[Fred.S]

I have to say though, some pretty interesting options, I'm impressed with the creativity.

Agreed. I just wish Toronto Councillors would get on-board with the DRL and expanded GO service so it could actually get some traction in the near future.

 

[dunkalunk]

It should be noted that option 6B (Lakeshore Line Tunnel and New Underground Station) would not preclude the construction of the DRL or make it any less important, it is just that the DRL alone would not fully address the Union capacity issue.

I am also very in favour of building a mobility hub at Queen/Roncesvalles, as it would provide an important interchange point between Streetcar, DRL, Waterfront West LRT, GO, and potentially bus service on the Gardiner (provided bus bays could be built and the existing pedestrian overpass upgraded).

I also find the possibility of a station at Bathurst intriguing, but feel that any new GO stations on the Georgetown and Lakeshore lines ought to connect directly to the DRL.

 

[gweed123]

Ok, so I did a concept map for this. My thinking behind this is that Metrolinx is clearly saying that GO service is going to require some sort of separate tunnel in order to handle capacity. The DRL is also needed, there's no way around that. So, why not combine the GO tunnel into a DRL tunnel for at least part of it?

The DRL would run straight down Keele/Parkside to the Queensway, where it would turn under Queen. It would then veer south just west of Bathurst towards the rail tracks. It would meet up with the Lakeshore line and go in a 4-tracked tunnel under Wellington until about Church, where the GO line would veer south and the DRL would gradually veer north back towards Queen. From there the DRL is the standard alignment shown in just about every DRL map there is.

While a 4-tracked tunnel would be more expensive, it would still be cheaper than tunnelling 2 separate lines in 2 different spots. It also creates two separate yet linked transportation hubs in downtown. One under Wellington and Bay, and one at Union.

This set-up also allows any GO line to either be routed into the tunnel, or continue into Union. Flexibility is a good thing.

Comments?

 

[Kitsune]

hmm 5A-2 with a tunnelled go just seems so RER-ish... it would actually work quite well. I just wonder if GO would need to get rid of the double deckers to run in a tunnel.

 

[Memph]

Ok, so I did a concept map for this. My thinking behind this is that Metrolinx is clearly saying that GO service is going to require some sort of separate tunnel in order to handle capacity. The DRL is also needed, there's no way around that. So, why not combine the GO tunnel into a DRL tunnel for at least part of it?

The DRL would run straight down Keele/Parkside to the Queensway, where it would turn under Queen. It would then veer south just west of Bathurst towards the rail tracks. It would meet up with the Lakeshore line and go in a 4-tracked tunnel under Wellington until about Church, where the GO line would veer south and the DRL would gradually veer north back towards Queen. From there the DRL is the standard alignment shown in just about every DRL map there is.

While a 4-tracked tunnel would be more expensive, it would still be cheaper than tunnelling 2 separate lines in 2 different spots. It also creates two separate yet linked transportation hubs in downtown. One under Wellington and Bay, and one at Union.

This set-up also allows any GO line to either be routed into the tunnel, or continue into Union. Flexibility is a good thing.

Comments?

View attachment 8079

The main things I'm wondering about is:
Are 2 tracks enough to handle all of Lakeshore East/West GO traffic (especially near the station)?
Is there enough space at Wellington and Bay for a transit terminal the size of Union Station?
Will there be foundations of buildings in the way as the Lakeshore and DRL lines cross over to Wellington?

But if those don't wind up being problems, then I think it's a good idea.

 

[Filip]

Fascinating read, honestly. This type of thinking I never expected from a Toronto-area agency.

 

[dunkalunk]

Ok, so I did a concept map for this. My thinking behind this is that Metrolinx is clearly saying that GO service is going to require some sort of separate tunnel in order to handle capacity. The DRL is also needed, there's no way around that. So, why not combine the GO tunnel into a DRL tunnel for at least part of it?

The DRL would run straight down Keele/Parkside to the Queensway, where it would turn under Queen. It would then veer south just west of Bathurst towards the rail tracks. It would meet up with the Lakeshore line and go in a 4-tracked tunnel under Wellington until about Church, where the GO line would veer south and the DRL would gradually veer north back towards Queen. From there the DRL is the standard alignment shown in just about every DRL map there is.

While a 4-tracked tunnel would be more expensive, it would still be cheaper than tunnelling 2 separate lines in 2 different spots. It also creates two separate yet linked transportation hubs in downtown. One under Wellington and Bay, and one at Union.

This set-up also allows any GO line to either be routed into the tunnel, or continue into Union. Flexibility is a good thing.

Comments?

View attachment 8079

While I like the concept, I am not sure how feasible it is..

First, I am not sure about what the clearances are to bring the heavy rail corridor up to Wellington from Bathurst.

Second, most rail tunnels these days are individually bored. That fact coupled with the cost of land purchase and utility relocation outside of the rail corridor would not really make a combined rail tunnel for both DRL all that less expensive.

Third, is there even room for a full rail station underground in the vicinity of Bay/Wellington? What would happen when the system requires expansion?

 

[reaperexpress]

This might be a bit off topic, but...

Why is the Richmond hill line shown as "Express rail" but not the Barrie line. Between the two of them, the Barrie line has way more potential.
It's fully owned by Metrolinx, there's negligible freight traffic, it serves larger demand and it's double-track ready (bridges and all).
The Richmond Hill line uses CN's main N/S line, serves less demand, has little room for more tracks, has sharp curves which limit speed and could easily be replaced with the combination of a Yonge line extension and a DRL up to Eglinton or Sheppard.

