Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

lesouris said:
And how much could you actually elevate on Pape without turning the B-D to DRL transfer into a giant pain, thus defeating its purpose? Few people will climb three-four flights of stairs to transfer when they could make a one flight transfer several stations down the line.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This really shouldn't even be up for debate.
 
Electrify said:
Something I have been thinking about:

NIMBYism, property values, and urban realm be damned, how much faster and cheaper would building the DRL above ground be? Underground transit in the developed world seems to be a dying trend. Besides Toronto, most rapid transit projects in North America and Europe are being built at or above grade, rather than below. The capital costs are simply becoming too high to push ahead with long underground tunnels, even if ridership fares are high enough to cover the maintenance and operating costs. New York is spending $6.5 billion for less than 4km of new subway, meanwhile Honolulu is building a whole new 32km elevated line for $5.3 billion, more than a billion less than NYC!
Click to expand...

I think that is why the elevated option is so popular for Eglinton - you get a complete grade separated rapid transit line for a few hundred million that the elevated option costs over the in-median option.

The DRL study that was released last year clearly showed that the DRL would not work, even if it was extended to Don Mills and Eglinton - although everyone was so excited about a DRL report that many did not notice. (Although the written conclusion was that the DRL is needed, the numbers suggested that it would do very little to relieve the Yonge line - closer headways and a 7-car train on Yonge, plus improvements to Yonge-Bloor station have a bigger effect). That is why the DRL needs to be extended as far north as possible - to Seneca College or even Beaver Creek - so that actual riders could be taken off the Yonge subway near the top, not just a few of the transfering passengers. There definately is some room for elevated transit along parts of the DRL - and if not elevated, then some cut-and-cover as well.

Vancouver has built transit for $110M to $150M, which is part underground, part elevated, but 100% grade separated. If we allow for $200M per kilometre, this 25km long DRL from Downtown West to Seneca would be about $5B, with the important parts being underground - far less than the $5.5B to only Eglinton that is in the report.
 
Electrify said:
NIMBYism, property values, and urban realm be damned, how much faster and cheaper would building the DRL above ground be? Underground transit in the developed world seems to be a dying trend. Besides Toronto, most rapid transit projects in North America and Europe are being built at or above grade, rather than below. The capital costs are simply becoming too high to push ahead with long underground tunnels, even if ridership fares are high enough to cover the maintenance and operating costs. New York is spending $6.5 billion for less than 4km of new subway, meanwhile Honolulu is building a whole new 32km elevated line for $5.3 billion, more than a billion less than NYC!
Click to expand...

This could be achieved through reusing the existing rail corridor. I mean, that was the original plan for the DRL back in Network 2011.

Outside of the rail corridor though it would be difficult to create interchanges between the existing subway and a new elevated line. It can be done, like Clarke/Lake Station in Chicago, but I'm not sure how practical it is.

On the whole you're right.
 
Still think that the DRL's two arms should be two separate lines. The east leg should continue from Eglinton East and Don Mills to downtown then south-westerly to the CNE (maybe casino), while the west leg should continue from Dundas West south-easterly to the Port Lands and West Don Lands. They should interchange with each other in the downtown.
 
I'm picturing something more like this, but it is an interesting idea..

2drl_zps69459231.jpg
 
^
I think both lines are needed in Toronto but there is no connection point between the red and the blue line, which is what concerns me. A system has much less use if there is no flexible connection.
If you want to run the DRL along King and the west line along Queen (both make sense), at least make them interchangable.

