BurlOak said:
Ask anyone to draw out the DRL East up to Seneca and all the lines will be within 300m of each other.

Ask people to draw the DRL West and you will have it go to the Ex, across Queensway, Up Jane, Parkside/Keele, Roncesvalles, Dufferin, Rail corridor, etc., etc.

There is still so much uncertainty in the West that it is hard to get anything started there. Part of the problem is the UP, the valuable space it takes up and the design - which we were not sure if its rapid transit or premium service.
Click to expand...

In the shoulder in the west there is currently so much demand on transit already to support a subway. Plus the numbers that just can't use transit due to the unpredictability that you can't squeeze on the streetcar even like a sardine (you would be surprised at how many people drive from Liberty Village to the financial district). Not as a relief line but an actual subway needed for the condo dwellers in King W, the commercial in Liberty Village, the apartments at Jamison and the streetcar users coming in from the Humber River area (they get a dedicated ROW to Roncy and then could xfer to the subway).

Extending to Roncy would help and maybe even save money. There's enough room on the south side (railway embankment) to build the shafts for the TBM plus lots of room for the dump trucks to load and get on the highway fairly easily via Queensway/Lakeshore (non-residential roads) ... the park just south of King can be the yard. Where else is there a block to drop in/out the TBM's? (look at Black Creek for the crosstown to understand the area needed...the shaft plus yard is on google maps now) It need an entire block.

I know it's not sexy and hence why City Hall hasn't thought of it but kinda important. Or else the city will have to buy/rent a whole block to use...and that'll cost a lot of money.
 
muller877 said:
Extending to Roncy would help and maybe even save money. There's enough room on the south side (railway embankment) to build the shafts for the TBM plus lots of room for the dump trucks to load and get on the highway fairly easily via Queensway/Lakeshore (non-residential roads) ... the park just south of King can be the yard. Where else is there a block to drop in/out the TBM's? (look at Black Creek for the crosstown to understand the area needed...the shaft plus yard is on google maps now) It need an entire block.

I know it's not sexy and hence why City Hall hasn't thought of it but kinda important. Or else the city will have to buy/rent a whole block to use...and that'll cost a lot of money.
Click to expand...

Wonder if there is any chance to take Roncesvalles car house out of action for it.

AoD
 
Hopkins123 said:
That map is so outdated. It should look more like this:



And in the long term, like this:



Anyone denying that DRL West should be a priority probably has never taken the Jane, Keele, Dufferin, Ossington or Bathurst buses nor the 504, 501 or 505 west of the YUS loop.

Why must these commuters be packed in like sardines in perpetuity while too much emphasis is being placed on building the East End? I know some on here think the Spadina Line is reason enough to put off and delay the western DRL leg; but if more people reside west of Yonge than east then it only makes sense to at least apply parity on both sides when talking about expansion.
Click to expand...

I could definitely see a DRL extension along the CP MacTier, it would make for an easy surface subway (you know, what SmartTrack was supposed to be?) all the way to Sheppard. Why not integrate it into an extended Sheppard Line? Direct connection to Wilson Yard.

I know we're getting into fantasy map territory, but...

o76TW9D.png
 
Last edited:
BurlOak said:
Ask anyone to draw out the DRL East up to Seneca and all the lines will be within 300m of each other.

Ask people to draw the DRL West and you will have it go to the Ex, across Queensway, Up Jane, Parkside/Keele, Roncesvalles, Dufferin, Rail corridor, etc., etc.

There is still so much uncertainty in the West that it is hard to get anything started there. Part of the problem is the UP, the valuable space it takes up and the design - which we were not sure if its rapid transit or premium service.
Click to expand...

All the more reason the west should be studied. The ridership numbers are no doubt there. Both thirty years ago (and in the last three) the eastern RL had a broader range of corridor options. It was only through proper study that we came to the conclusion of what's most optimal. Unfortunately we never got the chance to do that in the west. So hopefully we plan this thing knowing in advance where (and when) it will be extended, even if the phases turn into generations/lifetimes.

IMG_3887.JPG
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3887.JPG
    IMG_3887.JPG
    1,006.8 KB · Views: 651
DonValleyRainbow said:
I could definitely see a DRL extension along the CP MacTier, it would make for an easy surface subway (you know, what SmartTrack was supposed to be?) all the way to Sheppard. Why not integrate it into an extended Sheppard Line? Direct connection to Wilson Yard.

I know we're getting into fantasy map territory, but...

o76TW9D.png
Click to expand...

The Spadina Subway and Relief Line are a 5 min walk, or about two or three bus stops, away from each other in this map.
 
44 North said:
All the more reason the west should be studied. The ridership numbers are no doubt there. Both thirty years ago (and in the last three) the eastern RL had a broader range of corridor options. It was only through proper study that we came to the conclusion of what's most optimal. Unfortunately we never got the chance to do that in the west. So hopefully we plan this thing knowing in advance where (and when) it will be extended, even if the phases turn into generations/lifetimes.

View attachment 94503
Click to expand...
I agree it should be studied, or at least should have been studied. The point is that if a big pot of money fell into our laps for near shovel ready projects, the DRL East could be built up to Seneca because the route is basically known and only fine tuning needed.
The West route is nowhere near known and for sure there would be years of debate to decide if it should go to the Ex, Yordale, York U (via Jane) or Rexdale.

Quickly looking at the past few pages, I would say Queen to Parkside to Keele to Weston to Jane to York U would be my choice.

Humber College is getting the FWLRT, which also will connect to the GO RER (UP) at Woodbine Racetrack and to YYZ and ECLRT.
 
