[Hipster Duck]

Back to the original question of whether this should be a subway or an LRT, I am fairly adamant - and I might be alone, here - that we should not bow down to LRT-mania, and we ought to build a proper heavy rail "subway". What I mean is that it should feature 6-car subway trains traveling on a separate ROW that utilizes the rail corridors as much as possible.

My reasoning for having a subway from the get-go is that, too often, a transit project in Toronto becomes a victim of its own success. We only have to look at the example of the SRT, overcrowded and orphaned, which in hindsight should have been an extension of the Bloor-Danforth subway line.

Steve Munro has indicated on his website that an LRT would be a low-floor system using uncoupled trams. If a DRL-LRT involved something similar to, say, Calgary or Edmonton, I would be much more willing to concede. What we are going to get, of course, is a glorified streetcar that will be over-capacity from day one. I am especially concerned when he opens his mouth and says that one of the constraints of a subway is the construction of a 300 ft tunneled station; what this says to me is that, in the event that we do build underground stations, they are going to be puny Queens Quay-sized hovels that won't be able to make any provisions for future growth.

 

[interchange42]

...I'd think the first phase would be from Pape to downtown, to relieve the Yonge line. Relieving the University Line isn't as urgent.

In the west the DRL would be more relief to the King (and Queen) streetcars than anything else. Booming residential in Liberty Village and West Queen West and other areas mean full streetcars and slow service!

A west DRL would also relive some Yonge southbound trips: with several fewer stops between Dundas West and Yonge/Union, Bloor line riders could transfer to the DRL, then transfer at Union to go northbound on Yonge for a couple of stops, or just rearrange their trips to end at Union.

The west DRL also means incredibly improved service to the Exhibition when anything is on there.

The west phase would have serious ridership if it opened today - think of how busy it will be by the time it opens with all the continuing development to the west of downtown. I say it's easily as important as the east DRL.

42

 

[interchange42]

The issue is that CP and CN are involved. Every time a train moves betweens systems it is a bottleneck. Six tracks may be able to handle the traffic but it would require GO purchasing the tracks from CN and CP, creating a flyovers/flyunders at West Toronto Diamond, Lansdowne, and Church St Weston to get tracks into the middle express tracks. Six is an ideal number as it allows two local, two express, and two used by freight. With no freight five is probably ideal as it allows for a reserve track in case of line maintenance without throwing all the schedules into disarray.

I'm not against 2 local, 2 express, 2 freight... but the local/express can likely be handled by sidings for the locals the the stations of the foreseeable future if money is an issue.

It is an issue? Oh - 4 through tracks plus local sidings for now please!

42

 

[interchange42]

Back to the original question of whether this should be a subway or an LRT, I am fairly adamant - and I might be alone...

You are not alone of that at all, and I am in complete agreement with the rest of your reasoning in your post.

The DRL is bound to be a hit very quickly. It will service a perfect mix residential, employment, and entertainment/recreation districts, and is the kind of line that will finally start to give people the feeling that "the subway goes everywhere" people want to go in this town.

We need it to be subway if for nothing more than to give a sense of comprehensiveness to the system: people will tend to head to the TTC more often as the whole system will seem that much faster, reliable, and therefore more useful to them.

42

 

[Dan416]

If subway belongs anywhere in the city, its in the core, and the DRL services the inner core and the area around it, which would be perfect. Ideally, it would cross B-D on both the western and eastern legs (WITHOUT transfering, hint-hint) and beyond. Where to? the airport in the west, I don't know what in the northeast would be best to serve.

 

[Voltz]

Back to the original question of whether this should be a subway or an LRT, I am fairly adamant - and I might be alone, here - that we should not bow down to LRT-mania, and we ought to build a proper heavy rail "subway". What I mean is that it should feature 6-car subway trains traveling on a separate ROW that utilizes the rail corridors as much as possible.

My reasoning for having a subway from the get-go is that, too often, a transit project in Toronto becomes a victim of its own success. We only have to look at the example of the SRT, overcrowded and orphaned, which in hindsight should have been an extension of the Bloor-Danforth subway line.

Steve Munro has indicated on his website that an LRT would be a low-floor system using uncoupled trams. If a DRL-LRT involved something similar to, say, Calgary or Edmonton, I would be much more willing to concede. What we are going to get, of course, is a glorified streetcar that will be over-capacity from day one. I am especially concerned when he opens his mouth and says that one of the constraints of a subway is the construction of a 300 ft tunneled station; what this says to me is that, in the event that we do build underground stations, they are going to be puny Queens Quay-sized hovels that won't be able to make any provisions for future growth.

Munro did not say that a DRL-LRT would only operate with one car trains, some of the planned TC lines might use single cars. A Light Rail DRL could easily, and would likely, be built with a fully protected right of way(just like a subway) and allow for trains the length of 4 or even 6 car subways. The advantage of building it as a light rail line would be simpler and cheaper construction, and connecting to the Jane and Don Mills lrt lines, allowing for NO TRANSFERS from either of those lines.

The only real difference between that and "proper subway" would be the height of the platforms and power collection.

