[nfitz]

Are there a large amount of N-S to E-W transfers onto the 501 or 504? I would think that most of the N-S passengers, particularly if they're north of Queen, would just ride up to Bloor-Danforth and take that for the E-W portion of their trip, unless their destination is right along Queen.

Depends times of day. On 504 along Broadview many get off at Queen. Many change at Gerrard (to 506). Many get off between Gerrard and Danforth. There's some who then change to subway (or just walk away). But they aren't the majority of those who are on 504 at Carroll Street - rough guess 15%. Many changing to subway got on along Broadvew somewhere, rather than on King. Of course it fluctuates over the day.

 

[44 North]

My preference would be to build the RER DRL under King/Wellington/Front (from west to east) and then turn Queen into a transit/pedestrian/cycling only street from Roncesvalles to River. With the King streetcar removed, vehicular traffic could be redirected seamlessly onto King, since Roncesvalles and River are where King and Queen meet.

The vision that I have is for wider sidewalks on either side, followed by a dedicated transit ROW, with bike lanes dividing the two transit directions. The bike lane section would be down the middle of the roadway, and wide enough to allow for emergency vehicles to use it. Given that there are 2 hospitals on (or nearly on) that Queen corridor, having a traffic-free E-W emergency route through downtown may actually speed up emergency response times.

It would provide much more efficient transit along that route without the massive expense of tunnelling (save that for the DRL). It would provide an enhanced pedestrian experience on one of the busiest commercial corridors in the city, and it would provide a continuous E-W bike route through downtown. Vehicular traffic can be shifted to King and Richmond/Adelaide, and property access can be maintained using back lanes and adjacent side streets (many of which end at Queen anyway).

In this setup, the King RER DRL would serve mainly suburban Toronto and the inner 905 while having stops at some key intersections, while the Queen LRT ROW would provide enhanced local service for neighbourhoods along that route. It should also be noted that this could largely remove the need for the WWLRT, since if Lake Shore in Etobicoke is upgraded with a ROW, you'd have a continuous LRT ROW from Long Branch to the Don River.

I think this is a decent proposal, and I'd be interested in knowing what kind of stop spacing or service style you envision with the DRL-RER. But I honestly don't think surface tram solutions should be used in Toronto's downtown core if there are other options being overlooked (costlier options, unfortunately).

Yes a transit-only boulevard would be a vast improvement over the status quo, but the blocks are just so small - and getting smaller and denser every year with the addition of new traffic lights and new developments. Recently I watched the city install a new light on Dundas East which, although an improvement for area residents, will undoubtedly lengthen the commute for thousands of 505 riders. This will happen on Queen over time as well - whether at Alexandra Park or elsewhere. More traffic lights that come with more developments will surely equate to more stopping, decreased avg speed, decreased capacity, etc. And we're also learning about "slow orders" that can occur with mixing streetcars and peds.

I'd agree with LRT-izing outer sections of the 501, not to mention for new routes on wide suburban roads. But I think a tunnel through the core would be the only way to reliably carry the loads, and to carry the city forward. At least between Sherbourne and Spadina. The current demand, the amount of development we're seeing, 2031 ridership projections...it's frightening. A surface LRT will not make the line immune to our notorious traffic, and at peak times service will be the least reliable when it's needed most. So I think we'd need a local/med service streetcar tunnel, and a med/long service DRL (or DRL-RER).

Even in the 50s a streetcar tunnel was seen as an immediate priority. And I think if planners from that era saw Toronto's current growth, they'd probably agree it's needed today more than ever. Unlike virtually everywhere else in the city, downtown has continually defied expectations and projections. Plus, if we're doing it for 10km along Eglinton, I don't see why we can't do it for ~4km on Queen.

 

[gweed123]

I think this is a decent proposal, and I'd be interested in knowing what kind of stop spacing or service style you envision with the DRL-RER. But I honestly don't think surface tram solutions should be used in Toronto's downtown core if there are other options being overlooked (costlier options, unfortunately).

The stop spacing that I envision, at least from Dufferin into the CBD, is slightly wider than Bloor-Danforth's along the same stretch. Remember, the RER DRL would carry the 'overlay' RER routes, the Toronto-specific ones, so having more stops within the shoulder areas of the CBD isn't a big deal, since the 905-centric RER network is still carrying passengers into Union.

