[gweed123]

I don't really see how the DRL could avoid needing it's own yard and maintenance facilities. Since the first stage would likely be Pape->Core, that facility would likely be somewhere near the Portlands. Maybe the promise of cheaper real-estate could justify a kind of spur or branch line into the Portlands more properly :-D Sending one track on a viaduct to a station or two along Cherry and a maintenance yard somewhere there cold almost be cost neutral to building a maintenance yard elsewhere along the route. Plus that could save the 300m budgeted for a Cherry LRT...

Any new facility would either need to be in the Portlands, or in the industrial lands in Leaside, because the lands that were initially contemplated in the Network 2011 version of the DRL I don't think are available. If it were done in the Portlands, they would probably need to include a revenue spur as you have suggested, because to build that much tunnel for a non-revenue section of line, that's a pretty significant expense.

I do have to say though, a DRL spur into the Portlands would be a pretty significant development catalyst. Maybe we could actually be proactive for a change and build transit WHILE the development is taking place, not 10-20 years after (see: CityPlace, soon to be West Donlands).

I feel like coupling the DRL with the Spadina line would require.... substantial track work around Union station, the cost of which would totally dwarf any cost savings on the yard. Also, wouldn't that leave the entire Yonge line with just Davisville? Could that cope?

Depending on how you do it. The way that I have envisioned it is the Spadina-Don Mills line uses the existing Union station, and rather than turning north towards King Stn, continues east at the same grade under Front St. Meanwhile, the Yonge line dips underneath the Spadina-Don Mills line and runs to a new Union platform underneath the GO Bus terminal and the rail corridor.

The idea is that during construction the U could be broken between Union and King, with Yonge trains temporarily turning back at King. This means that every station on the system would still be open, and would not be affected by construction (because no current stations with the exception of the streetcar loop at Union would need to be reconfigured at all). Taking the track out of service for the entire duration of construction would shorten the construction time considerably, because no considerations would need to be made in terms of keeping the system operational, because no stations would be directly affected. Just think how much faster the 401/Hurontario reconstruction would be if they could just shut down that entire stretch of highway instead of being confined to night work (naturally that would never happen, but just using that as an example). The section between Union and King is a non-critical section of track, unlike track between Queen and Dundas for example.

Yes, this track work would be expensive, but I would imagine it would still cost significantly less than building 2 new subway platforms in the middle of the CBD (one running from Victoria to Bay, the other from University to Duncan). Not to mention the tracks connecting them, or the massive reconfigurations to existing stations that would be required.

Building a new Union platform underneath the rail corridor wouldn't exactly be a cakewalk, but I would imagine it would still be significantly easier than trying to build a platform underneath King St between Victoria and Bay, while passing underneath a station that would need to stay open during construction. That just has engineering headache written all over it.

De-coupling would certainly provide some construction headaches as far as surface detours and changes to subway service go. Front St would probably look pretty similar then to what it looks like now with the 2nd platform being built. Building a new subway platform under the rail corridor wouldn't be easy, but they're building an entirely new GO concourse underneath the existing one as we speak, so there's certainly precedence for construction like that.

But personally, I would rather see Front St torn up, a section of track closed but all stations still open, and a moderately difficult Union platform being built, than see the CBD turned into the visual equivalent of a war zone for half a decade, with massive disruptions in passenger flow at existing downtown stations. Especially if Option A turns out to be less expensive.

 

[nfitz]

I don't really see how the DRL could avoid needing its own yard and maintenance facilities.

One way would be to use Greenwood Yard. Some alignments for the subway in the past have run through the western edge of Greenwood Yard (using Donlands station instead of Pape as the interchange). It's hard to think where else near the Phase 1 alignment you could put something, without running a long spur somewhere. Then you'd have to move existing Greenwood trains somewhere else.

 

[diminutive]

I do have to say though, a DRL spur into the Portlands would be a pretty significant development catalyst. Maybe we could actually be proactive for a change and build transit WHILE the development is taking place, not 10-20 years after (see: CityPlace, soon to be West Donlands).

Yea, it would different, that's for sure. I really don't think it should be that expensive either. The spur could be totally cut and cover, the station would be modest and, at least as far as passenger demand goes, one track should be sufficient for most of the route. The 300m$ Cherry LRT wouldn't be needed and the City would create some great development potential.

Yes, this track work would be expensive, but I would imagine it would still cost significantly less than building 2 new subway platforms in the middle of the CBD (one running from Victoria to Bay, the other from University to Duncan). Not to mention the tracks connecting them, or the massive reconfigurations to existing stations that would be required.

