[diminutive]

http://stevemunro.ca/?p=2372

"In a conversation after the meeting, I learned that although the single large bore tunnel (13m) proposed for Eglinton might be feasible, this large tunnel greatly increases the cost of removing spoil (earth and rock) because the tunnel structure is much larger than would be the case for two single tunnels. In turn, this begs the question of how much of the Eglinton line will be built cut-and-cover so that it is not dependent on the availability of tunnel boring equipment. We shall see in the fall when the next set of community meetings come around for the Eglinton corridor study."

In short, dirt disposal is a non-trivial cost.

Yet other TTC reports have specifically cited single tunnel bores in Madrid and elsewhere as part of the cost difference to Toronto... It's not that I don't understand the geometry of why a single tunnel will have proportionately more waste. A 13m tunnel would have roughly twice the cross sectional surface area as 2x 6.7m tunnels.

But it is odd that the TTC would specifically cite single bores as a cost saving measure then go on to say it would be more expensive.

Also, 13m seems quite large...

Anyways, as far as DRL goes, it still seems like simplest would be above ground through the rail-corridor.

Going underground really should be the absolute last resort.

 

[junctionist]

The rail corridor should be the last resort for the DRL. Rapid transit is rarely successful when located in a railway or highway corridor. The Spadina part of the YUS line, for instance, is mostly in the middle of an expressway and sees the lowest ridership on the line. The Scarborough RT is another example of rapid transit mostly in a railway corridor, and the stations in the railway corridor like Ellesmere, Midland and Lawrence East see the lowest ridership in the system. Stations should be right at the heart of the neighbourhoods they serve, not isolated in a railway or highway corridor.

 

[diminutive]

The rail corridor should be the last resort for the DRL. Rapid transit is rarely successful when located in a railway or highway corridor. The Spadina part of the YUS line, for instance, is mostly in the middle of an expressway and sees the lowest ridership on the line. The Scarborough RT is another example of rapid transit mostly in a railway corridor, and the stations in the railway corridor like Ellesmere, Midland and Lawrence East see the lowest ridership in the system. Stations should be right at the heart of the neighbourhoods they serve, not isolated in a railway or highway corridor.

This just isn't true.

For starters the section of Spadina in the Allen Expressway isn't much less used then the same section of Yonge. Lawrence West and Wilson are almost identical ridership to Lawrence and Yorkmills. Eglinton West is definitely lower, but that'a a product of less high volume surface routes intersecting it.

Which is really the point; most subway ridership is a surface transfer and is pretty ambivalent about whether the station is in a highway.

Certainly globally there's no shortage of extremely popular rail lines. The Yamanote Line alone gets more ridership than the entire TTC by a wider margin.

In Toronto, it's hardly like the rail corridor is comparable to the SRT or Allen. The rail corridor has seen a HUGE amount of development both north and south of it, so I'm not sure why you think the rail corridor is isolated in the middle of nowhere.

Would Queen get more walk in traffic? Probably, though with all of the mega developments proposed around the rail corridor (Oxford, 1Yonge, Ordinance Triangle, WDLs) that may well change. In any case going underground would add huge costs, so I'd doubt the cost/benefit would be worth it.

 

[MisterF]

Anyways, as far as DRL goes, it still seems like simplest would be above ground through the rail-corridor.

Going underground really should be the absolute last resort.

That only makes sense if we think of the GO system as separate from local transit and consisting of infrequent diesel trains serving distant suburbs - it's 1980s thinking. But the GO lines are slowly being electrified and upgraded to the point where, in the core, they will eventually serve the same function as a subway. Just as regional trains do all over the world. Building a whole new subway line in the same right of way would be an expensive duplication of what's already there for no benefit. The need for a completely new subway is farther north.

 

[W. K. Lis]

It's the location of the stations and how one gets to the station to get on the trains that's important.

One problem with the stations on the Spadina leg of the system is that pedestrians have to cross access ramps, traffic lights, and cross traffic to get in. Entrances should have been created so that crowds does not have to cross streets or wait for their traffic signals. Automobiles were given priority in this case, making those stations not very desirable.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

The rail corridor should be the last resort for the DRL. Rapid transit is rarely successful when located in a railway or highway corridor. The Spadina part of the YUS line, for instance, is mostly in the middle of an expressway and sees the lowest ridership on the line. The Scarborough RT is another example of rapid transit mostly in a railway corridor, and the stations in the railway corridor like Ellesmere, Midland and Lawrence East see the lowest ridership in the system. Stations should be right at the heart of the neighbourhoods they serve, not isolated in a railway or highway corridor.

This just isn't true.

For starters the section of Spadina in the Allen Expressway isn't much less used then the same section of Yonge. Lawrence West and Wilson are almost identical ridership to Lawrence and Yorkmills. Eglinton West is definitely lower, but that'a a product of less high volume surface routes intersecting it.

Which is really the point; most subway ridership is a surface transfer and is pretty ambivalent about whether the station is in a highway.

Certainly globally there's no shortage of extremely popular rail lines. The Yamanote Line alone gets more ridership than the entire TTC by a wider margin.

In Toronto, it's hardly like the rail corridor is comparable to the SRT or Allen. The rail corridor has seen a HUGE amount of development both north and south of it, so I'm not sure why you think the rail corridor is isolated in the middle of nowhere.

Would Queen get more walk in traffic? Probably, though with all of the mega developments proposed around the rail corridor (Oxford, 1Yonge, Ordinance Triangle, WDLs) that may well change. In any case going underground would add huge costs, so I'd doubt the cost/benefit would be worth it.

It's the location of the stations and how one gets to the station to get on the trains that's important.

