[dunkalunk]

There has been discussions that GO is going to exceed capacity at Union Station, maybe a few years after all that construction finishes. Could the DRL provide alternative transfer points, based on such findings? What if GO train stations could be setup to make such a transfer with the DRL (at a lower GO fare, of course). For example, what if a Gerrard/Pape GO station was built, replacing the Danforth GO station, how many people would that benefit or hinder?

That's pretty much what I had in mind.

I'd also rather have a "Lower Union" station built underneath Yonge street to accommodate Lakeshore trains and potentially future High Speed Rail instead of building another satellite station at Bathurst. "Other cities of Toronto's size have multiple major railway stations" is frankly a misguided argument when advocating for a second station. In other cities, (Boston, Montreal, NYC) the rail lines terminated close to downtown and didn't run through them because of geographic constraints with existing development. CN (Formerly Grand Trunk) decided to simply extend the Waterfront.

 

[pman]

Why do all proposed (or fantasy, this is Toronto after all) versions of DRL basically have to follow existing streets? This leads to 90 degree turns on the west and east sides of Metrolinx' proposal, which seems not to have a lot to do with desire lines. I understand the need to run along streets in the core where buildings have deep subsurface components, but most of the area served by DRL doesn't qualify. It's certainly technically possible to construct deep tunnels - the Picadilly line comes to mind - and a radial network seems to be something we should at least talk about before just deciding the best subway is one that replicates surface bus and tram routes. And while I rant, why doesn't ML consider interlining DRL with a couple of radial end branches so that people living in the denser parts of the east and west ends have something approaching the subway service they're going to have in semi-rural Vaughan?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Why do all proposed (or fantasy, this is Toronto after all) versions of DRL basically have to follow existing streets? This leads to 90 degree turns on the west and east sides of Metrolinx' proposal, which seems not to have a lot to do with desire lines. I understand the need to run along streets in the core where buildings have deep subsurface components, but most of the area served by DRL doesn't qualify. It's certainly technically possible to construct deep tunnels - the Picadilly line comes to mind - and a radial network seems to be something we should at least talk about before just deciding the best subway is one that replicates surface bus and tram routes. And while I rant, why doesn't ML consider interlining DRL with a couple of radial end branches so that people living in the denser parts of the east and west ends have something approaching the subway service they're going to have in semi-rural Vaughan?

One of the major reasons would be so that surface routes could be 100% replaced by the DRL. If the line didn't run along roads the surface routes would still need to be maintained.

But putting that aside, I can't think of any alignments that don't follow existing streets that would be as effective as ones that do. Did you have anything specific in mind?

 

[Dan416]

One of the major reasons would be so that surface routes could be 100% replaced by the DRL. If the line didn't run along roads the surface routes would still need to be maintained.

But putting that aside, I can't think of any alignments that don't follow existing streets that would be as effective as ones that do. Did you have anything specific in mind?

I really don't see how any form of DRL would 100% replace any of the surface routes.

 

[sixrings]

I really don't see how any form of DRL would 100% replace any of the surface routes.

If the stop spacing was similar to the bloor line then a line down Richmond/Adelaide could theoretically replace both the queen and king line...

 

[innsertnamehere]

Downtown, not on Kingston road or in mimico beach. If/when the DRL gets built I would be fine with the removal of one streetcar line. (Either king or queen) but boths sides would have to be built for me to be happy.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I really don't see how any form of DRL would 100% replace any of the surface routes.

Should have been more specific. What I meant to say was that the DRL would completely replace any surface routes running directly above the line. So for example, the portion of the 504 King streetcar that runs along King would be completely replaced by the line. West of Roncesvalles the regular Queensway LRT would be maintained and the TTC would have to decide whether or not to keep streetcars on Parliament.

 

[drum118]

Should have been more specific. What I meant to say was that the DRL would completely replace any surface routes running directly above the line. So for example, the portion of the 504 King streetcar that runs along King would be completely replaced by the line. West of Roncesvalles the regular Queensway LRT would be maintained and the TTC would have to decide whether or not to keep streetcars on Parliament.

Your assuming that stops will be within 400m or less than the current spacing. What will happen to short turn or cars having to use it for detour?

Given that TTC plans on using 504 for Cherry St service and Portland, I don't see service disapper. At the same time, how do you justify a lot of stations when ridership will be less than 1,000 riders a day for them?

 

[Towered]

I still think a Front St./Union Station/Railways alignment makes more sense than along King.

