[MisterF]

I agree that another line right next to the Yonge line wouldn't be very useful and would be completely missing the point. Yonge ridership is so high because for the most part there are no alternatives. It's out of the way for a lot of its riders but people ride it because it's the only way downtown. If other lines like a DRL existed, a significant number of people would ride it instead of Yonge simply because it would be an easier and more direct ride. New lines connecting parts of the city with no rapid transit to downtown would be far more useful than another line right next to Yonge or trying to set up an express-local system. GO RER will help spread ridership around too.

Edit: Thinking about a possible future when Yonge is the same density as Manhattan isn't very useful. Manhattan is so many notches more dense than even the old city of Toronto, that kind of density won't happen here in any of our lifetimes. Spreading the load around instead of trying to concentrate everything on Yonge will meet the city's needs for the forseeable future.

 

[diminutive]

I agree with you. One point though, wouldn't the 4 track lines in New York (2 local and 2 express) basically constitute 2 lines in 1 (i.e. second subway)?

Hmm, arguably.

I think they can be distinguished in that they were (i believe) almost all built as four track lines from the get go. I don't think NY ever built a two track subway, then built one directly beside it/under it for capacity reasons. I believe what I said was no city on earth has built an entirely duplicative subway under a current one, which would be true regardless of how we interpret a 4 track subway.

Also, at least many NY routes branch and operate many services. The 1 & 2 overlap and run in a four track tunnel, for instance, but not over their entire routes. To analogize, it would be more similar to a route which paralleled Yonge from Bloor south, then branched off to (I dunno) North East or something. Who knows if that would make sense, but it's surely different from direct, intentional, 100% overlap.

 

[diminutive]

I was talking about pretty far in the future when (or if) Yonge is a continuous Manhattan-level density corridor and network expansion like the DRL/GO RER/ST/Whatever are done.

That really can't happen though. You only have to walk 400m either side of Yonge to wind up in 'stable areas' which will resist any substantial densification. Those areas will only become richer and more exclusive (post-WW2 homes will be Mansionized) and have more and more power to fight any densification.

So any densification will have to occur directly abutting Yonge. Even if it's one 30 storey condo after another, that won't produce Manhattan like density.

Moreover, EVEN IN MANHATTAN, you don't see any push to build lines directly under existing lines. Nor in London, or Shanghai, or Tokyo, or Paris or wherever.

 

[ehlow]

Alright guys relax. It was just a speculative fun thing to think about. I'm not seriously proposing it or arguing it will have any chance of happening or should happen, or will happen.

If it can't happen, shouldn't happen, or will never happen that's fine, it was just something fun to think/talk about.

And yes I'm well aware that Manhattan is like that because of competing the private companies. I've read Straphangers like I'm sure you all have.

 

[nfitz]

I think they can be distinguished in that they were (i believe) almost all built as four track lines from the get go.

Not entirely true. There were elevated two-track lines at, or nearby, that were over-capacity before the buried four-track lines were built.

Moreover, EVEN IN MANHATTAN, you don't see any push to build lines directly under existing lines. Nor in London, or Shanghai, or Tokyo, or Paris or wherever.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that you'd build a future Yonge line under the existing one. I think the suggest was to build a line that parallels it, nearby, with less stops. Which is certainly something you see being occasionally done in other cities.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Like I said in the last page and others have repeated, the problem with Yonge line congestion is that currently the majority of riders originate far away from the Yonge line in distant parts of Toronto and York Region and transfer onto the Yonge line following an exhaustive bus commute. If we truly wanted to relieve the Yonge line, the city/province needs to invest heavily into our commuter rail system in order to give all those commuters an alternative from a long bus ride onto a long crowded subway ride.

This is why I am skeptical of building the DRL to merely function as a tool to relieve Yonge-Bloor. That is treating the symptom instead of the problem and in the process forgoing all the other benefits the DRL has to offer to our city.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I agree.

I strongly believe that a Don Mils subway line, in addition to RER services, can provide substatial relief to the Yonge Line. After the Relief Line is completed, we should start studying the Don Mills line to test its effectiveness.

By the way, does anyone know if there is data on which direction people board Yonge Line stations from, particularly on Yonge at and North of Eglinton. I assume that they'd be significany less people boarding from the west than the east, because the Spadina Line provides relief from the west , but I would love to know if my assumption is correct. If I am correct, this would be further evidence that a Don Mills subway line could provide significant relief.

 

[smallspy]

Like I said in the last page and others have repeated, the problem with Yonge line congestion is that currently the majority of riders originate far away from the Yonge line in distant parts of Toronto and York Region and transfer onto the Yonge line following an exhaustive bus commute. If we truly wanted to relieve the Yonge line, the city/province needs to invest heavily into our commuter rail system in order to give all those commuters an alternative from a long bus ride onto a long crowded subway ride.

This is why I am skeptical of building the DRL to merely function as a tool to relieve Yonge-Bloor. That is treating the symptom instead of the problem and in the process forgoing all the other benefits the DRL has to offer to our city.

Again, you're assuming that all people are heading right downtown. They're not. The busiest part of the line is between Bloor and Wellesley, not between King and Queen, or Queen and Dundas. Someone working at Bloor and Yonge from Malvern or Rexdale is not going to take a GO train to Union and then a subway north.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The busiest section is between Yonge and Wellesley, but the most used station on Yonge Line south of Bloor is Dundas.

But as you said, it is inappropriate to assume all people are heading downtown. A few nights ago I was reading a report in Scarbrough travel patterns, and surprisingly few trips (about 15 percent) were to downtown.