One problem with the stations on the Spadina leg of the system is that pedestrians have to cross access ramps, traffic lights, and cross traffic to get in. Entrances should have been created so that crowds does not have to cross streets or wait for their traffic signals. Automobiles were given priority in this case, making those stations not very desirable.

I don't know, but I think WK has it here. Bring in the middle of the highway is not the problem, its the way the stations are designed

 

[diminutive]

That only makes sense if we think of the GO system as separate from local transit and consisting of infrequent diesel trains serving distant suburbs - it's 1980s thinking. But the GO lines are slowly being electrified and upgraded to the point where, in the core, they will eventually serve the same function as a subway. Just as regional trains do all over the world. Building a whole new subway line in the same right of way would be an expensive duplication of what's already there for no benefit. The need for a completely new subway is farther north.

My preferred plan would be to merge the DRL and GO's SBahn/RER/REXification into a single project. Obviously details are speculative on my part but by consolidating projects you could save money on tunneling the DRL under Queen/King and channel it into track, signal, rolling stock and electrification improvements along necessary for frequent GO service. I could go into detail on what routing I think would be best, but that's maybe a bit premature at this point.

It seems a bit presumptuous to assume Toronto will get a full DRL and some kind of notional super-GO service on top of everything else. Those two projects could easily end up in the 15-20b dollar range. I'm not sure how realistic it is to expect so much money for two rapid transit projects which overlap so heavily.

Also, afaik, there really are no firm plans to add more GO stations. Even if electrification and such went ahead I've never seen any proposal to add connections downtown beyond Union, excepting the weird stub terminal idea. It wouldn't really address GO's lack of connections to local transit.

 

[M II A II R II K]

And bury the Gardiner too.

 

[ssiguy2]

Vancouver SkyTrain, Calgary CTrain and Edmonton LRT all follow rail corridors to some extent and all three systems being very successful and, especially Vancouver, create huge amounts ot TOD.

Comparing commuter rail which is slow, irregular, and expensive as an analogy of rail corridor failure is completely disingenuous.

 

[BurlOak]

Another DRL article in the Star

http://www.thestar.com/news/ttc/201...ites_the_book_on_downtown_transit_relief.html

The high points:

- DRL west should follow rail corridor
- The Air Rail Link (Union-Person Express) success is questionable
- DRL east should extend north of Danforth to Eglinton
- DRL should go south of Queen and North of Front (Adelaide, King or Wellington)
- DRL should have connections to new GO stations

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Jane, Don Mills, Malvern LRT are on there! Nice find BurlOak!

 

[MisterF]

Vancouver SkyTrain, Calgary CTrain and Edmonton LRT all follow rail corridors to some extent and all three systems being very successful and, especially Vancouver, create huge amounts ot TOD.

Comparing commuter rail which is slow, irregular, and expensive as an analogy of rail corridor failure is completely disingenuous.

Take a look outside North America for what commuter rail can be. It doesn't have to be slow, irregular, and expensive. Real regional rail can have electrified trains running every 5 minutes, and that's just what Metrolinx is planning. None of the cities you mention are doing the same.

My preferred plan would be to merge the DRL and GO's SBahn/RER/REXification into a single project. Obviously details are speculative on my part but by consolidating projects you could save money on tunneling the DRL under Queen/King and channel it into track, signal, rolling stock and electrification improvements along necessary for frequent GO service. I could go into detail on what routing I think would be best, but that's maybe a bit premature at this point.

It seems a bit presumptuous to assume Toronto will get a full DRL and some kind of notional super-GO service on top of everything else. Those two projects could easily end up in the 15-20b dollar range. I'm not sure how realistic it is to expect so much money for two rapid transit projects which overlap so heavily.

Also, afaik, there really are no firm plans to add more GO stations. Even if electrification and such went ahead I've never seen any proposal to add connections downtown beyond Union, excepting the weird stub terminal idea. It wouldn't really address GO's lack of connections to local transit.

That's a good plan, but it doesn't address east-west travel north of Union and south of Bloor or a transfer somewhere around Pape. That's a huge hole in the system. It's not presumptuous, it's meeting the transportation needs of the city.

As for additional stations, once fares are integrated the demand for local travel and more stations will only increase. I think we'll see more stations whether they're planned now or not. You can always have express and local trains.

 

[diminutive]

That's a good plan, but it doesn't address east-west travel north of Union and south of Bloor or a transfer somewhere around Pape. That's a huge hole in the system. It's not presumptuous, it's meeting the transportation needs of the city. .

My ideal version of this DRL-Sbahn system would involve running regional trains through the typical DRL alignment from Eglinton/DonMills to Pape and then the rail corridor. From Eglinton/DM the regional trains would run along the rail corridor to Agincourt then could branch off into Markham and the north-east.

As for east-west travel, I think a rail corridor would be pretty good. Assuming proper connection to local transit downtown, I don't think it would be much worse than Queen/King for E/W travel across the core.

 

[bleu]

Take a look outside North America for what commuter rail can be. It doesn't have to be slow, irregular, and expensive. Real regional rail can have electrified trains running every 5 minutes, and that's just what Metrolinx is planning. None of the cities you mention are doing the same.

since when Canada ever look outside North America.
and when Canada says North America, it really means just USA.

 

[CDL.TO]

Suburban Rail is only a substitute for subways when it has stop spacing equivalent to subways (you're not served by transit if it just speeds by without a stop). The Kingston Sub (Lakeshore East and Stouffville GO line) only has room for 4 tracks. It's HIGHLY unlikely that you can run a decent service of intercity trains to Montreal, Ottawa, and Kingston; local suburban rail to Pickering and Markham; express suburban rail to Oshawa and Bowmanville; and subway-substitute suburban rail with stops in the West Donlands, Queen East, Gerrard East, etc with just 4 tracks.