[sixrings]

This is correct. But in the fantasy world, based on information that is available to the public, it appears reasonable. I am not saying start digging tomorrow, but at least is something that need further consideration. The proposal also contains adequate detail to conclude that Mr. TRZ has considered many factors before making the proposal.

TRZs plans are more detailed then anything FORD can muster up for Sheppard and it didnt cost us 10 million dollars and a extra year of studying.

 

[BurlOak]

TRZs plans are more detailed then anything FORD can muster up for Sheppard and it didnt cost us 10 million dollars and a extra year of studying.

One problem is that no plan is really needed for Sheppard. the Sheppard group has been lobying for a quarter century and the route has not changed. This has got into the publics' and politicians brains and it becomes viewed as important.

The DRL was proposed in the 1980's, then opposed by Jack Layton, then many alternate routes were proposed (none officially). The public and politicians had nothing to rally around.

 

[Paleo]

Just because a person can make a prettier drawing doesn't make it any more feasible. The same person also claimed that there's surplus T-1's to be had for the DRL once the T-R's came in. (The "Guru" is wrong there) Just looking at some of the outlandish things proposed: Quad track + platform excavation underneath an existing and active mainline? Interlined and then interlined some more? Really?

 

[Tewder]

*Looking at the maps it seems to me the best route would be an alignment along Front St/Eastern on the east side, continuing to Wellington West to about as far as Liberty Village, and then continuing along King before it routes northward through Parkdale and up along Roncesvalles.

(*Not an expert on the subject and there may be many reasons why this couldn't work.)

- The Wellington Stretch would be very close to King and Front streets (almost equidistant?) which makes me wonder whether subway entrances on King and Front could lead by tunnel/people-movers to a Wellington subway line? I'm sure I've experienced this sort of thing in many other cities. This means then that a Wellington line in this central east/west section would essentially serve King, Wellington and Front at the same time.

- Leave the streetcars on Queen with frequent stops. It would be a reasonable walk south to King to hop the subway line for longer routes.

- A more southernly alignement along Wellington (as opposed to Queen for example) allows for the possibility of another central east/west line further north at some point in the future, along Dundas possibly for example. We shouldn't plan transit infrastructure with the mindset that Toronto will only ever get one more downtown line.

- A more southernly alignement connects important areas of growth and development such as King West, Liberty Village, Wellington West, The Distillery and the eastern waterfront etc.

 

[11th]

4. One way subway on Richmond/Adelaide. Each street has only one track (i.e. Westbound on Richmond, Eastbound on Adelaide) so the constuction footprint would be relatively small and only close the middle of the road, even at stations with platforms on both sides. This does however mean two locations of construction operations.

How about two side-platforms and stacking one on top of the other. The upper platform would also contain the fare gates.

 

[W. K. Lis]

If they do build a DRL, they should consider putting in platforms to access BOTH sides of a train, in other words 3 platforms as opposed to 2. Have the far sides for departures and the center shared platforms for arrivals. Especially for the stations in the downtown, at least, south of and including Bloor-Danforth.

 

[BurlOak]

*Looking at the maps it seems to me the best route would be an alignment along Front St/Eastern on the east side, continuing to Wellington West to about as far as Liberty Village, and then continuing along King before it routes northward through Parkdale and up along Roncesvalles.

I think this make sense for a transit route, however, maybe for GO and not TTC.

The recent Metrolinx report shows that Union station is at capacity and some relief is requried. One proposal has a new station being built adjacent to Union, but this would lead to excessive transit and pedestrian traffic heading north. I think it might be better for GO to utilize Wellington (maybe Bathurst/Front up to Wellington/John, across to Esplanade to Donlands).

I also think the DRL needs to relieve Yonge/Bloor, provide local service, and provide connectivity with GO all at the same time. (The latter being quite important since Metrolinx will provide funding). I think earlier DRL proposal need to be adjusted to consider all 3 functions.

 

[gweed123]

If they do build a DRL, they should consider putting in platforms to access BOTH sides of a train, in other words 3 platforms as opposed to 2. Have the far sides for departures and the center shared platforms for arrivals. Especially for the stations in the downtown, at least, south of and including Bloor-Danforth.

Definitely. At the interchange stations at the very least (Dundas West, St. Andrew, King-Yonge, Pape-Danforth). That's what the TTC wants to do at Bloor-Yonge, so might as well do it from the get-go on new lines.

EDIT: It appears that nfitz is saying something very similar to what I am, haha. In addition, I would like to see a similar configuration adopted at Eglinton-Yonge when the LRT is built. Since it's already a centre island platform, they can build two new side platforms on the Yonge line.

