[unimaginative2]

The Network 2011 report recommended an underground busway because the demand on Eglinton West was so far below subway capacity, and the cost of constructing underground light rail was almost as high as a subway. The only significant benefit of putting light rail underground as opposed to subway is that feeder routes can operate on the surface outside the core area. It seems unlikely that there would be many of those on an Eglinton route. By contrast, a busway could accommodate a host of bus routes from Mississauga and Brampton. For Queen, it makes more sense, but I still prefer the DRL's Front/Railway alignment with an easy transfer at Roncesvalles and Queen, and Pape and Queen. One of the main reasons for dismissing a Queen subway line in the DRL report was that it would put tremendous development pressures on the Queen corridor, which is exactly what the city does not want. Witness the fight over the one Alsop condo. Imagine the impact of Sheppard-scale redevelopment.

The Downtown Relief Line study examined extending the Harbourfront LRT up Bay to Bloor. They decided that it didn't make sense since the cost was almost the same as that of a subway, and the capacity was far lower as it was was restricted to that of the surface section of the route. It would also suffer from the reliability problems inhererent in all surface streetcar operations.

Incidentally, the EA report for the Eglinton West subway recommended ignoring the Eglinton Transportation Corridor and tunneling under the street instead, suggesting that the cost difference from cut-and-cover would not be that much different. I find that very difficult to believe, especially since there would be no cost for land acquisition.

 

[Ed007Toronto]

Incidentally, the EA report for the Eglinton West subway recommended ignoring the Eglinton Transportation Corridor and tunneling under the street instead, suggesting that the cost difference from cut-and-cover would not be that much different. I find that very difficult to believe, especially since there would be no cost for land acquisition.

They should let developers build on top of the corridor. In return for the land and possibly additional density the developers could build the tunnels and perhaps some or all of the stations depending on cost.

 

[EnviroTO]

It is confusing to me because I can't understand how you "bury" a streetcar line.

Also, isn't the tunnel the primary expense in subway building? How would an underground busway be feasible?

The basic idea is that there is a phased approach to building a subway line. First phase you build streetcars/trams/buses on the surface and have them terminate at some sort of transit hub or existing subway station. Second phase you determine where the major bottlenecks on the routes and where the capacity carried by the route is high and build a tunnel to pass the bottleneck. Third phase you connect the tunnel segments together. And forth phase you change the vehicles from streetcars/trams/buses to subways.

The idea behind the approach is:
a) Building a new multi-station subway is a big expense so break into manageable pieces.
b) Build up ridership before the subway arrives.
c) Build tunnels in small segments that would be too short to provide value as a short subway line but with streetcar/tram/bus routes continuing out past the tunnel onto the street still provides immediate value.
d) When building a streetcar/tram/bus tunnel spend a little more to ensure that tunnel or underground station can be easily renovated to carry subway cars in the future (ie. ceiling is high enough, platform can be raised, etc).

Consider a tunnel on King from just west of University to just east of Yonge. A tunnel of this length is useless as a subway because any trip would require a transfer and the tunnel would probably have only two stations. As a way to get streetcars out of downtown gridlock and to provide sheltered waiting areas and fare collection facilities for the streetcar to speed things along a tunnel like this provides immediate value. By building that tunnel with an eye to the future possibility that a subway might eventually run under King there is possibly a greater long term value of that investment. The tunnel could be extended past Spadina or past Parliament to improve the flow of streetcars and a process of continual improvement would some day lead to a tunnel long enough and a ridership base large enough that it would be feasible to use the tunnel as a subway operation. In Brussels these streetcar/tram tunnels are called the Premetro.

I think either King or Queen, and Eglinton (from Keele eastward) is perfect for this type of approach.

 

[unimaginative2]

In theory it's a good idea, but I really question how well it would work, particularly on the downtown routes. The capacity of the tunnel would be dramatically limited by the capacity of the remainder of the route running on the street. Moreover, a short tunnel downtown would do nothing for reliability, since the streetcars would just bunch up on the surface segments, leaving big clumps of cars to jam up in the tunnels. Besides, congestion on King and Queen is just as bad at Bathurst as it is at Bay. A streetcar tunnel on Queen would cost at least three or four hundred million, especially with all the utilities/PATH relocation costs. It would also pierce the massive garage under University Avenue. I just think that the benefits of such a project are difficult to see, particularly considering the cost. A Downtown Relief Line (yes, I am obsessed) running mainly either on the surface or in cut-and-cover tunnels would cost maybe four times that amount with vastly greater benefits.

