[AlvinofDiaspar]

gweed:

Good points, this is a very interesting mental exercise. Here are my responses:

My primary rationale with not putting it north of the rail tracks is that any subway north of the rail tracks excludes the semi-realistic possibility of a Queen LRT. By putting it south of the rail tracks, it leaves that door open.

I guess that's where I differ from your take - I don't really see the point of having a Queen LRT (which will probably have to be at least partially buried at a significant cost in comparison to full-blown subways) if you build the DRL - depending on the alignment, the central section of 501 would remain as a local service. King would probably become redundant.

And when the DRL intercepts those streetcar routes at Dufferin, many of the riders will get off, very similar to what happens at Yonge (what % of the streetcar riders actually stay on the streetcar from before Church to past University, 40%?) I would expect that about 40% of the passengers would get off, at least during the morning rush hour. Even if they were going from Dufferin and Dundas to Yonge and Dundas, taking the Yonge extension would still likely be faster than the streetcar.

The end result is reduced pressure on the streetcar network, which will provide more effective transit to that area, until the Queen LRT is built.

Agreed.

The Waterfront LRT isn't using the Harbourfront alignment for the precise reason that it isn't sufficient for much higher passenger volumes than it's currently carrying.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are referring to the WWLRT? If so, a properly aligned WWLRT/DRL would allow for the same kind of transfer that'd siphon off riders off the streetcar routes.

One of the big advantages that I see with this alignment is it creates an excuse for the City to sell off some of the surplus parking lands in the Ex grounds, possibly for condo use. A massive new development area with direct subway access could fetch a pretty penny, and may actually even cover some of the construction costs (not a lot, but some).

Perhaps, though a DRL with a more northerly alignment closer to the core can also potentially serve the same purposes as well, if positioned properly.

The reality is that tunnelling anywhere in downtown is going to be complex. And I have no doubt that there may be some associated delays on Lakeshore, but at least that route has an alternative route directly above it. The Big Dig managed to dig a highway tunnel directly underneath an existing elevated highway, so there's precedent with something even more complex than a subway tunnel.

The point of complexity is well taken, but I think you are talking about a very different order if one applies Big Dig as an analogue, knowing the amount of exotic, high cost techniques used. I was thinking of using a Front alignment in comparison.

But the thing is network connectivity in this area isn't a big deal. It's a destination, not a transfer node (with the exception of Union). The vast majority of the people getting off subway trains in downtown are not transferring to surface routes or other subway routes. Their trip ends (or begins) there.

I think in downtown, accessibility matters more than connectivity.

Good point re: network connectivity - though I am thinking more of scenarios where a section of the downtown YUS is disabled and the ability of DRL to compensate (and depending on how the wye tracks are arranged). Have to think more about that one.

Keep the feedbacks coming!

AoD

 

[k10ery]

There is $0 in funding for the DRL expected when that report completes. This may be what he is referring to.

Maybe. It would have been more useful to say "We are currently looking at DRT Expansion, and Council has resolved that DRL should come before expansion to the Yonge line. So we need to start talking about funding." Something to make it seem like it's real, not "we should be looking at it".

 

[gweed123]

gweed:

Good points, this is a very interesting mental exercise. Here are my responses:

I have to say that I'm liking this too. It's a welcome change from the subway vs LRT debates that seem to dominate here. And when it comes to DRL alignments, it's all varying degrees of good. Most of the alignments proposed for the DRL would still very much work, it's just a matter of what areas along the route you think should be served, and why.

I guess that's where I differ from your take - I don't really see the point of having a Queen LRT (which will probably have to be at least partially buried at a significant cost in comparison to full-blown subways) if you build the DRL - depending on the alignment, the central section of 501 would remain as a local service. King would probably become redundant.

I see them serving two different markets. I see the DRL relieving the existing subway network, and hitting key nodal areas between Bloor and the CBD. The area south of the rail tracks is very nodal, so capturing a lot of density within a 5 minute walk is very doable with only a few of stations (3 between Union and the Ex). There's no way Queen St has the kind of density, or ever will have that kind of density.

