[nfitz]

Who says City prefers Front? Gambione called it the Queen subway didn't he?

 

[Whoaccio]

Well, I think just about everything that can be said about alignments has been said for the moment. What about other details?

• Ideal stop spacing?
• Ideal rolling stock/technology?
• Ideal way to fund it?
• How to make the costs more realistic?

 

[nfitz]

The concept here is to build this, instead of Bloor-Yonge. So one potential scenario is simply having 2 stops. Queen (King, Union, whatever) and Pape (Donlands, whatever).

Another thing to be considered, as this line will ultimately end up with more ridership than the Bloor-Danforth, is whether or not express tracks should be designed. I'm sure if we were to build the Yonge line from scratch, we would be building express tracks. So should we design this new subway with New York-style express tracks from day 1 (even if they are only protected for future construction).

 

[Railization]

Exactly. And this thread proves the point. We are trying to shoehorn a DRL to relieve Yonge/Bloor, a line to relieve the Queen streetcar and possibly a line to assist with waterfront growth all into one subway. A wiser entity would recognize the need to build additional lines in this scenario. Queen really should get its own LRT/HRT subway, independent of the DRL.

You may be trying to shoehorn waterfront growth into it, not everybody. Please speak for yourself, not everybody with the same brush.

It is actually not all that hard to have the DRL relieve Queen, King, and southern Yonge all in one hit. The waterfront, which would be so well-served by LRT that it doesn't need a subway anyway, nor does it need any relief whatsoever currently, is the only thing being used to argue for an alignment further south, despite the fact that taking it further south impairs its ability to alleviate Queen and to a lesser extent King (depending on how far south it ultimately goes (Wellington vs. Front vs. Esplanade/Rail Corridor vs. Lake Shore)).

People really need to stop thinking that there's going to be more than one line here though. It'll never happen. The money for that would never show. Nobody would take such a proposal seriously. The only reason the University line is so close is because of the wye with B-D. TTC is trying to avoid building LRTs too close to each other, can you imagine how much they'd try to keep their subways farther apart?

We are only going to get one subway east-west through downtown. That's a reality, and it's ridiculous to believe otherwise. There's no projection to support the idea that we'd ever even need two subways south of Dundas (and people that are suggesting a subway on Dundas, please stop, it's not feasable, too many twists and turns that subways can't handle on Dundas). Besides, 2 LRT lines, properly built and managed, can provide almost the same capacity as a subway, and the central waterfront will have that at least west of Bay St. If the Gardiner comes down, it could appear on Lake Shore east of Bay St., too. That should satisfy anybody's concern that the waterfront might ever need subway levels of capacity.

 

[Railization]

Another thing to be considered, as this line will ultimately end up with more ridership than the Bloor-Danforth, is whether or not express tracks should be designed. I'm sure if we were to build the Yonge line from scratch, we would be building express tracks. So should we design this new subway with New York-style express tracks from day 1 (even if they are only protected for future construction).

The express tracks for the DRL already exist. It's called the GO Train!

DRL doesn't need express tracks. They wouldn't fit under Downtown's narrow street grid anyway (unless you build them double-decker).

 

[Railization]

Well, I think just about everything that can be said about alignments has been said for the moment. What about other details?

• Ideal stop spacing?
• Ideal rolling stock/technology?
• Ideal way to fund it?
• How to make the costs more realistic?

Great questions.
Ideal stop spacing is a tough one, as there isn't any hard and fast rule. However, there's a good practice of having a closer spacing on stations in the densest part of the city.

Rolling stock should be subway. The City is familiar with it, we already have a nearby yard that can accomodate the technology, and it is the only existing technology already in use in the city that is known to be able to handle the capacity projected for it by Metrolinx.

Funding? The Province (where else? The City doesn't have enough taxing powers).

Costs can be possibly be kept down by making it shallow, if feasable. A shallow design that utilizes ramps instead of elevators and escalators can save additional costs, too.

 

[nfitz]

The express tracks for the DRL already exist. It's called the GO Train!

From Pape to downtown. What do you do, jump off the overpass and hold on for dear life? Do you need a ticket for that?

DRL doesn't need express tracks.

If the passenger loads are as projected, then I'd disagree.

They wouldn't fit under Downtown's narrow street grid anyway (unless you build them double-decker).

Bingo ... double decker - though there should be room for 4 tracks under a 30-metre wide street, but perhaps not platforms as well, but you wouldn't need platforms for both tracks, except at a couple of locations, so the express tracks could simply pass underneath most stations, with no platforms ...

Funding? The Province (where else? The City doesn't have enough taxing powers).

The City has plenty of taxing powers; they were given a lot of power in the new City of Toronto Act - however they have chosen not to use most of their new powers, restricting the new taxes to house transfers and cars (which in retrospect, were most likely to have been severely reduced during a recession ...)

 

[scarberiankhatru]

The waterfront is clearly not the only thing being used to argue for an alignment further south.

Until recently, it was ridiculous to believe even one east/west subway line would be built downtown within any of our lifetimes.

 

[Railization]

From Pape to downtown. What do you do, jump off the overpass and hold on for dear life? Do you need a ticket for that?

It's called a new station @ Gerrard-ish.

If the passenger loads are as projected, then I'd disagree.

Why? Passenger loads projected are 17,500pphpd. That's about 2/3rds of capacity, no need for express tracks to alleviate the line.

Bingo ... double decker - though there should be room for 4 tracks under a 30-metre wide street, but perhaps not platforms as well, but you wouldn't need platforms for both tracks, except at a couple of locations, so the express tracks could simply pass underneath most stations, with no platforms ...

Most Downtown streets aren't 30 metres, the overwhelming majority are only 20 metres. You cannot fit 4 tracks.