 

[spmarshall]

It would also pierce the massive garage under University Avenue.

I thought a subway ran under University Avenue. Are you talking about the Front/University garage?

The Queen tunnel would be a great idea, and would probably be below PATH and most utilities - it would likely use lower Queen, but I wonder how Osgoode would work. Jarvis to west of Spadina would make a good phase one and reliability would be improved by speeding up entry, eliminating stops at Victoria, York, McCaul/Duncan, etc, eliminating traffic lights, and separating at least some of the most congested part of the route, then extended east and west. Makes at least as much sense as Eglinton, probably more, even with a DRL, but I will take a full DRL over a Queen tunnel, all other things being equal (as in completion time).

 

[unimaginative2]

Another nugget from the DRL: one of the problems with the King and Wellington alignments were that they would pierce the massive parking garage.

I'm definitely able to be sold on the project, but I still don't see how a short tunnel segment would significantly improve reliability or capacity.

 

[drum118]

Consider a tunnel on King from just west of University to just east of Yonge. A tunnel of this length is useless as a subway because any trip would require a transfer and the tunnel would probably have only two stations. As a way to get streetcars out of downtown gridlock and to provide sheltered waiting areas and fare collection facilities for the streetcar to speed things along a tunnel like this provides immediate value. By building that tunnel with an eye to the future possibility that a subway might eventually run under King there is possibly a greater long term value of that investment. The tunnel could be extended past Spadina or past Parliament to improve the flow of streetcars and a process of continual improvement would some day lead to a tunnel long enough and a ridership base large enough that it would be feasible to use the tunnel as a subway operation. In Brussels these streetcar/tram tunnels are called the Premetro.

I think either King or Queen, and Eglinton (from Keele eastward) is perfect for this type of approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

The King tunnel proposed is totally useless as it is right in the middle of the gridlock area and will not solve the problem.

You got to start the tunnel at Spadina to Parliament for both King a Queen. This is what was plan for back in the 20's and is still needed today. Even this is to short.

Building tunnel stations will be an issue if they are built for buses or LRT’s as the platforms will have to be low floor and how do you convert them to highfloor when it comes time to put in the subway?

Building tunnels sections as proposed is more expenses than doing it in one shot. It will also cause more inconvenience to all parties.

As for Eglinton, You need a tunnel starting at Bayview that build for both buses and LRT's/subway to service the hub to Avenue Rd and then 4 track tunnel for LRT's/subway only west of there.

Another good example of a "GO" thing, by building a bus tunnel on any road considering that one lane can only carry 3,500 riders a peak time on a double deck bus.

All new subway lines need to be built with provision 4 tracks to allow express service at a future date.

All roads that carry over 30,000 riders a day are to be converted to LRT's as one LRT can carry 9,000 per hour at peak time or 18,000 using 2 LRT's. Most of them will run in mix traffic unless you take a lane of traffic away from the cars.

Eglinton 34E sees 24,100 riders while 34W see 36,900. Both sections should be setup for LRT from day One, but based on forecast, it needs to be 100% a subway running from the Airport to Kingston Rd with stops at only major cross roads. You will still need a local bus to service the intermediate stops to meet the 5 minute/450 meters walking distance.

The Queen St line see 50,000 riders a day as well does King St for a total of over 100,000 between them and still a strong case for a subway along Queen St. Again you will still need a local streetcar to service the intermediate stops to meet the 5 minute/450 meters walking distance.

GO is looking for high ridership routes to charge their high fare cost to reach the 95%-100% fare recover from the fare box while rest of the of Canada is only doing 50%-65% ratios except fot TTC at 78% these day.

 

[EnviroTO]

The capacity of the tunnel would be dramatically limited by the capacity of the remainder of the route running on the street.

The capacity would be no worse than exists now. The benefit is a minute or two savings each run at rush hour which is a marginal improvement but a bunch of marginal improvements add up to a big improvement.

