[cacruden]

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.

Because that is how we justify building a subway in the first part (especially in a city such as Toronto - where density is not distributed). The subway stops at A, picks up, stops at B, picks up, stops at C, picks up, then gets downtown and lets all the people out. Basically, if 98% of the people will bypass all of the line - why build a local subway - just build a GO line. We are using the ridership from both short and long distance to be able to justify the line - remove some from the equation - and poof - no line.

 

[kEiThZ]

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.

If 98% of people are heading for the CBD though, wouldn't it be better to put them on GO instead? For a fraction of the price of express tracks, we can upgrade GO service and with fare integration take them off the subway, leaving all subway lines including the DRL for largely local service.

 

[kEiThZ]

Does anyone think the poll should be re-done with alignments instead of streets?

1) Queen
2) Richmond/Adelaide
3) King
4) Front/Wellington
5) Other

 

[Disparishun]

- 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).

Exactly! Great post.

 

[Voltz]

I think the DRL is the last subway line that needs express tracks, the stop spacing should be relatively wide, and with the line also being shorter than the other two, waiting for an express train might actually take longer.

 

[Railization]

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.

I've provided substantial information supporting a King/Queen alignment. Meanwhile, you're clinging to information from 1985. My argument is based on today's statistics, projections, and studies less than 10 years old. You continue to ignore that this is a relief line by thinking new development is most important (but it's not, it's actually irrelevant in this case as the new developments have LRT as part of their master planning/CIPs), and that the current built form currently doesn't have enough supply to meet demand. That's the most important single point! We're not going to demolish the existing downtown for the sake of rebuilding it south of Union like you seem to think is going to happen with this southward shift of downtown. Downtown is expanding, not shifting. Downtown isn't going anywhere, King isn't going to see any reduction in demand, both King and Queen will see demand continue to rise, not fall, and you keep ignoring this reality. If 4 or 5 Yonge-University stations can be hit with one DRL alignment, that's a huge level of Relief, more than any waterfront/rail corridor alignment that only connects to Union.

You also ignore that the LRT lines will offer more than enough capacity for the new developments along the waterfront.

I think Scarberian answered it well...

You haven't shared them. This "southward shift of downtown" has been your key argument, along with unfounded claims that LRT will not have enough capacity for the waterfront (which is ridiculous, and I've provided a projection to prove it).

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.

Metrolinx isn't an ATM. Metrolinx actually doesn't have any money, they only have what the Province gives them.

Could anyone believe a few years ago that a network like Transit City would have been funded?

TC was actually a response to the fact that subways far too often don't get funded, remember?

Could you have imagined a commitment from the province like MO2020?

11.5 Billion dollars for the GGH is peanuts when Metrolinx is recommending 50 Billion dollars in projects. This is why I keep telling you there isn't enough money to go around. When you're not trying to get votes from the 905, it is rather difficult to get subways funded, regardless of the BCA. Metrolinx hasn't changed this, even though some people were expecting they would.

We are finally reaching a point in this province where all three parties support transit development as long as the business case is there.

Yet you have nothing to prove a business case for 2 east-west subway lines within the same 2km band through the core.

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.

The LRTs are already coming on the waterfront, so why do you continue to insist that the subway has to come so far south when the LRTs are already planned to the south? Your argument is totally nonsensical since you repeatedly ignore the existing plans for the waterfront. You're trying to replace the existing plans for LRT along the waterfront "because it won't be enough," which you cannot prove (meanwhile, I have proven that it will be plenty). If you can't provide something more substantial to back up your position, repeating yourself isn't going to help. Instead of complaining about me providing substantial back up, why not provide some of your own, with something a little more recent than the 1980s?

 

[kEiThZ]

I've provided substantial information supporting a King/Queen alignment. Meanwhile, you're clinging to information from 1985. My argument is based on today's statistics, projections, and studies less than 10 years old.

Since I am looking at future development, how is that looking at studies that are 10 years old? All you've provided is current stuff. I disagree with your interpretation of it. And obviously so do half the voters in this poll. Let's move on.