BurlOak said:
I agree it should be studied, or at least should have been studied. The point is that if a big pot of money fell into our laps for near shovel ready projects, the DRL East could be built up to Seneca because the route is basically known and only fine tuning needed.
The West route is nowhere near known and for sure there would be years of debate to decide if it should go to the Ex, Yordale, York U (via Jane) or Rexdale.

Quickly looking at the past few pages, I would say Queen to Parkside to Keele to Weston to Jane to York U would be my choice.

Humber College is getting the FWLRT, which also will connect to the GO RER (UP) at Woodbine Racetrack and to YYZ and ECLRT.
Click to expand...

The advantages of a Queen-Parkside-Keele-Weston-Galt alignment are too much to ignore, just to list a couple:

- Non-stop express service from Queen-Roncy to Bloor-Keele (roughly 3 minutes)
- Doesn't disrupt built-up area of Roncesvalles nor streetcar service during construction
- Cut-and-cover method could be used along the edge of High Park
- At Bloor, the DRL tunnel could be shallow, close to the surface as there's no existing tunnel to navigate under as the BD Line is elevated through this section
- Apartment cluster between Keele and High Park gets access to another station
- Density at Keele/Dundas greater than at Dupont/Dundas
- Stockyards redevelopment gets direct access to subway

I have mixed feelings about using Jane over going over to and up Hwy 27 though. 35/195 Jane may see a decline in ridership post-Crosstown and post-FWLRT as most customers opt to transfer at Eglinton and Finch rather than travel southwards to Bloor.

If the DRL went to Humber College, I think most students would opt to take a line that heads directly downtown over the FWLRT which requires a transfer at Keele. But that's just my two cents.
 
The DRL would have to compete with the UPX, should there be an extension to the west. It'll have to depend on the DRL route. Maybe the DRL and UPX should merge together.
 
When Mt. Dennis opens, the UPX will be very useful I think. Airport --> Mt. Dennis --> Dundas West --> Union.

I feel like DRL would be duplicating service here. I am skeptical of Jane bus ridership post-ECLRT/FWLRT as @Hopkins123 says.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
Screw that. I've made the argument elsewhere on UT, but the UPX live up to its name and go express from Union to Pearson.
Click to expand...

I doubt the intermediate stops have that much of an effect on UPX's travel times or speed. It'd go down from 25 minutes end-to-end to like 23 minutes, not a huge difference. Bloor (Dundas West) and inevitably Mount Dennis should be retained as stops for network connectivity. Weston remains optional.
 
I honestly don't see why people advocate for spending billions on shoe-horning a subway into a rail corridor that is already going to be featuring subway-level service. It's a complete waste. Just because there's no fare integration now doesn't justify spending billions running parallel services so each agency can keep their fiefdoms.

The DRL alignment shouldn't be a "path of least resistance" alignment. It should be put where the people are. For the N-S western leg, that means using either Dufferin, Lansdowne, Roncesvalles, or Parkside/Keele.

And re UPX: Just because there's insufficient service on the GTS corridor now doesn't mean that UPX should be modified in order to provide that service. The best option is to "fill out" the GO service that's supposed to be there, so that UPX can perform the function it was intended to: a downtown-to-airport express train.
 
gweed123 said:
I honestly don't see why people advocate for spending billions on shoe-horning a subway into a rail corridor that is already going to be featuring subway-level service. It's a complete waste. Just because there's no fare integration now doesn't justify spending billions running parallel services so each agency can keep their fiefdoms.

The DRL alignment shouldn't be a "path of least resistance" alignment. It should be put where the people are. For the N-S western leg, that means using either Dufferin, Lansdowne, Roncesvalles, or Parkside/Keele.

And re UPX: Just because there's insufficient service on the GTS corridor now doesn't mean that UPX should be modified in order to provide that service. The best option is to "fill out" the GO service that's supposed to be there, so that UPX can perform the function it was intended to: a downtown-to-airport express train.
Click to expand...

Well I would emphasize that previous studies have put the western DRL along Roncy fron Queen to Dundas West, and I'm not sure many of us are debating that. I think where we would have debate is north of Bloor, since that is probably a fantasy discussion that hasn't officially been put on the table by the City or the Province.

As for UPX, fully agree with your statement with GO being the main rail service and UPX filling its intended role as express. What I do take issue with is suggesting GO is sufficient and running a DRL in parallel to it is an 'establishment of fiefdoms.' Remember that GO is still relatively more expensive to the TTC, and while some of us are fortunate enough to perhaps afford the GO, some are not. I used to live in Weston, and there are a lot of people there, as well as to the north in general (Humberlea, The Elms, Rexdale, Humbermede, Jane Heights, etc) that cannot even afford to buy monthly TTC passes on top of rent and food. They would still use tickets and tokens, rationing their trips until its necessary. Try to tell them that a relatively easy extension of subway along a rail corridor isn't worthy because of existing GO/UPX service, especially as the Jane LRT has fallen off the radar.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
What I do take issue with is suggesting GO is sufficient and running a DRL in parallel to it is an 'establishment of fiefdoms.' Remember that GO is still relatively more expensive to the TTC
Click to expand...

The point is:
gweed123 said:
I honestly don't see why people advocate for spending billions on shoe-horning a subway into a rail corridor that is already going to be featuring subway-level service. It's a complete waste. Just because there's no fare integration now doesn't justify spending billions running parallel services so each agency can keep their fiefdoms.
Click to expand...

GO inside the 416 will not be twice the price of TTC forever.
The solution is not to run a TTC surface subway next to GO in the rail corridor (duplicating service, splitting ridership), the solution is to run GO frequently, with frequent stops, and fare-integrated with the TTC.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top