ssiguy2
Senior Member
Thanks for the great map 44North. You have a real computer skill there, god knows I couldn't do it.
I have to disagree, however, with your downtown alignment. I have always believed that any new line downtown should either go to Union via the rail corridors due to a massive cost savings and less construction time or use Queen Street. I don't understand the prevailing logic of using King. King will cost a "kings" ransome and the tunnel would have to be very very deep due to the extensive PATH system. Also being right up against Union has never made sense to me as Union already enjoys the best transit connections in the country.
If they are going to spend so much money on a DRL then I think Queen is a far superior choice. Not only, unlike King, would it serve new areas of the core but be much cheaper to build and far easier. Remember the Queen subways station is already built so that would be a great time and money saver. Yes the station would have to be expended and brought up to code but still far less expensive and not even remotely as disruptive to the street above. The siruption at Queen and Yonge will be miniscule compared to the hell that would be created for years at Yonge and King and University for that matter.
Another great benefit of Queen is the extension to Univerity/Spadina Line. Although the station is not built it was built in the anticipation of a Queen Street subway. They built the station taking this into account by removing all cable, underground electrical systems which add a lot of time to station building and disruption.
If a new tunnel is built downtown I think the emphasis for such a huge project should be to serve new destinations and populations. Queen fits this bill and would also be the least costly, least disruptive, and easiest to build to boot.
I have to disagree, however, with your downtown alignment. I have always believed that any new line downtown should either go to Union via the rail corridors due to a massive cost savings and less construction time or use Queen Street. I don't understand the prevailing logic of using King. King will cost a "kings" ransome and the tunnel would have to be very very deep due to the extensive PATH system. Also being right up against Union has never made sense to me as Union already enjoys the best transit connections in the country.
If they are going to spend so much money on a DRL then I think Queen is a far superior choice. Not only, unlike King, would it serve new areas of the core but be much cheaper to build and far easier. Remember the Queen subways station is already built so that would be a great time and money saver. Yes the station would have to be expended and brought up to code but still far less expensive and not even remotely as disruptive to the street above. The siruption at Queen and Yonge will be miniscule compared to the hell that would be created for years at Yonge and King and University for that matter.
Another great benefit of Queen is the extension to Univerity/Spadina Line. Although the station is not built it was built in the anticipation of a Queen Street subway. They built the station taking this into account by removing all cable, underground electrical systems which add a lot of time to station building and disruption.
If a new tunnel is built downtown I think the emphasis for such a huge project should be to serve new destinations and populations. Queen fits this bill and would also be the least costly, least disruptive, and easiest to build to boot.