 

[gweed123]

While I like the concept, I am not sure how feasible it is..

First, I am not sure about what the clearances are to bring the heavy rail corridor up to Wellington from Bathurst.

Second, most rail tunnels these days are individually bored. That fact coupled with the cost of land purchase and utility relocation outside of the rail corridor would not really make a combined rail tunnel for both DRL all that less expensive.

Third, is there even room for a full rail station underground in the vicinity of Bay/Wellington? What would happen when the system requires expansion?

All very good questions. I don't know the answer to all of them, but I do have some ideas on how to solve some of them.

What I envision for the Wellington tunnel is, at least until about Spadina, you can cut and cover Wellington. In the grand scheme of things, it's a pretty minor street. No streetcars, not even any bus routes as far as I know (and if there are, none that can't be diverted). Dig the street up, do a double stacked tunnel with the DRL on the top and GO on the bottom.

East of Spadina, it will be a pretty big engineering challenge, no doubt about that. The station at Bay and Wellington may need to be double stacked. However, these are very similar problems that would be encountered with Metrolinx' proposal of the "Second Union" south of the current one.

In order to ensure adequate capacity, I would make both stations 3 platform stations (wait on the outside, exit on the inside).

Not saying it won't be difficult, but any of the options going into downtown will be.

 

[mpd618]

I have to wonder what assumptions are underlying all of this. As so often is the case, there seems to be an overwhelming focus on getting more people from distant suburbs into a tiny part of downtown, instead of providing useful and understandable service for getting from one part of the city to another. To that end, transforming GO's corridors (and new ones) into RER-style rapid transit is really the way to go -- and this would improve the connectivity of Toronto to itself, not just Toronto to Oakville.

Why should the number of commutes into Union Station be growing, anyway? Isn't most of what is being built right now residential?

 

[accura407]

Good Point. Also if the Barrie Line is expanded to the degree of the Georgetown/Lakeshore then you could push current Richmond Hill commuters to travel to Downtown via Maple/Rutherford/King City stations. Unfortunately the Milton line doesn't have a similar alternate

Another point in all this reading is...Is there no way to push employment to North York Centre? I personally would love to see Mississauga City Centre explode but we know with zero rapid transit links it won't happen for a while. But NYCC is ready for employment! Why isn't the city pushing employment there?

Would a development freeze on Downtown be bad for the economy? Would it not be cheaper to push more jobs to NYCC than pay for these multi billion dollar GO Train tunnels?

Also, wouldn't a GO Crosstown line along the Finch Hydro-Corridor be of help in making NYCC a great big employment Hub? Essentially Finch would become like Union Station North. You could have a line from Square One use the existing transitway and then follow the hydro corridor diagonally up to Finch Station. That would create an express line between NYCC and MCC. Can you imagine a quick 15-20 minute ride from MCC to NYCC? That would really attract employers in my opinion. An interchange station @ Etobicoke North would be great!

 

[rbt]

hmm 5A-2 with a tunnelled go just seems so RER-ish... it would actually work quite well. I just wonder if GO would need to get rid of the double deckers to run in a tunnel.

If they build the LakeShore tunnel by cut & cover then then could keep their double-deck trains. It would be a massive disruption, so I doubt they can do this politically.

See that hole on Front? Now imagine it stretching from Bathurst to Cherry and being twice the width.

 

[Fred.S]

All this talk of tunneling GO lines makes me think it would just be easier and cheaper to build a second train level to the Union station train shed.

As for the DRL, clearances are tight downtown, not just for the tracks, but for the stations, having to negotiate all the building foundations. Perhaps running the eastbound and westbound tunnels under separate streets would also be a cheaper and easier option. I'd prefer Eastbound under Wellington, westbound under King. Distances between the two streets are negligable, and with the TTC moving to timed transfers, you may not even need a fare-paid connection between the two.

 

[Chuck]

Sorry, do not replace the streetcars. Instead, a DRT should be an express line from Eglinton Avenue West AND Eglinton Avenue East. The streetcars should remain to provide local service, which would be definitely better than buses for the public transit user.

I think that it would be very wrong to exclude the downtown and near downtown areas from express service (express lines to Eglinton would do this). As others have said, the beauty of an RER-like rail system is that it would enable those in areas such as Liberty Village, Little Italy, midtown, and Leslieville (if we had a few RER lines) to get right downtown in 5 minutes - not 30 minutes like today.

My viewpoint is that streetcars should never function as trunk lines downtown, and that the eventual proliferance of heavy rail should enable one to only hve to ride a few stops on a streetcar before getting to a subway station. In many ways, downtown has outgrown streetcars.

Haven't read the report yet, but I very much like the idea of a second, logically located rail terminus. Summerhill could be one, and so could a second station along the Lakeshore Line. Glad that ideas like this and a downtown relief line are still being talked about.

 

[Memph]

All this talk of tunneling GO lines makes me think it would just be easier and cheaper to build a second train level to the Union station train shed.

As for the DRL, clearances are tight downtown, not just for the tracks, but for the stations, having to negotiate all the building foundations. Perhaps running the eastbound and westbound tunnels under separate streets would also be a cheaper and easier option. I'd prefer Eastbound under Wellington, westbound under King. Distances between the two streets are negligable, and with the TTC moving to timed transfers, you may not even need a fare-paid connection between the two.

I agree with the Westbound DRL going on King, but what is it about Wellington that makes it worthwhile complicating things (even if only a little) instead of just continuing on King Eastbound?