DRL routing. Where would you put it?

Discussion in 'Transportation & Infrastructure' started by dunkalunk, Dec 1, 2011.

?

Where would you route the DRL between University and Yonge?

  1. North of Queen

    2 vote(s)
    1.2%
  2. Queen Street

    61 vote(s)
    36.5%
  3. Richmond/Adelaide

    31 vote(s)
    18.6%
  4. King Street

    34 vote(s)
    20.4%
  5. Wellington Street

    26 vote(s)
    15.6%
  6. Front Street

    27 vote(s)
    16.2%
  7. Rail Corridor

    14 vote(s)
    8.4%
  8. South of the Rail Corridor

    3 vote(s)
    1.8%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. dunkalunk

    dunkalunk Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fixed this one! Yay!

    Just to keep a running tally of where UT is at on this. Cheers!
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2011
    #1

  2. 44 North

    44 North Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,037
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Ward 28
    I'd say it should hit Queen at Yonge, and King on University.

    IMO the DRL should not be planned so rigidly, or subjectively. The design needs to be fluid with a long arc, or large curving esses.
     
    #2
  3. Coruscanti Cognoscente

    Coruscanti Cognoscente Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,418
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Imperial City
    I voted Front/Wellington/Rail Corridor. Definitely not Queen though. King might be acceptable as well (but I didn't vote for it).
     
    #3
  4. wopchop

    wopchop Building Toronto

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,164
    Likes Received:
    48
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    I like the idea of using the rail corridors in the West and East, and running double lines along Richmond & Adelaide. Ideally, express tracks along Richmond and local tracks along Adelaide.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2011
    #4
  5. denfromoakvillemilton

    denfromoakvillemilton Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    4,827
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Former City of York, Ontario, Canada
    queen.
     
    #5
  6. dunkalunk

    dunkalunk Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Under this scenario, if people wanted an express trip, why wouldn't they just take a GO EMU RER-style service? It would surely be cheaper than boring a new tunnel. Once lakeshore trains go underground, a few tracks would be freed up at union for such a service.
     
    #6
  7. dunkalunk

    dunkalunk Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good luck finding room amongst highrise foundations to run that sort of routing.
     
    #7
  8. Paleo

    Paleo Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    550
    Likes Received:
    0
    #8
  9. dunkalunk

    dunkalunk Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nice find paleo! Buried all the way back in 2007, I see you live up to your name!
     
    #9
  10. ssiguy2

    ssiguy2 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,641
    Likes Received:
    3
    No question............Queen.
    King and the rail corridor/Union area already has the best transit of quite literally anywhere in the country.
    Queen would serve a large residential, residential and commercial strip and is downtown's main east/west route.
    Another reason I would choose Queen over King is the expense. Tunneling down King would take forever and cost a small fortune....more than anyother route. Why?.........it's called PATH.
    The massive PATH and subterrean city in the King corridor would require very deep tunnels and be an enginnering nightmare. This is not the case with Queen and the underground Queen/Yonge streetcar station is already built. It would need to be upgraded/expanded but far cheaper than building a new one and would be far less disruptive.
    If not Queen then the Pape/Union rail corridor but King should be written off from the start due to it's enginerring problems and horrid cost.
     
    #10
  11. 44 North

    44 North Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,037
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Ward 28

    Hmm, I guess you're right. But my understanding was that the core sections of the DRL would be very deep anyways. This is because of foundations, but also buried rivers, storm sewers etc. Do you think it would still be possible to have an arcing DRL below the foundations, or is that too ridiculously deep and not worth the cost?
     
    #11
  12. wopchop

    wopchop Building Toronto

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,164
    Likes Received:
    48
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    It's a good point, and would certainly apply to the west at Dundas West Station, but people switching at Pape & Danforth don't necessarily have that opportunity. Under this scenario, it would even be possible to make GO RER-style service (say from Georgetown, Barrie, or Milton) utilize those Richmond Express Tracks, no? TTC trains could enter the Adelaide tunnel, while GO Trains enter the Richmond tunnel.
     
    #12
  13. car4041

    car4041 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2011
    Messages:
    309
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Exiled to Portage & Main (formerly Harbord St.)
    But then, if we actually had a GO RER-style service, it would presumably intercept a lot of downtown-bound trips before they even get to the Danforth line, which might serve the relief function even better than building a Danforth-to-Downtown DRL and hoping that everyone will switch to it at Pape.
     
    #13
  14. Rainforest

    Rainforest Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,258
    Likes Received:
    1
    With plentiful funding and thoughtful execution, yes.

    But the likely real course of events is that the GO expansion process will remain half-hearted, underfunded, and mostly trying to catch up with the growing demand from 905, with little capacity devoted to GO trips within 416 and no investments in the infrastructure needed to make such trips attractive (new stations, relocating existing stations to major arterials, adding surface routes to make connections to GO easier).

    The Danforth-to-Downtown DRL is, in reality, a much better bet to address the capacity crunch in the subway system core; just because it is devoted to Downtown Relief.
     
    #14
  15. paraone

    paraone Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just for fun I have thought that a split routing would be awesome, not for todays number per se but for about 40 years from now....

    From east to West....

    South from Don mills/Eglington to pape station, curving under the CN line, spliting at dundas, route a(north spur) would run under dundas to lansdowne rejoining with the south sprur, that continued under the CN line, headinging east along adelaide (or wellington) then curving north west under the rail line to rejoin the north spur at lansdowne interchanging with Dundas West stn, continuing north through the junction and ending in weston.

    The reason for this routing would be to maximize downtown growth further up the yonge/university corridor, which seems to be where 1000's of condo units are being built. Also I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that over the next 30 years, a lot more commercial will be added in the area. The south spur acts as a catalyst for development along the southern edge of the city. I'm well aware of the fincial cost of spliting the line, but thats not my concern, I'm interested in building a transit line that fits the needs of many people.
     
    #15

Share This Page