Metrolinx isn't an ATM. Metrolinx actually doesn't have any money, they only have what the Province gives them.

Really? Wow it's news to me that a provincially mandated agency has to rely on money given to them by the province.

TC was actually a response to the fact that subways far too often don't get funded, remember? 11.5 Billion dollars for the GGH is peanuts when Metrolinx is recommending 50 Billion dollars in projects.

But who's to say that TC was the right response given that the political mood in the province has changed. And who's to say that 50 billion dollars is the right amount. Had they stuck to the original 100 billion amount, we might not be having this debate. Given the changing political mood in the province when it comes to transit, arguing for some amount greater than 50 billion over more than a quarter century, I don't think would be too hard a sell. Indeed, if we are talking about a second line, over and above 50 billion that's only a marginal increase in cost to the whole RTP.

This is why I keep telling you there isn't enough money to go around. When you're not trying to get votes from the 905, it is rather difficult to get subways funded, regardless of the BCA. Metrolinx hasn't changed this, even though some people were expecting they would.

We'll see. Should Metrolinx ditch its cadre of municipal politicians I suspect that deciding project priority based on 905 vote potential will end.

Yet you have nothing to prove a business case for 2 east-west subway lines within the same 2km band through the core.

If we are throwing around projections here that say there's a case to be made for building express tracks and such, than it's quite likely we have the riders to build branch lines. As for building the BCA, I am quite sure that's what Metrolinx planners are supposed to do....

 

[Chuck]

If 98% of people are heading for the CBD though, wouldn't it be better to put them on GO instead? For a fraction of the price of express tracks, we can upgrade GO service and with fare integration take them off the subway, leaving all subway lines including the DRL for largely local service.

Who ever said that subways should only be restricted to local service? I agree that GO must play a lager role in the City of Toronto's transportation network, however GO can only take you to the downtown core. Express subways allow people to travel within - not just to - the urbanized region faster. The express subway system offered in New York City is brilliant, because it offers inner city residents (not just suburban residents) a means of high speed transportation.

The subway will always be the backbone of high order transit in Toronto because it penetrates deep into established residential and commercial areas. The transportation system would be improved immensely if the 1.5 million daily trips made on the subway could be done in literally half the time.

The ideal spacing of subway station is 500m apart, just like the downtown Yonge stations. This applies downtown, midtown, and in the suburbs. However, this spacing is only possible with express tracks. Otherwise, a short 10 km trip on the subway could easily take 45 minutes or longer.

 

[kEiThZ]

Chuck.

Given the length of the DRL though, is it really worthwhile to deploy express rail? We are talking about saving a few minutes here. For most of the folks using the DRL, they will already be saving quite a few minutes by changing before Yonge in the east and St. George in the West.

This goes back to our intentions for the line. If it's to relieve Yonge/Bloor, then as long as we build it, mission accomplished. And if we are improving GO while we are at it, we'll have done more than enough.

Express tracks would probably be far more useful and effective on the BD and YUS lines. But imho they would be of marginal value on the DRL.

 

[Chuck]

Agreed, express tracks are far more useful on BD and YUS than on the DRL. But who knows what the city will be like in 50 years? Why not have some foresight and mandate express tracks on all new subway lines? In the grand scheme of things, it's a marginal cost increase. If we're finally at a stage where governments will fund 1.5 billion dollar subway projects, what's an extra few hundred million given the benefit it provides?

 

[nfitz]

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

That's the kind of narrow-minded lack of foresight that got Yonge built without express tracks. It's at 2/3 capacity now; imagine where it will be in 100 years (and can you think of a reason that it wouldn't still be in use in a 100 years?) I'm not saying build it now; but design for it now.

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

Sorrry - typo. I meant 20 metres (as I have posted many, many times before) - 66 feet - one chain. Plenty of space - there are 4-track tunnels in New York City that are only 50-feet wide.

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.

But we could put in a parking tax, and toll roads, and do congestion charges - which would be a logical way to fund transit. And instead Miller has decided he doesn't want to be umpopular, and had deferreed that one to Metrolinx - who then dodged it in turn.

