"Downtown Core Line" - Possible Alignments?

[golodhendil]

It's a subway map, so it's subway. Although honestly, by the time everything on this map gets built, we'll need a subway along Hurontario. Hurontario will be in need of subway long before the Eglinton subway, DRL subway, Sheppard west and east extensions and Danforth extension are all done.

Hurontario is the busiest corridor in Mississauga, and thus the GTA less Toronto.

Not if Hazel is still around

 

[PSC]

Has anyone actually suggested running it south of Union aside from scenarios where a second line would run farther north?

There was a bunch of discussion about Portlands development demand, which I must've conflated with the alignment discussion here. (pages 9-10 or thereabouts)

 

[PSC]

And if we screw up the DRL by prioritizing Queen riders over riders going through Yonge/Bloor then folks like yourself will have to keep on taking the bus. Get it right, and somebody south of Eglinton might actually get a seat once in a while ....

As if anyone will ever get a seat south of Eglinton during rush hour. Seriously.

That said, I'm not looking to relieve Queen with the DRL, I'm just willing to entertain lines as far north as that. The more I think of it, the more I come to the conclusion that King is the natural link.

Again, the data will tell the tale. Assuming the data is collected before the choice is made instead of after...

 

[Whoaccio]

We also need to factor in how substantially the downtown streetcar lines might/could be improved (POP, low floors, proper route management, etc.), as they could possibly be useful for people to take the DRL down to connect to the Dundas or Queen or King streetcar (wherever they may conenct with the DRL) and then take the streetcars over into the core. With all the talk here of euthanizing the Queen streetcar via a DRL, why not consider some scenarios in between where it and other lines could become more useful?

Despite Steve Munro's posts to the contrary, my experiences with the Queen & King cars has lead me to believe that they are terminally ill. I don't doubt that implementing low floor trams or POP would help those routes, but those aren't long term solutions. All of those steps are all applicable to the Lakeshore LRTs as well. Given that the current LRT route has its own ROW and the eastern segment will be designed in conjunction with the surrounding neighborhoods (including ROW), the route management prospects along Queen's Quay are infinitely better than Queen/King, neither of which will ever have any kind of ROW, preferential signaling or any real route improvements beyond what you listed.

Combined, the Queen/King cars had about 70 odd trams running during the AM peak period (in 05/06 - meeting the RGS.. already requires more). Just to replace those with new trams will run us 200+ million dollars, for which travel times won't change, with the main upside being making the lines accessible. With Queen in particular, "better route management" tends to translate into hiring dozens of additional Route Supervisors to stand around. As much as I find this stupid, I don't actually blame the TTC that much for this. Trying to shuttle tens of thousands of pph during rush hour via 19th century technology on an already gridlocked 4 (2, if parking is allowed) lane street with stops every block seems like the 21st century equivalent of threading a camel through the eye of a needle.

Not that the Harborfront LRT is a marvel of civil engineering, but it is clearly miles ahead of both King and Queen and is easily the closest thing Toronto has to "LRT." It could probably be upgraded to run with multi car (not just articulated) trains. The Queen/King cars have no future. Euthanizing the Harborfront LRT while letting the Queen/King cars limp along like overworked dogs strikes me as bizarre.

P.S. This is hardly unique in TTC history, but it makes me more convinced that their proposal for a DRL is more to sink the RHC ext. than to actually build a DRL. The TTC seems quite convinced that the Waterfront East LRT is the key to development along the Eastern Waterfront and, via an eventual Cherry branch, the Portlands. All of the proposals I have seen for the Eastern Waterfront make it quite clear that they are planning to be served via LRT. It would make absolutely no sense to build this LRT and a DRL 200-300m to the north.

 

[Paleo]

Exactly. Why is it that most folks think that construction of a DRL to Union precludes any sort of improvement on King and Queen? Better streetcar service that connects to the line would accomplish a lot and would facilitate mobility better outside the core than just a subway line.

