DRL routing. Where would you put it?

[Palma]

I to believe lakefront is not as desirable as the real downtown but apparently people desire being near water and it is expensive. Guess because you hopefully won't be looking at other buildings in front of yours

 

[AKS]

I to believe lakefront is not as desirable as the real downtown but apparently people desire being near water and it is expensive. Guess because you hopefully won't be looking at other buildings in front of yours

Some people find condos less desirable too. They prefer to live in a house in the burbs. To each his own. I didn't like living in the middle of downtown either. I thought living near the water gives me a breather from the busy downtown area. I also disliked all the crowds and teenagers hanging around the downtown area. So noisy and foul mouthed. However, after visiting the busier downtown area, I learned why it would be desirable to some people. It's not for everyone, but some like it. Same as ones who prefer suburbs or detached houses. Some prefer townhouses, some like Junction, some prefer King West, etc.

 

[dunkalunk]

Everyone is different. No two people are not on fire.

 

[kkgg7]

Talk to the builders about that. Have you seen the crazy prices they're asking for pre-con? East Bayfront prices are starting at $700 psf and up. Ice was asking $550 psf starting in 2008. Tridel will probably be asking over $700 psf next year when it comes out. You make it sound like Yorkville is the only desirable area cuz it's asking at $1000 psf.

You need to compare real estate price of waterfront versus prime downtown for buildings of the same age and quality, right? Compare with those new downtown condos, such as Lumiere, Bunano, X2, or those under construction, such as Aura, or Piccaso and see which is more expensive.

Plus how many of those waterfront condo owners can actually see Lake Ontario in their unit? Not many. Less than 30% I would say. If one lives by the lake and faces north, what's the point. Toronto is not Miami, even if you have unobstructed lakeview, what do you see Oct through May each year? It is depressing.

I agree with you that builders are really taking advantage of ample land supply near the lake. But as far as I can see, south of the railway, it is always condo, condo condo. Increasingly high density of people yet not so many urban amenities. Not even a movie theatre, not to mention any shopping street/plaza. Its desirability will simply decline as time goes by.

The fact that there is still so much land to develop in 2011 is already strong evidence of its long term undesirability, isn't it?

 

[Palma]

Thats a good point. i never thought about the fact there are no movie theatres or regular retail/shopping outlets. And as more and more condos get built there, with not much else, it could turn into a ghetto

 

[nfitz]

And as more and more condos get built there, with not much else, it could turn into a ghetto

A condo on the lake, with a view of the islands, walking distance to downtown, short walk to St. Lawrence market. Where do you get this "no movie theatres" thing ... it's a short walk to the existing cinema near Front/Market. There's currently several major grocery stores in walking distance. And more retail will surely appear after there's actually something built.

The only way this becomes a ghetto is some post-apocalyptic scenario.

 

[AKS]

You need to compare real estate price of waterfront versus prime downtown for buildings of the same age and quality, right? Compare with those new downtown condos, such as Lumiere, Bunano, X2, or those under construction, such as Aura, or Piccaso and see which is more expensive.

Plus how many of those waterfront condo owners can actually see Lake Ontario in their unit? Not many. Less than 30% I would say. If one lives by the lake and faces north, what's the point. Toronto is not Miami, even if you have unobstructed lakeview, what do you see Oct through May each year? It is depressing.

I agree with you that builders are really taking advantage of ample land supply near the lake. But as far as I can see, south of the railway, it is always condo, condo condo. Increasingly high density of people yet not so many urban amenities. Not even a movie theatre, not to mention any shopping street/plaza. Its desirability will simply decline as time goes by.

The fact that there is still so much land to develop in 2011 is already strong evidence of its long term undesirability, isn't it?

The theatres are within walking distance. It takes around 10-15 min to walk to a theatre. As for shopping. It's within distance. Chinatown is 20-30 min. Longos is nearby. QQ has lots of restaurants and food places. There's a lot of bar and grills around N building has an fox and fiddle. Infinity has a Hoop. MLS sports bar is named number one sports bar in North America I believe. There's another another sports bar at HVE and one a long QQ. They're working on the site beside Harbourfront now. They're also building a huge underground mall under Union station. So, what's so ghetto about the area? Do you guys even go to the area or know what's going on there? As for current buildings you want to compare that are under construction Ice is going up same time as Aura. They're about the same price during sales. If you're talking about ones completed recently. MLS is selling over $600 psf. L tower the lower floors were sold starting at $600 psf and up. If you want water views, you may or may not get a full view. There may be some buildings blocking part of it. For a full view, you would have to be right on QQ or live on a high floor. As for nothing going on. Have you been in any of the buildings and seen their view? How can you make such a statement if you don't even know what it looks like at the top of the buildings?

