[MisterF]

When did Metrolinx ever forecast that?

A Metrolinx Backgrounder from 2008 that's still on the Big Move website. I looked it up again and it turns out my memory was slightly off. Because of the DRL's short length (nothing north of Bloor), it wouldn't have higher ridership than the Bloor line but it would have the highest ridership per km of any line in the city.

Yonge line: 29.7 km, 217.5 million annual riders
Bloor line: 26.2 km, 143.5 million
DRL: 13.3 km, 117.1 million

More importantly for how crowded the trains and stations would be, here are the forecasted AM peak hour peak point riders:

Yonge: 25,400
DRL: 17,500
Bloor: 16,400

In other words it would be the second busiest line at its busiest point. And if it ever gets extended north of Bloor it would get even busier. So definitely within subway territory.

http://www.metrolinx.com/thebigmove/Docs/big_move/RTP_Backgrounder_Modelling.pdf, Pages 26-28

 

[diminutive]

More importantly for how crowded the trains and stations would be, here are the forecasted AM peak hour peak point riders:

Yonge: 25,400
DRL: 17,500
Bloor: 16,400

In other words it would be the second busiest line at its busiest point. And if it ever gets extended north of Bloor it would get even busier. So definitely within subway territory.

http://www.metrolinx.com/thebigmove/Docs/big_move/RTP_Backgrounder_Modelling.pdf, Pages 26-28

Well, far be it for me to judge whether Metrolinx or the TTC's numbers are more reliable. The TTC's are certainly more recent.

I would be skeptical of the DRL being busier than the BD line given it's shorter length (fewer destinations...).

Regardless, if it does end up being 17,500 pphpd, that's not hugely bigger than the 15,000 pphpd the Canada Line was designed to achieve, or what most medium capacity systems or light metros or whatever the name is are designed to handle, not the sort of 30-50k/pphpd that fully built out subways ought to achieve.

 

[sixrings]

Regardless, if it does end up being 17,500 pphpd, that's not hugely bigger than the 15,000 pphpd the Canada Line was designed to achieve, or what most medium capacity systems or light metros or whatever the name is are designed to handle, not the sort of 30-50k/pphpd that fully built out subways ought to achieve.

17,500 DAY ONE! Add in development and in 20 years with your plan and you would need a DRL2 for the DRL. The BD line hasnt substantially grown over the years because of a combination of NIMBYs to development along the line and the fact people were moving out to the suburbs... Now we see pressure on all the lines. Redevelopment of lawrence heights. redevelopment around downsview station, wilson station and st clair west station. Yonge/Eglinton is about to boom, Yonge and Lawrence is seeing development for the first time in ages. People are moving into the city and closer to transit. The DRL will see people move next to it as well. Im a LRT advocate and this is a place where Subway is needed.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

diminutive:

And that's only from an improperly configured, half-built DRL optimized for the relief and not local transportation aspects. I think the case for a high capacity subway line within the core is significant - the question to me is whether this line should be extended to service lower density areas beyond the core, and what form of extension would be most appropriate.

AoD

 

[gweed123]

diminutive:

And that's only from an improperly configured, half-built DRL optimized for the relief and not local transportation aspects. I think the case for a high capacity subway line within the core is significant - the question to me is whether this line should be extended to service lower density areas beyond the core, and what form of extension would be most appropriate.

AoD

I think in order to maximize the 'relief' component of the DRL, it does need to be extended into lower density areas outside of the core. The question is how to do that in an economical manner, and one that doesn't spend billions extra on capacity that isn't necessarily needed.

 

[M II A II R II K]

It could extend beyond the core if it had express like service which would mean skipping over some streets that have bus routes on them.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think in order to maximize the 'relief' component of the DRL, it does need to be extended into lower density areas outside of the core. The question is how to do that in an economical manner, and one that doesn't spend billions extra on capacity that isn't necessarily needed.

The question is - extended in what form? Does it have to be in the form of a subway? A grade separated, lower capacity system with high quality transfer to the HRT line? I have a feeling we are trying to solve two distinctive problems and it's not proving to be particularly satisifying. In particular - has anyone actually done any study on what level of usage a subway system with a local focus to key nodes within the core/core-periphery would attract? I mean, the big elephant nobody really tackled is the effectiveness of the current streetcar network and how much additional trips it was unable to capture due to capacity and service quality issues.

AoD

 

[gweed123]

The question is - extended in what form? Does it have to be in the form of a subway? A grade separated, lower capacity system with high quality transfer to the HRT line? I have a feeling we are trying to solve two distinctive problems and it's not proving to be particularly satisifying.

AoD

I'd like to see one of the two following scenarios:

1) HRT with BRT extending from both termini, likely along Don Mills and Jane. The western Jane branch may be less likely though.

2) LRT for the whole thing, with it being completely grade-separated with 120m platforms on the grade-separated portions (90m on non-grade-separated north of Eglinton). 4-car LRT trains (120m) short turn at Eglinton, while shorter 90m trains continue north of Eglinton. An LRT in that scenario would have sufficient capacity with room for growth, and would also be reasonably extended into the suburbs much sooner than an HRT solution.

Even if the Jane and Don Mills branches are slower than their equivalent subway solutions, remember that a lot of people from the Wilson/York Mills and Lawrence buses will choose to transfer onto those instead of staying on the bus for an extra 10-15 mins to reach the subway instead. The ~2 min slower LRT option is more than made up for in time compared to how long they would have been crawling on a mixed-traffic bus in order to reach the subway.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I question if LRT with 120 meter platforms is enough for this line today and into the future. Assuming we use our Flexity Freedom LRVs they would be significantly narrower than our heavy rail. 120 meters is also not as long as long as our current platforms which are at least 150 meters in length. Seems to me that we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot 40 years from now when this line will probably have ridership comparable to YUS.