 

[nfitz]

If they do build a DRL, they should consider putting in platforms to access BOTH sides of a train, in other words 3 platforms as opposed to 2. Have the far sides for departures and the center shared platforms for arrivals. Especially for the stations in the downtown, at least, south of and including Bloor-Danforth.

I could see that would be useful for interchange stations (such as Pape, and interesecting with the Yonge and/or University lines, and perhaps even at Spadina if it reaches that far. But is it really that important for other intermediate stations - many University line stations seem to function quite well with only 1 platform, let alone two.

 

[jwill]

The biggest obstacle is space. Queen, King, and most other downtown streets are only 20m wide (66'). When you take away room for the structure and two tracks, there isn't enough left for 3 platforms with adequate width. A possible solution is to stack the platforms, but that makes it difficult to install crossovers. You could potentially have 2 track levels, each with a loading platform on one side and a smaller unloading platform on the other side.

 

[nfitz]

Queen, King, and most other downtown streets are only 20m wide (66').

20.12 metres. Exactly 66 feet ... or one chain. Or 4 rods.

Or for those that prefer metric (or Metrolinx ...) ... exactly 100 links.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The biggest obstacle is space. Queen, King, and most other downtown streets are only 20m wide (66'). When you take away room for the structure and two tracks, there isn't enough left for 3 platforms with adequate width. A possible solution is to stack the platforms, but that makes it difficult to install crossovers. You could potentially have 2 track levels, each with a loading platform on one side and a smaller unloading platform on the other side.

If the stations are deep enough, they could be tunnelled under the buildings, with enough bedrock to separate the stations as buffer or separation. They might even take over some of the garage space or basements as passages.

 

[gweed123]

The biggest obstacle is space. Queen, King, and most other downtown streets are only 20m wide (66'). When you take away room for the structure and two tracks, there isn't enough left for 3 platforms with adequate width. A possible solution is to stack the platforms, but that makes it difficult to install crossovers. You could potentially have 2 track levels, each with a loading platform on one side and a smaller unloading platform on the other side.

Or do selective expropriations at key locations in order to create a larger station box. However, I think that most of the stations outside of the downtown core should just be a single centre platform station, like those on Sheppard. Make the interchange stations larger, but that's it.

And I think they should do the same method that they're doing on Eglinton, but under Richmond, Adelaide, or Wellington. It shouldn't run directly underneath King or Queen. If Richmond or Adelaide is chosen, turn the one that isn't chosen into a 2 way street during construction, and then have the other one as local access only. It may snarl car traffic a bit, but at least streetcar service won't have to be rerouted.

 

[BurlOak]

Just because a person can make a prettier drawing doesn't make it any more feasible. The same person also claimed that there's surplus T-1's to be had for the DRL once the T-R's came in. (The "Guru" is wrong there) Just looking at some of the outlandish things proposed: Quad track + platform excavation underneath an existing and active mainline? Interlined and then interlined some more? Really?

I would think either his proposal of a DRL interlined with B-D, or the more conventional DRL going up to Eglinton woudl be considered. I am not exactly sure what TRZ had in mind, but I am unsure if he is proposing an interlined Don Mills subway. Maybe it sounds more like a cross platform transfer from Don Mills to DRL, with option to upgrade Don Mills from LRT to subway if needed for capacity at a later date and the connectivity would be for non revenue service (train transfers).

I am unsure what the radius is entering the Greenwood yard from the north, and whether this speed reduction would be severe enough to make the proposal unworkable.

Most proposals I have seen have had portions going under and along the railway lines, so I do not think that is so radical. (Other proposals have the DRL making 90 degree turns north from Queen). It could be possible to stop the Don Mills LRT at Pape. What must be weighed would be the upgrades needed to Pape as a terminal station versus the costs of a more complex station at the railway. It is quite tight, but could tracks be shifted to the edge of the right-of-way so facilitate construction in stages. This of course becomes more difficult the longer we wait and GO increases service.

 

[Ryan]

Putting the line south of Queen (King, Wellington, etc.) would be too close to the rail corridor which should be served by an upgraded GO Transit.
A line across Queen, and up through the Pape/Don Mills alignment is really the only one that isn't redundant.

Anyone who wants to see a DRL should be pushing for:

1. Electrification of GO transit, running small, fast EMU's with all day service.
2. Fare integration (better yet, just have Metrolinx take over the ttc) & better connections at transfer stations.
3. Infilling stations at key locations (e.g. West Donlands, Fort York, Parkdale, etc.)

Once this is accomplished, this will solve most of the problems a DRL is supposed to address.

In the map below, the red line is the Georgetown line, purple is Lakeshore, and orange is a Queen/East York line.

A Queen-Don Mills line combined with electric Georgetown & Lakeshore lines would provide the benefits of all of the suggested alignments.

Edit: In other words, I think the original 1966 plan is still the best one: