Red October
Senior Member
They will eventually. The Eastern portion is more important because the Yonge line is at capacity, whereas the U-S line is merely reaching it.
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
They will eventually. The Eastern portion is more important because the Yonge line is at capacity, whereas the U-S line is merely reaching it.
drum118
Superstar
If one looks at numbers, the DRL going only to Danforth is a mistake as it will not taking a larger number off the Yonge Line south of Eglinton. The line must go to Eglinton under phase one if you want to deal with ridership south of Bloor.
In the end, the DRL line needs to go to Steele to free up space on the Yonge Line that will be replace by new riders on it that live on Yonge St in the first place as well future ones. Over all, the line needs to go to Hwy 7.
As for Dundas Station route for the west end, don't support it as it should be Jane with the line going north and meeting the Spadina extension at Steele.
In the end, the DRL line needs to go to Steele to free up space on the Yonge Line that will be replace by new riders on it that live on Yonge St in the first place as well future ones. Over all, the line needs to go to Hwy 7.
As for Dundas Station route for the west end, don't support it as it should be Jane with the line going north and meeting the Spadina extension at Steele.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
If you look at the numbers, bringing it to eglinton relieves only 2% of the pressure on yonge. It is just as effective at relief as a western DRL (2% as well) which has much better side benefits. The most important part of the DRL is the part being studied. The initial phase of the DRL will allow for under current plans the basic portion being studied as well as either an extension to Eglinton or to Dundas West. I'm hoping for Dundas west.
I think that hitting Mount Dennis (Eglinton & Weston area) is more important than hitting Jane & Bloor. Most of the ridership on the Jane bus is coming from north of Eglinton, so you could easily split the Jane route at Eglinton, running it into a DRL terminus at Mt. Dennis (along with a connection to GO and the ECLRT).
Once there and in operation, you could decide if it should follow the rail corridor and continue to run up Jane.
Although personally, I think the DRL West should run under Dufferin and then north of Dupont cut northeast under the hydro corridor until it meets the rail corridor around Rogers.
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,452
- Reaction score
- 1,514
- Location
- Downtown Toronto, Ontario
Maybe we should try for eglinton on both ends as the first shot. Let's do this right.
Canadian Chocho
Active Member
It might even get vociferous support from the suburbanites that way.
GenerationW
Senior Member
Taking it up north of Eglinton in the east might be necessary to get that kind of support from suburban councilors.
Not sure what it would take to get downtown councilors to support a DRL. Not build it at all?
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,452
- Reaction score
- 1,514
- Location
- Downtown Toronto, Ontario
Taking it up north of Eglinton in the east might be necessary to get that kind of support from suburban councilors.
Not sure what it would take to get downtown councilors to support a DRL. Not build it at all?
It will get built. Otherwise they would not be talking.
smallspy
Senior Member
It "relieves" 2% of the ridership only when you compare the ridership today to that of 2031. What you've forgotten to take into account is the annual 2-some-odd percent increase in ridership up to that date.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
Red October
Senior Member
One thing I always hear when debating about the DRL is just it's relief of the YUS and B-D lines, which is its biggest purpose for sure, but one thing that seems to never be mentioned is that it would take a lot of relief off the current E-W streetcar routes. This would be huge as the current situation makes it so every streetcar is full during rush hour.
Very true, which is why I prefer an 'intersect, not replace' approach when planning the DRL alignment. It can intersect the King, Queen, Dundas, and Carlton streetcars, but I don't think any of those routes should be replaced as a result of the DRL being implemented. This is especially true for a line like Queen, where people from the ends of the line can ride it until the DRL, and then transfer. That leaves the line in between the 2 DRL 'wings' to service the local population, without being ridiculously overcrowded.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Thats essentially my plan. I would like to see 504 service eliminated (except for on roncasvalles) and solid transfer points as the two ends of the DRL where it intersects the 501. (Carlaw and Queensway under my plan)
So I've come up with a new branding for the DRL: The SEDD Subway (Scarborough-Exhibition Dufferin-Don Mills). Naturally this naming only works if the alignment below is used, but I think it has a nice ring to it, and it has a good descriptive name with an easy acronym (rolls off the tongue much easier than YUS or B-D).
The alignment is similar to what I've posted before.
The alignment is similar to what I've posted before.
WislaHD
Superstar
For the Scarborough extension of the DRL, after Victoria Park will it be at grade?
I'm not familiar with the area but it was my impression that there isn't much space and it seems that if we want it at-grade (which we do, considering it is much cheaper) it will require the expropriation of both residential and some hydro towers along the hydro corridor, wouldn't it?
I'm not familiar with the area but it was my impression that there isn't much space and it seems that if we want it at-grade (which we do, considering it is much cheaper) it will require the expropriation of both residential and some hydro towers along the hydro corridor, wouldn't it?
Do you mean east or west of Victoria Park? East of Victoria Park it would be the existing Bloor-Danforth Subway and the proposed Scarborough Subway. West of Victoria Park it would be tunnelled to the rail corridor, and either elevated over or tunnelled under the rail corridor, depending on which option would be best. I would think that TBMing under the rail corridor would be a possibility, because a significant percentage of the cost of tunnelling is building the stations, and since there are no stations between Victoria Park and Gerrard Square, that should lower the cost per km considerably.