yes, just like they are ordered new subway cars for the yonge line. Even if they replaced the old streetcars with new ones on a 1:1 scale, the lines would be over capacity again by the time the DRL is replaced.
 
innsertnamehere said:
yes, just like they are ordered new subway cars for the yonge line. Even if they replaced the old streetcars with new ones on a 1:1 scale, the lines would be over capacity again by the time the DRL is replaced.
Click to expand...

You think King can hit ridership of ~108,000 passengers per day by 2025?

Those new LRVs are have just shy of double the capacity of the old CLRV. With a bit of kibitzing to create enforced temporary ROWs during peak periods, King would be capable of carrying 150,000 passengers per day or more with a 1:1 vehicle replacement.

Toronto Rockets were in theory had 10% higher capacity as passengers could move from cramped locations making better use of existing floorspace. There is little actual new floorspace and I'm not aware of any measurements being made to see if this target has been achieved in practice.
 
Last edited:
rbt said:
You think King can hit ridership of ~108,000 passengers per day by 2025?

Those new LRVs are have just shy of double the capacity of the old CLRV. With a bit of kibitzing to create enforced temporary ROWs during peak periods, King would be capable of carrying 150,000 passengers per day or more with a 1:1 vehicle replacement.

Toronto Rockets were in theory had 10% higher capacity as passengers could move from cramped locations making better use of existing floorspace. There is little actual new floorspace and I'm not aware of any measurements being made to see if this target has been achieved in practice.
Click to expand...
Most of the extra capacity is in the gangways, as well as not having driver compartments in the middle of the train, but again, capacity is reduced at the ends of the train to make room for a much larger driver compartment.
 
Johnny Au said:
Most of the extra capacity is in the gangways, as well as not having driver compartments in the middle of the train.
Click to expand...

There is of course space in the gangways, but I would say that the full width drivers compartments nearly cancel out the space gained by not having compartments in the middle, since the full width takes up more than twice the amount of space as the driver compartments in the T1's.
 
But you must remember that a large portion of the line also operates on ALRVs currently. 100,000 per day may not happen, but 70,000 or 80,000 likely will, and that will be the upper limit. Besides, what happens when it DOES hit capacity, even if that is 30 years down the road? It's not like you can build a subway, there is already one down there.

All I am simply saying is that if we can build a subway that both relieves the streetcar routes AND also relieves the yonge line, why don't we? Why MUST a $7 billion dollar subway line serve a single purpose? is it because you have some overly romantic love for streetcars? It isn't the end of the world if we lose a streetcar track, especially if we gain a subway below it. Besides, if we are going to build for the single purpose of relieving the yonge line, adding an express system south of Eglinton would be much more effective, and quite frankly, way cheaper. (probably closer to $3 billion)

also, there is more space overall. Think of it this way. before, there were 6 drivers units on each train. Now, there are the equivalent of 4. thus, we gaine 2 drivers units worth of space. not to mention wasted space that was between the cars before.
 
Last edited:
By adding a small car to lengthen the Yonge-University-Spadina trains, the drivers compartments will end past the platforms into the tunnels. As long as the train doors do not go past the ends of the platforms, passengers will still be able to enter the trains. Just some of the seats or windows will be in the tunnels.

Even with that shoehorning, there will be a limit of to the capacity of the line. However, that only buys time, as the population increases within the GTA. Even a small percentage increase would be large increase in ridership, sooner if not later.
 
innsertnamehere said:
All I am simply saying is that if we can build a subway that both relieves the streetcar routes AND also relieves the yonge line, why don't we?
Click to expand...

Sure. If that could be done then we should do it.

I'm pretty convinced that it can't be done. The instant you add enough stops for local service to eliminate streetcars, you've killed a lot of incentive to transfer.

To make Yonge reliable again, it needs to get below crush. If the only incentive for transferring is that Yonge is at crush capacity, then the Relief Line succeeds only in being a Line and not in providing any Relief.


We can and must provide transfer points from streetcar to the new subway line; but I don't see how subway can replace the streetcar and still provide relief for Yonge.
 
Last edited:
The stop spacing I specified is about 600-700 meters throughout the core, and still comes in 2 stops less on the west side and 4 stops less on the east side. Admittingly, Roncasvalles likely wouldn't be able to be replaced, but King would.
 
I was playing with Google Maps making my own DRL. I might have too many stations, and the station-names may be awkwardly named, but for a line like this that doesn't follow just one road, I used both road names for the station name, with the east-west road first (as per Bloor-Yonge and Sheppard-Yonge).

9466860835_28f060ef95_o.png


So the stations, west to east are:

Union
Front-Jarvis
Front-Parliament
Eastern-Cherry
Queen-River
Queen-Broadview
Dundas-Logan
Gerrard-Carlaw
Pape

If I had to choose one name for each station, it'd be Jarvis, Parliament, Cherry, River, Broadview*, Logan, Carlaw.

If I had to eliminate any stations, it'd probably be Logan, River and/or Cherry.
 
