innsertnamehere
Superstar
Once ATC comes online the TTC is going driverless, they are dropping to a single staff member on each train to ensure public safety but dropping the driver.
|
|
|
Patdouville
New Member
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,410
- Reaction score
- 1,438
- Location
- Downtown Toronto, Ontario
This is simple and clean. It would work. I wish we had done this right.
WislaHD
Superstar
Well, it is still technically feasible to arrange YUS and the DRL in that way, wouldn't it?
innsertnamehere
Superstar
no not really. (anything is possible, but you would easily be looking at a billion dollars to do so which is way too high of a price for it to be worth it)
Any new subway construction in downtown would carry a massive pricetag with it. I've detailed before how it could be done, but here's the map I did to accompany it:
Attachments
Thoughtless Miscreant
Active Member
Yeah but the pricetag for new subway constructon + reconfiguring YUS would be way more massive than the pricetag for just subway construction. The existing subway isn't perfect but it works. Why spend our limited resources trying to fix what isn't broken?
innsertnamehere
Superstar
exactly. Why spend $1 billion+ on this reconfiguration that just creates a worse transfer from Union? A DRL that passes under both lines costs $4 billion, its not worth $1 billion for the minimal to no benefits splitting the lines would bring.
1) Because very few people would actually be doing a subway-to-subway transfer at Union. Most of the people getting off would either be at their destination, or transferring to GO.
2) It's a lot easier to build a new station underneath the tracks just east of Union than it is to build a new massive station in the heart of the CBD. That new CBD station would carry a $1B pricetag too, easily. Especially if transfers to existing YUS stations are built in (which they must be).
3) This configuration would render the "what street should the DRL pass under?" argument pretty much redundant. If you're coming in from the eastern section of the line, you can choose to get off at Union, St. Andrew, Osgoode, or St. Patrick depending on where your destination is.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
it screws up transfers from GO to the Yonge line, thats what I meant. your configuration has a huge walkway down to it that adds inconvenience compared to the current setup where you simply walk to front street.
No way a downtown station costs $1 billion, they are allowed to rip up the street. you can't rip up the rail corridor. Maybe $300 million for each stop underneath King & St. Andrew. you can build it the same way they are building Eglinton and Eglinton West on the Crosstown.
The only problem with my preffered alignment (essentially a basic King street subway) is that it would require a 6 or 7 year shutdown of the King streetcar, and an inability to operate a replacement service as King will essentially be impassible especially through the core where the interchange stations are. a Richmond-Adelaide bus service along with extremely beefed up 501 service could probably work though, and once the subway is done the 504 won't even be needed.
No way a downtown station costs $1 billion, they are allowed to rip up the street. you can't rip up the rail corridor. Maybe $300 million for each stop underneath King & St. Andrew. you can build it the same way they are building Eglinton and Eglinton West on the Crosstown.
The only problem with my preffered alignment (essentially a basic King street subway) is that it would require a 6 or 7 year shutdown of the King streetcar, and an inability to operate a replacement service as King will essentially be impassible especially through the core where the interchange stations are. a Richmond-Adelaide bus service along with extremely beefed up 501 service could probably work though, and once the subway is done the 504 won't even be needed.
Last edited:
dunkalunk
Senior Member
For me, whether the subway runs under King or Wellington is a toss-up. The advantage to Wellington is you'd still be able to run King streetcar service as Welly was being torn a new one. If the line were to eventually follow King near park dale, it wouldn't be too much trouble (or too much slower) to detour King streetcars via Queen and Shaw. A more southern alignment makes it more attractive to install streetcar priority or close strategic sections of Queen to through traffic.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
I struggle with that a bit as well, but in the end I think it should be what is best for final operations after completion, and that is a King Alignment IMO.
Heres what I would like to see, with the red areas being stations:
also, with King no longer having streetcars, you could do a "trade off", where you make Queen a "local traffic only" street basically only to be used for deliveries and local access, and of course a streetcar ROW.
Heres what I would like to see, with the red areas being stations:
also, with King no longer having streetcars, you could do a "trade off", where you make Queen a "local traffic only" street basically only to be used for deliveries and local access, and of course a streetcar ROW.
Last edited:
Hopkins123
Senior Member
^ Why not include stops at Jameson and Broadview? Jameson has a cluster of apartment buildings and would probably be among the highest used stops.
Otherwise great map.
Otherwise great map.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I struggle with that a bit as well, but in the end I think it should be what is best for final operations after completion, and that is a King Alignment IMO.
Heres what I would like to see, with the red areas being stations:
also, with King no longer having streetcars, you could do a "trade off", where you make Queen a "local traffic only" street basically only to be used for deliveries and local access, and of course a streetcar ROW.
I really do like this innsert. The Queen ROW alone would be a huge improvement to downtown RT. I'm just worried about the politics of the thing (war on cars etc...)
Dan416
Senior Member
I think this is pretty awesome!