I don't really see how the DRL could avoid needing it's own yard and maintenance facilities. Since the first stage would likely be Pape->Core, that facility would likely be somewhere near the Portlands. Maybe the promise of cheaper real-estate could justify a kind of spur or branch line into the Portlands more properly :-D Sending one track on a viaduct to a station or two along Cherry and a maintenance yard somewhere there cold almost be cost neutral to building a maintenance yard elsewhere along the route. Plus that could save the 300m budgeted for a Cherry LRT...
Any new facility would either need to be in the Portlands, or in the industrial lands in Leaside, because the lands that were initially contemplated in the Network 2011 version of the DRL I don't think are available. If it were done in the Portlands, they would probably need to include a revenue spur as you have suggested, because to build that much tunnel for a non-revenue section of line, that's a pretty significant expense.
I do have to say though, a DRL spur into the Portlands would be a pretty significant development catalyst. Maybe we could actually be proactive for a change and build transit WHILE the development is taking place, not 10-20 years after (see: CityPlace, soon to be West Donlands).
I feel like coupling the DRL with the Spadina line would require.... substantial track work around Union station, the cost of which would totally dwarf any cost savings on the yard. Also, wouldn't that leave the entire Yonge line with just Davisville? Could that cope?
Depending on how you do it. The way that I have envisioned it is the Spadina-Don Mills line uses the existing Union station, and rather than turning north towards King Stn, continues east at the same grade under Front St. Meanwhile, the Yonge line dips underneath the Spadina-Don Mills line and runs to a new Union platform underneath the GO Bus terminal and the rail corridor.
The idea is that during construction the U could be broken between Union and King, with Yonge trains temporarily turning back at King. This means that every station on the system would still be open, and would not be affected by construction (because no current stations with the exception of the streetcar loop at Union would need to be reconfigured at all). Taking the track out of service for the entire duration of construction would shorten the construction time considerably, because no considerations would need to be made in terms of keeping the system operational, because no stations would be directly affected. Just think how much faster the 401/Hurontario reconstruction would be if they could just shut down that entire stretch of highway instead of being confined to night work (naturally that would never happen, but just using that as an example). The section between Union and King is a non-critical section of track, unlike track between Queen and Dundas for example.
Yes, this track work would be expensive, but I would imagine it would still cost significantly less than building 2 new subway platforms in the middle of the CBD (one running from Victoria to Bay, the other from University to Duncan). Not to mention the tracks connecting them, or the massive reconfigurations to existing stations that would be required.
Building a new Union platform underneath the rail corridor wouldn't exactly be a cakewalk, but I would imagine it would still be significantly easier than trying to build a platform underneath King St between Victoria and Bay, while passing underneath a station that would need to stay open during construction. That just has engineering headache written all over it.
De-coupling would certainly provide some construction headaches as far as surface detours and changes to subway service go. Front St would probably look pretty similar then to what it looks like now with the 2nd platform being built. Building a new subway platform under the rail corridor wouldn't be easy, but they're building an entirely new GO concourse underneath the existing one as we speak, so there's certainly precedence for construction like that.
But personally, I would rather see Front St torn up, a section of track closed but all stations still open, and a moderately difficult Union platform being built, than see the CBD turned into the visual equivalent of a war zone for half a decade, with massive disruptions in passenger flow at existing downtown stations. Especially if Option A turns out to be less expensive.
Last edited: