Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study

[ssiguy2]

Even if the stations have to be lengthened or widened, that can be done underground with no disruption to the hectiv Yonge/Queen intersection. It would still be a cheaper and far, far, far less disruptive procedure than building a brand new one from scratch under PATH and having an eaiser set up at Osgood is also a added money and time saving bonus.

That aside, I still think Queen should be a heavy favorite and the only option if they do not use the current Union rail corridor.

I think there is one thing that everyone on the site would agree upon, and that would be a first, is that for a DRL report to not even consider Queen is gross incompetence. Whether you support a Queen/Richmond line or not, not considering it makes the report look jeuvenille and afront to the taxpayers of Toronto for a $3 million public relations stunt.

 

[Torontovibe]

I also think the DRL should run along Queen Street.

 

[Jaye101]

I also think the DRL should run along Queen Street.

You both would rather disrupt one of the busiest surface routes in transit, and retail in the entire city than use a street 50m away with no transit and significantly less retail activity?

Queen West retail is already suffering slow sales. I couldn't imagine what would happen if you dug it up. Because even if we shell out the extra billions of dollars in construction costs to use TBM, the stations at Spadina, University, and Yonge still need to be constructed cut and cover. That money would be better spent for a station midblock between Spadina and University, with the Spadina station being midblock between Bathurst to serve both areas without disrupting either surface routes.

 

[calimehtar]

I think it's important that Queen Street retains its streetcar. Not only is it a (potential if not actual) tourist attraction, the part that would be covered by the DRL is only the central portion of a much longer streetcar line that is very important. I'm afraid that if the DRL went on Queen Street it would be tough to argue for keeping the Queen streetcar.

There should be an assessment made of traffic downtown in the zone the DRL will cover, trade-offs made on various routes to optimize for different modes of transportation. I can imagine, for example, the downtown portion of Queen Street becoming more pedestrian and street car centric and potentially losing the King Streetcar altogether in favour of the DRL.

For that reason, and for the ones mentioned by Jaye101, I can see putting the DRL elsewhere, say on Adelaide. Furthermore the main towers in the financial district are centered a bit further south, as are a lot of bigger condo developments both in Liberty Village and in the Distillery District.

 

[balenciaga]

You both would rather disrupt one of the busiest surface routes in transit, and retail in the entire city than use a street 50m away with no transit and significantly less retail activity?

Richmond or Adelaide make more sense for the central part (Yonge-Bathurst). One can be closed and the other converted to two way streets.
Outside the core, the line can run along Queen or King.

 

[dunkalunk]

How about a King-Wellington-Front Alignment?

During construction, large portions of the alignment could be closed for cut and cover construction without too significant impact to other transit and vehicle traffic in the area. In the west where the alignment follows King, the King Streetcar could be rerouted up to Queen via Shaw Street.

IMO, the objective of the DRL should not be to remove streetcars from a given street. If this is an objective, then you will end up with subway stop spacing that is too close and spend more on stations that you would otherwise need to. For instance, the Bloor Subway which replaced the Bloor Streetcar has station spacing that tries to be both rapid and local, but instead lengthens the trip for most people taking the line. I still believe that streetcars should play a valuable role in providing local transit service along the DRL route in the same way that the 97 Yonge bus provides local service between St. Clair and Steeles.

 

[balenciaga]

I think it's important that Queen Street retains its streetcar. Not only is it a (potential if not actual) tourist attraction, the part that would be covered by the DRL is only the central portion of a much longer streetcar line that is very important. I'm afraid that if the DRL went on Queen Street it would be tough to argue for keeping the Queen streetcar.

There should be an assessment made of traffic downtown in the zone the DRL will cover, trade-offs made on various routes to optimize for different modes of transportation. I can imagine, for example, the downtown portion of Queen Street becoming more pedestrian and street car centric and potentially losing the King Streetcar altogether in favour of the DRL.

For that reason, and for the ones mentioned by Jaye101, I can see putting the DRL elsewhere, say on Adelaide. Furthermore the main towers in the financial district are centered a bit further south, as are a lot of bigger condo developments both in Liberty Village and in the Distillery District.

I can't see why the Queen Streetcar should be kept if there is a subway line that stops every 500-600 meters, just like the Bloor line? Everyone says Queen st would be served with more frequent local service. But how a 500M per stop is NOT a local service?

Maybe a much reduced service if at all, like very 20 minutes. I am sure those who are too lazy to walk 300 meters more wouldn't mind waiting a bit longer for the convenience.

 

[jamincan]

Will the city own the new TBMs that are coming for the Eglinton line? If they are reusing them for future lines, is the cost of boring a tunnel actually that much more than cut and cover?

 

[W. K. Lis]

When this thread was started back in August, 2010, the numbers for a Downtown Relief Line was, and is, at 77.39%.

The latest poll (see this link) shows support for a DRL at 61%. Of course, this is a more accurate scientific poll, since the urbantoronto poll was only done by those who have logged on to this site.

