[Forgotten]

When people say local they mean just like on Bloor and not having a stop at Yonge and a stop at Victoria. Was that so hard to figure out?

 

[Hopkins123]

Here's four competing DRL subway alignments each with their own pros and cons:

King/Queen DRL via Shaw/CAMH lands

King/Queen DRL via Spadina, Front and Sherborune

King DRL full length/Queen DRL full length

Common to all three are stop spacings of every 700 metres akin to the Bloor-Danforth. Namely: Eglinton/Don Mills, Flemingdon Park (@Overlea/Don Mills), Thorncliffe Park (@East York Town Centre), Cosburn, Mortimer, Danforth/Pape, Gerrard Square, Carlaw/Queen, Broadview/Queen, River/Queen.

West side: Keele/Bloor, Keele/Annette/Dundas, Keele/St Clair, Rogers/Weston-Galt, Mount Dennis, Jane/Weston-Galt, Lawrence/Weston-Galt

King: Parliament, Jarvis, Yonge/Bay, John, Spadina, Bathurst, Strachan, Atlantic, Dufferin, Jameson, Roncesvalles
Queen: Parliament, Jarvis, Yonge/Bay, University, Spadina, Bathrust, Trinity-Bellwoods, Ossington/Dovercourt, Dufferin, Jameson, Roncesvalles

 

[Rainforest]

Here's four competing DRL subway alignments each with their own pros and cons

I would think that the King alignment has greatest potential as the central stations will be at walking distance of nearly all important locations downtown.

Having stations every 700 m may be too expensive. Another note, the turns from E-W to N-S seem too sharp, both in the east and in the west. Smoother turns would be easier to build.

 

[BurlOak]

Here's four competing DRL subway alignments each with their own pros and cons:

I noticed that your curves are pretty sharp. I guess you took my suggestion and are proposing this line to be SkyTrain (Mark III). The Spadina had one 300m radius curve (only 300m long) because they had to. All others were >600m.

 

[Rainforest]

On the contrary, a subway line primarily in the central part of the city whose primary goal is local service (like the original Yonge and Bloor lines) would get the most riders per kilometre and be the most successful. Subway lines that try to reach far into the suburbs are the ones that don't have the ridership to justify their very expensive construction. Underground subways are really only justified in the a high density urban environment where the ridership exists to cover the costs. The suburbs are better served using surface rail corridors. The TTC made a profit until it started expanding into the outer suburbs.

Our most successful subway lines (the ones that need relief) were built for local service and replaced streetcar lines. They're the one mode of transport custom designed to provide local service in high density cities. That hasn't changed.

The original Yonge and BD subways did replace streetcar lines, but they were not built for local service primarily. Local networks were reconfigured substantially, to feed riders into the subways. Transferred riders always outnumbered those walking into the stations, and the same will be the case for DRL. Of course, DRL needs to be "local" enough to connect to all major local routes and enable the transfers; but it does not have to be more local than that.

Speaking of the TTC cost recovery, the main reason it went from being profitable to needing a subsidy is the massive local network expansion combined with the flat fare structure. The average trip became much longer and require much more bus time, driver time etc per rider, but the fare did not increase proportionally. Keeping the fare reasonably low is a necessity, to enable poorer residents move around the city, and encourage average-income residents not to clog downtown with their cars. But, it necessitates the subsidy.

The effect of subway network expansion on the TTC's cost recovery is either slightly negative or slightly positive. Sheppard subway and the outer section of Spadina lose money, but Yonge North and BD to Kennedy carry large volumes and likely save money (in the sense that it would cost the TTC more if they had to carry those volumes on surface vehicles).

 

[M II A II R II K]

What about keeping it on Front, and bring back that Front St. extension to go with it.

 

[diminutive]

Sooner or later though (30 years? 50 years? 100 years) they are going to have to do something to significantly increase capacity on Yonge beyond the current plans. But that's an issue for another generation.

I can't predict out ~100 years, but I don't think that's strictly needed. Over such a long time span transit demand would mostly be a function of land use planning, which is mostly controlled by the City. Over the past ~50 years since the Yonge lined opened we've encouraged *far* more land use intensification along Yonge than any other rapid transit corridor. Bloor's hardly changed at all since the subway opened, on the other hand.

That's all well and good, but it wasn't preordained by forces City Hall didn't control.

Zoning should be able to limit future growth along the Yonge corridor once capacity is tapped out at 40k pph/pd or whatever.

The DRL should also be heavily supported by City zoning to encourage new retail, commercial and residential development along that route. Ditto for whatever becomes of the GO corridors.

Intensification of existing station areas on the Spadina and Bloor-Danforth lines, potential future DRL stations and future GO/RER stations as well as reorganizing surface routes to feed the DRL/GO/RER/WTV corridors, combined with the further intensification of downtown itself and maybe a more restrictive zoning policy on Yonge once needed should preclude the need for any drastic capacity augmentation on Yonge.

 

[ssiguy2]

With Queen's Park broke and City Hall refusing to raise the funds the idea of a DRL is off the table for ages so these are just lines on a map.

There is an alternative which even Miller LRT-or-nothing-fans would embrace: Bombardiers Flexity Link LRT trains. They are standard legacy TTC length {I believe up to 40 meters} but are designed for more distance based transit, kinda of like a cross between an LRT and a commuter rail train.

The thing that sets them apart is that they are designed to run on standard railway tracks like commuter rail and can be electric, diesel, or a combination of the 2 and yet their length & width allows them to also be used along regular streets where any standard streetcar could go. They could use GO rail until entering downtown and then arrive at Union or merge off and take, for example, Front Street for downtown service if capacity at Union becomes an issue in the future. They could be diesel until GO electrifies and then run on overhead catenary when it does.

