Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

Whoaccio said:
I bet the City will put the official price tag for the DRL at, about, 8 billion dollars. Why? The Richmond Hill extension is, apparently, 5b (including necessary upgrades). ...
Click to expand...

Speaking of the Richmond Hill extension, good 1/3 (if not 1/2) of those "necessary upgrades" won't be necessary if DRL is built :)

The urgently needed section of DRL is between the Danforth transfer station (likely Pape) and Spadina in downtown (say Spadina / Queen). That section would be 8 - 9 km long, of which 2 km or more may be in the rail corridor. So, 2 - 2.5 B should do the trick.

Other sections of DRL (Danforth - Eglinton and/or downtown - Dundas/Bloor) can wait till the next round of funding.
 
CDL.TO said:
I don't want to believe that Steve Munro has so much influence on Toronto transit planning. I really, really don't.

But it seems to be waaay too much of a coincidence that he makes a number of posts on his blog in the past two weeks stating the need for a downtown relief subway line and asking the city to look into it, and all of a sudden that's exactly what the city has done.

Steve is a good guy and I respect him and his ideas, but he is still a civilian, someone whose job and training isn't in the field of transit planning. If he has influenced this decision, it says nothing of him but instead shows the complete vacuum of leadership at the TTC and the City.
Click to expand...

This does not necessarily prove Steve Munro's formidable influence. Another explanation is that after Metrolinx's ridership forecasts have become available, both Steve Munro and TTC's planners analyzed them and arrived to similar conclusions.
 
Rainforest said:
Speaking of the Richmond Hill extension, good 1/3 (if not 1/2) of those "necessary upgrades" won't be necessary if DRL is built :)
Click to expand...

That's exactly right. The original purpose of the DRL was to relieve pressure on the Yonge line to avoid the need for an expensive and disruptive reconstruction of Bloor-Yonge station.
 
Exactly. While signal improvements might help (which are likely needed since the existing signal system from Eglinton to Yonge is 55 years old and needing major work anyway), as will minor capacity improvements with the new subway trains already ordered, the biggest cost would be yet another reconstruction of Bloor-Yonge, a very expensive undertaking that could cost as much as two kilometres of subway (minus stations).
 
So how much will it cost to rebuild Queen station and Pape station if the DRL IS built? Queen in particular doesn't have the widest platforms, and at a minimum, the platforms there would have to be widened as they were on the Bloor platform of Bloor-Yonge.

And although there is a roughed in streetcar platform under Queen station, there's no way that it is going to be wide enough - presumably the station down there will have a centre platform in addition to side platforms ... (and if they had any sense, they'd build NY-style express tracks ... or at least leave the space for them, now).
 
Who said anything yet about Queen Station? The route of the DRL (re-branded the Downtown Core line by Metrolinx) has yet to be determined, and there are several possible alignments, including Queen (but don't go by Metrolinx's maps too religiously), King, Wellington, Front, Union Station Rail Corridor.

The only ones who seem to be rejecting a DRL subway are the die-hard light rail fanboys - not more reasonable transit advocates like Munro, not even Giambrone (though I think he is making a mistake pushing this to 2018 never-never land) - it's going to happen sooner or later, and at least if it happens earlier, there will be a lot of money saved by leaving B-Y alone. Also, there will be much less transfer activity in the downtown core then there is now at B-Y, given that the DRL actually leads to the areas where peak flows are the greatest.

Pape (or Donlands) will have to be rebuilt to accomodate the connection, but pushing the subway north to Eglinton (as even Munro is musing about) would really take a lot of pressure off the choke points. Traffic will spread out much better.
 
Last edited:
The TTC and City should build the DRL now from Eglinton to Dundas West via Queen Street.

Forget this Transit City BS.
 
Seriously, I think "Transit City" would be perfect if it was just the DRL and Eglinton. If there's an extra money, finish the purple line and convert the RT to a subway. That's all it would take to give us a pretty damn awesome transit map.
 
ShonTron said:
Who said anything yet about Queen Station? The route of the DRL (re-branded the Downtown Core line by Metrolinx) has yet to be determined, and there are several possible alignments, including Queen (but don't go by Metrolinx's maps too religiously), King, Wellington, Front, Union Station Rail Corridor.
Click to expand...
TTC and Metrolinx both seem to be saying Queen or King. The King platform are similiar enough to Queen. So the question stands. Union seems to be out for many reasons. The current platform widening, the utilization of some of the extra capacity in the Corridor by GO, the new Cherry Street yards, etc., all seem to eliminate that option.

ShonTron said:
The only ones who seem to be rejecting a DRL subway are the die-hard light rail fanboys ...
Click to expand...
what on earth has this diatribe of yours got to do with my question?? I'm simply curious how much a Queen rebuild will cost. I've been saying for years that the DRL needs to be built before anything else. This would be a far better forum if you simply discussed the issue, rather than flaming anyone that doesn't seem to match your personal agenda!
 
Last edited:
I don't mind the concept of Transit City, as a basic concept, at all, actually. There are some pros:

1. Some routes will be well served - Finch West in particuar, Don Mills north of Eglinton is also a good route, Waterfront West isn't bad either.

2. The idea of planning a network rather than one-offs is the most 'revolutionary' part of the plan. However, a conceptual network shouldn't also be your final plan.

3. I am hopeful that Eglinton will work well as planned. The tunnel through the congested part and surface west of Weston Road and east of Don Mills completes Eglinton into one route - the biggest problems with Eglinton have always been the part they plan to tunnel. The Eglinton-Kingston section of the "Scarborough-Malvern" route will also be successful. A DLR to Eglinton-Don Mills and LRT heading in three directions will likely work well. At least Eglinton isn't doomed to Sheppard's fate.