Subway lines don't have to be aligned with surface streets. I don't know what Toronto is stuck with this idea - why all lines have to be either NS or WE.
 
you could always walk through the path to get to the other, it can't be much longer of a walk than it is at spadina station currently.
 
so I got thinking on potential stops on the DRL, and I think it should run sort of like this, from east to west: (connections in brackets)

Don Mills - Eglinton (ECLRT)
Flemingdon
Thorncliffe
O'Conner
Pape (Bloor-Danforth subway)
Gerrard (College streetcar)
Carlaw (new terminus for the queen and kingston road streetcars)
Broadview South (Broadview streetcar)
Cherry (new Cherry st. Streetcar)
Parliament
Jarvis
King-Yonge (Yonge subway)
St. Andrew (Spadina subway)
Spadina South (Spadina streetcar, with an underground station like st. clair west)
Bathurst South (Bathurst Streetcar, with an underground station like st clair west)
Stanley Park
Liberty Village
Dufferin South
Jameson
Queensway (New terminus of queen streetcar)
Wright
Howard Park (College Streetcar)
Dundas West (Bloor Danforth Subway)


an eventual extension could be done up the georgetown ROW on the cheap, and could look like this:

Dundas West
Dupont West
St. Clair (St. Clair Streetcar)
Rogers
Mt. Dennis (ECLRT)

now this includes the removal of the king and queen streetcars through downtown, as well as an extension of the St. Clair streetcar to Jane St.
 
I don't see the point of having an Exhibition Place terminal for the blue line. The ridership would clearly be lacklustre.

What I would suggest is connecting the blue and red lines. This would be the traditional DRL setup.

Have an LRT line run out of Union Station that goes south on Bay St then turns east on Queen's Quay, continues onto Lakeshore Blvd and runs into the Exhibition. This would essentially be the Waterfront West LRT from Transit City.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
I don't know people why want to decouple the lines. I'm against it. I prefer one clean route from Eglinton east to Eglinton West.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Unless the lines go to Eglinton, it not going to deal with the issue on the Yonge line. Even if it did, still will not fully deal with the issue. The east needs to go to Sheppard, Then Steeles and down the road to Hwy 7.

I prefer the west line go up Jane St since any LRT line has to be underground if it can't run in Mix traffic and will draw a lot more riders than going to Dundas West Station.

What every we do to the Yonge Line for reducing ridership, it will be replace by all the new development taking place or plan along it down the road.
 
drum118 said:
I agree.

Unless the lines go to Eglinton, it not going to deal with the issue on the Yonge line. Even if it did, still will not fully deal with the issue. The east needs to go to Sheppard, Then Steeles and down the road to Hwy 7.

I prefer the west line go up Jane St since any LRT line has to be underground if it can't run in Mix traffic and will draw a lot more riders than going to Dundas West Station.

What every we do to the Yonge Line for reducing ridership, it will be replace by all the new development taking place or plan along it down the road.
Click to expand...

I know Keele was never suppose to have LRT but it would fit easier north of Eglinton. Id be ok if the DRL went up to keele to Eglinton.
 
drum118 said:
I agree.

Unless the lines go to Eglinton, it not going to deal with the issue on the Yonge line. Even if it did, still will not fully deal with the issue. The east needs to go to Sheppard, Then Steeles and down the road to Hwy 7.

I prefer the west line go up Jane St since any LRT line has to be underground if it can't run in Mix traffic and will draw a lot more riders than going to Dundas West Station.

What every we do to the Yonge Line for reducing ridership, it will be replace by all the new development taking place or plan along it down the road.
Click to expand...

sixrings said:
I know Keele was never suppose to have LRT but it would fit easier north of Eglinton. Id be ok if the DRL went up to keele to Eglinton.
Click to expand...

In fact I want the sheppard subway to go west to Jane, maybe across the highway to albion. And the DRL to go to Lawrence. I don't want it to be smashed with people from Rich Hill, Vaughan or Markham. They've already claimed YUS.
 
innsertnamehere said:
I'm picturing something more like this, but it is an interesting idea..
IMAGE SNIPPED
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding. That's exactly what I visualized while reading the description, however with a few minor alterations. I would keep the blue line running W (rather than SW to Ontario place), ideally I would love to see a parkdale hub station built with connections to the King/Queen streetcar, the (two) subways, and a GO station. The blue line would continue SE to terminate at or near the portlands.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top