[Dan416]

Thank god someone has put subway expansion on the front burner which is where is should have been the whole time. Yes there are some extensions I would like but this a realistic mid-term expansion. people can reasonable compare it to TC costs and see how much for the money they are getting for their money. If it included a much bigger system costing twice TC that may help TC mandarines to show how much reasonable thee cost of LRT is.
I applaud her for finally having the balls to bring up the inevitable..road tolls.
Also I am very supportive of the DRL going down Queen as opposed to King or meet at Union........................already the best served transit centre in the city. Also Queen is Toronto's East/West main road with not just 9 to 5 ers but also shopping, restaurants, the arts, and nightlife.

I'm very much against the DRL going along Queen. That'd just be duplicating existing services (especially if you aren't able to remove the Queen streetcar after the fact, which you won't since it'd only make up a portion of the route).

No. Queen should be left alone. The DRL would relieve Queen to an extent anyway. And thus the DRL should go through Union pushed as far south as possible to allow a Queen Subway or Streetcar Subway to peacefully coexist with a DRL.

 

[Fresh Start]

Thank god someone has put subway expansion on the front burner which is where is should have been the whole time. Yes there are some extensions I would like but this a realistic mid-term expansion. people can reasonable compare it to TC costs and see how much for the money they are getting for their money. If it included a much bigger system costing twice TC that may help TC mandarines to show how much reasonable thee cost of LRT is.
I applaud her for finally having the balls to bring up the inevitable..road tolls.
Also I am very supportive of the DRL going down Queen as opposed to King or meet at Union........................already the best served transit centre in the city. Also Queen is Toronto's East/West main road with not just 9 to 5 ers but also shopping, restaurants, the arts, and nightlife.

The DRL needs to follow Queen to an extent, definitely through Parkdale and Riverdale. I believe that if the 501 car was truncated to just operate between Dufferin and Broadview, the service level and quality would improve drastically, such that a grade-separted ROW is no longer wholly necessary for the mid-section of this corridor. However, at least following Queen to an extent would allow for the possibility to branch or interline subway train services west from Queen & Roncesvalles into Swansea and Mimico in the future whereby every third train outbound from the CBD continues along the Queensway, instead of turning north to intercept Bloor and beyond. I can picture a 3-4 stop extension being routed to directly serve the waterfront condo communties and the Lakeshore corridor. This fits in with the TTC's plans to relocate the 508/501 short-turn point from Humber Loop to Park Lawn/Lakeshore. So rather than transferring onto the 501 car to continue traveling eastwards, southern Etobicoke residents could instead just board the subway. This would also alleviate the Bloor Line from the southern end as many Lakeshore residents clamour onto the 110 bus as their only reliable means of exiting from that area of the city.

Ideally, the DRL should follow Queen on its outer stretches but the closer to the CBD it gets, it should transition via Liberty Village and West Don Lands down to a Wellington Street West/Front Street East alignment.

 

[Fresh Start]

I'm very much against the DRL going along Queen. That'd just be duplicating existing services (especially if you aren't able to remove the Queen streetcar after the fact, which you won't since it'd only make up a portion of the route).

No. Queen should be left alone. The DRL would relieve Queen to an extent anyway. And thus the DRL should go through Union pushed as far south as possible to allow a Queen Subway or Streetcar Subway to peacefully coexist with a DRL.

You're joking right? If a Queen streetcar subway has been proposed by this city from the 1890s and yet it has still not been built, what makes you so certain that they'd ever build one now when the cost to build underground ROW has increased hundredfold? And any DRL alignment will be duplicating an existing service. The worst of all being, following the CNR which will impose several transfers and backtracking points for the majority of downtown transit users. We have GO Transit and commuter-rail services for a reason. For far less than even $1 billion, we can place infill stations at Gerrard/Pape and King/Atalntic and Dundas/College and impose just as ridiculous transfer points in-between the mass transit service, local transit and desired points of interest in the downtown core.

Neither King nor Queen should be left alone. 55,000 and 44,000 riders a day with the prospect of many transferees and new customers using the service is not to be messed with. Rather we need to duplicate a Bloor-Danforth frequency of stops along the DRL that'll be easy walking distance of some of the most populated areas within the inner-city.

"Pushed as far south as possible" ? I wasn't aware that fish rode public transit.

 

[Dan416]

You're joking right? If a Queen streetcar subway has been proposed by this city from the 1890s and yet it has still not been built, what makes you so certain that they'd ever build one now when the cost to build underground ROW has increased hundredfold? And any DRL alignment will be duplicating an existing service. The worst of all being, following the CNR which will impose several transfers and backtracking points for the majority of downtown transit users. We have GO Transit and commuter-rail services for a reason. For far less than even $1 billion, we can place infill stations at Gerrard/Pape and King/Atalntic and Dundas/College and impose just as ridiculous transfer points in-between the mass transit service, local transit and desired points of interest in the downtown core.

