M II A II R II K
Senior Member
It was a 2nd short line.
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
In that case I'd opt for converting the Spadina ROW into an LRT if you want rapid transit between the two Spadina Stations. With 3 subway stations and 5 streetcar lines, the area is already saturated with transit.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Maybe the YUS should be called Yonge-University-Spadina-Allen-Keele-Jane Line.
I would use letters and colours.
1. Yonge-Universities "V" Line. Hits both U of T and York U - general shape on map is "V". Yellow.
2. Bloor-Danforth Crosstown ("C") Line. (Eglinton needs to drop the "crosstown" name. Green.
3. Sheppard-Scarborough Northern ("N") Line. Purple.
4. Eglinton-Malvern Midtown ("M") Line. Follows SRT route up to Malvern. Blue.
5. Don Mills-Downtown "J" Line. East leg will be longer than West. Goes from Seneca College to the Ex. Orange.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Maybe the YUS should be called Yonge-University-Spadina-Allen-Keele-Jane Line.
I would use letters and colours.
1. Yonge-Universities "V" Line. Hits both U of T and York U - general shape on map is "V". Yellow.
2. Bloor-Danforth Crosstown ("C") Line. (Eglinton needs to drop the "crosstown" name. Green.
3. Sheppard-Scarborough Northern ("N") Line. Purple.
4. Eglinton-Malvern Midtown ("M") Line. Follows SRT route up to Malvern. Blue.
5. Don Mills-Downtown "J" Line. East leg will be longer than West. Goes from Seneca College to the Ex. Orange.
Please no. I don't know how anyone is going to remember that. And if we do use an alphanumerical system at least do it in order (ABC, 123 etc...)
Electrify
Senior Member
Something I have been thinking about:
NIMBYism, property values, and urban realm be damned, how much faster and cheaper would building the DRL above ground be? Underground transit in the developed world seems to be a dying trend. Besides Toronto, most rapid transit projects in North America and Europe are being built at or above grade, rather than below. The capital costs are simply becoming too high to push ahead with long underground tunnels, even if ridership fares are high enough to cover the maintenance and operating costs. New York is spending $6.5 billion for less than 4km of new subway, meanwhile Honolulu is building a whole new 32km elevated line for $5.3 billion, more than a billion less than NYC!
NIMBYism, property values, and urban realm be damned, how much faster and cheaper would building the DRL above ground be? Underground transit in the developed world seems to be a dying trend. Besides Toronto, most rapid transit projects in North America and Europe are being built at or above grade, rather than below. The capital costs are simply becoming too high to push ahead with long underground tunnels, even if ridership fares are high enough to cover the maintenance and operating costs. New York is spending $6.5 billion for less than 4km of new subway, meanwhile Honolulu is building a whole new 32km elevated line for $5.3 billion, more than a billion less than NYC!
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
If it's on the current King alignment and at grade, more expensive than tunnelling I presume. I would imagine that demolishing the towers on King street that are in the path of the line would be quite expensive.
Only way to get around this would be to use the preexisting rail corridors from Union to Pape Avenue and then demolish the homes on Pape to connect it to the Bloor-Danforth. This Union-Pape alignment is generally considered the worst of the proposed though.
Elevated on King may be cost effective if it is possible to do so. But the chances of that happening is zero for several reasons including decreased ridership.
Tunnelling is the way to go.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
My gosh ... it's not complicated.Maybe the YUS should be called Yonge-University-Spadina-Allen-Keele-Jane Line.
I would use letters and colours.
1. Yonge-Universities "V" Line. Hits both U of T and York U - general shape on map is "V". Yellow.
2. Bloor-Danforth Crosstown ("C") Line. (Eglinton needs to drop the "crosstown" name. Green.
3. Sheppard-Scarborough Northern ("N") Line. Purple.
4. Eglinton-Malvern Midtown ("M") Line. Follows SRT route up to Malvern. Blue.
5. Don Mills-Downtown "J" Line. East leg will be longer than West. Goes from Seneca College to the Ex. Orange.
We have a system already. No need to change it.
Bloor-Danforth
Yonge-University (just drop the Spadina ... and now we'll have a University at both ends - 3 if you count Ryerson at Dundas station).
Sheppard
Eglinton
Scarborough
... so whatever we call the new line should follow this guideline. We know it will go up Don Mills sooner or later. So when we know the downtown alignment, the name should be obvious. Say it goes along King. We call it the King subway. When Phase 2 is built, it becomes the King-Don Mills line.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Better idea.
Lets call Yonge-University-Spadina, "Yonge". Does anyone even say the full name anymore. I either hear "Yonge" or "that yellow line"
Same thing with Bloor-Danforth. Drop the Danforth
And for the Sheppard subway I propose:
1. The Stubway
2. The Subway to Nowhere
3. That Purple Line Nobody Ever Rides
4. The We Wasted $1 Billion on this Hole in the Ground Line
5. The "Subways Subways Subways" Line
6. The F*ck Downtown, Scarbz Rules Line
and finally...
7. The Get These Damn Streetcars Out of the Way of me and my SUV Line
Number 6 and 7 is my personal preferences
Last edited:
DKsan
Active Member
How about elevated outside of the core then?
Also, could we make an elevated line less ugly, by tasking artists to paint over the ugly concrete?
Also, could we make an elevated line less ugly, by tasking artists to paint over the ugly concrete?
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Elevated just doesn't make sense for the DRL until you are north of the don valley. People seem to have this impression that elevating a line will be much cheaper no matter where you do it. It would likely still be cheaper to elevate it east of the don river than to tunnel it, but it would be much closer to the cost of burying it than it would be to elevate It in the suburbs. The 400 million we would save by elevating it through that part of the city is not worth the wholesale destruction of several inner city neighborhoods.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Only potential for elevation/at-grade that I can see is the rail corridor connecting Pape and Queen. The 1km portion along Pape Ave may also be able to be elevated, but get luck getting that through Council.
Still, elevation makes zero sense for the line. Why demolish neighbourhoods to save a few bucks?
Electrify
Senior Member
I was thinking building it above the road, like Chicago or as a monorail. So no buildings need to be destroyed. As I said, imagine that opposition to such an idea was not a factor.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
It could be elevated and enclosed between highrises with integrated stations. Or another approach is to look at the new monorail systems in densely populated areas of South America and Asia since it's too much trouble to go underground there also.
bleu
Banned
Agree. Although a full subway is nice, it is not realistic. On the other hand, the Spadina ROW simply has too many stops and has to stop for traffic lights. If we get rid of some of the stops and provide priority lighting, it should suffice.
Redundant stops:
Richmond: King and Queen is 400 m apart for Christ's sake. a 90 year old can walk to the next stop
Sussex and Wilcox: they are like 2 minutes from the next stop
Bremner: 200 m from QQ, are we all handicapped?
Spadina is well served by transit. It is just too slow.
Same for the 505. We only need on stop at Beverly between Spadina and University, instead of 3, and one between University and Yonge (at Elizabeth) instead of 2. Victoria and Bond stop should be eliminated too.
toraerach
Active Member
And how much could you actually elevate on Pape without turning the B-D to DRL transfer into a giant pain, thus defeating its purpose? Few people will climb three-four flights of stairs to transfer when they could make a one flight transfer several stations down the line.