I see the Queen LRT operating very much like the Green Line in Boston. A central trunk leading into downtown, with at-grade branches into the suburbs. An eastern extension to Woodbine Beach, and western extensions along Lakeshore to Long Branch, and the Queensway to Sherway. Tunnelled LRT may not be advantageous in the core compared to subways, but the continuity that it can have into the suburbs, coupled with relatively low-cost extensions, makes LRT a much more cost effective option compared to subways. Also, the ridership could easily be handled by LRT (I would think somewhere in the mid teens, at most).

Also, the Queen LRT is intended to be a local, supplementary line. Smaller stations, closer stop spacing. The type of design that Queen St needs, and was built for.

These two lines serve two completely different functions, and I think that trying to kill two birds with one stone, even if it may be more cost-effective, isn't the right way to go. So that's why I don't want the DRL any further north than the rail corridor, because then it starts infringing on the Queen LRT, making a needed piece of infrastructure even less likely to be built.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are referring to the WWLRT? If so, a properly aligned WWLRT/DRL would allow for the same kind of transfer that'd siphon off riders off the streetcar routes.

Yes. I was just saying that the current streetcar alignment isn't very suitable for a higher capacity route, hence why the WWLRT was being re-routed via the Bremner median. A western subway extension around that area will make the WWLRT obsolete, and anyways I think the Etobicoke portion of it should feed into the Queen LRT anyway, not along the Waterfront.

Perhaps, though a DRL with a more northerly alignment closer to the core can also potentially serve the same purposes as well, if positioned properly.

I wouldn't be opposed to running it for a stretch along the southern edge of the rail corridor, seeing as how the land between the rail corridor and Wellington is due to be densified big time. But as I said earlier, anything further north than that is infringing on Queen LRT territory.

The point of complexity is well taken, but I think you are talking about a very different order if one applies Big Dig as an analogue, knowing the amount of exotic, high cost techniques used. I was thinking of using a Front alignment in comparison.

The question is which would be less expensive:

1) Building a new Union platform underneath the current one, and using a Front alignment, or;
2) Building a new Union platform between Bay and Yonge on more of a N-S orientation, and doing more complex tunnelling under Lake Shore.

My bet is that they would be pretty close, with #2 edging it out by a bit. Remember, tunnelling under Front St would be no cakewalk either, and the modifications to Union Station would be much more expensive than building a new station under the bus terminal and the rail tracks.

Good point re: network connectivity - though I am thinking more of scenarios where a section of the downtown YUS is disabled and the ability of DRL to compensate (and depending on how the wye tracks are arranged). Have to think more about that one.

Keep the feedbacks coming!

AoD

Very true. Ability to re-route is big, which is why in my plan the existing Union to King tracks are kept, so that if any of the two branches of the Yonge or Downtowner are disabled for any reason, trains can still go around the U. Also, by having the two lines leading directly north out of downtown operationally independent, a problem on one will not affect the other.

Remember, none of the DRL plans that I've seen where they're separate involve any kind of transfer tracks between the two lines in or around downtown. In fact, with the standard DRL alignment, the DRL and YUS don't have any interactions at all, only at Pape-Danforth would they have connections.

And I think you'll agree it's a lot easier to route a train to another line than it is to get everybody off the train, down a set of stairs, and onto a different line.

Loving this discussion though!

 

[GTS]

Good article in Today's star about the downtown relief line with a map- I like it but I think in the West it should meet up with the Bloor line like it meets up with the same subway in the East at Pape Station on the Danforth portion of the line. The link to the article is here:

http://www.thestar.com/news/transpo...e-could-be-the-subway-suburbanites-crave?bn=1

 

[sixrings]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/0...ink-connecting-union-station-to-the-airlport/

 

[whatever]

Provisions for an Eglinton stop make sense, but 7 other stops as well? Seriously? It's supposed to be an express line from Pearson-Union. I know I'd be irritated if I spent $20 on a ticket and had to make a dozen stops along the way. Might as well just take the Airport Express bus into the city.

 

[jsjaker]

It makes more sense to have the DRL in a U-shape, continuing up to, say Dundas West, rather than to end it down by the dome. To assume that only the east end provides the overload from the Bloor-Danforth line is a bit off, don't you think?

 

[sixrings]

I think if the ARL could be rebranded as a west DRL with TTC prices (maybe a dollar premium) it would make the most sense. Then on the east you build a Subway from Don Mills/ Eglinton that terminates at Osgoode, King, or Union. This way you have both the east and west covered.

