SunriseChampion
Senior Member
Stop dreaming. This is Toronto! Subways "cost too much" and are "unwarranted".....or something.
See, I suggested as much before. Instead of the DRL following Queen, King or CNR straight across before heading upwards; it could cut through the innercity via roughly Spadina, College and Dufferin on the western leg and Parliament, Gerrard and Pape on the eastern leg. This would leave space further south for a Queen West/Queensway - Wellington/Front East - Queen East subway. Of course I guess we're about 100 years too late to start making downtown Toronto have the level of urban subway coverage as London, Paris or NYC.
That's what I thought too. I'd see the Queen streetcar subway revived to an extent, and then have most of the rest of the route LRT-ized.I don't think that's what Woodridge Heights was proposing. I understood it to mean a regular DRL (through the rail corridor/Union) and Queen being a separate local subway. Although I could be misinterpreting it as what I'd like to see.
That's what I thought too. I'd see the Queen streetcar subway revived to an extent, and then have most of the rest of the route LRT-ized.
I learned something new today Though I guess that does make sense, and while it's a shame that they ditched that idea, it's not still too late for such a thing to happen.I think that when the Queensway's streetcar right-of-way was built (after the Yonge HRT subway was built) in the late 1950's, it was to be in place for any extension of the Queen streetcar subway past Roncesvalles. As it turned out, it ended up orphaned, not directly connected to any subway or rapid transit. If the Queen streetcar subway was built, instead of the Bloor-Danforth HRT subway, the right-of-way and the streetcar (or LRT) subway would have been connected over the years. Today, the right-of-way could now end up as part the Lake Shore West LRT, if that ever happens.
It's cheaper to bore two separate tunnels than one now. If they wanted 4 tracks they'd want to bore 4 tunnels. Though at that point, if you really want 4 tracks, you want to use cut-and-cover.... is whenever they're digging the tunnel bore for the DRL make it large enough such that it can accomodate a second set of tracks.
A neighbourhood being stable doesn't make it unworthy of a subway line if the demand is there - redevelopment isn't necessary. Cities all over the world build subways through stable neighbourhoods. Rome is building a new line right through the middle of its historic core. It doesn't get much more stable than that.I don't think there's any point of a Queen subway at this point. I can't remember who, but someone always points out that its classified as a stable neighbourhood and if you can't intensify the development there, why build a subway there? I could see a King street subway, or a Dundas one.
A neighbourhood being stable doesn't make it unworthy of a subway line if the demand is there - redevelopment isn't necessary. Cities all over the world build subways through stable neighbourhoods. Rome is building a new line right through the middle of its historic core. It doesn't get much more stable than that.
Because most of their subways are already 4 tracks, meaning they have enough infrastructure to handle peak-hour diversion. Toronto has no such capacity.It's cheaper to bore two separate tunnels than one now. If they wanted 4 tracks they'd want to bore 4 tunnels. Though at that point, if you really want 4 tracks, you want to use cut-and-cover.
Boring would be horrendously expensive. If New York City isn't building their new north-south subway with 4 tracks, why should we?