I still don't really see the appeal of splitting YUS, seems like a lot of fuss (easily over 1b) for minor gains. It would also preclude non-subway technologies (skytrain, overground, wtv...) from any consideration. I'd also be amazed if Davisville could support the Yonge (including higher frequencies, potential extensions) and Sheppard by itself.

That said, you're right that the potential two interchanges with Osgoode/Queen or St.A/King would be extremely complex and disruptive. A simpler, though less functional, compromise would be to build one station around Bay street and connect it via PATH like facilities to existing YUS stations. It would be a bad transfer but not unusual by global standards, and transfer pressures would be reduced by having two transfers to the same line. If a Queen alignment was chosen, we could also build under the front of Nathan Phillips Square.

It's hard to think where else near the Phase 1 alignment you could put something, without running a long spur somewhere. Then you'd have to move existing Greenwood trains somewhere else.

Ignoring my suggestion of building a revenue spur/branch to the Portlands and putting a yard there, another option would be to always plan Phase 1 to include the stretch to Eglinton and put the yard somewhere along that part.

 

[gweed123]

Yea, it would different, that's for sure. I really don't think it should be that expensive either. The spur could be totally cut and cover, the station would be modest and, at least as far as passenger demand goes, one track should be sufficient for most of the route. The 300m$ Cherry LRT wouldn't be needed and the City would create some great development potential.

That's true, although somehow I doubt that that option will be seriously explored. For one, it would cause a pretty significant re-imagining of the Portlands plan, which has taken long enough to come to fruition as it is. It's a good option to explore though, don't get me wrong. I just think there's too much momentum working against it, and the benefit of that over the Portlands LRT isn't painfully obvious.

I still don't really see the appeal of splitting YUS, seems like a lot of fuss (easily over 1b) for minor gains. It would also preclude non-subway technologies (skytrain, overground, wtv...) from any consideration. I'd also be amazed if Davisville could support the Yonge (including higher frequencies, potential extensions) and Sheppard by itself.

Any option in downtown is easily over $1 billion though, so I don't think financials is a good argument against it. There is no cheap option, aside from running it into the Union trainshed and creating a really crappy transfer. And I really don't think that ICTS or LRT are going to be used for this line. The DRL is practically the only line in the GTHA where the assumed technology choice has never really been seriously questioned.

All things considered though, I actually think that the de-coupling could actually come in below the separate line through the CBD in terms of cost estimates though, just based on the amount of trackage required in downtown, and the complexity of the stations.

The Davisville point is a valid one, but realistically any DRL option is going to require a reshuffling of yard space to some extent. Remember that the YUS loop can be retained as a non-revenue track linkage between the two, much like Lower Bay is still used to transfer between YUS and BD today. There is also the opportunity to build a new Yonge yard in Richmond Hill as part of the North Yonge extension, which realistically could open in tandem with the DRL.

That said, you're right that the potential two interchanges with Osgoode/Queen or St.A/King would be extremely complex and disruptive. A simpler, though less functional, compromise would be to build one station around Bay street and connect it via PATH like facilities to existing YUS stations. It would be a bad transfer but not unusual by global standards, and transfer pressures would be reduced by having two transfers to the same line.

The 1 station idea is an interesting one to cut costs, but the downside is that it would need to be a pretty massive station, because you'd have almost every DRL passenger exiting at that one station during the AM rush hour, and the same number trying to squeeze onto 1 platform in the PM rush hour.

The advantage with the de-coupling is that you don't force passengers to use whatever station the DRL enters downtown at. The DRL passengers have the option of exiting at Union, St. Andrew, or Osgoode, same as YUS passengers do now. The "everybody enters and exits from this one point" scenario doesn't apply.

If a Queen alignment was chosen, we could also build under the front of Nathan Phillips Square.

I'm very much against a Queen alignment, for a whole host of reasons that I won't get into in too much detail here. Suffice to say, I think Queen (all of it, not just downtown) is more suited to an underground LRT, much like what was proposed in the late 40s and what is currently being planned for Eglinton. Lower capacity with smaller stations and closer stop spacing, catering to the local demand of the street. It's not a long haul street, and it shouldn't have long haul transit under it that neglects the local nature of what's above.

Ignoring my suggestion of building a revenue spur/branch to the Portlands and putting a yard there, another option would be to always plan Phase 1 to include the stretch to Eglinton and put the yard somewhere along that part.

Yup. In one of my earlier posts I suggested the industrial lands in Leaside as a possible location for a yard. Perhaps specifically retooling the hydro corridor lands immediately south of the CPR tracks just north of Thorncliffe Park. The spur line in that location would be about the same distance as the access to Greenwood from B-D.