 

[car4041]

It makes more sense to have the DRL in a U-shape, continuing up to, say Dundas West, rather than to end it down by the dome. To assume that only the east end provides the overload from the Bloor-Danforth line is a bit off, don't you think?

There's already a "DRL west" -- the University-Spadina line. That's why the east is the most important part right now. And as sixrings says, relief in the west could also potentially be provided by the Air Rail Link, if we were ever to operate it as a regular transit line rather than a premium express service.

 

[kkgg7]

Provisions for an Eglinton stop make sense, but 7 other stops as well? Seriously? It's supposed to be an express line from Pearson-Union. I know I'd be irritated if I spent $20 on a ticket and had to make a dozen stops along the way. Might as well just take the Airport Express bus into the city.

I agree.
it is supposed to be an airport express line, not a neighbourhood local subway. People are paying a huge premium for the speed. If 8 stops are added, which means we are 20 minutes slower.

On the other hand, I doubt the Airport line will be hugely successful. At $20, if one travels in pairs or more, wouldn't they be better off just using a cab by paying a bit more but without the hassle of dragging the luggage up and down to Union station, and additional cost getting there and all the waiting?

 

[car4041]

it is supposed to be an airport express line, not a neighbourhood local subway. People are paying a huge premium for the speed. If 8 stops are added, which means we are 20 minutes slower.

Well, why not reduce the price to a standard TTC fare and add the stops (and electrify it), and suddenly we'll have a DRL West that also happens to connect to the airport. Wouldn't that have greater benefit for the city than an expensive express train? Even from Pearson, I think a $3 fare for a 45-minute ride would get much more ridership than a $20 fare for a 25-minute ride. It's a comfortable, hassle-free ride straight downtown either way.

 

[kkgg7]

Well, why not reduce the price to a standard TTC fare and add the stops (and electrify it), and suddenly we'll have a DRL West that also happens to connect to the airport. Wouldn't that have greater benefit for the city than an expensive express train? Even from Pearson, I think a $3 fare for a 45-minute ride would get much more ridership than a $20 fare for a 25-minute ride. It's a comfortable, hassle-free ride straight downtown either way.

That's quite true. That's why cities like Chicago and London have, and I am all for it. I live 10 minute walking to Union and I won't pay $20 on that, not to mention if it has 10 stops in between. It is bound to lose money.
On the other hand , I am willing to pay $6 or $8 for a subway to Pearson, considering the distance. Again I still believe eventually we need to adopt a distance-based fare system if this gets built. To charge someone the same fare to travel from Union to Pearson as to Bloor station is stupid.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

http://www.thestar.com/news/transpo...f-line-could-be-the-subway-suburbanites-crave

How do you spell relief if you ride the south end of the Yonge subway?

D-R-L — downtown relief line.

Since 1910, when the idea first emerged of a transit line connecting the east end of Toronto with the south end of Yonge St., the DRL has gained very little traction.

But the concept has resurfaced lately. Crowding is already so bad at the south end of Yonge St. that new TTC chief Andy Byford immediately identified a DRL as a priority.

There is a chorus of experts who suggest that Mayor Rob Ford has been crusading for the wrong subway on Sheppard Ave. E.; that he could better serve suburban constituents by focusing on a downtown relief line.

“We’ve got to turn our attention back to the core, where the density is,†insists Toronto transportation planning guru Ed Levy.

“The downtown is starving, and it is being served by the oldest, most constricted stations in the city,†he said.

But downtowners can walk or use streetcars. The pain at the bottom of Yonge St. is as much a suburban commuter’s problem as a condo dweller’s.

It becomes “ludicrous,†said Levy, when you factor in the ambitions of York Region to extend the subway up to Richmond Hill, where new riders would only add to the crowds cramming platforms down the line at Dundas and Queen.

 

[Dan416]

It does make sense to me to use the ARL as a DRL West, but I would run it so you have the Express line with the Express price, and the local line with a local (or GO) fare.

Although I'm not sure that's feasible at this point...

 

[car4041]

It does make sense to me to use the ARL as a DRL West, but I would run it so you have the Express line with the Express price, and the local line with a local (or GO) fare.

Although I'm not sure that's feasible at this point...

I don't think you can really run express and local services on the same two-track line (at least not with a decent frequency), and I believe the other tracks in the corridor are all spoken for.