Palma
Senior Member
You already have UP which should be used for TTC to provide transit from the west to Union. Perhaps they should broaden the focus so that would be included in the plan.
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
Translude15
Frank the Tank
In terms of a western extension, a Queen alignment makes a connection to GO RER at Sunnyside much more problematic if the line were to swing north along Roncesvalles to Dundas West or beyond. Not to mention the curve from Queen to Roncesvalles would be much more costly and difficult to implement than from King.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Unless it were to swing north to go to Keele instead.
Translude15
Frank the Tank
Even along Parkside/Keele, construction would be way more disruptive with the close proximity of houses. It's still a pretty tight curve from Queensway to Parkside. Then there's High Park and presumably, a higher water table to deal with.
Hopkins123
Senior Member
Queen is perfectly aligned, not only for a Sunnyside GO connection, but also a secondary exit to St Joseph's Medical Centre as well. Building up Parkside/Keele is far less disruptive than using Roncesvalles as well.
Cut-and-cover along the edge of the park would not be disruptive to residents. It'd probably be the cheapest/easiest stretch of subway to construct in modern Toronto's history were that alignment chosen.
Attachments
Zach6668
Active Member
I first saw Steve Munro say this, but after moving to a location where I use the University line daily, I couldn't agree more... The Western Relief Line is already built - the University subway. After 2 years commuting on the Yonge line, the University line feels essentially empty.
Of course, in the longer run, you could imagine something covering an E-W trajectory through the core, as far as mayne Dufferin before turning north or NW or something, but definitely not the necessity that is the eastern DRL.
Of course, in the longer run, you could imagine something covering an E-W trajectory through the core, as far as mayne Dufferin before turning north or NW or something, but definitely not the necessity that is the eastern DRL.
Translude15
Frank the Tank
Both alignments have their merits for sure and both have their issues. Regardless, DRL West is so far down the line in terms of planning and construction that it's impossible to dictate which alignment is chosen. Routing it along both King and Queen could be a pretty effective compromise as well.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I am skeptical that the DRL has a case north of Bloor/Danforth. Let alone nort of Eglinton. Smart Track will move a lot of that ridership from the East. It'll be diverted before Don Mills.
I should caveat that by saying that doesn't mean no northern extension at all. Just that Smart Track can forestall the northern extension for a little while. Perhaps we can now focus on building both the eastern and western stretch of the DRL south of Danforth.
I should caveat that by saying that doesn't mean no northern extension at all. Just that Smart Track can forestall the northern extension for a little while. Perhaps we can now focus on building both the eastern and western stretch of the DRL south of Danforth.
ehlow
Senior Member
West DRL is more about relieving the King Streetcar (which is the opposite of empty) and dense transit-starved neighbourhoods then it is about relieving University line
Translude15
Frank the Tank
Even at 5 min frequencies ST will only divert 17% of Yonge ridership in 2031. The new U of T transit model has an even greater percentage of usage on the Yonge line in 2031 than previously forecast and that includes signal and fleet upgrades. Basically, ST will marginally mitigate Yonge line overcrowding and in a very short term sense as well. Simply put, DRL Long is the only way to adequately reduce capacity issues over the long term.
kEiThZ
Superstar
@Translude15
That tells me construction can be phased as follows:
1) ST core (Mount Dennis to Kennedy) and SSE
2) ST North-East (Kennedy to Unionville)
3) DRL core (downtown portion)
4) DRL North-East (Danforth to Finch)
That's what I'm getting at. Smart Track buys a solid 10-15 years.
That tells me construction can be phased as follows:
1) ST core (Mount Dennis to Kennedy) and SSE
2) ST North-East (Kennedy to Unionville)
3) DRL core (downtown portion)
4) DRL North-East (Danforth to Finch)
That's what I'm getting at. Smart Track buys a solid 10-15 years.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
You can't get the DRL up and running in a decade anyways - considering the minimal amount of planning and engineering work. Those should start now.
As to phasing, I would actually go to Eglinton, not Bloor - no one from Thorncliffe or Flemingdon is going to use ST.
AoD
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The DRL and the Don Mills rapid transit line could be merged or become feeders to each other. Depends upon what form they would take, heavy rail or light rail or both.
nfitz
Superstar
Fair enough. But it can terminate then at Bathurst/King with an intermediate station at Spadina/King. Perhaps if they do end up with a major SmartTrack station at Atlantic/King as proposed, you end there - though I don't find the King streetcar a problem from Atlantic to Bathurst.
goreckm
Active Member
The thing is, ST won't be finished for at last another 10 years, maybe 15, so, by the time it is complete, it is not buying us any time. People think that building SmartTrack will be quick because it's not underground. There is a lot of work that will be required along that corridor, and looking at the speed of Metrolinx, I wouldn't be too optimistic when looking at timelines.