 

[ssiguy2]

I still think an extended Airlink east of Union using rail ROW and then north up to Pape is the best option. Where is Metrolinx storing the DMU trains?

 

[sixrings]

This is of course assuming that the DRL is run as a separate line. But if you de-couple the Yonge and University-Spadina lines, a new yard may not be necessary. Spadina-Don Mills can use Wilson, and Yonge can use Davisville and a bit of Wilson if necessary. If/when the Yonge line is extended further north, they can build a new yard at the north end of the line.

It would require some re-jigging, but it's certainly possible.

GWEED... I understand a lot of your transit posts and points. My parents live in Ottawa so I can understand your good experience with BRT although I disagree with where you would like to put it. Id rather keep BRT for roads like Lawrence or Wilson/Ellesmere. The thing is when you talk about separating the yonge and university line you completely lose me. Maybe I simply cant think BIG enough. Because that theoretically may be the case I am going to ask you if you have made this suggestion to someone smarter then myself and if so what was their reply. WHAT DID OR HAS STEVE MUNRO SAID TO THIS SUGGESTION???????????? I would be curious to find out. The only other person who I think would know the answer to this proposal was TRZ from Skyscrapercity.com. TRZ has been offline for over a year which is why I came over to Urban Toronto but he was extremely detailed in anything he suggested. BTW TRZ did offer a DRL proposal at one time which would not include your suggestion. Im not saying your suggestion is wrong. Id simply like to hear thoughts on it by those I respect to the highest degree. Finally do you have a secondary proposal for a DRL or are you set in stone that this is the best and only way it should be completed?

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=670156

 

[gweed123]

GWEED... I understand a lot of your transit posts and points. My parents live in Ottawa so I can understand your good experience with BRT although I disagree with where you would like to put it. Id rather keep BRT for roads like Lawrence or Wilson/Ellesmere. The thing is when you talk about separating the yonge and university line you completely lose me. Maybe I simply cant think BIG enough. Because that theoretically may be the case I am going to ask you if you have made this suggestion to someone smarter then myself and if so what was their reply. WHAT DID OR HAS STEVE MUNRO SAID TO THIS SUGGESTION???????????? I would be curious to find out. The only other person who I think would know the answer to this proposal was TRZ from Skyscrapercity.com. TRZ has been offline for over a year which is why I came over to Urban Toronto but he was extremely detailed in anything he suggested. BTW TRZ did offer a DRL proposal at one time which would not include your suggestion. Im not saying your suggestion is wrong. Id simply like to hear thoughts on it by those I respect to the highest degree. Finally do you have a secondary proposal for a DRL or are you set in stone that this is the best and only way it should be completed?

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=670156

Fair enough, and thank you, haha. I do get that this de-coupling proposal is a little outside the box, and there may be a couple hidden engineering reasons that would cast doubt on whether or not it would be feasible (I'm not an engineer, so I can only think of the really obvious ones). From a planning perspective though, to me it makes sense. From a traffic flow perspective, I think it makes sense, because it spreads out the load coming into and out of downtown, instead of dumping all of it off at a single or a couple points. From a construction disruption perspective it makes sense, because the surface disruption in the CBD is confined to Yonge & Front. Any 'separate' DRL proposal would involve significant disruption in the CBD itself from Yonge all the way to University (along whatever road is chosen).

As for Steve Munro, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but he has on several occasions raised the point that perhaps the DRL East and DRL West should not be one continuous line, because the needs that those two segments serve are very different. I don't know if he's addressed the de-coupling specifically or not, I just know he's raised that point several times about the DRL East & West. If Steve is reading this, I'd love to have him share his thoughts on it. The de-coupling proposal addresses that because the Yonge line can be continued further west AS the DRL West, if needed (see the map I posted earlier with the Yonge extension going up Dufferin).

And I'm not necessarily set in stone that de-coupling is the ONLY way, I just think at this point that it's the best way to address all of the needs of the DRL. If it absolutely HAS to be a separate line, I've always been very partial (and have vocalized such on many occasions on this site) to the DRL using Wellington, for many of the same reasons as the de-coupling: lower impact to surface operations during construction, multiple connection points to spread out the load (connections to King, Union, & St. Andrew), and the ability to exit the downtown via Front St to the east. King would be a 3rd place option I guess, but with King you start to deal with all of the streetcar disruptions, which would be a pain.

