Whoa, this is great news! But where are the corridor options - which I thought would be given as part of the shortlisted station options? Or maybe they'll provide the tracing paper for the public to connect the green dots ourselves?
 
44 North said:
Whoa, this is great news! But where are the corridor options - which I thought would be given as part of the shortlisted station options? Or maybe they'll provide the tracing paper for the public to connect the green dots ourselves?
Click to expand...

If you go to the webpage and click "Current Work" and then "What's Next" it says;

What's Next?
With the information gathered through consultation in June 2015, we will:

Finalize the evaluation of potential station areas
Evaluate potential corridors and identify a preferred corridor
The next phase of consultation will focus on the potential alignments and station concepts within the preferred corridor.



- See more at: http://reliefline.ca/current-work/whats-next#sthash.FbwdLWXM.dpuf
Click to expand...
 
The station evaluation repeatedly refers to "public rights of way". I.e. The King/Wellington has "ability to extend west along existing public right of way."

What is this? We're talking subway for the RL, not an above-ground option.
 
pstogios said:
The station evaluation repeatedly refers to "public rights of way". I.e. The King/Wellington has "ability to extend west along existing public right of way."

What is this? We're talking subway for the RL, not an above-ground option.
Click to expand...

They probably think that it is easier to tunnel under a street, rather than diagonally. Fewer issues with foundations, and easier to add emergency exits as required by the fire code.

They can go diagonally if they have to.
 
Rainforest said:
They probably think that it is easier to tunnel under a street, rather than diagonally. Fewer issues with foundations, and easier to add emergency exits as required by the fire code.

They can go diagonally if they have to.
Click to expand...

In downtown diagonal would be very difficult. Outside of downtown it's easier, because you don't have multi-storey underground parking garages on every block.
 
ehlow said:
Is there 0 possibility of a station at Spadina, I wonder?

The red line extends there but they don't seem to be considering any stations.
Click to expand...

That seems a little dumb to me. The 510 Spadina streetcar moves more people than the Sheppard Subway. A connection there is a no brainer.

I figure that there may not be enough money budgeted to build west to Spadina. This would be a good question to ask at the next public consultations.
 
I like the idea of a Queen Street alignment which will connect Eaton Centre, St. Michael's and City Hall. Queen would be easier to extend west as well.

I think Pape will be the alignment. I was never fond of Greenwood, Coxwell and Donlands anyway. The report shows that Gerrard/Pape is a crucial node to hit, meaning Broadview is probably out of question.

I wonder what they mean by "Adelaide and Richmond are more challenging to extend to the west". I don't see the challenge it poses until Bathurst, and then it is a simple curving of tunnel upwards to a station by Trinity-Bellwoods.

I'm kinda peeved they didn't bother to study the viability of Spadina, Jarvis or Parliament stations.
 
pstogios said:
The station evaluation repeatedly refers to "public rights of way". I.e. The King/Wellington has "ability to extend west along existing public right of way."

What is this? We're talking subway for the RL, not an above-ground option.
Click to expand...

I guess because property rights extend underground. So if the route veers away from following a road's ROW, it'd more than likely be under private property. If so, the TTC/City would have to obtain subsurface property rights. One or two properties out in the boonies, that could be easy. But downtown, with the amount of properties so close together, the lawyer fees and legal wrangling would be a mammoth undertaking on its own. I'm not sure about this, but it sounds right. And like Gweed wrote, the numerous foundations and underground parking would be difficult as well.
 
WislaHD said:
I like the idea of a Queen Street alignment which will connect Eaton Centre, St. Michael's and City Hall. Queen would be easier to extend west as well..
Click to expand...

I am very surprised by how well the Queen/Bay/Osgoode section performed. It did much better than the King/Bay/St. Andrew, which was widely regarded to be the optimal alignment for the RL. I'm also surprised by how poorly Union Station performed.

However, even though each of the downtown Queen stations has the same or more potential than their counterparts on King, the King option would allow a direct connection to Union Station, which may be more beneficial than a Queen alignment without a connection to Union.

Looking at the report, my preferred alignment (black line) would be: University/Queen (Osgoode), Bay/Queen, Yonge/Queen (Yonge Station) and Sherbourne/Queen. The line would then dip down to Cherry/Front, then back up to Sherbourne/Queen, Gerrard/Pape and finally terminate at Pape @ Danforth (Pape Station).

If that dip down to Cherry/Front would be too expensive, my secondary option (blue line) would be University/King (St. Andrew), Bay/King, Yonge/King (King Station), Sherbourne/King and Cherry/Front. It would then go up to Pape, following the same alignment as my preferred option. At Bay/King there would be a connection to Union.

yKgvbny.png


I'd like to see a direct connection to Union from Bay @ King evaluated. Depending on how that would perform, King would become my preferred alignment. But we should also keep in mind that direct connection to GO rail and RER services at Gerrard/Pape and a future connection at Queen/Dufferin or Liberty Village might negate any benefit of a direct connection to Union Station.
 

Attachments

  • yKgvbny.png
    yKgvbny.png
    287.2 KB · Views: 561
Last edited:
gweed123 said:
In downtown diagonal would be very difficult. Outside of downtown it's easier, because you don't have multi-storey underground parking garages on every block.
Click to expand...

It was only a decade ago when downtown used to be significantly less developed and had many parking lots to work. But soon enough, downtown will be lined with highrises all the way to the Don River to the point that building the DRL will come at great cost, difficulty and disruption to many more people thanks to all the time we wasted doing nothing. And just when momentum was starting to build for the DRL, Dumbtrack had to come along and completely undermine the cause.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
I am very surprised by how well the Queen/Bay/Osgoode section performed. It did much better than the King/Bay/St. Andrew, which was widely regarded to be the optimal alignment for the RL. I'm also surprised by how poorly Union Station performed.

However, even though each of the downtown Queen stations has the same or more potential than their counterparts on King, the King option would allow a direct connection to Union Station, which may be more beneficial than a Queen alignment without a connection to Union.

Looking at the report, my preferred alignment (black line) would be: University/Queen (Osgoode), Bay/Queen, Yonge/Queen (Yonge Station) and Sherbourne/Queen. The line would then dip down to Cherry/Front, then back up to Sherbourne/Queen, Gerrard/Pape and finally terminate at Pape @ Danforth (Pape Station).

If that dip down to Cherry/Front would be too expensive, my secondary option (blue line) would be University/King (St. Andrew), Bay/King, Yonge/King (King Station), Sherbourne/King and Cherry/Front. It would then go up to Pape, following the same alignment as my preferred option. At Bay/King there would be a connection to Union.


I'd like to see a direct connection to Union from Bay @ King evaluated. Depending on how that would perform, King would become my preferred alignment. But we should also keep in mind that direct connection to GO rail and RER services at Gerrard/Pape and a future connection at Queen/Dufferin or Liberty Village might negate any benefit of a direct connection to Union Station.
Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment.

I am not sure if a Queen/Bay station is needed, or a King/Bay if there is no direct connection to Union. All these stations will be connected to the PATH network anyway.

I think reaching Spadina (or even Bathurst) is crucial for Phase 1 of the DRL. Not only does it connect with a very busy and high-ridership street with great redevelopment potential, it sets precedent for further expansion west and means there will be less disruption to the Yonge line when the eventual western expansion happens.
 
Only two stops between Yonge and the Don River? Why is Parliament Street ignored in all iterations? [Jarvis --> Parliament --> River] is far more useful than just [Sherbourne --> Sumach].
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top