The cons, however are as follows:

1. Transfer City - Sheppard East is very political, and will forever muck up crosstown commuting. There's no concrete plans to connect STC to it, a huge mistake.

2. Jane - not so much the idea, but more that it could just be a quagmire, a sinkhole, if you will, because the street is narrow in many places all the way up to the 400/BCD interchange. Munro prefers the Weston sub for light rail, and I agree with at least that concept - with a connection to the DRL Phase II at Dundas-Bloor, of course. Regional rail with a stop at Jane would whisk a lot of people towards downtown and other transit lines.

3. Bloated expectations and a dubious sales job. TC ties itself with some other good initatives - Avenues, the highrise renewal idea, the priority neighbourhoods, but there's a claim that all are tied to each other, when they are really distinct initatives. Priority neighbourhoods means addressing a deficit of community resources, though better transit is probably a good thing. Highrise renewal (ERA) is a wonderful idea, I sat down with Graeme Stewart who sold me on it, but there's a lot of disconnect between the highrise clusters and TC. TC doesn't do a wonderful job of following the Avenues - Sheppard West is one of the best examples, and has only the inadequate 84 bus serving it. Much of TC won't be that much faster than the buses they will replace, except Eglinton.

Simply, LRT should have been one tool in a "transit city" box, not the end all solution to all of life's problems.
 
nfitz said:
what on earth has this diatribe of yours got to do with my question?? I'm simply curious how much a Queen rebuild will cost. I've been saying for years that the DRL needs to be built before anything else. This would be a far better forum if you simply discussed the issue, rather than flaming anyone that doesn't seem to match your personal agenda!
Click to expand...

Did I call you a "die-hard LRT fanboy" here? Why are you offended? There are a few people out there who reject a subway, suggesting light rail instead, or just TC with no downtown relief. They exist. Please, tell me all about my personal agenda, apart from wanting a DRL to relieve the pressure on the Yonge Line and serve some additional neighbourhoods.

I was suggesting that building the DRL would save the money that would be burned by tinkering with Bloor Yonge (a very expensive proposition) yet again.

Also, thanks for suggesting that I should not be posting here, much less moderating.
 
Last edited:
A Queen or King Station expansion won't be as pressing, should the DRL take the Queen/King route because the DRL likely wouldn't create that many transfers between it and the Yonge/University subways, as any transfers that would occur are contra-flow anyway at peak times.

IMO though, it would probably make the most sense to divert the DRL to Richmond or Adelaide between Church and Simcoe -- PATH connections could be made to both King/Queen and St Andrew/Osgoode stations for transfers.
 
I don't like how one of the most controversial parts of TC is shaping up to be the Eglinton Line. As I see it, that is the most practical and useful line of the whole bunch (except for maybe Finch West). I guess in some fantasy world, subway would be preferable, but I will settle for LRT. Instead of demanding the moon (subway), more people should be criticizing the specifics of the line. My demands:
  • Build the underground section to handle 5-6 car trains.
  • During rush hour, have 50% of vehicles in 6 car configurations and short turn all of them in the underground section.
  • Ensure that the western half of the line is built nearly totally grade separated in the old highway ROW.
  • Try to limit grade crossings on the eastern half as much as possible through trenches, underpasses, overpasses and creative routings.
  • Build actual stations on the above ground segments. I don't want Canary Wharf, but something with some decent wind protection would be nice.
  • Build the underground segment as a single tunnel. For the love of god, we should not have twin tunnel segments.
  • Limit stops/stations to a spacing of 500m. Preferable more.
 
Whoaccio said:
I don't like how one of the most controversial parts of TC is shaping up to be the Eglinton Line. As I see it, that is the most practical and useful line of the whole bunch (except for maybe Finch West). I guess in some fantasy world, subway would be preferable, but I will settle for LRT. Instead of demanding the moon (subway), more people should be criticizing the specifics of the line. My demands:
  • Build the underground section to handle 5-6 car trains.
  • During rush hour, have 50% of vehicles in 6 car configurations and short turn all of them in the underground section.
  • Ensure that the western half of the line is built nearly totally grade separated in the old highway ROW.
  • Try to limit grade crossings on the eastern half as much as possible through trenches, underpasses, overpasses and creative routings.
  • Build actual stations on the above ground segments. I don't want Canary Wharf, but something with some decent wind protection would be nice.
  • Build the underground segment as a single tunnel. For the love of god, we should not have twin tunnel segments.
  • Limit stops/stations to a spacing of 500m. Preferable more.
Click to expand...


I recall reading somewhere that the twin tunnel sections on eglinton are because a few people still think it is necessary to build the underground section to subway specifications, even though there is no reason for it. Doing this is also very expensive.
 
Whoaccio said:
I don't like how one of the most controversial parts of TC is shaping up to be the Eglinton Line. As I see it, that is the most practical and useful line of the whole bunch (except for maybe Finch West). I guess in some fantasy world, subway would be preferable, but I will settle for LRT. Instead of demanding the moon (subway), more people should be criticizing the specifics of the line. My demands:
  • Build the underground section to handle 5-6 car trains.
  • During rush hour, have 50% of vehicles in 6 car configurations and short turn all of them in the underground section.
  • Ensure that the western half of the line is built nearly totally grade separated in the old highway ROW.
  • Try to limit grade crossings on the eastern half as much as possible through trenches, underpasses, overpasses and creative routings.
  • Build actual stations on the above ground segments. I don't want Canary Wharf, but something with some decent wind protection would be nice.
  • Build the underground segment as a single tunnel. For the love of god, we should not have twin tunnel segments.
  • Limit stops/stations to a spacing of 500m. Preferable more.
Click to expand...

Well said!!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top