 

[sixrings]

Fair enough, and thank you, haha. I do get that this de-coupling proposal is a little outside the box, and there may be a couple hidden engineering reasons that would cast doubt on whether or not it would be feasible (I'm not an engineer, so I can only think of the really obvious ones). From a planning perspective though, to me it makes sense. From a traffic flow perspective, I think it makes sense, because it spreads out the load coming into and out of downtown, instead of dumping all of it off at a single or a couple points. From a construction disruption perspective it makes sense, because the surface disruption in the CBD is confined to Yonge & Front. Any 'separate' DRL proposal would involve significant disruption in the CBD itself from Yonge all the way to University (along whatever road is chosen).

As for Steve Munro, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but he has on several occasions raised the point that perhaps the DRL East and DRL West should not be one continuous line, because the needs that those two segments serve are very different. I don't know if he's addressed the de-coupling specifically or not, I just know he's raised that point several times about the DRL East & West. If Steve is reading this, I'd love to have him share his thoughts on it. The de-coupling proposal addresses that because the Yonge line can be continued further west AS the DRL West, if needed (see the map I posted earlier with the Yonge extension going up Dufferin).

And I'm not necessarily set in stone that de-coupling is the ONLY way, I just think at this point that it's the best way to address all of the needs of the DRL. If it absolutely HAS to be a separate line, I've always been very partial (and have vocalized such on many occasions on this site) to the DRL using Wellington, for many of the same reasons as the de-coupling: lower impact to surface operations during construction, multiple connection points to spread out the load (connections to King, Union, & St. Andrew), and the ability to exit the downtown via Front St to the east. King would be a 3rd place option I guess, but with King you start to deal with all of the streetcar disruptions, which would be a pain.

I think Munro when he talks about the lines possibly being separated (east and west) he is really suggesting that a ARL with more stops could fill the Wests needs while a DRL could fill the Easts.

Also Munro from what I read agrees with your wellington proposal. I agree with this as well..

Any thoughts on the TRZ scheme?

As for myself I think the DRL could use the ARL tracks in the west but go down Wellington through the core and then up Pape like is usually suggested. The ARL is the biggest Transit JOKE I can think of.

 

[gweed123]

I think Munro when he talks about the lines possibly being separated (east and west) he is really suggesting that a ARL with more stops could fill the Wests needs while a DRL could fill the Easts.

As for myself I think the DRL could use the ARL tracks in the west but go down Wellington through the core and then up Pape like is usually suggested. The ARL is the biggest Transit JOKE I can think of.

Fair enough. Personally I do think the west end is a different animal than the east end. I think the ARL is a waste of time too, which is why I'd much rather see 2 GO REX lines running along that corridor instead (the local Union to Pearson GO REX, and the longer Union to Mount Joy GO REX, all part of the Brampton-Markham GO REX line).

GO REX can satisfy the express demand for a service along that corridor, while the DRL can then be free to serve more local demands. Rather than trying to shoe-horn both local and long haul demands into a single line (sound familiar anyone? Transit City?), the west needs to be served by both a GO REX line for long haul demand, and a subway for local demand.

How to accomplish the 2nd part is the hard part though. The GO REX alignment is pretty much set in stone because, well, the rail corridor is already there, and there's no sense in tunnelling an express line like that. The debate then turns to where do you put the local line: Lakeshore, rail corridor, King, or Queen? Rail corridor means duplication of service, so that's pretty much out. King and Queen for all intents and purposes accomplishes the same goal, just in a different way.

Personally, what I favour is a DRL West along Lakeshore out to the Ex, and then up Dufferin to Bloor. The WWLRT would come into the transit hub that would be created at Dufferin & Queen, and could possibly be extended further east as the Queen LRT. The key with the DRL West though is not to try and turn it into a quasi-express line, and let it work as a local line. That's what GO REX is for.

Also Munro from what I read agrees with your wellington proposal. I agree with this as well..

It certainly is the most logical of all of the 'separate line' proposals. At least in my opinion .

Any thoughts on the TRZ scheme?

The interlining idea is an interesting one, that's for sure. One thing that I notice with it though is that it seems to be using the rail corridor. Again, duplication of service isn't really necessary. I don't really see there being much demand for the inner loop though. The outer one, for sure.

 

[gweed123]

A quick visual of the Union area.

View attachment 9547

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Gweed. While I do support your idea for de-coupling the YUS lines (in fact I'd like to see the Yonge line extended south to Queens Quay in this scenario. It would solve a lot of issues with the Queens Quay line.) but I thought you and I had a discussion about this a while back and come to the conclusion that there simply is not enough distance from King to Front to get the line to drop down low enough to pass under the University/DRL line. Or am I mistaken?