As opposed to a situation where the DRL runs between Queen and King that:

1) takes people directly to work on weekdays
2) takes people directly to the clubs, restaurants, and malls on weekends
3) improves the situation for people using King and Queen to get into the core

You could argue the exact same thing about a railway/Front alignment only it has none of the above benefits. It duplicates GO. Absolutely wastes the LRT capacity in the waterfront which already comes "pre-improved" in its own right of way. Just have those run north to connect to the DRL if you're that concerned.

 

[Railization]

Again. I didn't see anything in the links that shows significant development along the length of Queen outside the Financial District. And that's what we are arguing here I presume. I see the DRL as cutting through the city and serving several areas. You see it as serving predominantly the Queen and King corridors alone.

Remember, it's not just Queen, it's King/Queen. If you didn't see it, it means you didn't open the links. That, or the maps were simply too complicated for you.

Wanna show me the Queen Street CIP?

http://www.toronto.ca/planning/studies.htm

Till there's one on that site, I am inclined to lean on the OP as the only guidance the city has issued for further development of Queen and King outside the FD.

Well, this would certainly prove that you don't look at any links, including the one's that you yourself provide. Talk about not checking your sources.

This one deals with King/Spadina area, and its scope goes as far north as Queen, and as far south as Front, except for the eastern corner towards University, where it only goes to King. Page 15, which illustrates the recommended adjustments, is particularly interesting, as the density is more consistent and higher on the north side of King than on the south.

Something that you seem to miss as well, is that the King/Queen corridor deals with 4, sometimes 5 streets, while south-of-King deals with only 3. Obviously you're going to hit more when you have a wider service area.

Here's another, dealing with the West Queen Triangle.

In the King/Parliament area check out page 30 for the huge swath of a regeneration area through the King/Queen corridor around here (Jarvis-Parliament).

So what? Who says that's a bad thing. But even this I am skeptical with. The waterfront is premium space. If there's a 10 by 10 box left anywhere, somebody will put a condo up. I don't foresee tight nodal developments happening with or without a subway. It's going to be continuous.

OK, you don't understand the OP or the relationship between infrastructure and developments. That's fine, if you admit that you don't get it. Pretending that you get it isn't going to work, because you're clearly struggling to support your arguement.

Why do you think the Avenues plan favours LRT? Why do you think Queen St. and King St. have the continuous development that they have? This is why the streetcars wouldn't be eliminated if the DRL does run through Richmond/Adelaide, although they'd obviously be reduced in frequency (because they need that anyway in King's case).

This is also why the waterfront should be serviced by quality LRT.

A bus to a subway as one example. I have never said I am opposed to LRT there. I have repeatedly said I support a London DLR type of solution for the Portlands. But that LRT has to have somewhere to go and I think it makes sense to have a subway station closer than Union.

You clearly had a less-than-flattering view of LRT. Remember this?:

We'll have to see. It may still be cheaper to have a subway stop and a few buses feeding the neighbourhood than a whole LRT mini-network. Moreover, given the densities being projected for these neighbourhoods, I am skeptical that LRT will be enough. Queen's Quay and Lakeshore are going to become a dog's breakfast (my apology to dog lovers) with the amount of LRT that might be needed to serve all these areas.

And DLR type of service to the Portlands is ridiculous, it's akin to giving it its own SRT (which, I'll remind you, was the plan for the DRL in the 1980s). It doesn't need anywhere near such extravagent transit infrastructure for the demand it is projected to have.

As for "giving that LRT somewhere to go," Union is farther away than the King/Cherry.

How is it grasping at straws? Is that what it is when you have a plurality of voters preferring one option over another? I stated the obvious.

And for the record. I have said the vote should be redone with King as an option.

You're not stating the obvious at all. Anybody that believes King is the best choice has had to choose between Adelaide and Wellington, even though they believe King is best. Wellington is closer to King than Adelaide, although by a small margin, but may be affecting people's choice. If a significant number of the Wellington votes were for King instead, then the Richmond/Adelaide alignment becomes a clear winner.

Now, King's not really feasable anyway, and as far as implementation is concerned, Queen isn't practical either. So re-doing it with King is a bit of a pointless exercise.