Yes a transit-only boulevard would be a vast improvement over the status quo, but the blocks are just so small - and getting smaller and denser every year with the addition of new traffic lights and new developments. Recently I watched the city install a new light on Dundas East which, although an improvement for area residents, will undoubtedly lengthen the commute for thousands of 505 riders. This will happen on Queen over time as well - whether at Alexandra Park or elsewhere. More traffic lights that come with more developments will surely equate to more stopping, decreased avg speed, decreased capacity, etc. And we're also learning about "slow orders" that can occur with mixing streetcars and peds.

I'd agree with LRT-izing outer sections of the 501, not to mention for new routes on wide suburban roads. But I think a tunnel through the core would be the only way to reliably carry the loads, and to carry the city forward. At least between Sherbourne and Spadina. The current demand, the amount of development we're seeing, 2031 ridership projections...it's frightening. A surface LRT will not make the line immune to our notorious traffic, and at peak times service will be the least reliable when it's needed most. So I think we'd need a local/med service streetcar tunnel, and a med/long service DRL (or DRL-RER).

Even in the 50s a streetcar tunnel was seen as an immediate priority. And I think if planners from that era saw Toronto's current growth, they'd probably agree it's needed today more than ever. Unlike virtually everywhere else in the city, downtown has continually defied expectations and projections. Plus, if we're doing it for 10km along Eglinton, I don't see why we can't do it for ~4km on Queen.

Fair enough. I think you underestimate the abilities of a surface ROW though. Take for example the section of Queen between Ossington and Bathurst. By my count, there would be signalized intersections (aka streets that actually cross the ROW) at: Ossington, Shaw, Palmerston/Tecumseth, and Bathurst. That's 2 fewer than there are right now, and many fewer intersections in general.

In terms of stop spacing, I'd have stops at Ossington (east side), Strachan (west side), Niagara, Palmerston (west side), and Bathurst (east side). That's 5 stops compared to the current 7. That stretch of Queen actually has pretty decent stop spacing, not like some other areas where it seems like it stops every hundred metres or so.

Also, tunnelling doesn't get you the same kind of surface enhancements that putting in a ROW does, especially if it makes it a transit/active transportation only street.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Yes a transit-only boulevard would be a vast improvement over the status quo, but the blocks are just so small - and getting smaller and denser every year with the addition of new traffic lights and new developments. Recently I watched the city install a new light on Dundas East which, although an improvement for area residents, will undoubtedly lengthen the commute for thousands of 505 riders. This will happen on Queen over time as well - whether at Alexandra Park or elsewhere. More traffic lights that come with more developments will surely equate to more stopping, decreased avg speed, decreased capacity, etc. And we're also learning about "slow orders" that can occur with mixing streetcars and peds.

Europe seems to be able to do this all the time with little issue...

I don't think this would be as much of a problem as you think. A ROW will allow us to synchronize operations with traffic lights.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Am I the only one who prefers this

No, you are not.

This is exactly what I envision a DRL-RER combo would look like on the west end.

I lament the lack of the connection at Sunnyside/Roncesvalles though.

 

[44 North]

The stop spacing that I envision, at least from Dufferin into the CBD, is slightly wider than Bloor-Danforth's along the same stretch. Remember, the RER DRL would carry the 'overlay' RER routes, the Toronto-specific ones, so having more stops within the shoulder areas of the CBD isn't a big deal, since the 905-centric RER network is still carrying passengers into Union.

Ah, okay. I was imagining you were talking about stop spacing of 2-3km. Spacing similar to B/D sounds pretty good.

Europe seems to be able to do this all the time with little issue...

I don't think this would be as much of a problem as you think. A ROW will allow us to synchronize operations with traffic lights.

What I imagine isn't as elaborate as, say, the 1968 plan/s for tunneled streetcars (which is like a predecessor to the 1985 DRL). But rather something simpler than the 1946 plan WKlis posted, and similar to the return of that plan with its vicennial 1966 counterpart. In the 1966 plan, the essential component was a short underpass to bring the line below grade through the central area. East and west of, say, Sherbourne and Spadina, surface operation and upgrades would work very well. In the central area however below-grade was seen as critical to the line's success/reliability.

