Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[M II A II R II K]

That alignment would also have no need to add stations on the current Lakeshore corridor. But with a Queen alignment you could add localized stations to the GO so there would be 2 rapid transit routes through downtown, although another issue could be destroying Queen St. as we know it by having it dug up for too long, and corporate gentrifiers circling waiting to replace them.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Some cities are spending billions to get the "one hub" that Toronto already has.

Only because those stations are 100 years old and cost too much to maintain. Plus midday Toronto doesn't even have that much traffic, the city should only have one hub.

 

[diminutive]

Some cities are spending billions to get the "one hub" that Toronto already has. Running the DRL along Wellington won't really affect Union that much. Most of the riders will be bound for the CBD, and even those that are bound for Union would be reverse-flow commuters (DRL to Union, GO train out type of pattern). The benefits of having near-direct access to Union far outweighs the negative impacts of a slightly increased counter-flow commuting pattern.

Yes, the desire to create a 'second Union' is completely against what's going on everywhere else on earth. Most European cities have spent billions so that regional rail routes can have a strait, continuous route through downtown, yet we seem to thinks shunting trains towards random terminals is a good idea.

Moreover, the easiest way to relieve capacity at Union would be to move away from things like terminating services at Union and congested platforms.

If anything should get shunted from Union, it 'ought to be VIA. Not that I'm advocating for that either, but their trains carry the least passengers and benefit the least from being at Union (vs. GO..)

 

[gweed123]

Yes, the desire to create a 'second Union' is completely against what's going on everywhere else on earth. Most European cities have spent billions so that regional rail routes can have a strait, continuous route through downtown, yet we seem to thinks shunting trains towards random terminals is a good idea.

Moreover, the easiest way to relieve capacity at Union would be to move away from things like terminating services at Union and congested platforms.

If anything should get shunted from Union, it 'ought to be VIA. Not that I'm advocating for that either, but their trains carry the least passengers and benefit the least from being at Union (vs. GO..)

Agreed completely. If you really want to alleviate Union, place a greater emphasis on fare integration and boost future transit hubs like Dundas West, Gerrard Square (or thereabouts), and perhaps Liberty Village. Allow GO riders off the trains and onto more convenient local routes instead of herding them all into Union. Not building infrastructure into Union because you're worried about overcrowding is the wrong answer to the problem, IMO.

Let the passengers avoid Union if they choose to by giving them alternate routes, don't force the routes themselves to.

 

[ShonTron]

On Yonge, there are already entrances to King Station as far south as Colborne St. It would be relatively (for some definition of relatively) easy to build a fare-paid connection there. You should see some of the labyrinthine fare-paid connections that exist on the NYC subway. Though, I'd agree that it would be a tall order to figure something out to connect to Union, without massively sacrificing PATH capacity.

There are two long, narrow tunnels providing access between the State Street subway (CTA Red Line) and the Dearborn Street subway (CTA Blue Line). On both downtown subways, it is (or was when I was in the subway last, in 2009) legally possible to walk in the tunnels between closely-spaced stations there too. It's certainly quite possible to shoe-horn a paid connection to King Station; slightly more difficult to St. Andrew, most difficult to Union, but that shouldn't matter too much with Presto or passes. Paris and Mexico City have some very long connecting tunnels as well.

I'm in favour of the Wellington alignment personally, but Adelaide works for me as well.

 

[ksun]

Yes, the desire to create a 'second Union' is completely against what's going on everywhere else on earth. Most European cities have spent billions so that regional rail routes can have a strait, continuous route through downtown, yet we seem to thinks shunting trains towards random terminals is a good idea.

Moreover, the easiest way to relieve capacity at Union would be to move away from things like terminating services at Union and congested platforms.

If anything should get shunted from Union, it 'ought to be VIA. Not that I'm advocating for that either, but their trains carry the least passengers and benefit the least from being at Union (vs. GO..)

One interchange subway station for 2 lines is hardly a "hub"...running DRL through Queen or King station doesn't make those stations a second union. They will just become a regular interchange station.

 

[M II A II R II K]

And plus if riders from the east aren't going to the CBD, they can exit the GO east of Yonge to avoid Union and Line 1 altogether.

