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.
Well, technically there's no money budgeted yet to build.
I wonder if they're not looking at extending to spadina since it would preclude the awful "Union West" idea that metrolinx has.
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.
They kind of gamed the study. When I responded for the public feedback portion, I mentioned to them that it seems like they had already chosen stop spacing.
I also agree with the Pape alignment, but the reasons stated are kind of silly. They mention it was identified as a "mobility hub" in the Big Move, but literally the only reason it was identified as such is because it's where the DRL was planned to hit the BD line. So it's a mobility hub because it's where it connects, but it connects there because it's a mobility hub. I also find it strange that they mention it could connect to a Don Mills LRT, but then say it's also the best location for an extension, given that you would either do one or the other, not both.
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.
Union Station is more a consequence of the railway ROW alignment, when the DRL was conceived as using ICTS. Other alignments rightfully avoid it because: 1) Metrolinx is trying to relieve Union station instead of funnelling even more passengers to a single point; 2) It takes the DRL away from King and Queen, where more people are and where it can be more easily extended west; and 3) the full DRL would intersect all 4 GO-RER lines (at Gerard Square, River, Queen/Dufferin, and Dundas West) so people could transfer there instead of adding to pedestrian loads at Union (in fact, Metrolinx was looking at the DRL as a way of getting to people to transfer to subway before reaching 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.
View attachment 47932
I like the King alignment that you made. If you're going to do a Queen alignment, I don't think there's much value in dipping down, which is an expensive detour that would be slower. Transit lines should be as direct or straight as possible; it isn't possible for one line to connect all the dots.
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.
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.
I'm not sure what you mean about less disruption to the Yonge line. But I agree about extending it one station west. People have a strong psychological desire to connect the dots, which is inculcated at a young age from colouring books. If the DRL ends at University, people will think it's complete. Extend it one station and people will be clamouring for an extension to Bloor-Danforth. Just look at the demand to "close the loop" and extend Sheppard and Bloor-Danforth to STC.
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].
+1
I agree the Bay is unnecessary. I'm surprised that they're even considering it.
I always envisioned a station with its east end at Yonge and west end as close to Bay as possible. Depending on the depth of the station, this isn't any sort of stretch of the imagination.
That makes sense. The problem is that you'd get a Bloor-Danforth - style transfer between the DRL and the Yonge line. I think the reason that King and Queen did so well in this assessment is to avoid repeating the mistake of inconvenient transfers.
It's okay to have the station box not overlap perfectly, though, if you're not expecting many transfers at this location. I know with the Eglinton LRT they're "moving" the station box of Eglinton station (shifting the platform forward) so the Yonge line lines up perfectly with the new Eglinton line, so passengers won't all be flowing the same direction to transfer.
Personally, I found
this fantasy proposal really cool where you'd decouple the Yonge-University lines and have a Lionel-Groulx style transfer between the DRL-University and DRL-Yonge lines if you wanted to transfer. Not necessarily feasible, and I'd question the benefit in running the DRL along Front street (especially given the geology), but it was a cool idea.
You're always pitching these whacky transit modes.
No monorails or elevated rails in the downtown of this city please and thank you.
The DRL in Network 2011 was originally elevated ICTS. Can you picture it in front of Union?
