"Downtown Core Line" - Possible Alignments?

[andomano]

car traffic from The DVP can't easily be diverted to another street.

If the Gardiner is torn up, there would be something built ie the Grand Avenue, in its place. The DVP wouldn't just end with cars flying off into the lake!

 

[Darren B]

If the Gardiner is torn up, there would be something built ie the Grand Avenue, in its place. The DVP wouldn't just end with cars flying off into the lake!

I thought the goal was to widen the Adelaide and Richmond ramps and use only them for the DVP. The other avenue would be used for the Gardiner.

 

[toraerach]

I'm not going to spend anytime digging up links to future developments on Queen, as my views are based on how Queen currently exists today and the development I see happening right now on Queen. Those planned developments along the waterfront are not necessarily set in stone. The city's plan for the waterfront is a contentious political issue which can be filibustered or changed significantly.

While the individual developments along the Waterfront aren't "set in stone" there is absolutely no way that area will not be developed rapidly over the next ten or so years. The only thing that might come in its way would be a prolonged economic depression that would stall any development on Queen as well.

My 'point' that you asked me for, is that Queen is historically seen as the core of Toronto and an active area of the city. The current development there and the current transit pattern along Queen Street already justify the need for the DRL to run on Queen.

I don't know how much I buy the whole "historical core" argument. Many streets have been seen as the core throughout Toronto's history. Once upon a time Yonge St. was on the outskirts. Things like this change and we shouldn't base transit decisions off of them.

The area of Queen/Bathurst to Queen/Pape has some of the oldest buildings in the city. These areas are due for a renewal process which will happen regardless of the DRL and independent of political involvement. Those old buildings will be renovated or torn down and rebuilt with higher density modern structures. The Queen area will accept this gentrification along that corridor and the city will allow for the further development of this corridor.

There will probably be a station at or near Queen and Pape regardless of where the DRL crosses the core.

EDIT: I'd imagine for Richmond you'd have exits on Queen, for Adelaide you'd have exits on king and for Wellington you could have either Front or King (or dare I say both?)

In many areas you wouldn't even have to build anything. Just stick signage up at the nearest entrance to PATH and lead pedestrians through there.

 

[kEiThZ]

GO trains.

+1

Exactly. All this talk of express subway trains is madness. We aren't New York and we never will be. Fare integration and improved GO service would be far more effective and cheaper than any express train service. For the amount that we would have to spend to build an express track on the Yonge line alone we could probably finish the Sheppard subway and a nice chunk of the DRL.

I'm not going to spend anytime digging up links to future developments on Queen, as my views are based on how Queen currently exists today and the development I see happening right now on Queen. Those planned developments along the waterfront are not necessarily set in stone.

It's that lack of planning for the future that always leaves this city one step behind.... How is it not set in stone? It's in the Official plan. The province has slapped a greenbelt on that's already causing development to shift from single family homes to condos. And the waterfront is a pretty popular place to live. Seems to me that's quite a definitive trajectory.

The city's plan for the waterfront is a contentious political issue which can be filibustered or changed significantly.

How so? They are all city and provincially owned lands. And those governments are on same page. Does seem to me like a recipe for political gridlock. If you have some info that I don't please feel free to share as to why you think anybody would delay those developments.

My 'point' that you asked me for, is that Queen is historically seen as the core of Toronto and an active area of the city.

That's certainly subject to change. Toronto is quickly developing several active areas of the city...the suburban cores (STC, NYCC, etc.), the Harbourfront/Lakeshore, Yonge/Dundas, etc. There's even Yonge/Sheppard and Yonge/Eglinton further north. And with major development coming to the south, it's quite realistic that the city's centre of gravity will shift south.

The current development there and the current transit pattern along Queen Street already justify the need for the DRL to run on Queen. That existing transit pattern will compliment the DRL well.

Nobody's disputing that some improvement is needed. But it does not have to be the DRL. It could just as easily by a subway with LRT. Given the type of mostly local traffic, I would consider that far more adequate for Queen than a subway with widely spaced stops.

