Payback
Banned
In the long term, a subway DRL *and* another subway under ~Queen are both warranted. If we're going to overspend on transit, we really should do so downtown, not in places like Seaton.
First thing you've said that I agree with.
Eglinton's bus capacity is actually much higher than what Rainforest says because Eglinton is split by 3 subway stations, turning it into, effectively, 4 routes. If an Eglinton subway was built today and no other transit projects were built, Eglinton would be very well-used. However, its ridership could easily be eaten up by other projects...Eglinton is the ultimate fantasy map line because Toronto will only need a full Eglinton subway when the Avenues take off and when there's a substantial shift away from cars and towards transit. One could make a good case, though, that we should build for the future and build Eglinton as a subway since we're already going to spend an unknown number of billions of dollars on a tunnelled Eglinton LRT.
Eglinton makes so much sense it's astounding people are still in doubt over it's potential. Why would anyone from the suburbs need to take a bus all the way south to the BD line anymore, when Eglinton can cut that commute in half? What better way to link Square One to the subway grid then via a short BRT trip to the Renforth gateway? For that matter, is there a more logical connector to the airport (and don't say we could subvert the Geogretown GO line for several miles off course just to prove a point)?
Indeed bus routes on Eglinton carry well over 30, 000 ppd. So times four there's 120, 000 right there. If that's not justification for a subway line, I'd like to know what is. I think the 'tunneled' section of TC is the most crucial part of the line to get right. Beyond that a subway could easy well run at-grade, open-trench or elevated through the Golden Mile and Richview.
mgl: even if Queen had more interesting places than the DRL alignment by an imaginary score of 7 to 6 (this is completely subjective), interesting places don't matter...places that generate transit trips do. A Front/Union alignment easily serves everything between King and Queen's Quay, which is a corridor of intense development and many trip generators. If we built one line under Queen and called it a day, that wouldn't come close to serving the bulk of downtown well. How much longer will everything south of Front be "barren"? By the time the DRL is actually finished, there will hardly be any vacant sites at all left downtown.
In a perfect world we'd have subways in both corridors. Queen is relatively close to most downtown destinations. I could easily walk it north from Queen if a wanted to visit Chinatown, I know that's not possible from a Cityplace Stn. Obviously the waterfront will redevelop but since when are condo dwellers more relevant than most innercity residents who've suffered the indignities of sluggish streetcars for all these years? Where's their subway?
A full-fledged subway on Eglinton won't run empty of course. But it would cost to the tune of 7 billion, versus 2.2 billion (OK perhaps 2.5 in reality) for the planned LRT.
If by full-fledged you mean Pearson to UTSC, then I suppose so, maybe slightly higher.
Planning a full-fledged subway on Eglinton creates this risk: central section gets build first, then the political climate changes and further subway construction is halted. If that happens, we will get another Stubway. In contrast, if the central tunnel is built as LRT, getting a continuous Crosstown line is virtually certain.
If the central part got built first then construction stalled, at least the commutes of 32/34 riders is slashed in half. Think about it too, there'll always be pressure to finish Eglinton if it's stubbed. Much like Sheppard advocates see the unattainable end points of Downsview and SCC, much the same people will see Pearson and Kennedy as worthy points to fill in the gaps for.