Neither King nor Queen should be left alone. 55,000 and 44,000 riders a day with the prospect of many transferees and new customers using the service is not to be messed with. Rather we need to duplicate a Bloor-Danforth frequency of stops along the DRL that'll be easy walking distance of some of the most populated areas within the inner-city.

"Pushed as far south as possible" ? I wasn't aware that fish rode public transit.

I also said it should serve Union, so it should be as far south as possible and serve Union. So that suggests a Wellington or Front Street alignment. The rail corridor is there, but GO isn't going to be providing local transit any time soon. The DRL should have B-D stop spacing, I never said it should be an express service. An express service would have limited utility.

The Queen Streetcar Subway we can take it or leave it. But building the DRL further south allows us to retain the possibility, especially if the DRL doesn't divert as many trips as we'd hope from Queen and Queen's ridership grows to subway levels.

I don't see how the DRL imposes any transfers or backtracking. Besides, people aren't adverse to transfers or backtracking if it saves them time in the end.

 

[Mapleson]

I also said it should serve Union, so it should be as far south as possible and serve Union. So that suggests a Wellington or Front Street alignment. The rail corridor is there, but GO isn't going to be providing local transit any time soon. The DRL should have B-D stop spacing, I never said it should be an express service. An express service would have limited utility.

The Queen Streetcar Subway we can take it or leave it. But building the DRL further south allows us to retain the possibility, especially if the DRL doesn't divert as many trips as we'd hope from Queen and Queen's ridership grows to subway levels.

I don't see how the DRL imposes any transfers or backtracking. Besides, people aren't adverse to transfers or backtracking if it saves them time in the end.

Any new service extending to Union Station will find its timetable several pinched. Union Station is at capacity during rush hour and shoulder-peak periods; capacity increases due to current and future expansion have been earmarked for service level increases split between GO, Via, and TTC. We have reached the capacity of the building, where stairwell and door widths are a limiting design factor rather than platform dwelling times. The main issue is having all the connections bunched at one location forces everyone that wants to transfer to connect through the same location rather than spreading the load across several stations.

Speaking of Union Station, running the DRL under the CNR RoW west of the DVP with stations at Bathurst/Front and Parliment/Lakeshore could greatly relieve presure on the King/Queen lines and remove a chunk of the people squeezing through Union Station.

In a dream world, I would would run the DRL along Queen Street and provide a double-wye terminal at Nathan Phillips Square, creating a Downtown subway loop (Queen, King, Union, St. Andrew, Osgoode, City Hall), grid the area with short run surface transport (Eastbound routes start at University, Westbound routes start at Yonge). Running trains in a loop, you can have a high service level while allowing 75% of cars to service the extended area.

 

[Dan416]

Any new service extending to Union Station will find its timetable several pinched. Union Station is at capacity during rush hour and shoulder-peak periods; capacity increases due to current and future expansion have been earmarked for service level increases split between GO, Via, and TTC. We have reached the capacity of the building, where stairwell and door widths are a limiting design factor rather than platform dwelling times. The main issue is having all the connections bunched at one location forces everyone that wants to transfer to connect through the same location rather than spreading the load across several stations.

I don't agree with that statement, but if you really wanted you could have the DRL hit King, Union and St. Andrew. But in my mind the DRL going through Union is a must. How can a new subway line so close to Union, not go through Union?

And I think you're confusing Union Train Station with Union Subway Station. They're separate (though connected) entities. Union Subway is being expanded. And DRL platforms could easily be built underneath what exists now (a la St. George). It's Union Train Station with capacity issues, not the subway station. The subway station's issues revolve around the single, central, small platform. Union subway station is by no means the busiest station.

 

[ssiguy2]

The thing about going under King is that it would cost a hell of a lot more and take longer...................why? because of PATH. PATH is massive on /near King so the line would have to be so deep it would put even the Montreal Metro to shame. That ia not near the problem under Queen.

 

[Dan416]

The thing about going under King is that it would cost a hell of a lot more and take longer...................why? because of PATH. PATH is massive on /near King so the line would have to be so deep it would put even the Montreal Metro to shame. That ia not near the problem under Queen.

But the problem with Queen is that it's all stable neighbourhoods so why build a subway on a street that's stable and not intensifiable? It makes no sense. A subway along King would make more sense. But a Wellington/Front/rail alignment would make the most sense since there's neighbourhoods being built there now.

 

[nfitz]

The thing about going under King is that it would cost a hell of a lot more and take longer...................why? because of PATH. PATH is massive on /near King so the line would have to be so deep it would put even the Montreal Metro to shame. That ia not near the problem under Queen.

What am I missing ... wouldn't you simply rip out any PATH along King, and reconnect it to the mezzanine level of the subway. I haven't looked at any plans or anything, but it just doesn't sound like a huge issue, unlike a sewer or something.

