Given how many streetcars go along Parliament and given the redevelopment of Regent Park it does seem to cry out for a route, and if streetcars could clear the rail bridge it could do so from Union-QQE, but where would the route terminate/layover assuming TTC got over their fear of increasing mixed traffic route mileage? Steve Munro (IIRC) doesn't think Castle Frank is doable and it's not like he is in the business of pooh poohing streetcar improvements. One option might be to run the route back along Carlton/College to a west of Yonge loop I suppose, but then you still need to cover service north of Carlton.
Well, I am the author of the website
www.briangraff.com and actually posted it on Steve Munro's site as well... and one more thing, I am runing for Council in ward 32
let me explain the genesis and reasoning here... from several viewpoints.
1. a subway has capacity of something like between 20,000 and 40,000, while an LRT is between 8,000 and 20,000 - roughly half and certainly if it is tunneled it is at the higher end.
2. If the Yonge line, which is at capacity south of Yonge, has taken 60 years to get to capacity, and we need extra capacity, do we really need to double it by building a second subway line? If the idea is to bleed passengers off the Danforth line, then of course, maybe only half the passengers and Danforth and Pape, for example, might transfer. Unless the full DRL is built to Don mills and Eglinton, you don't need a Subway, and other than linking into the Crosstown at Eglinton, how much capacity will it add, given that Don Mills and Eglinton has been losing jobs and is not a growth area.
3. The Official Plan does not call for any intensification in the areas east of the Don River, while of course the Downtown is the major growth area, and there are no major transit lines proposed other than on the waterfront, or under King if the DRL is built. Just look at what a white elephant the Sheppard subway has been because of the lack of development - which means we either have to encourage massive intensification in Riverdale along the line (which will also bring more car traffic into an area that is not easy to get to as it is) or else have along line that will serve mainly low density areas and be little more than a shortcut to avoid Yonge and Bloor.
4. Redundancy is important. West of Yonge, there is the University line and the Spadina LRT running from the core to the Danforth/Bloor line. Between Yonge and the Don River, none of the major north south streets has a major line (Church, Jarvis, Sherbourne or Parliament). What happens when there is a shutdown on Yonge? A DRL east of the river is too far to pick up the slack.
5. One thing that motivated this was driving along Rosedale Valey Road when I used to work Midtown. When the Bloor Viaduct was built, they put in the lower decks, and they also built a similar bridge with lower decks over Rosedale Valley. But when the Bloor line was built, having a station at Castle Frank meant that the subway couldn't curve so they built a beautiful concrete bridge to the north of the other one. So, it is not easy to connect anything other than an LRT into Castle Frank... and there is land around Castle Frank for a loop underground, whereas Sherbourne is difficult to do much with, and there is no station at Jarvis, and there is no point to a Church station.
6. The other thing is the unused station at Yonge and Queen. It was built for underground streetcars to run under Queen, but it is not suitable for subways. This would be an obvious place for an underground LRT to connect back into the Yonge Line or for people to get to the PATH or to close enough to the downtown office buildings that they can walk. ther destinations are possible, such as going to Yonge and Wellington to bring it closer to Union Station
7. If we want a cheaper way to increase transit in the Core, the other alternative (Plan B?) is to have the underground LRT station at Castle Frank, have it run under Bloor and then down Parliament, then a ramp to the surface and new track at grade on Parliament from just south of Bloor to Carlton. Just at the original Spadina streetcar did not go north of College, so they extended the line and build the underground loop, this would be a similar improvement that would allow streetcars from various lines that cross Parliament to turn north to go tothe Bloor/Danforth subway.
8. Castle Frank is right by the Don Valley, and yes, there is little density until you get up to Leaside. This is actually an advantage and is comparable to the Queensway section of the Queen streetcar as it passes by High Park etc. - it is cheap to build in this area, there are few stops, and so speeds will be high... some sections would be elevated to pass over flood areas and other modes of transportation.
The train line that runs through Leaside - there might be a GO station (where the old station was until the 60s at Millwood and Laird) - but apart from that, the Overlea area does have high density and some of the DRL alignments along, say Pape or Coxwell would either need a high bridge or would have to miss Thorncliffe Park and cross the valley closer to Don Mills.
9. When they were putting the West Donlands/Canary District, there were a lot of problems because the soil was contaminated, but mostly becauce it is former marsh and swamp. tunneling a subway under the Don River in this area will be a costly exercise and bound to be an engineering disaster.
10. The Parliament route does not preclude the current DRL from being built in the distant, distant future. If nothing else, it can be justified as improving transit in t the Core so that the Core can continue to intensify and have extra capacity to deal with that growth. A DRL would run east-west somewhere south of Queen, but how does that help other parts of the core? Construction a subway under King would disrupt the King streetcar, so I think we are looking at Wellington so it is close to Union Station - but of course, Richond and Adelaide have no streetcars and would also be easier to engineer.
11. Cost. Underground LT is cheaper than "subway" heavy rail, and has tighter turning radii. The route under Parliament (or some diagonal undergound route that might use parts of Jarvis etc.) is a lot shorter, plus the fact that no bridges need be built, nor is there tunneling under the Don River. Given that the province lacks the full funding for the Big Move, rather than a full DRL as currently contemplated, a combination of a Parliament underground LRT and better use of the GO corridors is far more feasible from a financial viewpoint.
The problem is that the EA for the DRL has ruled out anything of this nature that would connect at Castle Frank or Sherbourne. Before we spend billions on a DRL, is it not worth looking at this concept with an open mind?
