[BMO]

I agree the need for the DRL is pretty clear. It may not be a bad thing to point out the considerable obstacles it will face though. For whatever set of reasons, Toronto's decision making process has ensured that since 1973, heavy rail rapid transit can only be built in low density areas and cannot be built where it actually makes economic sense. So over the past 40 years our subway expansions have been Spadina (twice - most recently through vacant fields and underground) and Sheppard. I'm not sure when Yonge was extended though at the time of construction it too would have been going into a very low density area. The DRL issue is more urgent now that Hudak has jumped on the subways to nowhere bandwagon with the Ford / Minnan-Wong crowd. Maybe a better way to address your concern is for people to say DRL will happen only with a tremendous amount of organizing, strategic voting, and opposition to Ford and Hudak's nutbar visions of transit planning.

Yes, because I'm sure Hudak and Ford are opposed to a subway downtown....

If anything they would be more open to it because then it would possibly mean a few streetcar lines downtown can be cancelled, or at least reduce the need for making them LRTs. It's comments like yours that are almost as ridiculous as the shit that Ford does. Hudak or Ford have never been on the record against a DRL, and as far as I've heard Hudak hasn't actually put out a transit plan for his "subways to nowhere" as you put it.

and I'm not even a Conservative.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

BMO:

It's pretty much understood that downtown streetcar lines can't be converted to LRTs using the existing alignments without serious impact to other users of the ROW, and I believe that even with DRL the existing streetcar network is still seen as essential per the TTC report (though I am sure there will be operational changes). As to Hudak's and Ford's stance on the DRL - well, I will let their record in the transit file speak for themselves. One was part of a government that canned the Eglinton without regrets, the other was on the record for willing to sacrifice the same for the Sheppard extension (and probably would have done so if not for Metrolinx insistence on keeping Eglinton).

AoD

 

[Solid Snake]

With a DRL Station at Eglinton and Don Mills, it only reinforce the case that the Don Mills Crosstown station be underground as well for a better connection

 

[W. K. Lis]

According to the DRL report, "by 2031 transit ridership into the downtown is expected to grow by 51%". That alone shows that the DRL MUST be built. The report also says that the DRL should be built BEFORE the Yonge extension.

However, Rob Ford's "no tax increases" means he will be against it. He'll want "private" money to build it, which is not going to happen. Unless, that is, city council sees the light.

BTW. The report says that it should be "subway", which means underground electric railway. However, it does not say if it should be a heavy rail subway or a light rail subway. Could the capacity numbers for the DRL be handled by a five car light rail train or less?

 

[BurlOak]

With a DRL Station at Eglinton and Don Mills, it only reinforce the case that the Don Mills Crosstown station be underground as well for a better connection

That is correct. A good part of the success of the DRL depends on what is done on Eglinton. Hopefully now that TTC acknowledges that the DRL is needed, the Eglinton Crosstown will be re-evaluated to ensure the two lines work together.

 

[gweed123]

With a DRL Station at Eglinton and Don Mills, it only reinforce the case that the Don Mills Crosstown station be underground as well for a better connection

What I would like to see is the north end of the Science Centre parking lot become the transit station. With 2 intersecting transit lines there, the Science Centre isn't going to need nearly as much parking (not that it needs those last 3 rows of parking many days anyway).

Seems like a pretty low impact site as far as building a transit hub goes. Plus it'll make it easier for the TTC to choose running the ECLRT on the south side of the Eglinton-Leslie intersection, and just keep it along the south side of the road into the Science Centre Station.

 

[11th]

.

BTW. The report says that it should be "subway", which means underground electric railway. However, it does not say if it should be a heavy rail subway or a light rail subway. Could the capacity numbers for the DRL be handled by a five car light rail train or less?

There must be a reason for them to use the term "subway", and not "rapid transit" or others - it sells.

 

[nfitz]

With a DRL Station at Eglinton and Don Mills, it only reinforce the case that the Don Mills Crosstown station be underground as well for a better connection

That station has long been planned as underground - so no change then.

 

[gweed123]

That station has long been planned as underground - so no change then.

Underground, but directly under Eglinton, correct? Hopefully the TTC has enough forethought to design Eglinton-Don Mills Station with a DRL interchange in mind, so that it can be expanded easily, and the connections are smooth. I just don't want to end up with a Bloor-Yonge type of design where the perpendicular platform is at the far end of the existing platform, creating a traffic nightmare within the station.

That's why I think building under the parking lot would make things a heck of a lot easier. Have the Eglinton platform with it's centre just to the west of Don Mills, and about 30m south of Eglinton. That way when the DRL is built, the station can also be built under the parking lot, forming more or less a lower-case t, making for easier passenger flow and constructability.

 

[Markster]

Clearly, the best way to build it would be a T-intersection, where both lines are at the same grade, thus permanently precluding northern expansion of the DRL.

 

[BurlOak]

A few things I noticed while reading through the full report. I would summarize that the DRL does little for the capacity on the Yonge line and the biggest benefit to Yonge is from improved station capacity at Yonge-Bloor. This is not what I expected.