Moreover, a short tunnel downtown would do nothing for reliability, since the streetcars would just bunch up on the surface segments, leaving big clumps of cars to jam up in the tunnels.

Streetcars wouldn't clump up in the tunnels because there are no stop lights. Any clumping up would occur on the street... which occurs now.

Besides, congestion on King and Queen is just as bad at Bathurst as it is at Bay.

So the second leg to be put underground could be around Bathurst offering twice as much congestion reduction.

A Downtown Relief Line (yes, I am obsessed) running mainly either on the surface or in cut-and-cover tunnels would cost maybe four times that amount with vastly greater benefits.

But that would be the end result once the whole tunnel is built so the benefit at the end would be the same but the up front benefit is that the project is divided into more affordable pieces, delivers some improvement immediately, and builds ridership up along the route. Breaking up the cost into pieces allows the city to get moving now. A $10M underpass at a key intersection is something the city can probably afford immediately without even needing to beg the province and federal government for money. A $2B subway line is probably out of the question. Each underpass built reduces the total cost remaining to complete a subway line. Cities all over the place use the same approach to slowly turn an arterial roadway into a freeway.

 

[unimaginative2]

The capacity would be no worse than exists now. The benefit is a minute or two savings each run at rush hour which is a marginal improvement but a bunch of marginal improvements add up to a big improvement.

That's just it... there's very little capacity improvement for a relatively large cost.

Streetcars wouldn't clump up in the tunnels because there are no stop lights. Any clumping up would occur on the street... which occurs now.

I agree, but those clumps would remain in the tunnel, and the tunnel would do nothing to eliminate them.

My point is simply that I don't understand the benefit when capacity is still limited by the number of streetcars you can ram down a congested street in mixed traffic, and headways wouldn't be any more reliable since the clumps would just continue in the thnnel segment. While I certainly appreciate the benefits of staging, I don't see how the short streetcar tunnel makes that much sense. If there were serious loading issues in the financial district, or if a whole bunch of streetcar lines were combined into one tunnel downtown, it might make sense.

You make good points, but I also question the premise of a Queen subway entirely. Queen isn't a particularly high-density street, and it runs pretty much entirely through established neighbourhoods protected in the official plan. A subway along the rail corridor would make much more sense as it better serves major trip generators (CNE, SkyDome, Union Station, Financial District) and large new developments on the waterfront.

 

[GregWTravels]

If there were serious loading issues in the financial district, or if a whole bunch of streetcar lines were combined into one tunnel downtown, it might make sense.

If there was a tunnel under Queen or King, I'd wager that we'd soon see street car service on the other disappear, and you'd probably get routings of Dundas, Gerrard and College cars down through the tunnel instead. I believe this was the original concept behind the Queen subway way back in the 50s.

I think a bus tunnel under Eglinton is stupid. I'd rather go with my idea until a subway is fesable - the Brussels model.

I'd propose a different solution to Eglinton. The street is very wide at some points, and is identified as a key "avenue" in the cities plan, and therefore a lot of the 2 storey development along it's route would be redeveloped into higher density buildings in the future. This would allow us to build 2 lanes of traffic and an ROW for most of it.

Problematic would be the section from Bayview to Bathurst, as most of that is at appropriate density and we would lose a couple lanes of traffic if we put an ROW down the center.

Instead, I would make Eglinton Ave from Keele to Leaside would be a east-bound one-way with 3 lanes of traffic, 1 lane of parking / right hand turn lanes and a bike lane. The northern most lane would be a westbound street car / BRT lane. This would allow riders to board the street car from the curb. It would also mean that left-hand turning cars would be able to see oncoming street cars and let them pass accordingly.

You could then connect and widen the streets running one block north of Eglinton into a similar one-way west-bound street with east-bound transit lane. Much of this street is currently single-family residential, but could be re-developed as per the official growth plan to be higher density residential and business. To maintain the current flavour of Eglinton (especially the areas west of Bathurst), there would be requirements for ground floor retail space in the buildings.

They'd be a the cost of building the road and acquisition of the single family dwellings along the route of the northerly road (Roehampton perhaps). But a lot of that land can be sold later to developers, as the lots are a lot wider than the needed space for the development of the road.

This would allow you to put stops a lot more frequently than a tunnel. And you could run regular buses along the route without worrying about having to have electric/deisel buses.