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Higher patronage of the Yonge line compared to Spadina is partly due to the bus route structure. Nearly all E-W buses north of Bloor terminate at a Yonge subway station. As a result, every major station on Yonge is fed by both eastern and western buses, whereas Spadina subway stations are fed by western buses only.

I've always wondered if it was feasible to route the E-W routes to service both stations. For example the Eglinton E route would loop at Eglinton Station but terminate at Eglinton West while the Eglinton W route would service Eglinton West station but terminate at Eglinton. This way the central portion of Eglinton get double service with out having to have the same, unnecessary, level of service on the outer fringes.

 

[BurlOak]

Shades of this thread/poll from before.

It is interesting how opinions have changed. It appears that a few years ago, people only considered the old Queen alignment and the 1980's railway alignment. Now the opinions seem a bit more informed as Union capacity, rail line capacity, maintaining transit during construction and connection from downtown alignment to Bloor Danforth subway are being considered.

 

[BurlOak]

DRL Route

I have seen a few more detailed (fantasy) alignments (i.e. drlnow.ca) but my favorite is TRZ's DRL Keele Belt Line Proposal (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=670156). It is quite innovative, contains a reasaonable amount of detail and has many aspects that could appeal to a number of people. In the absence of more details about utilities locations, vertical allignment (i.e. depth) of existing subways, and other development patterns, this is worth a closer look.

1. Interline DRL with B-D. Alternate trains go across B-D and head downtown. The advantage (political and transit) is many people in Scarborough and Etobicoke would have a single seat trip to downtown. The dissadvantage is scheduling difficulties due to the train conflicts at the Greenwood Wye. It may also make an extension to Eglinton as subway not feasible - but tunnelled LRT is still quite feasible.

2. Avoid Queen and King. To maintain transit during construction, keeping the Queen and King streetcars operational makes sense.

3. Use Richmond/Adelaide. These two streets are close enough to Queen and King that the subway exits to street level would not be far away and connection could be made to both Queen and King stations on both the Yonge and University Lines. The dissadvantage is these streets are not quite straight and have a few jobs in them.

4. One way subway on Richmond/Adelaide. Each street has only one track (i.e. Westbound on Richmond, Eastbound on Adelaide) so the constuction footprint would be relatively small and only close the middle of the road, even at stations with platforms on both sides. This does however mean two locations of construction operations.

5. Shallow tunnel subways. This results in less excavation and easier access for subway customers. The dissadvantage is more potential for conflict with utilities.

6. Utilize railway to connect to Bloor-Danforth. Since subways cannot make 90 degree turns, these corridors provide a nice smooth curve from the Richmond/Adelaide aligment to reach B-D. It does mean that this part of the route may not pass through the most dense areas.

 

[Paleo]

1. Interline DRL with B-D. Alternate trains go across B-D and head downtown. The advantage (political and transit) is many people in Scarborough and Etobicoke would have a single seat trip to downtown. The dissadvantage is scheduling difficulties due to the train conflicts at the Greenwood Wye. It may also make an extension to Eglinton as subway not feasible - but tunnelled LRT is still quite feasible.

2. Avoid Queen and King. To maintain transit during construction, keeping the Queen and King streetcars operational makes sense.

3. Use Richmond/Adelaide. These two streets are close enough to Queen and King that the subway exits to street level would not be far away and connection could be made to both Queen and King stations on both the Yonge and University Lines. The dissadvantage is these streets are not quite straight and have a few jobs in them.

4. One way subway on Richmond/Adelaide. Each street has only one track (i.e. Westbound on Richmond, Eastbound on Adelaide) so the constuction footprint would be relatively small and only close the middle of the road, even at stations with platforms on both sides. This does however mean two locations of construction operations.

5. Shallow tunnel subways. This results in less excavation and easier access for subway customers. The dissadvantage is more potential for conflict with utilities.

6. Utilize railway to connect to Bloor-Danforth. Since subways cannot make 90 degree turns, these corridors provide a nice smooth curve from the Richmond/Adelaide aligment to reach B-D. It does mean that this part of the route may not pass through the most dense areas.

1. I don't get this obsession with one-seat rides. The benefits aren't so great that it's worth what you lose. Depending on location as well, good luck building a grade separated junction.

2/3. Lots of options. Divert around downtown for 3-4 years, split routes, etc. You could even use Adelaide.

4. This is just plain stupid. This is basically the equivalent of doubling the amount of stations you'd need downtown and doubling construction and maintenance costs.

5. Shallow. There's no chance for this downtown. It's too built up and correct me if I'm wrong but this type of tunnel is usually associated with cut and cover construction?

6. Utilize how? It's not exactly problem free, either for an elevated line or if you want to build an underground station anywhere under the rails.

 

[sixrings]

1. I don't get this obsession with one-seat rides. The benefits aren't so great that it's worth what you lose. Depending on location as well, good luck building a grade separated junction.