 

[ehlow]

Again, you're assuming that all people are heading right downtown. They're not. The busiest part of the line is between Bloor and Wellesley, not between King and Queen, or Queen and Dundas. Someone working at Bloor and Yonge from Malvern or Rexdale is not going to take a GO train to Union and then a subway north.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Not everyone, but many do want to go to the SouthCore (SoCo?) area or within a few subway stops. If there was useful fare integration & service increases then someone Scarborough going to Eaton Centre could choose to take the GO line to Union, then up Yonge a few subway stops.

If it's a faster trip that's affordable, people will use it.

 

[diminutive]

Again, you're assuming that all people are heading right downtown. They're not. The busiest part of the line is between Bloor and Wellesley, not between King and Queen, or Queen and Dundas. Someone working at Bloor and Yonge from Malvern or Rexdale is not going to take a GO train to Union and then a subway north.

That's seriously misleading logic. What you said would be true even if 1% of SB passengers got off at Wellesley and 99% exited at King. [Bloor]---100%--->[Wellesley, -1%]----99%--->[King]. The busiest part is still Bloor to Wellesley, even though 99% of people are heading to King.

It's true that there are other significant destinations south of bloor that have significant demand, but it's also true that King/Union/St.Andrew are pretty significant destinations.

 

[smallspy]

That's seriously misleading logic. What you said would be true even if 1% of SB passengers got off at Wellesley and 99% exited at King. [Bloor]---100%--->[Wellesley, -1%]----99%--->[King]. The busiest part is still Bloor to Wellesley, even though 99% of people are heading to King.

It's true that there are other significant destinations south of bloor that have significant demand, but it's also true that King/Union/St.Andrew are pretty significant destinations.

There's nothing misleading about it. Look at those numbers again - Wellesley sees as many offs as Osgoode, and isn't too far behind Queen. And Queen's Park Station is the single busiest south of Bloor.

While there's no doubt that King and below are vitally important, they shouldn't be - and aren't - seen as the ultimate destination of every single person coming down the Yonge or Spadina lines. Hell, according to that image more people get off of the trains at Dundas or north than Queen and south - the traditional downtown.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[aquateam]

Again, you're assuming that all people are heading right downtown. They're not. The busiest part of the line is between Bloor and Wellesley, not between King and Queen, or Queen and Dundas.

That's seriously misleading logic. What you said would be true even if 1% of SB passengers got off at Wellesley and 99% exited at King. [Bloor]---100%--->[Wellesley, -1%]----99%--->[King]. The busiest part is still Bloor to Wellesley, even though 99% of people are heading to King.

There's nothing misleading about it. Look at those numbers again - Wellesley sees as many offs as Osgoode, and isn't too far behind Queen. And Queen's Park Station is the single busiest south of Bloor.

What's misleading is that you're conflating how full the subway is at a given point with where people most want to go. Dimunitive is pointing out that the busiest point on the subway isn't the point where there is the most alighting. If the train is full and it stops at a station where one person gets on, it is now at its fullest but that doesn't mean that station with one person is well used.

While there's no doubt that King and below are vitally important, they shouldn't be - and aren't - seen as the ultimate destination of every single person coming down the Yonge or Spadina lines. Hell, according to that image more people get off of the trains at Dundas or north than Queen and south - the traditional downtown.

Not saying that everyone wants to go to King and Bay (in my opinion, the greatest benefit of the DRL comes to providing reliable and rapid transit to the dense shoulder areas like Leslieville, Queen West, Moss Park and Liberty village), but you also have to factor in the people who commute to the CBD by streetcar/GO train, who will not show up on those subway statistics. The tens of thousands of people unloaded by GO train at union station will walk to their destination rather than pay an extra fare to go 1 or 2 subway stations.

 

[diminutive]

There's nothing misleading about it. Look at those numbers again - Wellesley sees as many offs as Osgoode, and isn't too far behind Queen. And Queen's Park Station is the single busiest south of Bloor.

Of course it's a misleading statement if it would literally always be true. You're original statement said nothing about the relative demand for different destinations. You're substituting the business of certain segments for where passengers are getting off.

While there's no doubt that King and below are vitally important, they shouldn't be - and aren't - seen as the ultimate destination of every single person coming down the Yonge or Spadina lines. Hell, according to that image more people get off of the trains at Dundas or north than Queen and south - the traditional downtown.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Wellesley, College + Dundas = 17,900 alighting.

Queen, King + Union = 26,000 alighting. This should also be bumped up a bit to reflect Yonge passengers bound for St. Andrew.

You must be including Bloor in your count. That's misleading though. That number includes passengers transferring to the BD line and it doesn't even speak to the segment where demand peaks, south of Bloor.

That said, I think it was rbt who mentioned having the DRL enter the east of downtown via Dundas, curving down Bay or so. I forget where the route would go after that, but a route with stations at Regent Park, Ryerson, Eaton Center, Financial District and Union Station (then continue west?) may do a better job of poaching Yonge. It would do a good job of relieving St. Andrew, Union, King and Queen, and it could also serve the Eaton Center & Ryerson well. I assume those two are a big part of Dundas Station's high demand.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Again, you're assuming that all people are heading right downtown. They're not. The busiest part of the line is between Bloor and Wellesley, not between King and Queen, or Queen and Dundas. Someone working at Bloor and Yonge from Malvern or Rexdale is not going to take a GO train to Union and then a subway north.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

When I said a developed commuter rail system, I meant one that includes a Midtown line and several transfer points on Sheppard, Eglinton, St. Clair, Bloor and the DRL.

Just a mere electrification of the current GO network is not what I classify as a developed commuter rail system.