[nfitz]

Because most of their subways are already 4 tracks, meaning they have enough infrastructure to handle peak-hour diversion.

I haven't seen the 4 tracks there being used for diversion, but for express services.

Surely there will be as much demand for express service on the 2nd Avenue line as there is on the 4-5-6 train.

 

[MisterF]

When it comes to the DRL though, a route closer to the rail corridor, emphasizing service to the West Donlands and St. Lawrence areas opens up areas for development, still provides service to the Queen/King areas, is probably cheaper to build and integrates with GO much better than a route farther north.

It wouldn't serve Queen/King very well. Really Toronto should have both - a DRL and a local Queen subway (or LRT subway). Only then will the downtown rapid transit network be adequate.

Because most of their subways are already 4 tracks, meaning they have enough infrastructure to handle peak-hour diversion. Toronto has no such capacity.

In a city the size of Toronto 4 tracks aren't necessary if you build a dense network with many lines.

 

[reaperexpress]

It wouldn't serve Queen/King very well. Really Toronto should have both - a DRL and a local Queen subway (or LRT subway). Only then will the downtown rapid transit network be adequate.


In a city the size of Toronto 4 tracks aren't necessary if you build a dense network with many lines.

I agree 100%. Though the Queen subway and DRL would inevitably be quite close to each other, I don't think they are redundant since they serve entirely different demands. The DRL is primarily an express line to get people from areas north of Bloor to downtown quickly, whereas the Queen subway would be serving local demand along Queen, as well as providing a faster and more reliable east-west service through neighbourhoods south of Bloor (The Beaches, Long Branch, Lakeshore Village, etc.), to Downtown.
I would like to see the DRL be a subway, and the Queen subway be underground LRT, so that we can route streetcars through it, improving the speed and reliability of streetcars downtown.

 

[Fresh Start]

Touching on a few things, if the trains both exiting and merging from the DRL; and those running straight across via the Queen Line could safely operate along the same right-of-way, then I suppose a single westbound track an single eastbound track could work. Logistically I don't see how it could work though, the distinct tracks at least minimize likelihood of collision or trains getting stuck in queue lines. But underground Queen LRT is a no go. No one will allow for the excavation of the central downtown twice.

Better to build one wide-capacity central tunnel underneath Wellington West/Front East where the two subways can converge then beyond these points distinct Queen and DRL lines radiate out from the CBD. This would maximize the network coverage downtown such that although Queen subway doesn't run along Queen til Parkdale and Riverdale, it covers all the emerging Waterfront communties while the DRL cuts through the street grid of the downtown with random stops in neighbourhoods such as Chinatown, Little Italy, Broadview/Gerrard and even a direct station underneath Dufferin Mall. So long as the tunnel bore is deep, property expropriations along the surface can be kept to a minimum meaning that the subway can go anywhere demand lies without much NIMBY threat. Montreal is good at this. Even looking at the Laval extension you'll see that the pathway from Henri Bourassa to Cartier runs directly under a residential neighbourhood. Several parts of their Green and Orange line ROWs runs under residential/semi-urban side-streets.

 

[Jaye101]

The obvious thing to do if ever to bolster the case for a true east-west subway south of Bloor, not just DRL, is whenever they're digging the tunnel bore for the DRL make it large enough such that it can accomodate a second set of tracks. These won't be service tracks for the initial DRL but actually rather preinstalled infrastructure for a Queen subway. Per this alignment conception the four innermost stations on both lines, say hypothetically: John/Wellington, Bay/Wellington, Church/Wellington and Sherbrourne/Front would be quad-tracked with two island platforms. The CBD Stn would also have two bay platforms connecting it to Union and King Stns. The eastbound tracks for both lines share the same platform area and vice-versa for the two westbound tracks. Beyond these points the DRL can wind its way through the innercity to connect to Bloor-Dufferin and Danforth-Pape (I choose Dufferin over Dundas West because its a busier interchange and denser area), while the Queen Street subway continues west along Wellington St to have stops at Cityplace, Fort York (Tecumseth, just west of Bathurst) and Strachan (King West Village) before entering the Weston-Galt. This leaves the stable neighbourhood of Queen West BIA unaffected by subway construction (expect for Queen/Peter where the DRL would channel through northwards) but the shortened 501 route length would make headways shorter, thus commutes faster.