2/3. Lots of options. Divert around downtown for 3-4 years, split routes, etc. You could even use Adelaide.

4. This is just plain stupid. This is basically the equivalent of doubling the amount of stations you'd need downtown and doubling construction and maintenance costs.

5. Shallow. There's no chance for this downtown. It's too built up and correct me if I'm wrong but this type of tunnel is usually associated with cut and cover construction?

6. Utilize how? It's not exactly problem free, either for an elevated line or if you want to build an underground station anywhere under the rails.

DID YOU READ http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=670156... It is the most detailed DRL proposal I have scene. Also I was a Skyscrapercity page devotee before coming to URBAN TORONTO because TRZ knew almost everything about our rail system and others. I hope he/she has not passed away but I am confident if he was here he could answer your questions sufficently. He really is a transit GURU. Read the proposal its DANG informitive and Good.

TRZ where are you????????????????

 

[CDL.TO]

DID YOU READ http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=670156... It is the most detailed DRL proposal I have scene. Also I was a Skyscrapercity page devotee before coming to URBAN TORONTO because TRZ knew almost everything about our rail system and others. I hope he/she has not passed away but I am confident if he was here he could answer your questions sufficently. He really is a transit GURU. Read the proposal its DANG informitive and Good.

TRZ where are you????????????????

If he is who I think he is, he posted on UrbanToronto for a while under a different alias. You'll find some discussion of this proposal if you go through the archives.

Anyway, just because it's detailed doesn't mean it's sensible.

 

[BurlOak]

1. I don't get this obsession with one-seat rides. The benefits aren't so great that it's worth what you lose. Depending on location as well, good luck building a grade separated junction.

2/3. Lots of options. Divert around downtown for 3-4 years, split routes, etc. You could even use Adelaide.

4. This is just plain stupid. This is basically the equivalent of doubling the amount of stations you'd need downtown and doubling construction and maintenance costs.

5. Shallow. There's no chance for this downtown. It's too built up and correct me if I'm wrong but this type of tunnel is usually associated with cut and cover construction?

6. Utilize how? It's not exactly problem free, either for an elevated line or if you want to build an underground station anywhere under the rails.

The link should really be read since it does answer a number of questions in great detail. Here are my brief responses.

1. One-seat rides have the potential to reduce the bottleneck at Yonge-Bloor (and at Pape, which was not designed to be a major transfer point). Instead of riders all transferring at one station (or two), riders would be spread out across the system and would wait one extra train to be able to get downtown. This could reduce headways and improve system performance. Even if you ignore these benefits of the one-seat trip, there is also the political issue. Aside from taking up space on the street, what hurt the Sheppard LRT the most was the number of transfers needed to get downtown. In order for a DRL to get widespread support across Toronto, you need support from the old Boroughs, since they outnumber the old City. These people want a one-seat trip.
2. Although there are other options to help maintain service during construction, the existing streetcars are a less expensive and a better capacity alternative than using busses on Adelaide or diverting streetcars or supporting streetcars overtop of excavations.
3. Although for the final location Queen or King is acceptable, the Richmond/Adelaide alignment allows for some of these other benefits to be realized (i.e. less construction disruption, and at Queen the Yonge subway is not deep enough for the DRL to go over top of it)
4. The proposal has smaller stations since they are at a shallower depth and each station is for one direction only. These two “half stations” would have tunnels connecting between Richmond and Adelaide. The proposal talks about some double track stations, which I think may be overkill since double platform (access through doors on both side) would be sufficient for the busy stations – still better than anything on the current system.
5. In terms of PATH, I believe that there were only 2 or 3 conflicts that must be relocated. In terms of other utilities, there may be some conflicts but since there is only one direction on each street there is still ample room in the right-of-way to relocate these. For construction, the proposal recommends “Icos-Veder” or “cover and cut”, which essentially digs trenches, builds vertical walls and roof, digs out soil and builds floor. The excavation is no wider than it needs to be. This is better suited for shallower excavations. Using deeper tunnel boring (TBM), the stations are still typically built with open cut (but stations are much deeper and the excavation is much larger). In downtown it is nearly continuous anyways since stations are 150m long and at +/- 600m spacing.
6. Utilizing the railway for deeper tunnel boring is proposed to bring the DRL back up to B-D. There are typically few utilities under the railway fight-of-way so there should be minimal conflicts. It is true that stations are more complex under railways, but since this portions is away from downtown, there would only be about 3 or 4 stations built on this stretch.

 

[BurlOak]

Anyway, just because it's detailed doesn't mean it's sensible.

This is correct. But in the fantasy world, based on information that is available to the public, it appears reasonable. I am not saying start digging tomorrow, but at least is something that need further consideration. The proposal also contains adequate detail to conclude that Mr. TRZ has considered many factors before making the proposal.