scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
I'm sure I've said this a million times before, but it doesn't need to not stop for it to provide "relief"...a DRL that doesn't have a stop at Spadina would be really stupid.
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
Dan416
Senior Member
Really, the DRL doesn't have to be any more express than the Bloor line, except to maybe save some money by skipping a few stops. But Spadina definitely needs a stop.
doady
Senior Member
That routing of the DRL makes no sense. Serving King and Queen and Adelaide at the same time?
The whole point of the DRL is to provide relief to the subway system, and yet in that proposal, despite the complex routing, the DRL does not connect to Union and to the GO Trains, and such connection will only become more important as GO improves service.
The whole point of the DRL is to provide relief to the subway system, and yet in that proposal, despite the complex routing, the DRL does not connect to Union and to the GO Trains, and such connection will only become more important as GO improves service.
JasonParis
Moderator
And not a single stop for Roncey?
MisterF
Senior Member
Yes, but not every downtown subway line has to serve a single station. The DRL is meant to relieve the Yonge and Bloor lines and serve neighbourhoods that lack mass transit. Most of the riders will be going downtown, not to Union, so a Union connection isn't really necessary. Costs aside, if a King or Queen St alignment would attract more riders, that's the option that should be chosen.
doady
Senior Member
Union is not in downtown?
CDL.TO
Moderator
Development is occurring along the rail corridor and the harbourfront, not along Queen.
Orange includes all developments of 400 units or greater.
Very soon, there will be more people living along the rail corridor than along Queen.
Orange includes all developments of 400 units or greater.
Very soon, there will be more people living along the rail corridor than along Queen.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
If it went along Queen, even for a relatively short distance, that would probably be just about all the transit improvements Queen may ever get...the central stretch of Queen would be "improved" by a subway but would there be any incentive to do anything about the eastern and western majorities of Queen? Or Dundas, or King? Running along the railway/Front corridor means you're not replacing any lines, you're supplementing existing ones - all the streetcar lines could stay as they are and no one would "lose" any service in any way. It also leaves the possibility to build a Queen subway in addition to the DRL one day...
People have mentioned the potentially overloaded situation PATH would be in, but remember that there'd be new stations at (roughly) Spadina, John, and Jarvis...not only would many DRL riders get off at these stops to access downtown jobs and other sites, people from the YUS loop and GO would also transfer and use these stops (and many will...just look at the surprising number of people who transfer from the Yonge line to the Bloor line only to get off at Bay when they could have walked through PATH-north in like 2 minutes). And as CDL notes, the railway corridor area is seeing massive development and these areas aren't accessed by going through PATH north of Union station where it's busiest.
People have mentioned the potentially overloaded situation PATH would be in, but remember that there'd be new stations at (roughly) Spadina, John, and Jarvis...not only would many DRL riders get off at these stops to access downtown jobs and other sites, people from the YUS loop and GO would also transfer and use these stops (and many will...just look at the surprising number of people who transfer from the Yonge line to the Bloor line only to get off at Bay when they could have walked through PATH-north in like 2 minutes). And as CDL notes, the railway corridor area is seeing massive development and these areas aren't accessed by going through PATH north of Union station where it's busiest.
doady
Senior Member
I think it is unneccesary to build a subway along Queen or King anyways and should be avoided since it would just mess up the streetcar network, creating a Transfer City v2.0. Just build ROWs for the streetcars, not just for King and Queen but also for Carlton and Dundas.
I think this - building the DRL and the LRTs at the same time - would actually be cheaper than just building a subway along Queen or King.
I think this - building the DRL and the LRTs at the same time - would actually be cheaper than just building a subway along Queen or King.
MisterF
Senior Member
Cdl: Maybe, but there are a lot more developments under 400 units - you can't just discount them. The King East and West areas have dozens and dozens of developments that don't seem to be shown on that map. Besides, a subway is needed for existing demand just as much as for future demand.
