Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

I don't know, I am kinda partial to the Pape street alignment. I think East York has great potential for growth after a DRL is built there.

It is an interesting concept for sure, especially as it solves the crossing the Don River question and allows for a GO station in Thorncliffe/Leaside (I somewhat think those people would prefer TTC over GO though). I'm not a fan of how short distance Yonge and Short DRL lines are. It is less than Yonge to Bayview, which I regularly walk multiple times per week.
 
BurlOak said:
News from Ward 32. Another DRL plan along Parliament.

http://www.briangraff.com/uploads/3/4/5/5/3455467/brian_graff_revised_-_drl.pdf
Click to expand...
That's completely absurd. An underground LRT down Parliament? The DRL to Pape(ish) works because it cuts the corner, and has less stations. If you put at Castle Frank, you'll (presumably) not have much, or any faster travel times to Yonge than you do now - which won't provide the incentive to transfer.

And Parliament ... really? The demand on Parliament only supports a bus every 18 minutes in AM peak. Of ALL the streets to put LRT under ...
 
An underground LRT on Parliament makes no sense at all. At the same time, I do wonder if an LRT running up Jarvis/Mt Pleasant in a surface ROW might make sense twenty to thirty years from now, after the DRL opens
 
whatever said:
An underground LRT on Parliament makes no sense at all. At the same time, I do wonder if an LRT running up Jarvis/Mt Pleasant in a surface ROW might make sense twenty to thirty years from now, after the DRL opens
Click to expand...

We should start with a bus. I've always wanted a regular bus route on Mt pleasant - Jarvis.
 
I'd like to use some of those buses that will be removed from Eglinton on a Mt. Pleasant-Jarvis route.

Who knows, it might actually be time competitive to reach downtown compared to the subway.
 
WislaHD said:
I'd like to use some of those buses that will be removed from Eglinton on a Mt. Pleasant-Jarvis route.

Who knows, it might actually be time competitive to reach downtown compared to the subway.
Click to expand...

It's a pretty fast route to drive, when there isn't traffic. Outside of rush hour, assuming the stop spacing is reasonable, I think it would be competitive with the subway. Large parts of the route are through the ravine or cemetery.

There's already the downtown express bus route that goes southbound in the morning, northbound later, but it costs extra to use it and it doesn't go all day. I've never used it.
 
ehlow said:
It's a pretty fast route to drive, when there isn't traffic. Outside of rush hour, assuming the stop spacing is reasonable, I think it would be competitive with the subway. Large parts of the route are through the ravine or cemetery.
Click to expand...

So, like a lot of modes of moving around....it gets good when a lot less people need/use it?
 
TOareaFan said:
So, like a lot of modes of moving around....it gets good when a lot less people need/use it?
Click to expand...

Yes, like all vehicles on the surface that don't have an exclusive lane, it gets stuck in traffic.

All I was trying to say was that the road itself is highway-like and encourages high speeds, unlike, say Queen West. On some routes, buses or streetcars are still slow even without traffic due to frequent red lights, but on Mt Pleasant-Jarvis, they would likely be fast barring traffic.
 
nfitz said:
That's completely absurd. An underground LRT down Parliament? The DRL to Pape(ish) works because it cuts the corner, and has less stations. If you put at Castle Frank, you'll (presumably) not have much, or any faster travel times to Yonge than you do now - which won't provide the incentive to transfer.

And Parliament ... really? The demand on Parliament only supports a bus every 18 minutes in AM peak. Of ALL the streets to put LRT under ...
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.....I wonder if the date of the publication of that document is merely coincidental then?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
smallspy said:
Hmmmm.....I wonder if the date of the publication of that document is merely coincidental then?
Click to expand...
LOL - though the internal date in the file is April 7th.

Hmm ... this guy is running in my ward? Never heard of him ... and an odd move - advocate making the DRL useless to those in his own ward.
 
ehlow said:
The part that would've been going through East York, which has a lot of apartment buildings near Cosburn & Pape, would instead go through an empty ravine in this alignment.
Click to expand...

the parliament alignment does look extremely weird... I don't mind an LRT that goes through Parliament but the idea of extending north of Bloor to the ravine then a bunch of low density area before reaching Eglinton makes no sense whatsoever.

I am fine with either the Coxwell and Pape allignment. The former provides more coverage of Queen East, which is a major avenue in the east end.
 
DRL along Coxwell doesn't work. (Wish it did - would do wonders for my commute)

They just finished the work on repairing the sewer pipe when connects to the existing at O'Connor and Coxwell. I can't see the City committing to busting up Coxwell if there was a chance it would impact the sewer.

Donlands works for me due to the option to connect to Greenwood Yard (having some of the BD trains make room by relocating to a proper West End yard would be a good idea anyway, Vincent is pretty limited in size and scope)
 
I like this, but for the future. Pape makes the most sense because of density. I still feel the DRL should go up Dundas West to Eglinton and from Pape to Don Mills to Fairview Mall, as that would take a lot of the people off the Yonge University Line.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top