Last edited:
That is 9 stations, which is cutting it a bit close. (there are 11 on the existing route) Another thing you have to remember is the western route. How would you bring it up to king from front without drilling through building foundations? It really shouldn't be below King west of Spadina. Also, I find putting that many stations so close together rather pointless, if it isn't replacing a streetcar route. You of course also run into complications at Union. How do you build a station around the existing one? There is already a subway station below Front, how do you build around it? you can't go too deep as people will avoid the line because of that. (Nobody wants to climb 3 flights of stairs, look at how many people complain about the Kennedy transfer)

my preferred alignment: (apologies for the odd angle, I had to do it so the station names worked properly)

ViImshT.jpg


The western portion is a work in progress, I am struggling with the Liberty Village and Straughan stations. I feel that there only really needs to be 1 station there, but I don't know how I would combine them properly.

other than that, I think this is a fairly solid plan. it could replace The King streetcar, (though not Roncasvalles) bringing rapid transit to thousands of new customers in the core, and would still act as a relief valve for the busiest sections of the Bloor line and The Yonge line.
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
That is 9 stations, which is cutting it a bit close. (there are 11 on the existing route) Another thing you have to remember is the western route. How would you bring it up to king from front without drilling through building foundations? It really shouldn't be below King west of Spadina. Also, I find putting that many stations so close together rather pointless, if it isn't replacing a streetcar route. You of course also run into complications at Union. How do you build a station around the existing one? There is already a subway station below Front, how do you build around it? you can't go too deep as people will avoid the line because of that. (Nobody wants to climb 3 flights of stairs, look at how many people complain about the Kennedy transfer)
Click to expand...

Sure it's 9 stations if you count Union and Pape. It's only 7 if you don't count the existing stations.

As I mentioned, there were some stations I'm open to cutting. You didn't mention which ones you thought should be cut. So your argument that the the number of stations is too high is moot.

How would I bring it from Front to King? This is a subway remember. I followed streets as much as possible, but sometimes you're just gonna have to dig down below the buildings.

As for how to build Union? Build the DRL station directly below (a la St George). There's no reason we can't do a dig down (see Union Station's rail counterpart). As I've said a hundred times before, there's no valid reason to skip Union, but every possible reason to serve it.

As for your plan, I think it's too far north to serve the new neighborhoods to the south. I also think your DRL is too angular--it's like you took an east-west subway and mashed it together with two north-south subways, rather than making the transition gradual.

As for leaving out the western and northern portions, I simply don't see them happening soon.
 
I would take a plan that looked similar to that insertnamehere, that's what I feel the DRL should be. Ideally we'd be emphasizing the necessity of the DRL AND the need for an RER/S-Bahn style system to relieve both types of downtown transit congestion but this would be a perfectly acceptable compromise imo.
 
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
Sure it's 9 stations if you count Union and Pape. It's only 7 if you don't count the existing stations.

As I mentioned, there were some stations I'm open to cutting. You didn't mention which ones you thought should be cut. So your argument that the the number of stations is too high is moot.

How would I bring it from Front to King? This is a subway remember. I followed streets as much as possible, but sometimes you're just gonna have to dig down below the buildings.

As for how to build Union? Build the DRL station directly below (a la St George). There's no reason we can't do a dig down (see Union Station's rail counterpart). As I've said a hundred times before, there's no valid reason to skip Union, but every possible reason to serve it.

As for your plan, I think it's too far north to serve the new neighborhoods to the south. I also think your DRL is too angular--it's like you took an east-west subway and mashed it together with two north-south subways, rather than making the transition gradual.

As for leaving out the western and northern portions, I simply don't see them happening soon.
Click to expand...

If you cut your station number down to 7 from 9, so the amount of current stations gets cut to 9, and you are still 2 apart.

Some of your stations I see that are good to eliminate are Queen-River and Dundas-Logan.

If you dig down deep enough to go under 6 level parking garages, It will be too deep to be desirable as an alternative to transferring on the Yonge Line. as I said, people complain about 3 flights of stairs, imagine 7 or 8.

you can always build under the current union station, but is it really worth the extra money for the connection? if people want to get to union they can just take the Yonge line.

Queens Quay streetcar serves the new neighbourhoods to the south, the more northern neighbourhoods have more demand and are more feasible to build a subway through. Where the streetcar doesn't run, (Cityplace and Liberty Village) They are a short 400 meter walk to the new subway, which they walk already to reach the King streetcar.

At this point, if the eastern portion happens, the western portion happens, through the Transit Tax.
 
innsertnamehere said:
The stop spacing I specified is about 600-700 meters throughout the core ...
Click to expand...

Right, and I'm pretty certain that the plan you mapped would not get through an EA without a number of additional stations being added particularly if you announce the removal of Queen/King streetcar service upfront.

Folks downtown have watched Weston complain and get more stuff, ditto for St. Clair and Eglinton and now the SRT.

Your not going to convince many to give up their Queen streetcar service that stops at their door when you replace it with walk over 1km that (appears) to include crossing the Don Valley in winter.


And now that you've got a subway line with 15 minute travel times from Pape & Danforth to downtown. Certainly not going to attract anybody who is destined to South Core or Queen with that service and I'm not certain what would attract someone who already has a seat on Danforth that is going to Yonge & King either.

Not good enough to create spare capacity on the Yonge line. It needs to be substantially better than Danforth/Yonge to give breathing space.

Folks on transit hate change and doing things a different way. Do you know how many years TTC has advertised the 509 as the better way to the CNE? Bathurst still gets a ton of ridership to that event despite taking 3 times longer than the 509. I lived in the area and timed it, it is faster to go from Bathurst station to Union and take the 509 back when traffic is heavy.

If it's not substantially faster, it won't provide Relief. Lines on a map are great but at some point psychology comes into play. The saving grace of your design might be a really great cross-platform transfer at Pape similar to Lionel-Groulx in Montreal. I don't think that can be built without shutting down Danforth line for a long time period though.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top