 

[gweed123]

Gweed. While I do support your idea for de-coupling the YUS lines (in fact I'd like to see the Yonge line extended south to Queens Quay in this scenario. It would solve a lot of issues with the Queens Quay line.) but I thought you and I had a discussion about this a while back and come to the conclusion that there simply is not enough distance from King to Front to get the line to drop down low enough to pass under the University/DRL line. Or am I mistaken?

That is very true. I realized that it would be a stretch, and then I realized why not reverse it and have the Spadina-Don Mills line pass under the Yonge line? There's more room between the end of the platform and the spot where it needs to pass under, and there's no downward slope along Front like there is along Yonge. It would be pretty similar to the setup just west of the upper platform at St. George, where the Spadina subway peels off at the same level, and there's a set of tracks that continue straight and then pass underneath the Spadina tracks, eventually joining up with the Bloor line. The distances are pretty comparable too.

In that case, there should be enough room to have it duck under the Yonge line without too much difficulty. Also, the Jarvis station (or St. Lawrence, whatever it ends up being called) is going to need to be a pretty deep station, so starting that downward slope right after Union will actually help that out too. Thank you for bringing that up though.

 

[Jaye101]

GWEED... I understand a lot of your transit posts and points. My parents live in Ottawa so I can understand your good experience with BRT although I disagree with where you would like to put it. Id rather keep BRT for roads like Lawrence or Wilson/Ellesmere. The thing is when you talk about separating the yonge and university line you completely lose me. Maybe I simply cant think BIG enough. Because that theoretically may be the case I am going to ask you if you have made this suggestion to someone smarter then myself and if so what was their reply. WHAT DID OR HAS STEVE MUNRO SAID TO THIS SUGGESTION???????????? I would be curious to find out. The only other person who I think would know the answer to this proposal was TRZ from Skyscrapercity.com. TRZ has been offline for over a year which is why I came over to Urban Toronto but he was extremely detailed in anything he suggested. BTW TRZ did offer a DRL proposal at one time which would not include your suggestion. Im not saying your suggestion is wrong. Id simply like to hear thoughts on it by those I respect to the highest degree. Finally do you have a secondary proposal for a DRL or are you set in stone that this is the best and only way it should be completed?

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=670156

I agree with you.. BRT is effective, but not on routes like Eglinton in Scarborough or even Sheppard East. I see BRT on streets like Kennedy, Markham, Victoria Park, Kipling, Lawrence...

As a past forumer on SSC I have to say that TRZ's proposal for the DRL would have to be one of the best alignments possible, at least in my opinion.

1. TRZ's alignment allows for the DRL to be built via the cut and cover method which would save ~$1B in construction costs.

2. Because the Eastbound segment is under Adelaide and the Westbound under Richmond, there will be 4 transfer stations as opposed to just 2. Improving the efficiency of the movement of people in the Core, increasing the capacity of these critical stations.

3. No disruption to Downtown's existing streetcar routes. Though the traffic on King and Queen may disrupt transit vehicles extensively. Any plan would have to protect existing transit from excessive traffic congestion. (ie. Temporary ROWs)

4. Another good thing about this is that when demand rises, you can expand downtown stations to have 2 platforms per direction.

While I don't agree with everything suggested on the map he's provided. The basic alignment he's organized is probably the best I've seen. Most other potential alignments would require 100+ packed shuttle buses running in and out of downtown supplementing the loss of streetcars on King st. I feel it's very important for Toronto's economic viability for disruption to be minimized.

 

[ssiguy2]

I disagree with that idea.

I think it's a ridiculous waste of funds to tunnel that close to Union when there is a rail corridor there. Also, I think you maybe forgetting something............PATH. The PATH network in the area is huge and I don't even think they could use cut-n-cover and if they can't that means a VERY VERY deep tunnel and stations to go underneath PATH.

If they want to get to Union then they should use the rail corridor and if they want to serve areas more northly they should use Queen where the Yonge/Queen station already exists and the PATH system along the Queen corridor is not nearly as elaborate and hence would be much easier and less disruptive to build. If Toronto decides to tunnel thru the core for a DRL, the section under Yonge will be the most difficult with one exception..........Queen.

 

[nfitz]

I think it's a ridiculous waste of funds to tunnel that close to Union when there is a rail corridor there. Also, I think you maybe forgetting something............PATH. The PATH network in the area is huge and I don't even think they could use cut-n-cover and if they can't that means a VERY VERY deep tunnel and stations to go underneath PATH.

I really doubt the location of the PATH tunnels are a huge constraint to where subway lines go. Typically the subway tunnels (these days) are deep enough that a mezzanine can be constructed other them. So too could a PATH tunnel.

They'd simply close the PATH tunnels in the way, build the subway, and build new PATH tunnels afterwards. It's not really a big deal.