So what if they are? I am betting that the stations south of King will see higher ridership in the years to come and that's why the line should be on King or further south. You disagree. Fair enough.

They wouldn't. Because they don't have the established ridership. The buildings along the waterfront aren't going to be as tall as the financial district either. You're also neglecting the connecting E-W routes that also contribute to the ridership coming VIA Yonge, not just those with Yonge as its final destination.

You don't go from 0 to 60,000 rides a day at a given point in 10 years. This is why subways are best routed along established corridors with existing high ridership that is guaranteed to be there when revenue service starts.

Furthermore, you actually don't want a single station to have ridership too high, since it then has to cope with excessive peak stress. The DRL serves the purpose of bringing the peak stress down from stations like King and Queen (among other stations) to a reasonable level. It's called demand and resource management, and you don't want to overstrain your resources. This is the whole motivation for the DRL.

That response was based on your assertion that GO will be dumping riders at Union who still need to head north. I have said that if that's the threat than the more lines leading out of Union the better. I still don't see the challenge here.

You totally don't get it... at all. By having riders transfer to the DRL at a station other than Union to get into the core, you relieve the stress put on at Union. In order to releive the stress from Union though, obviously you can't have the line go to Union, otherwise it will simply contribute to the stress there, as you'll be encouraging more transfers to take place there. If you take riders further north of Union from the get-go through Liberty Village GO and a GO Station somewhere in the Riverdale area to connect to the DRL to keep them clear of Union, you get the alleviation. You will not get the alleviation by running the DRL into Union because then GO riders simply will not transfer to the DRL at all, because it will simply take them to the same place. Get it yet? For someone with a high-and-mighty attitude such as yourself, you should know this.

As for your assertion that GO will face severe challenges in 20 years....I believe the upgrades we are undertaking will be sufficient. You don't. Fair enough.

Like I said, part of it has to do with available tracks. How do you solve that one?

I am more than willing to put up a poll asking who folks think is acting superior on here.....

Hm, let's see, I tell you to drop the attitude of thinking that using popular opinion in and of itself can be used to justify your position, and then you suggest a popular opinion solution to the perception of your attitude. That's too funny guy. Way to pay attention.

Forum seniority has little relation to your familiarity with transit. That's just childish and naive.

 

[Whoaccio]

bah, for the love of god, stop these damn quote wars. They are impossible to read. Nobody cares if someone screwed up some minor point.

 

[kEiThZ]

Forum seniority has little relation to your familiarity with transit. That's just childish and naive.

I ain't banking on seniority to win over people. I am banking on comments like this one to show who's more arrogant.

 

[kEiThZ]

bah, for the love of god, stop these damn quote wars. They are impossible to read. Nobody cares if someone screwed up some minor point.

Hey nobody was challenging him/her. Anyways, that's why I am ignoring him/her...must resist feeding the troll.....

Anyone else wanna talk about the DRL?

 

[kEiThZ]

As if anyone will ever get a seat south of Eglinton during rush hour. Seriously.

haha...true enough. Maybe there's hope if the DRL works out right!

That said, I'm not looking to relieve Queen with the DRL, I'm just willing to entertain lines as far north as that. The more I think of it, the more I come to the conclusion that King is the natural link.

Again, the data will tell the tale. Assuming the data is collected before the choice is made instead of after...

The only reason I'd prefer wellington is because of the that option to build pathways to three subway stations...somebody had up a graphic earlier....but King I am willing to concede on since it would hit up most of the financial district.

 

[Rainforest]

Despite Steve Munro's posts to the contrary, my experiences with the Queen & King cars has lead me to believe that they are terminally ill.

But perhaps this is because Queen & King cars are trying to serve as high-capacity long distance routes, which cannot be done efficiently in the clogged downtown traffic.

With DRL built, it will become possible to split those routes. For example, in lieu of 501 Queen we could have:

- 507 Long Branch to the closest DRL West subway station (for example Queen / Dufferin). That route can be pretty reliable if a short (1.5 km) LRT tunnel is built between Roncesvalles and Dufferin.

