- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
btg
New Member
Expert? I don't have the money to hire expensive transportation consulting firms, do you?
I have proposed this to the TTC, but there is institutional inertia or internal consensus... or call it something else, but they are not willing to study this and won't change the terms of an EA.
Lots of people make suggests here, on Steve Munro's site or elsewhere. It was the experts and politicians who pushed aside any idea of a DRL for 2 decades as the priority seemed to be adding subways in the suburbs, but now in th elast year or so suddenly the issue of transit in the Core had re-emerged.
I also have a degree in architecture, so I like coming up with ideas and designing things...
This has been an idea developing in my mind for a while, I am just putting it out for debate, first as a private citizen, and now also as a candidate.
Last edited:
sixrings
Senior Member
GWEED would like a job I am sure but I am also sure he would not have a problem with you using his maps with proper reference. No one has a copyright on these maps. Sure further help may cost you money but munro trz and GWEED have all given a good foundation. Why reinvent the wheel?
I have been a proponent of this type of alignment in the past, but I think at this point a Parliament LRT would be more suitable as a Spadina-style LRT supplement to the subway network. My preference at this point is for a GO REX DRL under Wellington/King (Wellington through the core), and a pedestrian/LRT mall along Queen to handle the more local demand.
A Parliament LRT would fit very well into that, because it would in essence be a mirror to the Spadina LRT. One route going from the Bloor-Danforth Subway, down to Queen's Quay, then into Union. Another from the Bloor-Danforth Subway, down to and across Queen, back up to Bloor-Danforth. Parliament can be reconfigured with 2 LRT lanes on one side, and 2 general traffic lanes on the other (since it isn't a very busy auto street, relatively speaking). The loop into Castle Frank as proposed above can be built, with it surfacing south of Bloor along Parliament, similar to the Spadina Station loop.
This would basically create a second, 'fatter' U across downtown (Spadina-Queen-Parliament), as well as two mirrored Js (Spadina-QQ-Union, Parliament QQ-Union) using surface LRTs. It would cater to local demand, and would potentially act as a quasi DRL, especially in the event of problems on the subway. It would also take quite a few local trips off the YUS U, because there would be a viable N-S transit option in downtown that actually accessed the CBD, without having to rely on the subway.
A Parliament LRT would fit very well into that, because it would in essence be a mirror to the Spadina LRT. One route going from the Bloor-Danforth Subway, down to Queen's Quay, then into Union. Another from the Bloor-Danforth Subway, down to and across Queen, back up to Bloor-Danforth. Parliament can be reconfigured with 2 LRT lanes on one side, and 2 general traffic lanes on the other (since it isn't a very busy auto street, relatively speaking). The loop into Castle Frank as proposed above can be built, with it surfacing south of Bloor along Parliament, similar to the Spadina Station loop.
This would basically create a second, 'fatter' U across downtown (Spadina-Queen-Parliament), as well as two mirrored Js (Spadina-QQ-Union, Parliament QQ-Union) using surface LRTs. It would cater to local demand, and would potentially act as a quasi DRL, especially in the event of problems on the subway. It would also take quite a few local trips off the YUS U, because there would be a viable N-S transit option in downtown that actually accessed the CBD, without having to rely on the subway.
I would be more than happy to have someone use my maps as long as the proper credit is given. My maps have been an on-going evolution, so if someone presents a good idea I'm not opposed at all to including them on one of my future maps.
WislaHD
Superstar
Parliament LRT isn't a bad suggestion, but not as an alternative to the DRL.
nfitz
Superstar
What's the purpose though, at least north of Gerrard. Current usage on that route peaks at less than 200 passengers an hour in AM peak.
I can see there'd be some ridership between Yonge and Parliament - but these people aren't generally getting off at Parliament.
In my opinion, the usage is low because the transit routes along that stretch don't lead anywhere that people want to go. If you're at Parliament and Carlton and you're heading downtown, you aren't going to bus up to Castle Frank, transfer at Bloor-Yonge, and take the Yonge subway down. You're either going to walk to College Station, or take the Carlton streetcar. But if there was an option for an LRT that went down Parliament, and turned onto an LRT on Queen, that would immediately be the routing preference for most people.
It's a classic case of chicken and egg. The demand is there, people are just using other routings because the optimal routing doesn't exist as an option.
nfitz
Superstar
A lot of people that close to downtown are simply walking. Others are walking to a convenient east-west route going downtown (Wellesley, Carlton, Dundas, Queen, or King).
I don't see that Parliament would be THAT well used. Some sure - but I don't see a lot of people getting off the Parliament bus (which I use), and transferring to a route heading downtown. The biggest destination is the subway station.
But the point of the LRT is that you wouldn't have to transfer from the Parliament route onto an E-W route to access downtown. With one branch going down Queen and another onto QQ and into Union, that pretty much covers the entire CBD without a transfer. The same type of configuration would do wonders for Spadina too.
I had a friend who used to live just north of Carlton along Parliament, and despite the relatively central location, it was a PITA to get to, especially from somewhere like Union. The streetcar was inconsistent, and even when it did come it was usually packed and terribly slow (almost faster to walk to Yonge). I can't help but feel like a Parliament LRT would be a really big catalyst for redevelopment in that area, because people would finally have a convenient way to get downtown from there.
nfitz
Superstar
Let's spend money on where we currently need transit and don't have it. Before we worry about improving transit for places that already have it, and only need improvements for redevelopment.
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Any Parliament LRT should go right to Union Station.
nfitz
Superstar
If there were no plans about a DRL on King Street East, I'd think that a surface level LRT along Front to Cherry would make a lot of sense. The number of shuttle buses for offices east of Jarvis to Union is increasing, with many more promised for the new Globe and Mail building. Seems there should be public transit, in addition to private. I'm not sure how this has got missed over the years.
But I don't think sending up north on Parliament is the answer.
And I think we need to figure out the DRL alignment first.
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Agreed. That's why a Donlands Alignment might best the best, to space out coverage. But a Parliament LRT should be looked at. If Bathurst has a Streetcar I don't see why Parliament can't have an LRT.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Maybe the DRL should terminate or have a station at the inter-city high speed rail station. There is very little room for that high-speed train at Union. Maybe it should be located more northerly with an interface station with the DRL.