Surface enhancements that come with an active transit street are well known and I agree have tons of merit. They work very well in places like Calgary, or historic downtowns in many European cities. But I consider Toronto's core/CBD a different animal entirely. Tiny blocks, hundreds of thousands of pedestrians, +80s towers (and never-ending proposals for more), inevitable 'slow orders' during peak times and events... these would definitely cut into service/reliability. There really is nowhere else in the country like our downtown, and I don't think there ever will be. I'd definitely agree with closing much of the street to cars, but I think the streetcar needs to be below grade in this area.

I think comparing what Gweed proposes to many European cities is very apt. However it's also common in Europe to see stadtbahns or premetros or whathaveyou, where trams dive under the central part of many cities. Similar to SF, or Boston, or what we have on Eglinton: i.e - surface in the outer area, tunneled in the central area. But while Eglinton was bestowed with a whopping TEN KILOMETRES of tunnel, this would be more like 2.5-3km.

 

[jaybe]

No, you are not.

This is exactly what I envision a DRL-RER combo would look like on the west end.

I lament the lack of the connection at Sunnyside/Roncesvalles though.

The east side of your proposed DRL, through Don River parklands minimizes the primary justification for a DRL - to provide relief to the Yonge line. The recently released study on the relief line identified multiple weaknesses with this option:
- Transfers from other lines to this route will be costly to build.
- Virtually no opportunity to intensify around the stations as the stops will be on parkland.
- Does not effectively service a couple of high priority areas (Greenwood square, Flemington Park)
- Does not service the proposed Lever area for redevelopment
The result is there would be fewer riders on this route than a route through existing neighborhoods that could be intensified. Not to mention, that the route would be met with a lot of opposition due to the location in green space.

This route will be less expensive then the Pape/Don Mills option and should be seriously considered. That said, I imagine the lower construction costs will be offset by fewer long term benefits.

 

[44 North]

The east side of your proposed DRL, through Don River parklands minimizes the primary justification for a DRL - to provide relief to the Yonge line. The recently released study on the relief line identified multiple weaknesses with this option:
- Transfers from other lines to this route will be costly to build.
- Virtually no opportunity to intensify around the stations as the stops will be on parkland.
- Does not effectively service a couple of high priority areas (Greenwood square, Flemington Park)
- Does not service the proposed Lever area for redevelopment
The result is there would be fewer riders on this route than a route through existing neighborhoods that could be intensified. Not to mention, that the route would be met with a lot of opposition due to the location in green space.

This route will be less expensive then the Pape/Don Mills option and should be seriously considered. That said, I imagine the lower construction costs will be offset by fewer long term benefits.

It's my map, which is basically the City/TTC 'Corridor A'. North of Danforth it does what is hinted at in their diagram, but not elaborated on (i.e follows below Broadview toward Thorncliffe/EYTC - with my guess as to where stations would be located). North of Thorncliffe it uses some of the alignment proposed in Metrolinx's YRNS.

There'd be no stations on (or in) parkland, and I'm aware of any weaknesses in how it compares with Corridors B, C, D or Metrolinx's Long.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

The east side of your proposed DRL, through Don River parklands minimizes the primary justification for a DRL - to provide relief to the Yonge line. The recently released study on the relief line identified multiple weaknesses with this option:
- Transfers from other lines to this route will be costly to build.
- Virtually no opportunity to intensify around the stations as the stops will be on parkland.
- Does not effectively service a couple of high priority areas (Greenwood square, Flemington Park)
- Does not service the proposed Lever area for redevelopment
The result is there would be fewer riders on this route than a route through existing neighborhoods that could be intensified. Not to mention, that the route would be met with a lot of opposition due to the location in green space.

This route will be less expensive then the Pape/Don Mills option and should be seriously considered. That said, I imagine the lower construction costs will be offset by fewer long term benefits.

I was referring to Sixrings' additions to 44North's map on the west end. Those included:

- DRL/RER up and to the airport following UPX routing
- Western expansion of Eglinton Crosstown to ACC

 

[gweed123]

Ah, okay. I was imagining you were talking about stop spacing of 2-3km. Spacing similar to B/D sounds pretty good.

What I imagine isn't as elaborate as, say, the 1968 plan/s for tunneled streetcars (which is like a predecessor to the 1985 DRL). But rather something simpler than the 1946 plan WKlis posted, and similar to the return of that plan with its vicennial 1966 counterpart. In the 1966 plan, the essential component was a short underpass to bring the line below grade through the central area. East and west of, say, Sherbourne and Spadina, surface operation and upgrades would work very well. In the central area however below-grade was seen as critical to the line's success/reliability.