 

[Whoaccio]

Ok, the way I see it is that LRT is meant to be applied to routes which cannot support full blown subway, but are in need of a transit order above feeder buses. I have serious issue with contending that LRT is an easy way to provide service to well used routes with "simpler and cheaper construction" than a subway. I wasn't alive when the Netowork 2011 proposal was made, so I can't really speak for projected ridership volumes or any concrete facts. That said, I have almost total faith the line would be successful enough to justify subway grade lines. If it can achieve these volumes, the idea of intentionally downgrading service and behaving as though you paid less for the same thing seems naive.

Further, I was under the impression that the entire benefit of LRT was running lines along routes which would be prohibitive to subways like road medians, hydro corridors and generally having inferior ("simpler" if you want to be euphemistic) features. What then is the point of building "subway grade LRT"? This sounds like the Seattle LRT project that tried so hard to rid itself of all the negatives of LRTs, that it became cost comparable with a subway. If you are trying to achieve subway style service, wouldn't the simplest method be to build a subway? That we are thinking of building a LRT route through the densest, most transit friendly area of the city while we are stringing subway lines out to places that don't even exist yet is more than a little annoying.

 

[MisterF]

^I agree completely.

Munro did not say that a DRL-LRT would only operate with one car trains, some of the planned TC lines might use single cars. A Light Rail DRL could easily, and would likely, be built with a fully protected right of way(just like a subway) and allow for trains the length of 4 or even 6 car subways. The advantage of building it as a light rail line would be simpler and cheaper construction, and connecting to the Jane and Don Mills lrt lines, allowing for NO TRANSFERS from either of those lines.

The only real difference between that and "proper subway" would be the height of the platforms and power collection.

I don't know of any light rail trains that are as wide or long as TTC subway cars. TTC subway trains are huge. For any grade-separated light rail system to have the capacity of a heavy rail subway, it would require tunnels, stations, and trains that are subway standard, eliminating any cost savings. The only other way to get subway capacity with grade separated light rail is to build more than one line, like to build both a DRL and a Queen streetcar subway.

 

[ShonTron]

8 tracks just to serve Georgetown Local and Express, Milton, Bolton? That's insane.

I can't see regional rail trains coming less than every 10 minutes each. Two tracks should be enough to serve at least Georgetown Local and Bolton, and two more to serve Milton and Georgetown Express. From the Union approach trackage to West Toronto, 4-6 would be plenty, even considering Bradford-Barrie. You could still easily fit a subway (or LRT) in there and have room to spare for a bikeway and even an additional track or two for the future.

North of West Toronto, 4 tracks is more than plenty, at least for VIA/GO. CP's 1-2 freight tracks can remain as well. You can cram a lot in there, and this is mainly because of all the space between CN and CP.

 

[RedRocket191]

I don't think we can look at LRT vs Subway just in terms of cost and capacity. We have to look at it terms of how it fits into the network, the nature of the street it will serve and what kind of development it will generate and expansion possibilities.

Assuming the alignment and station spacing is as listed on CDL.TO's map, then how we answer the question "where to from here" will guide the answers.

 

[Dan416]

If we were to look at things from a network perspective, Transit City wouldn't be happening as its currently planned. You wouldn't force a transfer at Kennedy to the SRT. You wouldn't force a transfer from Sheppard Subway to Sheppard LRT. Somehow the transfer only becomes an issue if you're building a subway to these LRT folk.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

The DRL (as opposed to one or a bunch of transit lines running downtown connecting somewhere to somewhere else) is a subway line, which makes this thread a bit unnecessary.

I don't think we can look at LRT vs Subway just in terms of cost and capacity. We have to look at it terms of how it fits into the network, the nature of the street it will serve and what kind of development it will generate and expansion possibilities.

Looking at potential networks, a DRL subway becomes incredibly more obvious. Don Mills, in particular, is perfectly suited for the capacity and urban consequences of a subway line.

though I'd think the first phase would be from Pape to downtown, to relieve the Yonge line. Relieving the University Line isn't as urgent.

It'll be just as urgent once the Spadina line is extended, adding tens of thousands of daily riders (including thousands shifted over from the Yonge line).

 

[RedRocket191]

Right on cue. We missed you!

 

[smuncky]

after reading all the comments here and on spacing, it seems that both options could potentially work. one factor that will rule if it will be built as an extented LRT line or a new subway line will be the demand.

there were numerous comments that talked about the extention of the don mills TC line, following the DRL path, and then connecting to the Jane LRT to make one continuous line. could something like that be done if the DRL was a subway? What I mean by that is could eastbound trains coming from Kipling be diverted onto the DRL and then come back up on the Danforth line instead of turning back at Pape? And could that be done for westbound trains coming from Kennedy? For example, in rush hour, every other train could be interlined into the BD line, or the YUS line at Union, which would eliminate some of the transfers for peopling wanting to get to certain destinations.

 

[dpylyp]

subway or LRT

Why cant they plan for where the people are;
Make a link to the Airport, Add a link from Square One or Sherway Gardens along the lakeshore corridor as an LRT right into Union. That would get people off the QEW.

But that would be logical?