urbanfan89
Active Member
I've never been to Orangeville, but is the Orangeville GO bus line so crowded and packed that we need GO Trains? At this stage it sounds like Flaherty's train that *happens* to go through his riding.
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
RedRocket191
Senior Member
I'm not going to lie...
I take the Orangeville bus on occasion and I live 5 minutes from one of the logical places for a station. But, Orangeville is growing and there have been editorials in the papers up there calling for improved transit services. A train would be about as quick as the bus and would serve at least five more residential areas at the loss of only one. The problem is Caledon, which lies between Orangeville and the Brampton. Do a quick search for my posts on Caledon and you'll see how I feel about that particular town...
Long Island Mike
Senior Member
Queen Street Subway-Perhaps Toronto's #1 Rapid Transit project...
Jupiter: That was a good map you posted showing the future Queen Street subway line replacing for the most part the Queen streetcar line. I feel that the following subway extensions could be added:
1-Bloor Subway W to Route 427-Sherway Gardens Shopping mall
2-Connecting the Sheppard Subway W to possibly the Spadina Line
3-Extending the Danforth Subway Line to Scarborough as many have mentioned providing that elusive one-seat ride to the Downtown core.
or-just keeping and extending the ALRT further E.
I agree with many here that the future Queen Street Subway could be a
successful line from day one-in everything from relieving one of Toronto's busiest transit routes to providing a rail link to Pearson International Airport.
LI MIKE
Jupiter: That was a good map you posted showing the future Queen Street subway line replacing for the most part the Queen streetcar line. I feel that the following subway extensions could be added:
1-Bloor Subway W to Route 427-Sherway Gardens Shopping mall
2-Connecting the Sheppard Subway W to possibly the Spadina Line
3-Extending the Danforth Subway Line to Scarborough as many have mentioned providing that elusive one-seat ride to the Downtown core.
or-just keeping and extending the ALRT further E.
I agree with many here that the future Queen Street Subway could be a
successful line from day one-in everything from relieving one of Toronto's busiest transit routes to providing a rail link to Pearson International Airport.
LI MIKE
CDL.TO
Moderator
The case for such a line is very, very dubious. Far more questionable than Peterborough. Orangeville has 25,000 residents. (Everyone I have ever known from Orangeville has worked in Brampton or Mississauga, but that's not statistical.) The "five residential areas" are, I assume, Alton, Forks of the Credit, Cataract, Inglewood, and Cheltenham. Combined, the population of those places are only 3,000 or so. That would place a GO station in a hamlet of 250 people!
Also, just like with the Peterborough line all the track would have to be replaced. But at least the line would be extremely scenic.
ShonTron
Moderator
It really is a scenic line.
I'd only go as far as let Credit Valley Explorer provide the rail service between Orangeville and Brampton as part of its scenic tours. Right now, they only run from Orangeville and turn around in Snelgrove. The line is very slow, and even with replacement of track, a bus via Highway 10 would beat it.
I could really only see a spur of the Georgetown or Milton lines coming as far as Snelgrove or by Brampton Airport, and that won't be for decades and after a re-think of regional rail plans.
I'd only go as far as let Credit Valley Explorer provide the rail service between Orangeville and Brampton as part of its scenic tours. Right now, they only run from Orangeville and turn around in Snelgrove. The line is very slow, and even with replacement of track, a bus via Highway 10 would beat it.
I could really only see a spur of the Georgetown or Milton lines coming as far as Snelgrove or by Brampton Airport, and that won't be for decades and after a re-think of regional rail plans.
RedRocket191
Senior Member
C'mon!
I deserve my pork project just as much as the finance minister does!
I deserve my pork project just as much as the finance minister does!
CDL.TO
Moderator
C'mon!
I deserve my pork project just as much as the finance minister does!
LOL! Can't argue with that!
W. K. Lis
Superstar
When an LRT or subway goes underground in a tunnel, it doesn't have to be under a road. It could wonder or shift, especially when the tunnel is deep. It is the locations of the entrances to the stations that is important.
My envision of a Downtown Relief Line would be the continuation of the Jane LRT tunnel by emerging into the open at St. Clair and Dundas, and paralleling Dundas Street West via the railway right-of-way down to Queen Street West. At this point, it could enter a tunnel before going under King Street West. The tunnel would continue under King Street West until Bathurst, where the tunnel would shift up under Queen Street. After Yonge Street, the tunnel would shift down to King Street East to Parliament (and the old town of York). The tunnel would continue back up to Queen Street East until the railway right-of-way where it would re-emerge. Continuing along the railway right-of-way for a short distance, it would re-enter the tunnel at Pape, where it would join the Don Mills LRT tunnel at Danforth.
Stations south of the Bloor-Danforth subway would the "express". I see them at Dundas and Lansdowne, Queen Street West and Dufferin, King Street West and Bathurst, Queen Street West at University (Osgoode Station), City Hall (Queen Station at Yonge), King Street East and Parliament (old town of York), Queen Street East (Degrassi), and Gerrard Street East at Carlaw.
The Queen and King streetcars would continue for local services, but include connections in case of problems underground or aboveground.
The extreme south portion of the Jane LRT would be a tunnel continuation of the St. Clair LRT down to the Bloor subway at Jane.
