Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study

[car4041]

I think Woodbine is intriguing and potentially brilliant . . . and it may ultimately be even more cost effective than you're suggesting.

But, as nfitz pointed out earlier, there's no reason to think that Metrolinx is actually proposing a Woodbine routing -- the Star's artist seems to have jumped to that conclusion from the horizontally-squished schematic maps in the Metrolinx report.

 

[Northern Magus]

But, as nfitz pointed out earlier, there's no reason to think that Metrolinx is actually proposing a Woodbine routing -- the Star's artist seems to have jumped to that conclusion from the horizontally-squished schematic maps in the Metrolinx report.

Nfitz has a remarkable tendency to distort and misrepresent things.

You both take as the foundation for your views the wonderfully novel belief that professional journalists and their editors don't fact-check their stories.

Good luck with that.

 

[nfitz]

Nfitz has a remarkable tendency to distort and misrepresent things.

Wow, kind of ironic you said that, given how you distort and misrepresent things in the next sentence! Your just sore 'cause you've had your nose rubbed in it previously.

You both take as the foundation for your views the wonderfully novel belief that professional journalists and their editors don't fact-check their stories.

The Star graphic clearly adds the disclaimer "Approximate Position of Line" as it curves around to Woodbine. That disclaimer covers any Ontario Press Council requirements.

Shame of course that such standards don't apply here ... your willingness to jump up and slander people randomly without cause is appalling.

This isn't the full report BTW, simply a PowerPoint presentation. On the other hand, Steve Munro has commented that he has seen the actual report ... which might actually show Woodbine.

 

[CapitalSeven]

Let's keep in mind a couple of things. Metrolinx documents about the downtown transit line have never really specified where it would run to. The graphic in the Big Move actually suggests Coxwell, but the text says only "The Danforth."

And as pointed out on Steve Munro's site, the 23 November report concepts are not fully thought out. To quote the report:

> This study looks primarily at options for off-loading

- Strategic approach: brainstorming potential ideas
- Engineering feasibility studies have not been undertaken at this time, and some
ideas may not be physically possible

So, these are Metrolinx's back of the envelope ideas. I'm not saying that they're bad ideas, but I think we need to wait for some sign of life from the DTRES before thinking we know anything firm about routing.

The S-curve required to get from Front to Osgoode would look an awful lot like the Museum-St. George-Spadina section of the University line, but you'd have to build nearly all of it under the foundations of very large buildings. It could be done, but I don't think the TTC would do it.

And five miles of cut and cover from Queen Station to Woodbine? I'd sure like to be there when the Mayor announces that one to the happy folk of the east end. TTC is tunnel-boring most of the University extension under fields. They bored the tunnel under Sheppard, and will bore the tunnels under Eglinton. If they won't do cut and cover under suburban arterials with ROWs of a hundred feet or more, what leads us to conclude they will dig a five-mile trench from sidewalk to sidewalk under Queen?

 

[Rainforest]

I think Woodbine is intriguing and potentially brilliant . . . and it may ultimately be even more cost effective than you're suggesting.

Woodbine - Kingston Rd - Queen means a gentler curve, which will translate into a faster journey. It'll also be doable as a cut and cover trench in its entirety, which AFAIK tends to be the most cost-effective method of subway construction. Additionally, Woodbine and Kingston will handily support rezoning for intensification, which means that development can potentially be piggybacked onto station construction, maximizing the ROI. Pape is a poor choice for all three of these: in particular, since it would need to be bored (expensively) under predominantly low-density established residential side streets, it is difficult to imagine how they would be conducive to the densification required for leveraging local ridership. The proposed Woodbine route will succeed on all three counts.

OK, you might be right that the Woodbine connection will allow for more cost-effective construction, and support intensification better than the Pape route.

However, one big problem remains: the Woodbine route will be much less effective in diverting riders from Yonge, as well as the central section of Bloor-Danforth. With connection at Pape, everybody who boards the Danforth line east of Pape and heads downtown can use DRL instead of Yonge. With Woodbine connection, the number of such riders will be much smaller.

Moreover, DRL going up Pape can continue north of Danforth to serve dense Overlea and Flemmington Park communities, and connect to ECLRT. DRL to Woodbine can theoretically continue north to reach ECLRT, but it will be harder to make a case for such extension, and in any case it will miss Overlea and Flemmington Park.

I'd say that a line going to Woodbine is more a Queen subway than a DRL.

 

[nfitz]

I'd say that a line going to Woodbine is more a Queen subway than a DRL.