The existing transit use will only increase in the 10 years or more that it will take before we see the completion of the DRL. The area of Queen/Bathurst to Queen/Pape has some of the oldest buildings in the city. These areas are due for a renewal process which will happen regardless of the DRL and independent of political involvement. Those old buildings will be renovated or torn down and rebuilt with higher density modern structures. The Queen area will accept this gentrification along that corridor and the city will allow for the further development of this corridor.

As others have pointed out, this comes down to zoning. As long as Queen remains defined as one of the city's stable neighbourhoods (you made your case about not constructing on it on essentially this principle) it's unlikely to see zoning approvals for 40 storey condos any time soon.

While it's a historic area, the city still needs to allow for modernization and at a minimum it has to allow for natural growth.

Sorry to disappoint you. There is no 'natural growth'. There's no open tract of land in that corridor. Anybody who is going to develop the area will have to buy up the land, tear down those historic buildings and get it rezoned to put up condos. And eventually they'll run into the issue of 'stable neighbourhoods' which will stall their efforts.

When I look at those areas of Queen Street it reminds me of Astoria and other areas in the borough of Queens NYC which are serviced by numerous subways. Those areas of NYC, just like our Queen Street, have a continuous block-to-block stretch of mid-size buildings which justify the need for a subway.

Looking at a map will give you the obvious counter argument. Astoria is a massive area served by a few stops. Queen is a shorter distance to Front than most of Astoria is to any of those subway stops. If that's your model than Queen will do just fine.

Moreover, if all we are going to are build are mid-size buildings along Queen, than Queen should be the last place in the core that gets a subway.

If the subway were to go along Queen, the streetcar could be replaced with a non-articulated bus route, just like the bus that runs on Yonge Street. This un-cluttering of the street level would make Queen more attractive to more people and more development.

So now we should build a billion dollar HRT subway to beautify Queen?

Every Thursday evening between April and September I head down to Sunnyside beach for dragonboat practice. We practice along the shore from there to Ontario Place and back. We also race out of Marilyn Bell /Ontario Place, and Center Island twice a year. Other then the cars on Lakeshore, there isn't much going on near Ontario Place or the Ex relatively speaking when compared to that same stretch on Queen Street. I ride transit to get to practice and I ride it to get back. I see the amount of riders who board and exit streetcars at Ronce /King/ Queen. IMO I do not see either the current development or the current transit use south-east of that intersection that compares to the area east along Queen. I can maybe accept that the DRL would run under King from Ronce, as it's a natural replacement for the 504. But there is absolutely not enough density south of King that warrants a subway. I cannot imagine that in 10-15 years the situation will change drastically to the point where Queen will be overtaken in regards to development by Lakeshore or the Rail lands.

Your lack of imagination won't impede our city planners and developers from putting up condos in those neighbourhoods. There's no other land in the core that can be developed so easily. And the city sees this project in the same light as places like Canary Wharf in London or Battery Park in NYC. In my opinion, as soon as the real estate market picks up that's where all the developers will be. After all, even 10 years ago who would have foreseen the wall of condos that's present on our waterfront today. There's no reason the same could not be true in another 10 years.

Anyway, we'll have to see how this plays out. Metrolinx's plans call for Queen to be use. And the city calls for Front to be used. Personally, I could see Wellington or King as good compromises. But anything more northerly than that would risk underservicing the only potential areas this city has for true dense development.

 

[Darren B]

The only thing that might come in its way would be a prolonged economic depression that would stall any development on Queen as well.

Yeah, but the current development on Queen is what I consider deserving of a subway line. It can only get busiers along Queen.

There will probably be a station at or near Queen and Pape regardless of where the DRL crosses the core.

If it followed the rail land then the station would be far west of there.

In many areas you wouldn't even have to build anything. Just stick signage up at the nearest entrance to PATH and lead pedestrians through there.

Not everyone bothers with the PATH system. Its like a life size version of a hamster cage. Alot of the PATH is also private property and closed off after hours.