Surface enhancements that come with an active transit street are well known and I agree have tons of merit. They work very well in places like Calgary, or historic downtowns in many European cities. But I consider Toronto's core/CBD a different animal entirely. Tiny blocks, hundreds of thousands of pedestrians, +80s towers (and never-ending proposals for more), inevitable 'slow orders' during peak times and events... these would definitely cut into service/reliability. There really is nowhere else in the country like our downtown, and I don't think there ever will be. I'd definitely agree with closing much of the street to cars, but I think the streetcar needs to be below grade in this area.

I think comparing what Gweed proposes to many European cities is very apt. However it's also common in Europe to see stadtbahns or premetros or whathaveyou, where trams dive under the central part of many cities. Similar to SF, or Boston, or what we have on Eglinton: i.e - surface in the outer area, tunneled in the central area. But while Eglinton was bestowed with a whopping TEN KILOMETRES of tunnel, this would be more like 2.5-3km.

I can definitely see the merit in the Queen Streetcar Subway plan (very similar to Boston's Green Line) that was initially included with the original Yonge Subway, but at this point I don't think there's the money available to spend on 2 new tunnels in downtown Toronto. The DRL is clearly a higher priority, especially if it's integrated into the RER system, so it should be the one to get the go-ahead.

Politically, intertwining the Queen LRT ROW with the DRL may be the best way of getting it passed. The pro-car lobby isn't going to like taking a street completely out of service for cars. However, if you combine that with the fact that the streetcars would be removed from King, it may end up being considered a wash for them. The way I see it happening is both are approved at the same time, but the Queen LRT ROW begins construction first, and the day that it is opened the King streetcar closes, with the bulk of the ridership shifted to Queen. The DRL can then be built underneath King West (with all the detours and lane closures that go with it), and then King eventually gets a subway underneath it.

The additional capacity and speed of the Queen LRT ROW is key in this scenario, because the King ridership is going to need to have to go somewhere when the streetcar service is suspended for subway construction.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

https://twitter.com/TessKalinowski/status/666256650609684481?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

 

[44 North]

The Relief Line meetings which were originally tentatively scheduled for this month are being postponed until sometime in the new year:

The Relief Line is one of three related transit projects that Toronto's City Planning Division is working on in partnership with the TTC and Metrolinx. The others are the Scarborough Subway Extension and SmartTrack.​

A new transportation model
Development of the new transportation ridership estimation model by the University of Toronto is progressing well but results are not yet available. The new model is more complex than the City's existing model, and will provide more comprehensive results. It will help us better understand how a future transportation network, including each of these projects, would function alongside GO Regional Express Rail.​

Upcoming public meetings
The next round of public consultation on the City's rapid transit studies is being moved from November, 2015 to early 2016, given that recent indications are that ridership data will be available at that time. These meetings are intended to report on emerging directions and ultimately, draft findings and recommendations in each case. In order to identify draft conclusions, we may need one further round of consultation. ​

We will let you know the details about the next round of public meetings when they are available.​

More information
If you have any questions or comments at this time, please do not hesitate to contact the Transit Implementation Unit at reliefline@toronto.ca or 416-338-1065.​

 

[Adjei]

The YRNS concluded that the number of already committed/funded initiatives underway will increase the capacity of Yonge subway and divert existing and future riders to other corridors. These increases in capacity will accommodate growth until 2031, and offset the immediate need for the Downtown Relief Line until after 2031.

http://vivanext.com/blog/2015/12/17/subways-yes-our-network-will-include-subways/

 

[salsa]

The YRNS concluded that the number of already committed/funded initiatives underway will increase the capacity of Yonge subway and divert existing and future riders to other corridors. These increases in capacity will accommodate growth until 2031, and offset the immediate need for the Downtown Relief Line until after 2031.

http://vivanext.com/blog/2015/12/17/subways-yes-our-network-will-include-subways/

Meanwhile, the other crisis no one cares to talk about...

But hey, the mayor says you can get on through the back door now, so all is good right?

 

[M II A II R II K]

But there will be longer streetcars when they finally arrive.