 

[muller877]

It's certainly quite possible to shoe-horn a paid connection to King Station; slightly more difficult to St. Andrew, most difficult to Union, but that shouldn't matter too much with Presto or passes. Paris and Mexico City have some very long connecting tunnels as well.

I'm in favour of the Wellington alignment personally, but Adelaide works for me as well.

Wellington to St Andrew should not be difficult either. There is a city owned parking lot underneath University all the way from Front to King. Repurposing some of this lot to be the connection should not be difficult. It may even have enough room for expansion of the PATH and some retail.

 

[ShonTron]

Wellington to St Andrew should not be difficult either. There is a city owned parking lot underneath University all the way from Front to King. Repurposing some of this lot to be the connection should not be difficult. It may even have enough room for expansion of the PATH and some retail.

I forgot about that! I don't drive much, nor do I park downtown, but I have been in that garage once and it is ideal for such a connection.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I am of the mind that the relief function, while being the raison d'etre of the line, should actually be secondary to increasing coverage of the downtown subway network (and support the patterns of future extension of the core). As such, I tend to prefer a more northerly alignment and don't consider a connection to Union Station particularly important.

AoD

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Richmond/adelaide would be fine for a compromise.

 

[rbt]

I am of the mind that the relief function, while being the raison d'etre of the line, should actually be secondary to increasing coverage of the downtown subway network (and support the patterns of future extension of the core). As such, I tend to prefer a more northerly alignment and don't consider a connection to Union Station particularly important.

Sometimes I wonder what ridership would be like for a DRL running across Gerrard and turning to Bay starting at Yonge (transfer to Yonge line via Dundas station northern end) with additional stops at Queen & Bay, King/Union & Bay, and terminates at Queens Quay & Bay (tram/ferry transfer point).

 

[MisterF]

Some cities are spending billions to get the "one hub" that Toronto already has. Running the DRL along Wellington won't really affect Union that much. Most of the riders will be bound for the CBD, and even those that are bound for Union would be reverse-flow commuters (DRL to Union, GO train out type of pattern). The benefits of having near-direct access to Union far outweighs the negative impacts of a slightly increased counter-flow commuting pattern.

This is true of regional/commuter rail, but not for subway lines. Subways are typically spread around the downtown area to increase rapid transit coverage to areas with no existing rail lines. That's why they were invented. It makes sense for them to connect to rail hubs on lines that they're crossing anyway, but they shouldn't duplicate existing infrastructure.

 

[gweed123]

I am of the mind that the relief function, while being the raison d'etre of the line, should actually be secondary to increasing coverage of the downtown subway network (and support the patterns of future extension of the core). As such, I tend to prefer a more northerly alignment and don't consider a connection to Union Station particularly important.

AoD

The core is likely going to extend westward covering from about Dundas to the lake. That entire area can't possibly be covered by a single subway line, no matter where you put it. That's why I'd like to see: WWLRT along Lake Shore/Bremner, GO REX along the rail corridor, GO REX DRL along Wellington and King, surface LRT along Queen.

That way you get 4 relatively parallel corridors offering 3 different types of coverage. GO REX for express, GO REX DRL for quasi-express, and LRT for local.

 

[ksun]

I am of the mind that the relief function, while being the raison d'etre of the line, should actually be secondary to increasing coverage of the downtown subway network (and support the patterns of future extension of the core). As such, I tend to prefer a more northerly alignment and don't consider a connection to Union Station particularly important.

AoD

I strongly agree with this.
A new subway line with a cost in billions, shouldn't set the sole goal of serving rush hour commuters. Toronto is a livable city, and its transit system should make it easier for its residents to enjoy the amenities of the city, and that includes bring people from various pockets to where they want to be, not just go from work to office.

An allignment more closer to King/Queen corridor serves both purposes being close to both Toronto's most vibrant streets and the office towers. A line anywhere south of King, not so much. The area south of Front St doesn't have a fraction of what is available between Queen and King st. I would hate to see a suburban commute line which is busy only during rush hours and remain 80% empty during the rest of its operating hours, which is what a railway/Lakeshore allignment most likely will be like.