 

[kEiThZ]

Yeah, but the current development on Queen is what I consider deserving of a subway line. It can only get busiers along Queen.

Define deserving. And there's no proof it's going to get any busier than many of the main streets in the core.

If it followed the rail land then the station would be far west of there.

It doesn't have to follow the rail land. The city can put the alignment where it feels does the best good. But even if it does end up on the rail alignment, it's hardly that far. It's under 3 km from the rail line to Yonge along Queen.

 

[Darren B]

Sorry to disappoint you. There is no 'natural growth'. There's no open tract of land in that corridor. Anybody who is going to develop the area will have to buy up the land, tear down those historic buildings and get it rezoned to put up condos. And eventually they'll run into the issue of 'stable neighbourhoods' which will stall their efforts.

By natural growth I was referring to the rebuilding of an existing building but slighty larger (higher) to accomodate demand. In other words, it goes from a 3 story brick, with a store front, to a 4 story with the same store front but 3 levels of residences. Evertime a building is being rebuilt on Queen its going up slightly higher.

Looking at a map will give you the obvious counter argument. Astoria is a massive area served by a few stops. Queen is a shorter distance to Front than most of Astoria is to any of those subway stops. If that's your model than Queen will do just fine.

Moreover, if all we are going to are build are mid-size buildings along Queen, than Queen should be the last place in the core that gets a subway.

Actually that is my point. The current mid sized brick exteriors store front type of structures along with the high density rowhouses in the sidestreets along Queen are more active then anything south of that area, and more deserving of the DRL as they currently attract steady streetcar ridership. Those articulated streetcars are the busy streetcar line in North America for a reason.

 

[Darren B]

Define deserving. And there's no proof it's going to get any busier than many of the main streets in the core.

Its deserving because the existing transit patterns cleary shows that Queen is the busiest streetcar route. Articulated streetcar are not being run on Queens Quay, not that they could with current stations at Union. But they are not running anywhere close to the frequency of Queen cars. There is a very significant transit corridor that runs on Queen, and those riders deserve this line.

 

[cacruden]

Exactly. All this talk of express subway trains is madness. We aren't New York and we never will be. Fare integration and improved GO service would be far more effective and cheaper than any express train service. For the amount that we would have to spend to build an express track on the Yonge line alone we could probably finish the Sheppard subway and a nice chunk of the DRL.

I would not say madness - just premature - about 25 to 50 years premature. We need a much more extensive regular subway and GO service way before we even start thinking of the need for express. Multiple north/south lines (DRL is one when extended) will alleviate the need for express subway and reconstructing multiple platforms at transfer points. The more the flow is distributed, the better the system will flow.

 

[kEiThZ]

By natural growth I was referring to the rebuilding of an existing building but slighty larger (higher) to accomodate demand. In other words, it goes from a 3 story brick, with a store front, to a 4 story with the same store front but 3 levels of residences. Evertime a building is being rebuilt on Queen its going up slightly higher.

I wouldn't count that as natural growth of a neighbourhood. Either way, a subway shouldn't be catering to such marginal natural growth.

Actually that is my point. The current mid sized brick exteriors store front type of structures along with the high density rowhouses in the sidestreets along Queen are more active then anything south of that area, and more deserving of the DRL as they currently attract steady streetcar ridership. Those articulated streetcars are the busy streetcar line in North America for a reason.

High density rowohouses don't compare to condos. If that's all there's going to be on Queen then I stand by my assertion that the corridor should get an LRT subway. It's cheaper, unclutters the street and has far more stops than a subway.

 

[andomano]

Its deserving because the existing transit patterns cleary shows that Queen is the busiest streetcar route. Articulated streetcar are not being run on Queens Quay, not that they could with current stations at Union. But they are not running anywhere close to the frequency of Queen cars. There is a very significant transit corridor that runs on Queen, and those riders deserve this line.

Queen may have the 'busiest streetcar route', but does it have the highest ridership per mile? You must take into account the large area it serves!

