Fred.S
Active Member
brainfreezed and Fresh Start, SOS--Save Our Subways is currently recruiting new members. Are you interested?
Sure, where do I sign...
|
|
|
Sure, where do I sign...
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
To be honest, I really don't see the benefit of either extending the DRL past Dundas West or interlining it with Eglinton.
The Georgetown Line would provide perfect service throughout the West End, and I really think that if it got up to 5 minute metro frequency and an electrified corridor, it is the obvious winner over subway. From Etobicoke North station, the passenger line could be rerouted to go to Pearson (probably underground) and meet up with Eglinton and the Mississauga BRT.
But I agree that the DRL should go up Don Mills, though I'd extend it all the way to Finch @ Seneca College. That'd probably be 3 or 4 more stations, one or two at the Peanut, one at Don Mills and Finch, and one at Seneca College on the Hydro Corridor. I'd also extend Eglinton further East to Kingston Road.
As for interlining Sheppard with the Spadina extension, I completely agree with that part, but I think it would make sense for it to only be interlined to York University. That means that Spadina trains can be short turned at Downsview, and Sheppard could provide an increased service around York U, but not past York U, where the increased service isn't needed (yet!)
Just my two cents
The Georgetown Line would provide perfect service throughout the West End, and I really think that if it got up to 5 minute metro frequency and an electrified corridor, it is the obvious winner over subway. From Etobicoke North station, the passenger line could be rerouted to go to Pearson (probably underground) and meet up with Eglinton and the Mississauga BRT.
But I agree that the DRL should go up Don Mills, though I'd extend it all the way to Finch @ Seneca College. That'd probably be 3 or 4 more stations, one or two at the Peanut, one at Don Mills and Finch, and one at Seneca College on the Hydro Corridor. I'd also extend Eglinton further East to Kingston Road.
As for interlining Sheppard with the Spadina extension, I completely agree with that part, but I think it would make sense for it to only be interlined to York University. That means that Spadina trains can be short turned at Downsview, and Sheppard could provide an increased service around York U, but not past York U, where the increased service isn't needed (yet!)
Just my two cents
Dan416
Senior Member
Sure, where do I sign...
Haha nowhere to sign just yet. But I'll inform you of Save Our Subways future secret meetings
Fresh Start
Banned
CC, if you’re serious about this, I’m fully on board and am willing to contribute any cartographical images you may need to present to the media, politicians or whoever else influential’s interested.
So true. To minimize, costs you could have the line running through Richview be a 2-track configuration whereby both DRL and Eglinton eastbound trains share the same track and the same for westbound trips. The separation of services into two distinctive routes doesn’t have to begin until around Jane Street where the eastbound line could diverge into two branches. This would give all the folk at Scarlett, RY, Islington, Kipling and Martin Grove an equal opportunity to board either service and not be stranded for too long should the undesired train show up first (provided we can achieve up to 40kmph speeds due to wider stop spacings in exclusive ROW).
Jane LRT is actually one of the few aspects of Transit City that I do like and would do more for the densely populated Jane/Finch neighbourhood than the unwarranted Finch West LRT would. I think people at Weston/Sheppard wouldn’t mind transferring onto it, especially if we could get it to be grade-separated at least part of the way and feeding directly into the subway at Mt Dennis.
I wouldn’t be too surprised if TC runs up to $15 billion when they’re through, so yeah, we could do a lot of worthwhile subway projects with that money which at the end of the day generates ridership, urban growth and development and Avenueization just as well as the LRT could and then some. Best part, no road-median transfers in the dead of winter!
Thank you. Yeah I thought about that, the funkiness (lol), but those destinations chosen through the downtown are major points of congestion (both for motorists and pedestrians) and where highest yield of passengers get on/off the connecting bus or streetcar service outside of when boarding at the existing subway transfer points. It’d really be worth the marginal extra duration if the subway stops where people actually want to go. Take Chinatown-AGO Stn for instance, notice how a full 510 or 505 quickly empties out by the Spadina-Dundas intersection, and how placing a subway stop in this location would minimize commuter backtracking on the surface network to get to desired major destinations. It’s not an exact science and this spacing/alignment won’t please everyone but it would certainly benefit the vast majority and reduce the time spent on feeder buses/streetcars overall through the downtown.
