DRL routing. Where would you put it?

gweed123 said:

South of Pape? Pape runs North-South...

Click to expand...

Pape Station. The 'traditional' BD intercept for the DRL.

gweed123 said:

And those neighbourhoods you mention will be served by a combination of the DRL and the East Bayfront LRT. There may be small pockets of densification on the east side of the Don, but nothing compared to the west side.

Click to expand...

This statement confuses me -- are you suggesting both a Parliament line and a DRL? A Parliament DRL will presumably curve to Union/downtown north of Distillery and well west of WDL. An East Bayfront LRT will only serve QQ until such time as it is connected to Cherry. None of those are alternatives that make a Parliament DRL alignment palatable.

gweed123 said:

As for the GO connection, having a subway GO connection at a place where both lines are going to the exact same place (Union) is a bit redundant, isn't it? I'd much rather see a GO-TTC connection exist at Queen with a Queen LRT than a DRL, at least then they're going to different places.

Click to expand...

I'd agree that a Gerrard GO transfer is probably going to be like Main, i.e. underused. I'd say that a GO/DRL transfer at the new 'corporate campus' would work very well for reverse commuters from WDL and workers stopping there. Where'd the Queen LRT idea come from? That's never going to happen, so how does it get mixed into a Parliament DRL alignment discussion?

gweed123 said:

No you aren't, you run the line through the Don Valley. Yes, the line would skip Riverdale and the area around Pape north of the Danforth, but that's it. There isn't an extraordinary amount of density along that route (heck, half the route south of Danforth is through a rail corridor with only a couple stops planned).

But it still hits the major pockets of density like Thorncliffe & Flemingdon Parks. Also, crossing the Don from Pape over to Thorncliffe would be a pretty expensive feat. By not having to cross the Don at all, you eliminate that. Building the line at-grade through the Don Valley from Castle Frank to Overlea would be a heck of a lot less expensive than tunnelling from Pape-Danforth, then building a bridge over the Don Valley, and then going back under Overlea.

Click to expand...

So... you think it's less expensive to tunnel down the hill from Castle Frank over/under Rosedale Valley Drive, then over/under Bayview, the train tracks, the river? That's a LOT of vertical! Or are you trying to argue that you're going to punch a subway line through Craigleith Gardens, Glen Road, and Chorley Park? Bwahahahahaha.... good luck with that.

Riverdale Rink Rat said:

Pape Station. The 'traditional' BD intercept for the DRL.

Click to expand...

Oh ok, the way you worded it made it sound like Pape Ave.

Riverdale Rink Rat said:

This statement confuses me -- are you suggesting both a Parliament line and a DRL? A Parliament DRL will presumably curve to Union/downtown north of Distillery and well west of WDL. An East Bayfront LRT will only serve QQ until such time as it is connected to Cherry. None of those are alternatives that make a Parliament DRL alignment palatable.

Click to expand...

A Parliament DRL would run underneath either Front St or the Esplanade until after Sherbourne, where it would then curve north under Parliament. It would be reasonably close to the Distillery District. The Cherry LRT ROW is being built now, and it'll be connected to the East Bayfront LRT when it's built. From what I understand, they'll be running buses until then. So it' not like WDL won't be serviced.

Riverdale Rink Rat said:

I'd agree that a Gerrard GO transfer is probably going to be like Main, i.e. underused. I'd say that a GO/DRL transfer at the new 'corporate campus' would work very well for reverse commuters from WDL and workers stopping there. Where'd the Queen LRT idea come from? That's never going to happen, so how does it get mixed into a Parliament DRL alignment discussion?

Click to expand...

It's not official, but it's definitely needed. And it gets mixed into the DRL discussion because having the potential for that line affect potential alignments for the DRL.

Riverdale Rink Rat said:

So... you think it's less expensive to tunnel down the hill from Castle Frank over/under Rosedale Valley Drive, then over/under Bayview, the train tracks, the river? That's a LOT of vertical! Or are you trying to argue that you're going to punch a subway line through Craigleith Gardens, Glen Road, and Chorley Park? Bwahahahahaha.... good luck with that.

Click to expand...

No, I say tunnel under Castle Frank Station, and then cut through the hill, cross Bayview, and then run beside the Richmond Hill GO line until the water treatment plant, where it would then get tunnelled into the hillside and under Overlea. The overpass over Bayview pales in comparison to the crossing of the Don Valley that would be required at Millwood if it was to use Pape.

There's no way in hell that that option would be more expensive than tunnelling that huge distance under Pape.