My envision of a Downtown Relief Line would be the continuation of the Jane LRT tunnel by emerging into the open at St. Clair and Dundas, and paralleling Dundas Street West via the railway right-of-way down to Queen Street West. At this point, it could enter a tunnel before going under King Street West. The tunnel would continue under King Street West until Bathurst, where the tunnel would shift up under Queen Street. After Yonge Street, the tunnel would shift down to King Street East to Parliament (and the old town of York). The tunnel would continue back up to Queen Street East until the railway right-of-way where it would re-emerge. Continuing along the railway right-of-way for a short distance, it would re-enter the tunnel at Pape, where it would join the Don Mills LRT tunnel at Danforth.
Stations south of the Bloor-Danforth subway would the "express". I see them at Dundas and Lansdowne, Queen Street West and Dufferin, King Street West and Bathurst, Queen Street West at University (Osgoode Station), City Hall (Queen Station at Yonge), King Street East and Parliament (old town of York), Queen Street East (Degrassi), and Gerrard Street East at Carlaw.
The Queen and King streetcars would continue for local services, but include connections in case of problems underground or aboveground.
The extreme south portion of the Jane LRT would be a tunnel continuation of the St. Clair LRT down to the Bloor subway at Jane.
allabootmatt
Senior Member
That's a very sensible plan, WK. Since I think we all know the only realistic shot at a DRL we will get is as an underground LRT--and indeed one connecting the Jane and Don Mills Transit City lines--your scheme would work rather nicely. And keeping stops "express" might stop the howling from the streetcar mafia about losing the "fine-grained local stop network," whatever the hell that means.
Edit: also it's interesting to think about the following: one of the biggest problems with GTA transit planning seems to be the assumption that any given corridor should only be served by one transit mode, however diverse the profile of journey demand. It's entirely normal to have buses running on top of subway lines all over the world--can anyone imagine London or New York looking at, say, 6th Ave or Oxford St and saying "well, we've got trains running under there, so no need for any buses?" Of course not. Yet in Toronto that's some kind of weird frill, viz the shitty service on the 97 (which is the only above-subway bus route, correct?)
For example Steve Munro routinely uses as his principal objection to a new downtown subway the fact that any such subway would kill streetcars, which are for all their flaws useful for certain kinds of trips--ie local ones--and for tying neighbourhoods together. And maybe under past TTC thinking it would. But now that money and imagination seem to finally be flowing, maybe we can dare to think that in the city centre and environs we could and should have multiple modes on the same or adjacent corridors.
That all goes to SM's, and for that matter the TTC's, habit of assuming away every possible way by which streetcars/LRT can be poorly run or designed, while moaning that every similar potential drawback of subway service (or even grade-separated light rail!) is totally impossible to overcome.
Edit: also it's interesting to think about the following: one of the biggest problems with GTA transit planning seems to be the assumption that any given corridor should only be served by one transit mode, however diverse the profile of journey demand. It's entirely normal to have buses running on top of subway lines all over the world--can anyone imagine London or New York looking at, say, 6th Ave or Oxford St and saying "well, we've got trains running under there, so no need for any buses?" Of course not. Yet in Toronto that's some kind of weird frill, viz the shitty service on the 97 (which is the only above-subway bus route, correct?)
For example Steve Munro routinely uses as his principal objection to a new downtown subway the fact that any such subway would kill streetcars, which are for all their flaws useful for certain kinds of trips--ie local ones--and for tying neighbourhoods together. And maybe under past TTC thinking it would. But now that money and imagination seem to finally be flowing, maybe we can dare to think that in the city centre and environs we could and should have multiple modes on the same or adjacent corridors.
That all goes to SM's, and for that matter the TTC's, habit of assuming away every possible way by which streetcars/LRT can be poorly run or designed, while moaning that every similar potential drawback of subway service (or even grade-separated light rail!) is totally impossible to overcome.
RedRocket191
Senior Member
W. K. Lis' vision of the DRL is very similar to mine.
My only modification would be to join the railway corridor a little further north, near Jane & Lawrence, and the routing downtown would be a bit different.
I do like your routing though. I believe that streetcars on Queen is as iconic as the CN tower, and your option doesn't require removing streetcars from the surface.
My only modification would be to join the railway corridor a little further north, near Jane & Lawrence, and the routing downtown would be a bit different.
I do like your routing though. I believe that streetcars on Queen is as iconic as the CN tower, and your option doesn't require removing streetcars from the surface.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
I want to make sure that any group I'm involved with is pushing for the original plan (with additional stations) along the Pape/Rail Corridor/Front/Dundas West alignment, built with subway technology.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
^ Exactly. That's the whole point here.
ShonTron
Moderator
As long as we could discuss Front St versus the TTR, or other minor alignment and station proposals, that's fine by me.
Subway is a given. Why else would I have come up with that pro-subway jingle?
RedRocket191
Senior Member
Just to clarify, are you defining subway technology defined as "underground rail using trains of four to six self-propelled electric coaches, each measuring approximately 10 x 11 x 75 feet."?
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Exactly. Using vehicles compatible with the existing TTC subway system. Doesn't have to be underground. That's the whole point of the line.
Love the jingle, Sean!
Love the jingle, Sean!