Capacity
I see they mention that the capacity of the YUS will be increased from 26k to 38k (46%) with a potential 10% also available but not counted (Section 1.2.4.2). This is made up of 3 parts:
1. 10% of the increase is from new trains
2. 36% from running trains closer together, because of;
-a. Automatic Train Control (ATC) being used.
-b. Station capacity and passenger flow limitations, particularly at Bloor-Yonge .Station will be resolved through station expansion (see 3rd paragraph on page 17).
3. 10% from lengthening the trains (has not been included in this study).

Thus, to achieve the capacities in the report, we still need to spend $1B (taken from OneCity) for improvements to the Yonge-Bloor station.

Yonge-Bloor Station
1. Currently, the transfer on/off Yonge southbound are 14,940 (730+2550+970+4330+6360 from exhibit 1-11). There are 10,700 boardings (4330+6360). (Note that there is no mention of any walk-on traffic, only walk-off)
2. Without the DRL, the transfer on/off Yonge southbound are 20,600 – a 38% increase from today. (2220+3950+950+4210+9270 from exhibit 1-11). There are 13,480 (4210+9270) boardings – a 26% increase from today.
3. With DRL option 3, the transfer on/off Yonge southbound are 18,380 – a 23% increase from today. (2620+4420+1030+2780+5270 from exhibit 4-12). There are 8,050 (2780+5270) boardings – a 25% decrease from today.

I am not sure what is a more useful statistic above, is it the total traffic on the Southbound platform (as I have calculated) or the number of boardings (as was presented in the report). I think the former is a better measure of dwell time. If the former, then platform usage will increase by 25%. If the latter, train alightings will decrease by 26% for Southbound Yonge.

It seems that platform useage will increase by 25% and any benefits to capacity from ATC would be offset by increased dwell time at the station. Either the station must be improved, or the DRL must take even more transferring passengers away from Yonge-Bloor.

Yonge Line
1. Currently, the volume on Yonge south of Bloor is 28,400 (table 1-6).
2. Without the DRL, the volume would be 35,800 (table 1-7).
3. With DRL option 3, the Volumes will be 33,100 (table 4-7) – a 20% increase from today, or a decrease of only 8% from the projected base case. (Note that even though the DRL diverted several thousand riders from Yonge-Bloor, there must have been extra passengers added).
4. With DRL option 3 and Yonge extension to RH, the Volumes will be an extra 3,600 (39,400 – 35,800 from tables 1-8 and 1-7) or 36,700 – a 29% increase from today.

Lets say the capacity of the Yonge line can be increased to 29,000 (10%) with new cars and to 31,500 with new cars and longer trains. Thus, the Yonge line would still be over capacity even with the DRL. Either;
a. the station must be improved to improve dwell times,
b. the DRL must take even more transferring passengers away from Yonge-Bloor, or
c. the DRL must take passengers off the northern parts of the Yonge line.

The cost of a) is $1B,
The cost of b), achieved by running the Eglinton Crosstown continuous with the SRT and at high frequency (i.e. grade-separation), is maybe $0.5B if elevated or $2B+ if underground), and
The cost of c), achieved by extending the DRL farther north beyond Eglinton, is up to 2.5B, depending on how far, what technology, an whether it is at-grade, elevated or underground.

 

[christiesplits]

My gut instinct is that any part of the DRL north of Pape will be LRT. It would fit with the original Transity City Pape-Thorncliffe LRT plan and could arguably serve clusters of the densely spread out Thorncliffe and Flemingdon Park neighbourhoods more effectively.

Of course, this would jeopardize the "relief" function of the DRL because it would add a transfer at the Pape line and negate the seamless subway connection to the downtown terminus.

 

[nfitz]

Underground, but directly under Eglinton, correct?

It's in the Eglinton ROW somewhere ... in the centre of the existing road as far as I know.

Hopefully the TTC has enough forethought to design Eglinton-Don Mills Station with a DRL interchange in mind, so that it can be expanded easily, and the connections are smooth. I just don't want to end up with a Bloor-Yonge type of design where the perpendicular platform is at the far end of the existing platform, creating a traffic nightmare within the station.

If the Yonge platform was actually under Bloor, it WOULD have been in the centre of the Bloor platform, rather than under the north end of the Bloor platform. They planned it perfectly, but did not in the 1940s anticipate that the Bloor subway would actually be built under Cumberland.

 

[gweed123]

A few things I noticed while reading through the full report. I would summarize that the DRL does little for the capacity on the Yonge line and the biggest benefit to Yonge is from improved station capacity at Yonge-Bloor. This is not what I expected.

That's actually not surprising. There's so much latent demand on the Yonge line as it is. A lot of people avoid the Yonge line like the plague, and while the DRL will open up some spots, more people will fill those emptied spots almost instantly, especially when you factor in the North Yonge extension.

The DRL is meant for people south of Eglinton and east of Yonge to provide an alternative route to downtown. It will do nothing for people north of say Lawrence, and those near Yonge. The DRL is just to make sure that people near downtown can actually find a space on a subway train.

 

[M II A II R II K]

A new line from Spadina Station to Gerrard Square under Dundas should be added. It would hit major destinations along it's route and have multiple transfers at both ends.