Rainforest said:
I think it is less of a problem for DRL than for Sheppard. Sheppard subway does not serve any extra-dense areas (North York is not downtown), and therefore it has to be long to attract enough riders and justify itself as a subway.

DRL, on the contrary, will be well used even if built in the shortest possible configuration: downtown to Danforth / Pape.

And if they manage to add the section from Danforth to Eglinton / Don Mills, then it will be actually longer than the original Yonge subway (which was Eglinton to Union, straight line).
Click to expand...
No, actually that's not the thing.

One of the big reasons Sheppard is such a great subway corridor is because it links three big nodes: Downsview and the Spadina Line, NYCC and Yonge, and STC and SRT/Danforth. If it doesn't link any of those routes, it's just a mediocre route at best.

So the reason that Sheppard should have been built full from the start is because going all the way to the east or west would have made it much more useful than it is now, and much more useful than twice as useful it is now. The DRL, on the other hand, really just gets more and more useful the further north it goes. Pape-Union, great! Eglinton-Union, Even better! Sheppard-Dundas West, awesome! Finch-Dundas West, that's a complete subway line, and will be the best, but not exponentially better like Sheppard would be.

And I'd prefer it if they scrapped the Don Mills and Union-Queen Waterfront West LRT, and made plans to extend the DRL north and west instead. But they should just start it as Pape or Eglinton to Union, then continue extending it later on.


As for the rail corridor, I understand that there's not enough room for that stretch. But it'd be pretty easy to cut and cover something, wouldn't it?
EDIT: When I say pretty easy, I mean easier than boring straight through downtown or cut 'n covering through downtown.

I've mentioned before, I think the best situation would be to build the DRL and bury the Don River-Bathurst rail corridor at the same time. That way, they could make extra underground room to build the DRL, as well as getting rid of the rail corridor. If the city was willing to undertake such a massive but infinitely useful project, they could probably do both at the same time if they started planning right now.
 
I stand corrected. But either way we'll be looking at two subway connections minimum, tunnels under at least parts of pape and some street downtown, and possible relocation of PATH tunnels downtown.

I'd be very surprised if the DRL isn't the most expensive subway project yet in Toronto, on a per km basis. But waiting won't make it any cheaper.
 
Would be cool if they buried the Gardiner, the rail lines, and the DRL all at the same time.

Anyway a terminus at Wellington or Richmond would be better, closer to many more things downtown and plus they could have underground paths and conveyor belts to connect underground to both King and Union Stations, kind of like Bank Station in London that can lead to 2 other stations on 2 other lines.
 
I was watching CTV news tonight and the Councillor, Michael Thompson, was on there making a big pitch for the Downtown Relief Line to get funding. When I moved here to TO from Vancouver I started going to the public monthly TTC meeting at city hall and I met Mr. Thompson who was on a member of the TTC councillors at the time. He was always well spoken and approachable. I think he would be a great advocate to get funding for this line for this route to happen.

They also had a rough map of the alignment of the Downtown Relief line on the CTV news program. It starts (or ends) at Pape Station in the east travels south then west to Union Station, the DRL then continues west a bit then heads north to Dundas West Station.

Glad this line is starting to be seriously talked of by councillors who have a bit of influence in what gets funding.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Thats a no brainer if this city had any money to rub. A poject like that would put us on the world tourist map again.
Click to expand...
For what, a 10 billion price tag? Maybe 5 billion for the rail corridor only?

It'd free up a bunch of land, and that could be billions of dollars of development right there, not to mention modernizing the entire Union station track area and taking out the biggest barrier between downtown and the waterfront.
I definitely think it should be done, and sooner is better than later. If they get going now, they could get it started before Go service really picks up, which would make things so much easier.
 
I wish the downtown could get rid of the elevated highway as well. As it ages it becomes a liability anyways, remember a piece of concrete fell off an overpass killing a driver below. Eventually with all the traffic vibration the Gardner's concrete will beging to fail more then it already has.

Now if Toronto were able to get rid of that highway, fund the Downtown Relief Line- which is starting to get air time on the news- Toronto's downtown would be much more vibrant by being so accessible. The waterfront would actually be part of the downtown instead of seperated by the highway.

Hopefully our downtown gets these investments. Does anyone know what kind of vehicles would be used on the DRL? I think a four car set like the Sheppard line has would be good- then a bypass could be used at Pape and the DRL cars could get on BD line to use maybe an expanded Greenwood storage facility, because the cars would be compatible to the BD infrastructure. Sharing the maintainance yard with the BD line would save the the DRL in overall cost as well.
 
^^ Really, the rail corridor is much more of a barrier between downtown and the waterfront than the Gardiner. I'd much rather see the rail corridor buried than the Gardiner buried/torn down.

They should both eventually happen, but the rail corridor is a lot more important, imo. I think it's a project the city should take on soon.
 
The worst part about the Gardiner is Lakeshore. It's awful. The Gardiner may not fit into the ideal Riverdalian vision of urbanness, but it never physically interferes with anyone on ground level directly. Lakeshore, by contrast, sucks big time. It is loud, it is fast, it is dark, it is sterile and it is a PITA to cross. Ideally we could reduce Lakeshore to two rather small one-way access roads to the Gardiner and use the rest of the space for some kind of infill development. As it is some of the CityPlace condos are kissing the Gardiner, so presumably someone is willing to live/work in some kind of building under the Gardiner. I'm sort of concerned when the game plan for getting rid of the Gardiner consists of replacing it with its worst aspect (a super Lakeshore).
 
^^ Yep, I totally agree. And the plans for demoing the Gardiner include supersizing Lakeshore to like 12 lanes or something, which will really be much worse than it is now.

I'd just wait on the Gardiner issue. Eventually (hopefully,) traffic should be reduced enough so that the Gardiner just won't be necessary. Then, I'd see the Gardiner/DVP torn down from Jarvis to Bloor, which would help open up a lot of development opportunities all along the Valley south of Bloor.

But I still think that the Rail Corridor is the biggest barrier. It's physical and it's psychological, and it should definitely be buried, the sooner the better.
 
Lakeshore should be turned into two separate 1-way streets a few hundred feet apart. Traffic lights could be timed to improve traffic flow, and no one ever has to cross more than 3-4 lanes of traffic at a time. It would also make the streets more desirable to live on by being smaller scale. Except for the difference that the lights would need to be timed properly, there's no reason why Lakeshore shouldn't function any differently from Richmond and Adelaide, which in the grand scheme of things are not dead streets at all.
 
The problem is that University Avenue isn't exactly the best model to appropriate. University (at only 6 lanes wide) has fast traffic which makes it unenjoyable as a pedestrian. Lakeshore will be no better.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top