I agree ... should be a bit further west to get to Thorncliffe and Flemingdon where there is such a high density.

On the other hand, as Woodbine station is only a 10-minute walk ... if Metrolinx really wants to build an express subway from my house to BMO Field - well twist my rubber arm.

 

[CodeMonkey]

Why not Run the DRL under Union Station? Go with the original plan!

One problem with original plan. It didn't take into account the street car loop that occupies the eastern half that would have been part of the Union Station DRL platform and tunnel. If they where to follow the original plan, they would have to remove the Union Station Streetcar platform, and relocate it somewhere else, adding even more cost to the project.

Because (a) no one wants to foot the bill, and (b) accordingly politicians like Mike Harris and Rob Ford keep getting elected.

And every time we get close to building projects like this we either have a recession and can't afford it, or like you said, we elect politicians like Mike Harris or Rob Ford. (Feels like history repeating itself).

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

One problem with original plan. It didn't take into account the street car loop that occupies the eastern half that would have been part of the Union Station DRL platform and tunnel. If they where to follow the original plan, they would have to remove the Union Station Streetcar platform, and relocate it somewhere else, adding even more cost to the project.

Wow. Did not know that.

In that case, a combination of 5A-2 and And a King St DRL would best. 6B and and reopen summerhill!!!

 

[CodeMonkey]

Wow. Did not know that.

In that case, a combination of 5A-2 and And a King St DRL would best. 6B and and reopen summerhill!!!

Makes me wounder, now that you point out the original plan, knowing that one day the DRL was going to be built they would have know to place the streetcar platform and tunnel somewhere else. Unless they knew the DRL would never become reality?

 

[11th]

And every time we get close to building projects like this we either have a recession and can't afford it, or like you said, we elect politicians like Mike Harris or Rob Ford. (Feels like history repeating itself).

I can agree on the Mike Harris part; as for Rob Ford, if he has the fundings, don't you think he'd support the DRL (a subway!), since it would fit right into his agenda of stopping the "war on car"?

 

[Electrify]

I just looked at the PDF for the first time. As far as relief for Union, Union "Terminal 2" seems to make the most realistic. 5A-2 (redirecting most lines into a Queen tunnel with limited service to Union) and 6A (Lakeshore service into a Queen tunnel, all other service through Union) definitely looks interesting, but as pointed out the construction costs to build a tunnel for these double-decker trains underneath the CBD and PATH would be astronomical! We like to criticize the Sheppard line for having a bad cost to value ratio, but this thing could be one of the most expensive projects the human race ever attempted! Even if we proceeded with this, getting from the underground to the surface would be one hell of a journey.

 

[Palma]

I know the idea of a subway line under Queen has a long history to it and a lot of folks think it's the obvious choice, but I think it's a bad one. Building it would cause transit chaos downtown for years. Queen already has a transit line that can handle all of its own demand. It is lined with heritage buildings that, let's face it, would "accidentally" burn down and be replaced by 40-story cookie-cutter boxes about 20 minutes after the subway opened.

The Front corridor is in the process of being built up with much greater heights and densities than Queen, and is poorly served by transit. It has important regional destinations like the Dome, the convention centre, and the Exhibition that would benefit from a subway line. Building it would not involve scrapping an existing transit investment and would be less disruptive in terms of transit, people's lives, and heritage.

Exactly. Queen St would change for the worse with all those high rise condos if a subway were to be built along that street. Front St is the much better destination. I do not know either how Metrolinx comes up with their awlfull options.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Makes me wounder, now that you point out the original plan, knowing that one day the DRL was going to be built they would have know to place the streetcar platform and tunnel somewhere else. Unless they knew the DRL would never become reality?

That could be true. And would be very sad. I mean if you are planning for this why have the Union streetcar platform where it is?

Toronto tries my patience so much sometimes.

 

[Paleo]

Exactly. Queen St would change for the worse with all those high rise condos if a subway were to be built along that street. Front St is the much better destination. I do not know either how Metrolinx comes up with their awlfull options.

That must be why almost all southbound AM peak Yonge trains empty out by the time they get to King Street? Or the rush north from Union Station? There are only a handful of towers "destinations" between Simcoe and Yonge along Front. The rest is residential and not contributing to the existing subway congestion. The TTC didn't even see fit to save the 121 bus.

 

[Palma]

And residential people don't use subways. Not sure what you are trying to say but it sounds as if subways need to be built only for people coming downtown to work.