Does anyone know of any publications from the TTC listing ridership per route mile for each route?

 

[Team Me]

I so agree. A DRL that only goes as far north as Bloor/Danforth will do nothing to help the residents of midtown who currently cannot board a soutbound train at Eglinton or Davisville

This is actually a great point that I think doesn't really get brought up that often. Obviously the downtown core is in need of relief, but I have many friends who board the subway at Eglinton each morning and complain about having to watch cars go by full of people. I suppose if the DRL is eventually extended north this will help. But by that time, I imagine most of those workers would be retired.

As for the core alignment, one aspect that never seems to be brought up is transit hubs. Sure you can cut and cover along Queen. But then how much other real estate and well-loved establishments will you have to destroy to create adequate stations that link up with local routes. Since the rail corridor is currently much less developed (but still accessible), transfer points can be be built based on current and future needs as opposed to what can fit into the small available spaces along Queen.

I don't want to set Dufferin station as an example of how our future subway stations can function, with hundreds of people out on the sidewalks fighting for connecting routes. Some stations could be smaller, but we need space to build adequate transfer points so people can easily connect to other N/S or E/W buses, streetcars and LRTs. This would be way easier to plan with more open spaces along Portlands/Front than in established and gentrified neighbourhoods like Queen East and West.

 

[Darren B]

I don't want to set Dufferin station as an example of how our future subway stations can function, with hundreds of people out on the sidewalks fighting for connecting routes. Some stations could be smaller, but we need space to build adequate transfer points so people can easily connect to other N/S or E/W buses, streetcars and LRTs. This would be way easier to plan with more open spaces along Portlands/Front than in established and gentrified neighbourhoods like Queen East and West.

Im actally very much for small stations and no busbays. Street transfers are common place in modern cities. Hopefully with a new fare system, our transfers will be recorded electronically on fare cards, and it will make for a faster transfer.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

The DRL will work best if it's run up Don Mills...we all know this but the focus has been on the segment south of Danforth because a) it's the most important and b) fighting for a much longer, multi-phased line right off the bat may not be a very fruitful fight when there's such hostility towards new subway lines in this city.

True enough, but regardless of zoning, there are trends in these areas like single professionals buying up large houses, small, but well-off, families taking over all of what was a sub-divided house and/or large Portugease families moving to the 'burbs to have their home taken over by a gay male professional couple.

Exactly. Ward 14's population has dropped by 7.7% in just the past 5 years, Ward 18 dropped by 7.2%, and Ward 30 dropped by 6.9%. It takes a hell of a lot of new development to counter the effects of lower household sizes, development that the city currently does not want north of King/Eastern. To see the effects of new residential towers, Ward 20 grew by 16.3% from 2001-2006.

 

[Whoaccio]

I remain convinced that a Richmond/Adelaide alignment is still the best option, preferably Adelaide. For starters, I don't think the rail corridor will end up delivering the savings it was originally imagined to, at least not unless the route is built as a kind of BART rip off. As I understand it, the entire leg of the route east of the Don had to be tunneled even in the '80s, while the corridor west of John is to narrow to accommodate a subway (+stations) as is. The transfer @ Union seems to be fraught with complications. In all, the upside of it seems to be a 2.5km stretch which could, theoretically. be built without tunneling. Plus, building along the rail corridor & under Union will involve GO Transit in the EA (they own the tracks, right?) plus heavy involvement of VIA rail, CP & CN as well as whoever the current owner of Union Stn. is. This is a guaranteed extra 7 years of EA procedures.

Plus, I don't see how DRL esque service couldn't be achieved by simply adding some more (and better) GO stations along the parts of the rail corridor in question. Separate GO initiatives suggest that within the next decades various GO lines will start to look RER-ish. Make better connections @ Exhibition Stn. to Liberty Village, maybe add some stations at Spadina & Jarvis. As long as they weren't treated like unloved step children with the TTC refusing to route bus/tram routes to them, that would pretty much be the DRL as it was envisioned in the '80s.