 

[cacruden]

Lets see if I get this right, some people want two subways to follow the same path - one local and one express - for a route where we currently have NO service. You want to build this second express run through the downtown. So no more revenue generated, but split this between two lines - where capacity is not nearly going to be at maximum. I cannot see how that can be a priority since we have not fully built out any real grid of subways first. Maybe we should worry about the whole network first? Instead of trying to save a few minutes for a few people and end up ignoring the rest of the network.

Now assuming that the DRL comes down Pape (I had to pick a street). The best solution for express would be to build a station at/near pape and Gerrard - which is where Pape intersects the rail line - and build a transfer point from the subway onto the go line - which would then take you directly into Union. Of course for some this will not be quick enough, they will want to quad-track every line (or every line that they live on), and have one express and one not.

Personally, I view this viewpoint as closing in on insanity......

 

[Whoaccio]

I'm personally skeptical we will even get a DRL to begin with. It isn't really "back on the table" in that it has no real political support, other than for City Council to raise the cost of the RHC extension to 8b or whatever it is now, no secured funding, no feasibility studies and no implementation time line. Justifying one alignment over another in terms of planning for a second E/W line south of Bloor strikes me as incredibly premature. I would be surprised if I got to ride a DRL train by 2030, and given that DRL-I is intended to be built in multiple phases, I would be down right stupefied if DRL-I was completed (Don Mills-Dundas West) by 2040. For DRL-II though, we will be talking 2050. There is long term, and then there is white elephant.

Looking at current infrastructure, the area south of the Waterfront already has much superior E/W transit than the the area north of it, and a much higher theoretical capacity. I've got my share of criticisms of the Harborfront LRT, but it is a practically a TGV compared to Queen or King cars. Further, areas like the Portlands & East Bay Front are being designed with some kind of Queens Quay E. LRT in mind.

As to stop spacing, I would recommend fairly wide stop spacing throughout the N/S segments, with ~500m (+/- 100m) through the E/W segment. No matter what corridor is ultimately chosen, this line will travel through some of the densest parts of Toronto. If we neglect to serve these area, we will just end up wasting billions of dollars in tunnels. Designing the line with relatively close stop spacing wouldn't seriously impact the "relief" aspect either. Even if the travel time from Pape-Downtown is identical via Bloor or DRL, at least half of riders should choose the DRL, delivering the needed "relief." Even just designing a better transfer schemed in between B/D & DRL could suck up many riders, given how useless Yonge/Bloor is. From a TTC perspective, "relief" doesn't add any new fares either. Building a subway line to poach from another line is, economically, stupid. The DRL should be built to maximize new ridership, which would imply denser stop spacing. Express tracks seem to be more of a Gordian Knot solution to the problem of stop spacing. I can't help but feel the desire for express tracks stems more from a desire to emulate New York than building practical infrastructure.

When it comes to costs, there should be quite a few ways to make the final tab more palatable. The first thought that comes to my mind is to develop the station as part of bigger developments. If I remember correctly, the TTC group that traveled to Madrid did remark that one reason for the "Madrid Miracle" was that station development was often done in conjunction with real estate development. Certainly the MTR has made quite a business of developing property around subway stations. Design the station mezzanines to have retail space, and so forth.

At the end of the day though, taxes will have to be raised to pay for this thing. Moaning that the province or feds are anti-Toronto is becoming old. Most residents wouldn't mind a tax of similar proportions to the Land Transfer Tax if they felt it was going to a tangible cause (i.e. DRL) and not just a bloated operating budget.

 

[nfitz]

Lets see if I get this right, some people want two subways to follow the same path - one local and one express - for a route where we currently have NO service.

Not two subways ... simply safety the ability the have express tracks on the route, so they can be constructed if and when necessary. As discussed in some of the earlier Metrolinx discussion papers.

Personally, I view this viewpoint as closing in on insanity......

What, planning ahead? Insanity? I can only assume your a TTC employee!

 

[cacruden]

Whether you build tracks side by side or one atop each other - it is not going to be cheap - in fact it will be actually quite expensive - for something that will not be used for 25+ years (if ever). Better take that money and spend it on something useful today.