Even if the development areas you show will have more people living on them than Queen St (or King), downtown businesses generate more subway ridership than downtown residential, so most of the demand will still be north of Front.
Even if the development areas you show will have more people living on them than Queen St (or King), downtown businesses generate more subway ridership than downtown residential, so most of the demand will still be north of Front.
Most people coming downtown on the subway are going to the financial district, the Eaton Centre, the universities, shopping, etc, not Union Station. A line going along King or Queen could serve these passengers just as well as a line going to Union.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
One could say a transit rider in hand is worth two potential riders out in the bush, but by the time the line is built, much of the future demand along the rail corridor, along the waterfront, in the West Don Lands, etc., will have become existing demand.
Whoaccio
Senior Member
I don't have the figures for this, but I would imagine the Queen/King corridor has a much higher job/commercial density than the rail corridor and will for quite some time. One benefit of a Queen/King line would be people from the rest of the city might actually go there for work/recreation. Outside of the CN Tower/Skydome, not much is along the rail corridor.
I would still say the rail corridor is a better all-round choice for any potential E/W line, but I think a building a branch from Union Stn. up Bay (or some side street) to Queen/Richmond and then west to the rail corridor could be a good idea. I doubt there will ever be anything approaching a ROW (OR signal priority OR left turn ban OR...), so in the longterm there is a need to upgrade E/W service in the downtown proper.
MisterF
Senior Member
Ideally both would be built.
Yeah I know, crazy talk.
But if you look at the Metrolinx plan closely, it's not that farfetched. Several GO lines are proposed to be upgraded to 15 minute all-day service, and where those lines converge close to downtown they could combine to form a useful local rapid transit corridor. Add in a DRL along King or Queen and we'd have both bases covered. That could even be Metrolinx's thinking behind their plan for downtown.
Yeah I know, crazy talk.
But if you look at the Metrolinx plan closely, it's not that farfetched. Several GO lines are proposed to be upgraded to 15 minute all-day service, and where those lines converge close to downtown they could combine to form a useful local rapid transit corridor. Add in a DRL along King or Queen and we'd have both bases covered. That could even be Metrolinx's thinking behind their plan for downtown.
CDL.TO
Moderator
The development on Queen is good... and part of the reason why it is good is because it is lowrise. It fits into the stable neighbourhoods but unfortunately doesn't add all that much density. And King is just as close to the rail corridor as it is to Queen, which makes that argument moot.
The real growth in the central city is occurring on former industrial lands. This is the only place where it is possible to have major high-rise growth occur. Liberty Village, City Place, the entire Harbourfront, West Donlands, Portlands, Fort York community, Queen West Triangle... there isn't a single development in an existing built-up area that compares in scope to even one of these 7 development zones. Plus, I would wager that for every community-scaled development on Queen there are three community-scaled developments on former industrial lands throughout the central city.
Exhibition Place, National Trade Centre, Harbourfront, ACC, Skydome. The only attraction in the core that can compare to these locations is the Eaton Centre.
How about office development? Bay-Adelaide is closer to Queen, with its 1.2 million square feet of space under construction. But Telus, Corus, 18 York, and RBC are all closer to the rail corridor and have 3.1 million square feet of office space under construction.
Simply, Queen is great. But it's gentrifying... which means in many places it's actually LOSING population and density. While the areas around the rail corridor are growing at a breakneck speed, and still have lots of room for more development. A DRL will still improve access to the West Queen West, Parkdale, Leslieville, and Beaches neighbourhoods without putting undue development pressures on the Queen corridor.
MisterF
Senior Member
Let's not get stuck on Queen St. A subway could just as easily go on King as Queen. There's as much development along King St as there is along the rail corridor, plus all the stuff that's there already.
But if what ends up getting built is regional rail on the rail corridor and a subway along King or Queen, this whole argument becomes moot. The city can have both if the Metrolinx plan gets funded.
But if what ends up getting built is regional rail on the rail corridor and a subway along King or Queen, this whole argument becomes moot. The city can have both if the Metrolinx plan gets funded.