However because this is an east-west Queen Line it turns west at Queen and Dufferin, with a stop prior at King/Atlantic. This is the stop for Liberty Villege and the CNE with underground streetcars extending from Exhibition Loop to terminate at this subway station. From Dufferin it runs west through Parkdale then elevated down the median of the Queensway (the existing streetcar ROW now housing the support columns for the guideway). After meeting a relocated Mimico GO Stn at Humber Loop the line terminates at Humber Bay Park one level up from a fare-paid streetcar loop west into southern Etobicoke. On the eastern front, the Queen Line cuts through King/Sumach (West Don Lands) before turning up and across Queen East to the Beaches. At Beech Avenue, a few blocks west of Neville Park Loop, the line veers northeastwards to terminate at Kingston Road and Victoria Park. Here it'd intercept the Kingston BRT which extends directly to Scarborough Town Ctr via UTSC and Centennial College.

I like this idea a lot, but I feel that Dufferin is far too east for the DRLs western Bloor connection. Dundas West offers connection to Bloor GO station and currently connections with the 504, and 505 make Dundas West a better option than Keele, Jane or Dufferin. A DRL west to Jane and Eglinton where the Jane LRT then continues north and a DRL west to Don Mills and Eglinton where the Don Mills LRT then continues north would be the best alignment IMO.

I also like your idea about the quad track, it recognizes the importance of the Queen corridor west of Dufferin and East of Broadview . This can work exceptionally well and cost effectively if Richmond and Adelaide are used in the alignment as TRZ from SkyscraperCity illustrates in this thread (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=670156). This allows for the downtown section to be built cut and cover under Richmond and Adelaide and allows for a variety of alignments... Such as 2 eastbound tracks under Adelaide, 2 westbound under Richmond or the Local Queen line along Richmond and the Express DRL under Adelaide. This also allows for the DRL to run express only with stops at Dufferin/Broadview and Parkdale/Riverdale and then Bloor/Danforth, while the Queen Line runs local with stops at Parliment, Sumach/River, Broadview, Carlaw, Jones, Greenwood, Coxwell, and Woodbine in the east and Bathurst, Ossington, Dufferin, Lansdowne, Roncesvalles, Parkside, and Humber. The core 6 stations served by all trains would be Jarvis, Yonge (King-Queen), Bay, University (Osgoode-St Andrew), John, and Spadina.

The Express DRL assumes local service with stops at Roncesvalles, Bloor West, Dupont, St. Clair (Toronto West), Rogers, Eglinton, and Trethewey/Jane. With local stops in the east as well, you guys get the idea.

 

[kettal]

Not going to happen as TTC is over budget and needs to do cost cutting.

Then one hand doesn't know what the other is doing on this project.

The tunnel is the right thing to do and one place I support it underground.

How many ppl will have to be injury or kill before the opp's!! we made the wrong dissension here.?

TTC not interested in looking at putting the carhouse underground with development on top of it to off set the extra cost.

I hope ppl think real hard who they going to vote back into office this fall as a fair number of the current members need to go.

This is the latest in poor choices by various new commissioners who are turning out to be poor choices to be there in the first place.

People getting injured or killed? The overwhelming threat to pedestrians is cars and trucks on the road. People claiming that LRT will make the street more dangerous are fear mongering.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

People getting injured or killed? The overwhelming threat to pedestrians is cars and trucks on the road. People claiming that LRT will make the street more dangerous are fear mongering.

When people start darting across the road to get to the back of the platforms, we'll see what happens. That's not fearmongering, that's reality.

 

[GTS]

I imagine that LRT-pedestrian accidents are less common the automobile-pedestrian accidents but yesterday on the 18 of Feb. a pedestrian just happened to get hit by the LRT in Buffalo. I hope he or she is OK- I heard on the radio that the injuries were pretty severe. Like I said accidents do happen but I think they are less common with LRT.