 

[nfitz]

I still think a Front St./Union Station/Railways alignment makes more sense than along King.

Seems like a better place to put the 504 than King. Don't see it working for subway though, given how many work north of King. Dundas is one of busiest downtown stations after Unon and interchange stations.

 

[car4041]

Do I believe that specific streetcar routes will remain static? No. Whether the DRL is built along Queen, Richmond, Adelaide, King, Wellington, or Front, the viability of both the 501 Queen and 504 King routes as streetcar lines through the downtown core is going to be called into question.

This is a valid concern if the DRL goes all the way to Roncesvalles and has station spacing that's at least as close as the Bloor-Danforth line. But are either of these things realistic? In fact, it seems unlikely that the DRL will continue west of University/Spadina for a very, very long time. (And if it swings down to Front & Spadina and then the Exhibition, as GO has suggested, then it will never replace the west-end 501/504 service.)

The DRL will most likely be a short line with a handful of widely-spaced stations in the downtown core; I don't see how this affects the viability of streetcar routes that extend much farther in both directions.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I'm almost certain that we are all destined to be unrecognized designers of the DRL! After all, how many pages (and years) have we devoted to this discussion? At least one of us must have designed what will become the ultimate alignment by now.

On a more serious note, I think that the results of the study are going to generate more public controversy than any of the alignment discussions, polite and impolite, that we've had at Urban Toronto.

Do I believe that the streetcar system is safe? Yes. Do I believe that specific streetcar routes will remain static? No. Whether the DRL is built along Queen, Richmond, Adelaide, King, Wellington, or Front, the viability of both the 501 Queen and 504 King routes as streetcar lines through the downtown core is going to be called into question. Having purchased brand new Flexity cars, versus maintaining a mixed fleet of rebuilt / unrebuilt CLRVs and ALRVs, helps the retention argument, but I am certain that there are still some loud, if not influential, hawks out there that will make a push for streetcar abandonment. It isn't the 1960s anymore, but we all know that this view still exists in the mainstream.

If anything -- And I know that this might sound like an excuse to spend more money -- We should consider a funded DRL as the opportunity to perhaps:

... Construct the promised Queens Quay East streetcar line?

... Create a new spine for the system with a connection to the Leslie Barn through the port lands?

... Convert the southern portion of the Dufferin bus to a streetcar line?

... Extend the 512 St. Clair to Jane Station?

... Build a Parliament streetcar route?

... Reroute the 505 Dundas to Coxwell Station?


Some of these suggestions border on the semi-ridiculous, of course. The point I am making though is simply that our streetcar network is not set in stone. We should use a funded DRL as an opportunity to re-conceive it and, ultimately, to grow it in new directions.

I think we also need to consider the TTC's apparent position of not building mixed traffic streetcars anymore. It seems that their focus is on building TC LRT lines only. The only non LRT line I can think of is the Cherry st streetcar and even that will have a somewhat LRT flavour.

Thing is, as you've stated, there are a number of routes in the city that can use conversion from bus to mixed traffic streetcar, but don't have the ROW width to accommodate a LRT ROW.

I'd actually like to see a Dufferin streetcar run from the CNE to Wilson Station.

 

[nfitz]

... Build a Parliament streetcar route?

Hard to justify, the current bus runs at best once every 16 minutes during rush hour, and is never that full. It's a tough/slow route, with all the traffic lights, etc. Sherbourne always seems faster, and the bus service is that is required there is much more frequent.

... Reroute the 505 Dundas to Coxwell Station?

Not sure that really serves the needs of people along Coxwell or Dundas. Perhaps just extend the tracks down Dundas to Carlaw, and bring it in to a new terminal at a new subway station where the DRL crosses Gerrard.

The point I am making though is simply that our streetcar network is not set in stone. We should use a funded DRL as an opportunity to re-conceive it and, ultimately, to grow it in new directions.

Agreed!

 

[sixrings]

I'd actually like to see a Dufferin streetcar run from the CNE to Wilson Station.

Same and the numbers justify it. The reason it wasn't done in the past was because the old streetcars couldn't make it up steep hills. But the new streetcars can do it with no problem.

 

[smallspy]

Same and the numbers justify it. The reason it wasn't done in the past was because the old streetcars couldn't make it up steep hills. But the new streetcars can do it with no problem.

The new cars can handle the same steep grades as the old ones - 8%.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.