 

[Forgotten]

I think in order to maximize the 'relief' component of the DRL, it does need to be extended into lower density areas outside of the core. The question is how to do that in an economical manner, and one that doesn't spend billions extra on capacity that isn't necessarily needed.

Don Mills deserves a subway. Toronto needs to stop treating the people of Don Mills like a redheaded step child. Build it to Don Mills on day one and then you can have a loop to Downsview, STC, and Eglinton for a true Yonge relief line.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

We need to erase this sense of entitlement. It poisons the debate and leaves us with sub par transit.

Nobody "deserves" a subway. We all get what is best suited to improve transit.

That said, I do believe a subway on Don Mills is needed.

 

[diminutive]

We need to erase this sense of entitlement. It poisons the debate and leaves us with sub par transit.

Nobody "deserves" a subway. We all get what is best suited to improve transit.

That said, I do believe a subway on Don Mills is needed.

Yes, this is exactly it. No area of town 'deserves' any particular rapid transit system. What we built ought to be a function of the travel needs of a given corridor.

Now, what the exact travel needs of the DRL corridor are at this point unclear. The TTC suggests a capacity demand of 10-15k in 2031 depending on how much we build of the DRL. Obviously more detailed modelling work will have to be done. Maybe once you consider some other factors the TTC missed that number changes from 10-15 to 30-50.

Whatever the ultimate number is or may be, the system we build ought to be proportionate to that demand. If demand is X, capacity ought be 1.25X or something of the sort.

 

[diminutive]

I'd like to see one of the two following scenarios:

1) HRT with BRT extending from both termini, likely along Don Mills and Jane. The western Jane branch may be less likely though.

2) LRT for the whole thing, with it being completely grade-separated with 120m platforms on the grade-separated portions (90m on non-grade-separated north of Eglinton). 4-car LRT trains (120m) short turn at Eglinton, while shorter 90m trains continue north of Eglinton. An LRT in that scenario would have sufficient capacity with room for growth, and would also be reasonably extended into the suburbs much sooner than an HRT solution.

Even if the Jane and Don Mills branches are slower than their equivalent subway solutions, remember that a lot of people from the Wilson/York Mills and Lawrence buses will choose to transfer onto those instead of staying on the bus for an extra 10-15 mins to reach the subway instead. The ~2 min slower LRT option is more than made up for in time compared to how long they would have been crawling on a mixed-traffic bus in order to reach the subway.

The other alternative would be to cannibalize the GO train networks outside of the central trunk component of the DRL. In the West end this would be an obvious case of just taking over the UPE. In the East things are less clear, but there are options. I'm personally in favour of running alongside the CPR rail corridor up to Agincourt and then branching off to STC, Malvern and Kennedy/Steeles.

Again, the DRL is oddly fortuitous in that it's usual terminal points happen to be located next to radial railroads.

Using the CPR corridor through Scarborough could well be both cheaper and better than running along Don Mills, either as BRT, HRT or LRT. By running at a diagonal it can intercept more feeder routes, both N/S routes heading to the Danforth and E/W routes heading towards Yonge.

 

[gweed123]

I question if LRT with 120 meter platforms is enough for this line today and into the future. Assuming we use our Flexity Freedom LRVs they would be significantly narrower than our heavy rail. 120 meters is also not as long as long as our current platforms which are at least 150 meters in length. Seems to me that we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot 40 years from now when this line will probably have ridership comparable to YUS.

That is a valid concern. The Flexity Freedoms have a max capacity of 250 per vehicle. Assuming 200 just for a buffer, 4 car trains running every 2 minutes gives you 24,000 pphpd. It maxes out at 30,000 pphpd if you're at crush load. That's almost double what the 2031 projected ridership will be.

We need to erase this sense of entitlement. It poisons the debate and leaves us with sub par transit.

Nobody "deserves" a subway. We all get what is best suited to improve transit.

That said, I do believe a subway on Don Mills is needed.

Agreed. This whole "deserves a subway" mantra is pretty ridiculous. A corridor warrants a subway because the demand is there to justify it, not because the nearby residents feel left out compared to other areas of the city.

As for a subway on Don Mills, I feel that Don Mills should take the B-Line approach and demonstrate ridership potential with a BRT. Using the B-Line approach on Sheppard would have saved us a boatload of money, because it would have proven a subway wasn't justified.

 

[gweed123]

The other alternative would be to cannibalize the GO train networks outside of the central trunk component of the DRL. In the West end this would be an obvious case of just taking over the UPE. In the East things are less clear, but there are options. I'm personally in favour of running alongside the CPR rail corridor up to Agincourt and then branching off to STC, Malvern and Kennedy/Steeles.

Again, the DRL is oddly fortuitous in that it's usual terminal points happen to be located next to radial railroads.

Using the CPR corridor through Scarborough could well be both cheaper and better than running along Don Mills, either as BRT, HRT or LRT. By running at a diagonal it can intercept more feeder routes, both N/S routes heading to the Danforth and E/W routes heading towards Yonge.

That's a very good point. Earlier on in another thread I made the suggestion that the DRL should replace the Richmond Hill GO line from just north of Lawrence up to RHC. Running the DRL along that corridor would carry the same cost as building the Yonge extension, and it would do a far better job of relieving the Yonge line than merely shifting Toronto riders around, because it would divert YR riders off the Yonge line before they even got there (as well as providing an alternative route for Torontonians).