[Euphoria]

I can't believe that in neither 15-year out scenario is the DRL extended west of City Hall. We're getting really good at building stubways. We're also getting too good at building rapid transit in parts of the city that might as well be in South Oshawa or Paris's Banlieue. Sorry, it's got to be said: If you were visiting Toronto from another city would you ever want to visit 90 percent of the places where the City is building rapid transit? I hope Tourism Toronto will be at some of these consultations. The best of the city is still inaccessible except by rickety streetcar, bus, or foot. Ford's vision of transit planning has really won the day. At the very least the DRL should continue west as far as Queen and Dufferin. If cost is an issue, I don't understand why we need the DRL to be a subway. If Queen is the alignment, simply run the streetcar underground. It can reach speeds of 70kph and would enable us to use existing infrastructure under Osgoode and Queen stations. The savings would allow us to extend the underground stretch beyond what is in current plans. It should at least run from Pape station to Queen and Dufferin, so that there are connections to ST/RER in both the east and west. It seemed like there was a consensus on here that this should be the minimum reach.

 

[Euphoria]

If the city insists on going with a subway rather than simply tunneling the streetcar, I'd suggest building under Richmond (with station entrances on Queen). That way we can leave the treasured Queen car in place. As mentioned many times, this line has cultural significance, would relieve transit overflow at peak periods, and the infrastructure is already built. (For that matter, throw the Gardiner in the tunnel with the DRL under Richmond. No? I know I'm the lone voice in the wilderness on that one.)

 

[salsa]

Euphoria, I would recommend that you attend some of the public meetings this month and speak to the planners and city staff about your superior ideas. Because clearly they don't seem to know their shit as well as you do, am I right?

 

[44 North]

Oh gotcha. Yeah, I don't really see that option moving forward very far.

Me neither. I think it's stupid and a waste of time to even talk about it. However it was shortlisted by Mlinx, and believe the Prov may very well opt for it as their #1 Relief Line choice in a few months. On the surface this doesn't make sense. But perhaps the unstated reason could be to further complicate and delay the City's plan so the Prov can a) not pay for the subway, or b) get on with their own pet projects.

Higher levels changing plans to make-or-break other plans is somewhat of a longstanding tradition in these parts. And sometimes they have neutral "experts" on standby to back them up - e.g Neptis/Schabas claiming that we don't need a relief subway. Apparently all our core congestion problems can be solved by spending a few $Million on a pedestrian connection between Main Stn and Danforth GO. Costly high-risk ventures like building subways thru fields along suburban highways OTH...those are necessary

Reading yesterdays ST/RL Ridership Forecast report makes it pretty clear that adding new ideas out of the blue like Tory's ST East (aka Stouffville RER+) can throw a wrench in the RL plans - adding time, using scarce funds, and slowly whittling-down the importance and alignment of the RL. I wouldn't put it past the Prov/Mlinx to do the same with their YRNS study. Example: highlight something odd like a Don Mills-Broadview-Front LRT to compete with the City's Pape-Queen subway plan (so as to purposefully result in further delays / reports / modeling / realignments etc for the RL). The endgame from Tory and Wynne may be to slowly chip away and denude the RL even more. I get that people like @Forgotten claim Keesmaat is doing the cheapening on the DRL front. But I think her, Byford, and our Planning Dept are pushing against the tide and doing everything they can to not cheapen things. And I commend them for it.

I can't help wondering why it doesn't go one stop further. I'm thinking of those huge crowds flooding out of Blue Jay games. Many walk all the way to Queen now....finding a subway station up there around John or Peter that goes east just seems marketable.

Exactly. Those crowds this summer were insanity. I mean really. It's easy to joke about core congestion, but at times this gets serious. The volumes of people flooding the streets, stations, and surface transit is downright scary at times. Able-bodied people have trouble, but the wayward tourist or family with kids in tow are put in dangerous situations. I'd fully support extending the RL further west even if it is just by one station.

And although I'm not a big fan of a single City Hall station, I think there's an opportunity to do something really cool. I recall during early plans for Dundas Square there was a proposal for a glass floor in the plaza so people could see the subway below their feet. Not sure how viable that is, but I think for a City Hall Stn an expansive natural light-filled cavern below the street would be great. And if we could tastefully include Old City Hall this could very well be one of the world's most attractive metro stations.

Two more images I snapped at the Public Presentation tonight, that do not seem to be in the presentation PDF.

These show detailed Relief Line alignment options. Sorry about crappy photo-taking, people were walking around me and my hands shaked... edit: I stitched the image together

Whoa, these are gold. When will the public get to see these detailed alignments? I've been waiting for too long...getting antsy.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Whoa, these are gold. When will the public get to see these detailed alignments? I've been waiting for too long...getting antsy.

