

Edit: This problem was caused by 'a signal problem at Christie going eastbound.'

Sounds like all day GO service on the Milton and Georgetown lines (and fare integration) would also help relieve the west end of the Bloor line as well, and provide a faster trip downtown. DRL should come also, but I don't see it being built west of downtown until long after the first eastern section.

 

[Amphibius]

In trying to revive this thread... If the DRL was built along Queen in the East end far enough, say to Coxwell or Woodbine just as an example, would the tunnels be affected by being beneath lake level, that close to the lake?

No, I don't anticipate any logistical problems with such an alignment since Queen East is well inland from the coastline and the tunnel need only be two-levels deep (mezzanine level, platform level). The only problems that'd arise is if were there natural aquifers/underground streams through the area. As far I know, this doesn't occur until further east in the Beaches (Glen Manor area).
I'm still under the impression that the built-up form of Leslieville stills makes for a better DRL alignment than veering up residential low-density Pape Ave would (and Riverdale/Pape Vlg needs its local bus services). Although Coxwell lacks much intensity today, this is bound to change once the subway triggers development; bolstering Danforth East to the same semi-urban status of Greektown/Danforth-by-the-Valley. Afterall, isn't the point of mass transit's to reach as much people as possible? Along Coxwell, several bus/streetcar routes from the east inwards could now feed directly into the DRL, requiring miniscule need for B-D/Y-U-S at all (routes 100, 81, 70, 8/87/62, 135, 12/503, 143).

And because so many arterials and density patterns transition around Coxwell, it just seems to be more like the true boundary of the downtown and a line up this corridor would reflect that; not to mention its street grid lines up almost perfectly with Don Mills and there's preexisting excavation underneath Coxwell already that can be expanded upon to facilitate ROW.

 

[Paleo]

I'm still under the impression that the built-up form of Leslieville stills makes for a better DRL alignment than veering up residential low-density Pape Ave would (and Riverdale/Pape Vlg needs its local bus services). Although Coxwell lacks much intensity today, this is bound to change once the subway triggers development; bolstering Danforth East to the same semi-urban status of Greektown/Danforth-by-the-Valley. Afterall, isn't the point of mass transit's to reach as much people as possible? Along Coxwell, several bus/streetcar routes from the east inwards could now feed directly into the DRL, requiring miniscule need for B-D/Y-U-S at all (routes 100, 81, 70, 8/87/62, 135, 12/503, 143).

Every thing you've listed as a con for the more westerly alignment and pro for the easterly one could easily be flip-flopped.

Pape is low density compared to Coxwell (maps posted here say otherwise) and wouldn't change after a subway but Coxwell would?

Local bus service would be eliminated? Really? (It wouldn't be and shouldn't) Why would Pape "need its local bus service" but not Coxwell?

Of course the big con that you did not mention is completely bypassing Thorncliffe Park.