Double decker gets obscene in cost, and isn't worth it. We won't need that much capacity.

The City has plenty of taxing powers; they were given a lot of power in the new City of Toronto Act - however they have chosen not to use most of their new powers, restricting the new taxes to house transfers and cars (which in retrospect, were most likely to have been severely reduced during a recession ...)

The City of Toronto Act left us short-changed. We can't apply our own sales tax. That was what would have been the key part of the Act, but the Province decided to be a pain in the ass and refused. The Province denied Toronto the most important parts of the Act that would have actually helped Toronto.

 

[afransen]

Most Downtown streets aren't 30 metres, the overwhelming majority are only 20 metres. You cannot fit 4 tracks.

Double decker gets obscene in cost, and isn't worth it. We won't need that much capacity.

Not double-decker in one tunnel (which would indeed call for a very large diameter tunnel), but rather two tunnels or the usual size. Since the second tunnel would not require any incremental stations (some extra spent on platforms at a few stations), it likely wouldn't be too costly. Best bet would be to rough-in platforms and tunnels and install fixtures when the volume calls for it (if not immediately). The DRL will one day be one of the busiest lines in the city--seems logical to invest a bit up front to make it versatile.

 

[kEiThZ]

You may be trying to shoehorn waterfront growth into it, not everybody. Please speak for yourself, not everybody with the same brush.

Just cause you spend 3 hours googling links does not mean that you've convinced everyone here either. None of the links you've provided conclusively prove why the line should be built on Queen presumably when it opens at least a decade or two from now. Current development and usage is not an indicator of what this city will look like 20-30 years from now. Personally, I (and looking at the vote several others) believe that the city's centre of gravity is shifting south of Queen as the city develops and we'd like to see that growth accommodated and facilitated.

Anyway, for now we'll have to agree to disagree. Let's move on to discussing other topics about the DRL alignment.

 

[kEiThZ]

People really need to stop thinking that there's going to be more than one line here though. It'll never happen. The money for that would never show. Nobody would take such a proposal seriously....

We are only going to get one subway east-west through downtown. That's a reality, and it's ridiculous to believe otherwise. There's no projection to support the idea that we'd ever even need two subways south of Dundas...

I think Scarberian answered it well...

The waterfront is clearly not the only thing being used to argue for an alignment further south.

Until recently, it was ridiculous to believe even one east/west subway line would be built downtown within any of our lifetimes.

Moreover, I think we all have to adjust to the new Metrolinx reality which will fund subways if there is a strong case made for each one. Could anyone believe a few years ago that a network like Transit City would have been funded? Could you have imagined a commitment from the province like MO2020? We are finally reaching a point in this province where all three parties support transit development as long as the business case is there.

In this case, given the projection for traffic on the DRL (regardless of alignment) I don't foresee it being difficult to make the case that another LRT or subway would be needed further down the line.

 

[cacruden]

You got to walk before you run, build the DRL as a regular subway line.... and when demand is there - then think about express. I would prefer express be the domain of GO though.... although they have to work towards:

- removing level crossings (so the rolling stock can be lighter)
- get lighter rolling stock - does not need to be double decker heavy duty cars
- electrify the go tracks
- lighter rolling stock should lower operating costs
- etc.


Then work towards integrating GO stations and TTC stations on subways where-ever they cross, this does two things
- increase speed to navigate longer distances than subway alone would
- Allow for people coming in from afar - to transfer to subway at points other than just Union - thus helping develop more "centres" within Toronto - which will hopefully help even out the population distribution a little more (which would eventually be able to support more subway lines).

 

[kEiThZ]

You got to walk before you run, build the DRL as a regular subway line.... and when demand is there - then think about express. I would prefer express be the domain of GO though.... although they have to work towards:

- removing level crossings (so the rolling stock can be lighter)
- get lighter rolling stock - does not need to be double decker heavy duty cars
- electrify the go tracks
- lighter rolling stock should lower operating costs
- etc.


Then work towards integrating GO stations and TTC stations on subways where-ever they cross, this does two things
- increase speed to navigate longer distances than subway alone would
- Allow for people coming in from afar - to transfer to subway at points other than just Union - thus helping develop more "centres" within Toronto - which will hopefully help even out the population distribution a little more (which would eventually be able to support more subway lines).

You forgot the most important thing....fare integration....

I completely agree with your points. Going forward, GO has arguably the greatest potential for improvement and can probably make the biggest dent in transit usage in the region. Moreover, improved GO service would probably at least provide some relief for Y/B. I would love to see projections on what DRL, YUS ridership would be if and when GO is completely integrated with the TTC.

 

[Chuck]

The concept here is to build this, instead of Bloor-Yonge. So one potential scenario is simply having 2 stops. Queen (King, Union, whatever) and Pape (Donlands, whatever).

Another thing to be considered, as this line will ultimately end up with more ridership than the Bloor-Danforth, is whether or not express tracks should be designed. I'm sure if we were to build the Yonge line from scratch, we would be building express tracks. So should we design this new subway with New York-style express tracks from day 1 (even if they are only protected for future construction).

Finally someone agrees with me! This line is the perfect candidate for express tracks. On one hand, it needs close stations to serve a dense and growing part of the city. On the other hand, it's a relief line and needs to be fast - 98% of people who board at Pape will travel directly to Yonge. Why force a 15 minute subway ride when it can be 7 minutes? Express stations should be 2 km apart and only at the BD line, Dufferin, Bathurst, Yonge, and Broadview. Local stops should be at downtown Yonge spacing.

Although both GO and the subway could potentially offer express service, it's different in nature and would serve completely different markets. GO's function is primarily to provide fast service between your house and the CBD. Express subways exist to provide fast service from point A to B when both points are within the inner city, but neither are necessarily downtown.