If you guys want to have more of a say I suggest attending the next meetings. The planners told me that they will have a huge print-out of the Relief Line route and they will be asking people to place pins on where they want station entrances on the corridor between Yonge and the Don River.

They said they were emphasizing the location of station entrances more so than the placement of station platforms in their design work. They are open minded to stations (or rather station entrances) on Jarvis and Parliament. They are not rigid on a Sherbourne station as we were led to believe by the planning documents to date.

 

[Hopkins123]

If you guys want to have more of a say I suggest attending the next meetings. The planners told me that they will have a huge print-out of the Relief Line route and they will be asking people to place pins on where they want station entrances on the corridor between Yonge and the Don River.

They said they were emphasizing the location of station entrances more so than the placement of station platforms in their design work. They are open minded to stations (or rather station entrances) on Jarvis and Parliament. They are not rigid on a Sherbourne station as we were led to believe by the planning documents to date.

So common sense is prevailing. It'd be a shame if Parliament was omitted just to save a few bucks. The 75 Sherbourne bus could easily be routed west on Queen to a new loop in Moss Park around George St should a Jarvis Station be chosen.

3 stops between Bay and the Don is comparable to Bloor-Danforth level spacing through the same stretch. Even the Crosstown has 800 metre or better spacing. Bay to Sherbourne is 1200 metres apart.

Please let me know when the next planning meeting is and I'll try to make it to make my case to officials.

 

[salsa]

Please let me know when the next planning meeting is and I'll try to make it to make my case to officials.

This is the schedule.

There are also some slides posted on the city's website: http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=a74e4be8ac29d410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

The planner I talked to specified the Riverdale Collegiate meeting would have the giant print-out of the Relief Line route, just FYI.

 

[gweed123]

If you guys want to have more of a say I suggest attending the next meetings. The planners told me that they will have a huge print-out of the Relief Line route and they will be asking people to place pins on where they want station entrances on the corridor between Yonge and the Don River.

They said they were emphasizing the location of station entrances more so than the placement of station platforms in their design work. They are open minded to stations (or rather station entrances) on Jarvis and Parliament. They are not rigid on a Sherbourne station as we were led to believe by the planning documents to date.

That makes sense, considering that the entrance locations are the most important. I'd hope that the downtown DRL stations would have 2 to 3 access points: two at either ends of the platform (maybe even a bit beyond the end), and maybe one in the middle. That maximizes the 5 min walking circles around stations, as people are generally more willing to walk inside a station than outside it.

 

[M II A II R II K]

2 interchange stations is also better for crowd control and distribution.

 

[gweed123]

2 interchange stations is also better for crowd control and distribution.

I really don't see the City Hall station (or two interchange stations at Yonge and University) as being significant transfer points. Downtown is the destination for most trips. We don't need to design a Bloor-Yonge here, where the vast majority of movements are inter-platform transfers. Most people will be heading for the exits, not Line 1.

Yes, making sure that those connections exist is important, but it's more important to place the station box and entrances in places where they will best fit into pedestrian traffic patterns, not where it makes the transfers the easiest.

EDIT: To elaborate, the platforms and access points need to be designed in such a way that there are multiple exit points at well spaced intervals along the platform, to avoid everyone trying to cram out one exit. If the station is between Old City Hall and NPS, you can have the eastern exit connect to the Eaton Centre/PATH/Queen station, the cental exit connect to Bay & Queen, and the western exit connect to NPS/PATH/Sheraton Centre. This would ensure a relatively equal distribution of passengers along the platform.

 

[M II A II R II K]

There should at least be an Entertainment District station to the west.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

There should at least be an Entertainment District station to the west.

Indeed. As important as it is, policy makers need to be less fixated on the relief aspect of the line and more on improving the utility of transit in the core.

AoD

 

[gweed123]

Indeed. As important as it is, policy makers need to be less fixated on the relief aspect of the line and more on improving the utility of transit in the core.

AoD

Agreed. The issue though is TBM extraction sites. They're few and far between in downtown, so the end of the first phase may be determined by where they can pull the thing out of the ground. 4 possible sites along central Queen come to mind: Moss Park, the Osgoode Hall front lawn, Trinity-Bellwoods Park, and the lawn of the CAMH. Two of those sites are significantly west of downtown, which would mean quite a bit of extra tunnelling, but not necessarily building any stations to go along with it. And yes Moss Park is east of downtown, but if they're looking to do a multi-phase dig, Moss Park may be a good place to launch heading both into and out of downtown.

This is one of the reasons why I preferred a Wellington alignment, since Clarence Square would have made a perfect extraction site, and would have allowed for a direct connection with the Spadina streetcar.

 

[Palma]

I still don't understand all these community meetings. Will they (transit planners) really change anything? is it just to show they have consulted the public? Is it not just wasting time?