aquateam said:
Why would you need a loop track? St. George doesn't have one. The net cost difference between having it south of Danforth and north of Danforth is nil, not some kind of astronomical add-on.

The idea is that once the whole thing is running on ATC, you could put the wye into play just like St. George with the interlining. During non-peak times, you could blend the service if there is room on the headway, so half the trains go directly downtown (there's an old DRL fantasy map by someone named dmz(?) floating around that I can't find that showed this better than I'm describing.)
Click to expand...
This is what you are referring to. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=670156

I don't understand this stuff, but it appears the images in the link don't work, but when you look in google images, they are there. https://www.google.com/search?q=TRZ'S+DRL+PROPOSAL&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi68tvhp-jaAhUr34MKHSGMBUAQ_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=662
 
Given the topography north of Danforth is significantly different to the steep drop south, it’s a bit ballsy to assert no difference in constructing an interlink on the south side.
 
dowlingm said:
King is within the Union catchment. A DRL at Queen pulls people up from Richmond/Adelaide but also down from the Dundas direction. One other important thing to consider is the lower core as a single point of failure. In the event of a security event in the King-Union stretch, or a power failure, it is conceivable that DRL, Line 1 and Union would all stop service at the same time. Spacing the services further apart likely improves total resilency.
Click to expand...

Good point.

I always thought (and basically still think) that it is much more important to get the Relief Line built than to decide which exact route it should follow. Any of the Queen, King, Wellington etc alignments would work.

However, the resiliency argument tips the balance somewhat, in favour of the Queen alignment.
 
Last edited:
For me, the largest factor in favour of a Queen alignment is the massive disruption that construction would cause on King street. If we can avoid tearing up downtown's most important east-west thoroughfare, then we should. I'd prefer a Richmond or Adelaide alignment, but I'll take Queen over King any day for this reason.
 
Rainforest said:
Good point.
I always thought (and basically still think) that it is much more important to get the Relief Line built than to decide which exact route it should follow. Any of the Queen, King, Wellington etc alignments would work.
Click to expand...

Exactly - I would be just as happy to see the line built along King if it meant it gets built. I do have to question the motivation of anyone who put relatively minor differences in alignment over prompt construction of the line.

AoD
 
raptor said:
Just wanted to point out that it's not new money...it's simply allocation of the funding announced back in March:
https://news.ontario.ca/moi/en/2018...ments-that-will-improve-the-lives-of-can.html
Click to expand...

Sorry, could you explain that in a little more detail. I'm not up to speed in funding and its allocation. Like how much for each project, and is it actually for each project or this is just general money that's available?

And when it says "Waterfront LRT" does it mean the west too, or is it just Union-Parliament?
 
44 North said:
Sorry, could you explain that in a little more detail. I'm not up to speed in funding and its allocation. Like how much for each project, and is it actually for each project or this is just general money that's available?

And when it says "Waterfront LRT" does it mean the west too, or is it just Union-Parliament?
Click to expand...
I don't know the answers to those questions. But I also wanted to point out that this funding is only the Provincial portion. I doubt they will be sufficient, so we are still awaiting Federal and Municipal funding.
So, even if the Wynne is elected, by no means the 3 projects above are "funded" (yet).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top