It could simply be part of the standard TTC system and Scarberians would get real rapid transit instead of blowing $1.5 billion on a subways which really won't make any difference to people's commute. Hell, for the $85 million City Hall just blew on SRT they could have already bought 25 of these trains.

These are Bombardier standard LRT trains so the TTC's unspoken rule of not buying anything but Bombardier isn't broken.

Has anyone ever brought this to City Hall, Metrolinx, TTC, or Ford/Stinz attention?

 

[M II A II R II K]

It could be an extension of the RT route.

 

[ssiguy2]

Just thought I'd add, before someone poo-poos the idea, that this is NOT proprietary.

They look like standard LRT trains so chances are you have seen them in pics but didn't realize they were different. In Germany they are referred to as Regio-Rail and in France as tram-trains. Alstom produces the Regio-Citalis and Siemens Avendo. Bombardier calls them Flexity Link for anyone who wants to Google or put up their webpage as I am too much of a computer moron to know how to do it.

 

[gweed123]

Mainly an "outside the box" thinking proposal here. Intended mainly as an exercise in alternatives, not meant as a completely serious proposal. With that said, here goes:

The basic model is a tunnelled downtown loop. The DRL, which in this case would be extended northward as the Don Mills LRT, would use specially modified streetcars (which are the same length as the TC LRT vehicles, with the same capacity, just configured slightly differently) that can be paired together to create longer trains. I would use 3 car trainsets, which would be 90m long. As a result, the DRL and loop platforms would all be 90m as well. I propose using streetcar LRVs instead of TC LRVs because of the track gauge, although I suppose a set of custom TC LRVs using TTC gauge could be ordered as well.

As for capacity in this scenario, the LRVs have a crush load of 251, so for the math I've assumed 200 to leave a little wiggle room. With 3 car train sets, that's 600 per train. Assuming a train every 2 minutes, that's 18,000 pphpd. The 2031 forecast for the DRL is 17,500 pphpd. If you reduce the headways or squeeze more people in, obviously it could go higher than that. Even without more trains and just running at crush load, you get 22,500 pphpd.

The loop has been designed in such a way it is in essence a "left side drive" loop, ensuring that every station can be built as a centre-platform station, despite have streetcars with doors on only the right side. The DRL would travel in a clockwise direction on the outside of the loop. The clockwise direction would be reserved exclusively for the DRL, ensuring that track space isn't taken up by another route.

All other routes, which would be the Waterfront West LRT (aka the Queen's Quay Streetcar that's been extended further west), the Waterfront East LRT, and the Queen West Streetcar would use the inside of the loop, travelling in a counter-clockwise direction. This simplifies things for the loop, because you know "DRL on one track, all other routes on the other".

The entrance/exit points of the loop would need quite a bit of coordination, but if Chicago can do it with a 100 year old loop, I think Toronto could manage. As for tight curves, that's specifically why I think using the streetcars is a good idea, because they've been specifically designed for tight curves. This design wouldn't be possible at all with TRs.

The loop concept provides a much greater coverage of downtown that a single line ever could. It also allows the Waterfront routes to get directly into downtown, and not force everyone to get off at Union, which naturally would reduce pressure on Union.

Just something to think about...

 

[M II A II R II K]

Something like this I guess:

 

[ssiguy2]

Also forgot to mention that these are standard LRT so they are 100% low-floor, accessible trains.for the disabled and makes for easier all entry/exit using POP while along regular streets.

Remember as well that their advantage is not just downtown but also in suburbia. Just as they can merge off the regular railways for more downtown service , they can do the same in the suburbs. An excellent example would be using them along the Kitchenetr GO route and them merge off and go up the Rexdale arwea to serve Humber College/hospital or conversely use the Eastern Lakeshore and verge off at Kingston Road to serve U. of T. Scarborough.

 

[MisterF]

The original Yonge and BD subways did replace streetcar lines, but they were not built for local service primarily. Local networks were reconfigured substantially, to feed riders into the subways. Transferred riders always outnumbered those walking into the stations, and the same will be the case for DRL. Of course, DRL needs to be "local" enough to connect to all major local routes and enable the transfers; but it does not have to be more local than that.

Speaking of the TTC cost recovery, the main reason it went from being profitable to needing a subsidy is the massive local network expansion combined with the flat fare structure. The average trip became much longer and require much more bus time, driver time etc per rider, but the fare did not increase proportionally. Keeping the fare reasonably low is a necessity, to enable poorer residents move around the city, and encourage average-income residents not to clog downtown with their cars. But, it necessitates the subsidy.

The effect of subway network expansion on the TTC's cost recovery is either slightly negative or slightly positive. Sheppard subway and the outer section of Spadina lose money, but Yonge North and BD to Kennedy carry large volumes and likely save money (in the sense that it would cost the TTC more if they had to carry those volumes on surface vehicles).

I think we agree actually. By "local" I didn't mean that most riders are walk-up riders. I meant that people living and working along the line are within a relatively short walk to a station and wouldn't need another mode of transit for local trips. In that sense the original subway lines are very much local.

Agreed about your last point too. The subway lines that are semi-commuter lines out into the suburbs lose money while the central lines with stations close together are profitable. Subways are just better suited for high density urban environments while suburbs are better served by other technologies.

 

[Adjei]

How do we the central lines are profitable? Has the TTC released data backing this up?