- 521 Roncesvalles - Carlaw. That route would run in mixed traffic and serve just downtown, but because it is short, bunching should not be a big problem. Obviously, 1-car trains will be sufficient.

- 531 Beaches to the closest DRL East subway station.

The TTC seems quite convinced that the Waterfront East LRT is the key to development along the Eastern Waterfront and, via an eventual Cherry branch, the Portlands. All of the proposals I have seen for the Eastern Waterfront make it quite clear that they are planning to be served via LRT. It would make absolutely no sense to build this LRT and a DRL 200-300m to the north.

DRL would have just 1 or 2 stations in the area, and neither would be right at waterfront. The light rail / streetcar line would serve a completely different market.

 

[Darren B]

Hey nobody was challenging him/her. Anyways, that's why I am ignoring him/her...must resist feeding the troll.....

Anyone else wanna talk about the DRL?

Well I think Rail has some great points about the DRL. Other then question his gender, you havent brought much in terms of actually concrete current facts to dispute what he has said. Unlike you Keithz some of us actually live beyond the links we find on-line. I cant believe you argue that the DRL on Queen is subject to future tentative development, when anywhere from Woodbine to Dufferin, you'd see the aound the clock activity that currently warrants something more then a streetcar.

Go to Gerrard and Logan, walk south on Logan and see the 4 story tall development that was just built on the east side. From there walk west on Queen and of you have the strength walk all the way to Roncesvilles, and then north to Dundas West. The fresh air might do you good.

Now back to making dinner.

 

[kEiThZ]

Well I think Rail has some great points about the DRL. Other then question his gender, you havent brought much in terms of actually concrete current facts to dispute what he has said. Unlike you Keithz some of us actually live beyond the links we find on-line. I cant believe you argue that the DRL on Queen is subject to future tentative development, when anywhere from Woodbine to Dufferin, you'd see the aound the clock activity that currently warrants something more then a streetcar.

Darren. I am not questioning Rail's gender....seeing as I have never met the individual before...I am simply choosing not to assume as he/she has never given a clue to his/her gender.

It's fine if you guys live on there. Does that mean that I or anyone else should get less say? How come the rest of you get a say on say the Scarborough RT but those of us from out there don't get a say on the DRL?

As for Railization's points, while I agree that he/she makes a good case for a subway on Queen (and I don't dispute the need for some improvement on Queen), I simply disagree that a Queen line should be shoehorned into a DRL. As Scarberian pointed out earlier, the more north you move the line the less likely people are to use it. What's the point of building a relief line if it provides no relief to Yonge/Bloor? Neither you nor Railization has yet demonstrated how moving the line that far north will relieve Yonge/Bloor. Instead, yours and his/her case is based on the busyness of the Queen and King streetcars and Railization's assertion that Union needs relief. I don't buy that a line specifically meant to relieve Yonge/Bloor should now have priorities refocused to important but lesser priority issues. Now it's a valid debate to argue whether DRL should have as its focus the relief of Union or the relief of Queen, but as it stands we are discussing a subway to relieve Y/B. For that particular goal I believe an alignment along King or further south is best. If we were talking about other goals perhaps I'd be amenable to supporting a line further north.

As for debates on development and such....to me it's just bonus if a DRL serves new development and for me that's why I'd like to see the DRL serve the Portlands, Exhibition, etc. but that's still relatively unimportant to the topic at hand: how to relieve Yonge/Bloor. And one hint on that....all those going through Y/B today aren't using the King or Queen streetcar to get into the core.

We'll leave Railization's pathological need to be correct...to the point where he/she accuses others of unsavoury behaviour (ie arrogance) for another thread .... or for the mods to sort out sooner or later.

 

[kEiThZ]

Does anyone have any maps done it for a Queen alignment? I'd love to see one. Thanks.

 

[Darren B]

Does anyone have any maps done it for a Queen alignment? I'd love to see one. Thanks.

I just gave you the path before. South on Pape the under the tracks to Gerrard where it curves in a lightning bolt shape west to Logan where it goes south to Queen. From there it travels west to Ronce, and then north on Ronce to Dundas west station