 

[kettal]

I want DRL along Adelaide Street, with improved underground walkway connections to Union Station, St. Andrew Station, and King Station.

 

[SlickFranky]

^ I think you mean Wellington (?)

But hold on...a Queen subway would "duplicate" existing service???

Yes, there is service on Queen, but it does not compare to subway level service in any way. Transit through the whole west side is perpetually overcrowded and incredibly slow...yet still in huge demand because all travel modes through that area are strained. A subway would provide something unheard-of in the area...the ability to move in any direction at more that 20 km/h!

I envision a proper Waterfront West LRT feeding a Roncie/Parkdale/Dufferin station (depending on DRL-west's northbound alignment), then continued 501 service east of there to maintain the outstanding local transit to the existing neighborhood is used to, and subway underneath to provide the rapid service they are lacking.

 

[Dan416]

^ I think you mean Wellington (?)

But hold on...a Queen subway would "duplicate" existing service???

Yes, there is service on Queen, but it does not compare to subway level service in any way. Transit through the whole west side is perpetually overcrowded and incredibly slow...yet still in huge demand because all travel modes through that area are strained. A subway would provide something unheard-of in the area...the ability to move in any direction at more that 20 km/h!

I envision a proper Waterfront West LRT feeding a Roncie/Parkdale/Dufferin station (depending on DRL-west's northbound alignment), then continued 501 service east of there to maintain the outstanding local transit to the existing neighborhood is used to, and subway underneath to provide the rapid service they are lacking.

All that's needed on Queen Street is a DRL that follows the rail alignment thus siphoning off riders where the subway hits Queen in the west and in the east, and if that's not good enough for ya, you could put the Queen streetcar in its own ROW (frak the cars, who NEEDS to drive down Queen Street anyway?). Making the Queen streetcar an LRT would be a much cheaper way to improve service.

If you want a Queen Subway, ask for a Queen subway. A Queen subway should replace the entire Queen streetcar if you ask me.

 

[GraphicMatt]

These DRL alignment arguments still strike me as a bit crazy. Maybe it's because I'm able bodied and young or whatever, but there's like a kilometre distance between Front & Queen. I'd think a line anywhere in there would serve the exact same ridership base, more or less. And so they should just put it wherever it's cheapest and less disruptive to build through downtown. Which is probably Wellington/Front.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

These DRL alignment arguments still strike me as a bit crazy. Maybe it's because I'm able bodied and young or whatever, but there's like a kilometre distance between Front & Queen. I'd think a line anywhere in there would serve the exact same ridership base, more or less. And so they should just put it wherever it's cheapest and less disruptive to build through downtown. Which is probably Wellington/Front.

Well, they don't serve the same ridership base, even though moving it around may end up serving ridership bases of similar sizes since our CBD doesn't really extend east or west along King or Queen or Front or wherever the DRL might run and since the streetcar routes are somewhat matched in ridership. Think about people currently transferring from Danforth to Yonge and going south...would they transfer to the DRL and then walk a whole kilometre (from Union to Queen, or Queen to Union, or whatever else) or would they keep going through Yonge & Bloor? Would people walk north 5+ minutes, take the DRL over, and then walk south 5+ minutes or would they continue taking a streetcar? "More or less" the best spot isn't good enough with infrastructure.

 

[gweed123]

My main point against a Queen alignment is that Queen street needs a fairly local level of service. This point is pretty much undebatable. A local level of service means close stop spacing, which is completely at odds with the main goal of the DRL, which is to provide a QUICK alternative route that alleviates the pressure on Bloor-Yonge and St. George. Duplicating an existing service and replacing it with something with further stop spacing will damage the neighbourhood. The better option is to intersect, not overlap. Using the rail corridor in the west allows the DRL to intercept the College, Dundas, Queen, and King streetcars.

The neighbourhoods these streetcars serve are relatively stable, with the exception of Liberty Village, which is rapidly growing. Stable neighbourhoods don't need a drastic change, they need the same local level of service. These neighbourhoods have little opportunity for densification, which means they're likely going to stay stable, as any new buildings built won't significantly change the population in the area. It is not the pressure of local service that is overloading these lines, it is the pressure of commuters from outside of these neighbourhoods who are coming close to overloading the lines for lack of a better transit option.

And using Wellington in the core makes by far the most sense. It is the only alignment that offers the possibility of connecting to 3 stations, and provides the most PATH connections. It is also the only street that could be taken out of service and would not significantly impact vehicle or transit traffic patterns in the core. By building 1 or 2 new platforms, you could have connections to King, St. Andrew, and Union, which would significantly disperse the rush hour load.

And the argument that 'Union subway station is at capacity, therefore the DRL should avoid it' is complete bogus. Union subway station is not at capacity, the PLATFORM at Union subway station is at capacity. Platform size has very little to do with the theoretical capacity of the actual station, as Bloor-Yonge has taught us. With the extra platform currently being added, people will have plenty of room to board nearly empty trains at Union....