 

[sixrings]

People getting injured or killed? The overwhelming threat to pedestrians is cars and trucks on the road. People claiming that LRT will make the street more dangerous are fear mongering.

I agree it may be fear mongering but the residents do have a good point. IT SHOULD BE UNDERGROUND.... The rest of the city should want it underground as well.. The faster it gets to the airport should be good for everyone...

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I imagine that LRT-pedestrian accidents are less common the automobile-pedestrian accidents but yesterday on the 18 of Feb. a pedestrian just happened to get hit by the LRT in Buffalo. I hope he or she is OK- I heard on the radio that the injuries were pretty severe. Like I said accidents do happen but I think they are less common with LRT.

The problems cars can have dealing with the ROW are obvious enough that they don't need to be mentioned...I was noting not pedestrian/LRT accidents, but the pedestrian/car accidents that could happen when you take transit away from the sidewalk and put it between lanes of traffic. Finch, Eglinton, Sheppard - these roads have more and faster traffic than what surrounds the downtown ROWs. If the vehicles are 2 or 3 cars long, there's absolutely no way that everyone will move to the intersection end of the platform and cross with the legal light cycles when they can dart across at the other end.

 

[Fresh Start]

God, it really is annoying when people view Eglinton as a regional line to the airport. That is what Blue 22/Pearson Air rail link is for. LRT is meant to serve neighbourhoods, NOT to carry you on an express trip across the city.

What's really annoying is the mindset that all commuters' point-of-origin is the downtown, the Central Business Distrcit to be precise, and that most people are able to afford to pay higher than GO Transit rates for a one-way POP to the airport. This includes the countless lower- and middle-class blue-collar workers within the airport vincinity whom rely on transit as their sole means of getting there at all hours (including the overnight shift) and whom earn just above minimum wage in many cases. What's annoying is the belief that there's infinite capacity within the Weston-Galt to handle multiple rail traffic or much room for expansion in this corridor for several stop platform areas along the way (which Blue 22 won't even provide). I fail to see how LRT is any more equipped to serve neighbourhoods than a metro. The fact that subway lines command a higher expectation of frequency and reliability alone means that more people would be willing to commute or walk over to one, and as far as I see a Eglinton subway would be spaced in almost the same stop-frequency as Bloor-Danforth (score an added stop for Birchmount which the B-D line skips). Add to this the potential to interline the western end of the Eglinton Subway with the Downtown Relief Subway at Mount Dennis and suddenly this city would have a true exclusive-ROW rapid transit service into Pearson that takes into account that trippers originate from all over (Scarbrough, Midtown, North York, northern Etobicoke, the Junction/Silverthorn area, and several nabes within the inner-city via the DRL ROW) not just around Union Stn and Dundas West.

 

[sixrings]

agreed,, plus eglinton west must have some serious demand if they had the idea more then ten years ago to build a subway here. If at that time we needed a subway then how is it possible that now we need less service.. It just doesnt make much sense.. East of Don Mills though I can agree that there isnt as much demand

 

[W. K. Lis]

Received in (snail) mail a Notice of Completion fo Environmental Project Report for the Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit.

The Environmental Project Report for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT will be made available for a 30-day review period beginning March 12, 2010 on the project website: www.toronto.ca/transitcity (Eglinton Crosstown LRT)...

The website had not been undated when I looked at it, but hopefully it will before March 12th.

 

[drum118]

Got the same notices and now have to get those photo's and video's done as backup material for my comments.

TTC has gone out of its way not to provide up to date info.

 

[BMO]

I think the idea is that if we just built the tunnelled portion as subway (since it's being designed for future conversion anyway) rather than running LRT on it.

That said, if Transit City uses standard gauge as has been stated, the Eglinton line would be incompatible with our current subway rolling stock. Although then we could buy off-the-shelf subways.

I understand how maybe off-the shelf subways may save costs when purchasing new subway cars, but I think the operational efficiencies and flexibility that a connected system of subway lines with the same gauge would be much greater. I think have more connections and redundancies wouldn't be too bad, especially when the system experiences a problem somewhere, subways could be routed around the system easier.