As I feel that a cross-town subway at the downtown level would be compromised by trying to incorporate it onto the DRL, I deliberately made the alignment for this more V-shaped as not to route too closely to King or Queen Streets for very long. Hopefully in the future, an interlined subway can share ROW in the Wellington aligned segment of the DRL (with bi-level transfers occuring at the centremost stops like at St George Stn) whereby a Queen-King subway can route from Roncesvalles to the Beaches via Liberty Village and West Don Lands.
So true. To minimize, costs you could have the line running through Richview be a 2-track configuration whereby both DRL and Eglinton eastbound trains share the same track and the same for westbound trips. The separation of services into two distinctive routes doesn’t have to begin until around Jane Street where the eastbound line could diverge into two branches. This would give all the folk at Scarlett, RY, Islington, Kipling and Martin Grove an equal opportunity to board either service and not be stranded for too long should the undesired train show up first (provided we can achieve up to 40kmph speeds due to wider stop spacings in exclusive ROW).
Jane LRT is actually one of the few aspects of Transit City that I do like and would do more for the densely populated Jane/Finch neighbourhood than the unwarranted Finch West LRT would. I think people at Weston/Sheppard wouldn’t mind transferring onto it, especially if we could get it to be grade-separated at least part of the way and feeding directly into the subway at Mt Dennis.
I wouldn’t be too surprised if TC runs up to $15 billion when they’re through, so yeah, we could do a lot of worthwhile subway projects with that money which at the end of the day generates ridership, urban growth and development and Avenueization just as well as the LRT could and then some. Best part, no road-median transfers in the dead of winter!
Looks good. Pretty funky route downtown though. I think it would slow down the DRL somewhat and make it much more costly just to serve areas where the streetcar wouldn't take that much longer to get to the core. I am a big fan of the DRL-Eglinton combo, though I do live closeby to Dundas West Stn, so im a bit biased by getting my quick route downtown and to the airport...
Thank you. Yeah I thought about that, the funkiness (lol), but those destinations chosen through the downtown are major points of congestion (both for motorists and pedestrians) and where highest yield of passengers get on/off the connecting bus or streetcar service outside of when boarding at the existing subway transfer points. It’d really be worth the marginal extra duration if the subway stops where people actually want to go. Take Chinatown-AGO Stn for instance, notice how a full 510 or 505 quickly empties out by the Spadina-Dundas intersection, and how placing a subway stop in this location would minimize commuter backtracking on the surface network to get to desired major destinations. It’s not an exact science and this spacing/alignment won’t please everyone but it would certainly benefit the vast majority and reduce the time spent on feeder buses/streetcars overall through the downtown.
As I feel that a cross-town subway at the downtown level would be compromised by trying to incorporate it onto the DRL, I deliberately made the alignment for this more V-shaped as not to route too closely to King or Queen Streets for very long. Hopefully in the future, an interlined subway can share ROW in the Wellington aligned segment of the DRL (with bi-level transfers occuring at the centremost stops like at St George Stn) whereby a Queen-King subway can route from Roncesvalles to the Beaches via Liberty Village and West Don Lands.
Dan416
Senior Member
CC, if you’re serious about this, I’m fully on board and am willing to contribute any cartographical images you may need to present to the media, politicians or whoever else influential’s interested.
What we could really use are some pretty maps showing what the Sheppard Subway could look like if extended in both directions.
I did one by just photoshopping a TTC map, but that probably wouldn't be looked on too favourably.
doady
Senior Member
Yeah, be careful, the TTC is worse than Dustin Hoffman. I didn't feel like going to court over some stupid meaningless map so I took my name off mine, and it is probably a good idea for the rest of you to do the same.
Chuck
Senior Member
Although I understand the logic behind your map, its flaw is that it prioritizes destinations ahead of established commuter corridors. For example, what good is a stop in Chinatown when the only way someone can transfer to that line is by heading all the way south to Union? Unless you live in the west end, most people would still take the Spadina or Dundas streetcars.
My latest map is below. The eastern DRL uses the rail corridor, merges into Yonge express tracks, heads up to Eglinton, then continues up Don Mills, where it is local north of Eglinton.