The TTC backed a winner on Wednesday when it approved making the downtown relief line a transit priority, according to a new poll by Forum Research.

Sixty-one per cent of respondents agreed that a downtown subway, running from around Pape Station down along King St. to University Ave., was “a more pressing need for transit in Toronto†than a Scarborough subway.

The DRL was also more popular than a high-speed rail link to the airport, which is already being built. Asked which should be built first, half of respondents chose the DRL, compared with 42 per cent who favored the airport rail link.

Even in Scarborough, a third of respondents favoured the DRL over a Scarborough subway.

“A lot of them go downtown. That’s where the volume is,†said Forum Research president Lorne Bozinoff.

Although he said the air-rail train will be popular, the downtown relief line, which would take some of the crush off the Yonge subway and Bloor-Yonge station, “is a really, really popular transportation option.â€

“Subway riders really have a good feel for what’s going on,†he said.

Poll respondents were split on whether they agreed with the city charging a fee or tax to pay for transit. Forty-four per cent agreed and 46 per cent disagreed. Ten per cent didn’t know.

The highest support for taxes, 53 per cent, was in Toronto and East York. Only 35 per cent of Scarborough respondents agreed with them.

The interactive voice response phone survey of 614 Toronto residents was conducted on Thursday. It is considered accurate plus or minus 4 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

Fifty-nine per cent of respondents approved of cellphone service on the subway, and 76 per cent agreed that the entire region should contribute to expanding Toronto transit.

 

[Rainforest]

When this thread was started back in August, 2010, the numbers for a Downtown Relief Line was, and is, at 77.39%.

The latest poll (see this link) shows support for a DRL at 61%. Of course, this is a more accurate scientific poll, since the urbantoronto poll was only done by those who have logged on to this site.

That's nice. A general public support at 61% practically weights much more than any poll taken at UToronto.

 

[Tewder]

How about a King-Wellington-Front Alignment?

During construction, large portions of the alignment could be closed for cut and cover construction without too significant impact to other transit and vehicle traffic in the area. In the west where the alignment follows King, the King Streetcar could be rerouted up to Queen via Shaw Street.

IMO, the objective of the DRL should not be to remove streetcars from a given street. If this is an objective, then you will end up with subway stop spacing that is too close and spend more on stations that you would otherwise need to. For instance, the Bloor Subway which replaced the Bloor Streetcar has station spacing that tries to be both rapid and local, but instead lengthens the trip for most people taking the line. I still believe that streetcars should play a valuable role in providing local transit service along the DRL route in the same way that the 97 Yonge bus provides local service between St. Clair and Steeles.

Your plan makes the most sense to me, connecting a lot of new emerging neighbourhoods where population growth will happen. People on Queen who are looking to make short trips can hop a streetcar... or they could walk a few blocks to a King/Wellington line to get further faster. Just makes sense. As for construct-ability? I'll leave that to others here to quibble over.

 

[gweed123]

That's nice. A general public support at 61% practically weights much more than any poll taken at UToronto.

Realistically, given the polarization of the transit debate today, 61% support for anything is a pretty big deal. And I'm sure if the benefits were properly explained to the remaining 39%, I'm sure quite a few of them would join that 61%. Pretty much the only people who wouldn't are those who are so tied to their cars and think that the money should be spent on highways instead. And realistically, no transit option is going to reach them.

 

[ssiguy2]

Not meaning to be rude DUNKAKUNK but your idea is lunacy.

Part of your plan involves using a current rail corridor which is outrage! The idea of using current rail corridors for rail transit is completely unacceptable and the only way Toronto would even consider such an obscene savings of funds is if it could ripe up the rail corridor and build a tunnel underneath it.

Even if they did that, that means the line couldn't even start construction for atleast 10 years as Toronto would have to what til the entire area is heavily urbanized so it can then proceed to rip up the area. Even the idea of building transit before densification begins is an afront to the TTC manderines.

This respect for tax payers and the travelling public has to stop immediately.

 

[dunkalunk]

ssiguy2, I have no idea if the tone of that response is supposed to be sarcastic, cynical, or just plain outraged. I'll respond regardless:

The idea with using the rail corridor as an alignment would be to have a straight corridor with few to no utilities beneath it to run a tunnel boring machine. The alignment would only run beneath the rail corridor between Eastern Ave and Pape. It also has the possibility to save a considerable amount in utility relocation and property acquisition, as well as not disrupting the existing street network nearly as much during construction.

In no way am I suggesting we modify or widen the rail corridor to run a subway, at least in the densely populated central portion of the line. The gradient to go beneath the Don River and Pape would not work if the subway above ground regardless.

If you want to talk about outrage and respect for taxpayers, then just take a look at the ARL.

 

[ssiguy2]

I was being sarcastic and ya, if ever there was a disrespectful and outrageous waste of money with no return for any Torontonians it's the ARL.