There is also a new subway line on College, and the western DRL turns into a Queen subway. Either the Eglinton subway or the Queen line could go to the airport.
This last part is the most controversial: My map assumes large population growth east and west of downtown. I think that we need allow these areas to redevelop as the market dictates because they are too well located, too well served by transit (even today), and too desirable for the population to just remain stagnant. The pace of growth should be controlled, as should the maximum lot size any one developer can own. But for them to remain unchanged for another 100 years would be a huge lost opportunity.
Fred.S
Active Member
I'm also a fan of the Jane plan as is, especially if the Sheppard line met it west of Downsview. I wouldn't be surprised if TC went even higher than $15b when all is said and done...
Fresh Start
Banned
I’m assuming you meant transferring off from the Yonge Line. In that case, the time taken to get from Bay/Front to Spadina/Dundas via the DRL is approximately 5 minutes. To do the same via the surface network including the time elapsed walking up flights of stairs, making one’s way through incoming foot traffic and then awaiting one’s connecting 505 car to arrive could clock 15 minutes from Dundas Stn to Chinatown, especially during rush hour gridlock. Does the more southerly transfer point in that case, not make more sense?
For all other points-of-origin, it’s a lot simpler: Spadina-York riders still would get there via the 510/505 (but in reduced numbers); Bloor-Danforth riders in-between Lansdowne and Pape would travel down to their respective local stop on the DRL line and travel across to Chinatown from there; Bloor-Danforth east or west of the interchanges quite simply would transfer off and board the DRL. Even GO Transit customers from Union Stn would find this version of DRL a welcome departure from the 510 car, which has to first travel further south before heading up towards Dundas.
And while the destinations are being prioritized, so too are the established inner-city corridors. Dundas would receive 3 additional stations, College gets 3, Gerrard gets 4, and the Queen & King corridors also receive another 3 proximal stops. Plus, no more arduous Skywalk to the big game; because a Front/John station would now allot direct access to the Rogers Centre, CN Tower and Metro Convention Centre. As far as north-south feeders go, every route gets intercepted within its own assigned corridor. The stations just happen to occur where the most people are transferring on/off these various bus and streetcar routes in the downtown. This methodology ergo alleviates all surface routes, leaving vacancy for customers whom still require the streetcar for their journeys while getting the highest volume of riders to major destinations in the shortest amount of time possible.
I don’t think commuters desiring a night cap at their favorite Little Italy bistro really care to endure a multitude of minor time-consuming stops designed to serve the locals along the way no more than residents in Brockton are interested in seeing their LRV stops eliminated and replaced by a subway station they may have to walk over a kilometre just to get to. Running strictly along a linear trek dissatisfies the needs of either transit user archetype.
Plus this alignment leaves open vacancy for a future Queen/King subway that’s not in conflict with the DRL’s path. Here's the downtown inner-city core path of the DRL in greater detail:
nfitz
Superstar
uhh ... how do you plan to tunnel under houses in Kensington and Cabbagetown ... that's all sand. I assume you'd have to demolish anything on top?
Dan416
Senior Member
I dunno, I think your DRL alignment downtown just seems to be connecting dots on a map. A subway like that would never be built today. It's just too all over the place. The curves have to be a lot gentler than that. I think we should choose a road that it'll travel under mostly and stick with it. Or the rail alignment. Or even a big swooping arc up to Pape. e.g. your Queen West and Entertainment stations are at right angles from each other, even though they're one stop apart.
adma
Superstar
TO_penguin
New Member
Far in the future. TO has landed in a pile of money and has an exploding population. Woooooooooo...
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
ROTFLMAO ... right ...
Fresh Start
Banned
Deep level tunnels, depending on the ground conditions, can be really cheap and the only disruption on the surface is for the construction / ventilation shafts and station entrances - often half a kilometre or more apart. Cut and cover is probably more expensive to construct as it involves the closing off major roads to traffic, restricting access to shops, offices and homes and requires the diversion of services beneath the roadway surface, which can be a major problem in a modern city.
Given the nature of the downtown core I'd obviously put forth the former, tunnels at depths upwards of 30m but readily accessible to the surface via extensive elevators/escalators. And it doesn't make any difference what you are cutting or boring through. Out in Kensington Market and Cabbagetown, beneath a layer of sand, it is solid basalt.