nfitz
Superstar
The question was had they announced it.
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
The TTC seems quite set on making the DRL a TTC subway. It should be interesting to see how they'll reconcile their findings with the findings of the Metrolinx Relief Line study, especially if Metrolinx favours an RER tunnel.
Uncle Teddy
Senior Member
They'll get pushed back 15 years and then it'll again be a TTC subway.
Metrolinx needs it though, because they've fully acknowledged that Union alone can't handle all of the GO service expansions they're planning on doing. SmartTrack may delay the need for the DRL, but all that is going to do is swap a Bloor-Yonge capacity crunch for a Union capacity crunch.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
SmartTrack may inadvertently necessitate the Relief Line even further.
One of the functions of the RL is to reduce usage of Union Station. SmartTrack could push Union Station beyond its limit, forcing us to build a Relief Line.
On the DTRES, the TTC examined a line similar to SmartTrack and found that it would actually increase crowding on Line 1 south of Bloor and have minimal impact on B-Y transfers. if this is also true with SmartTrack, it would again further necessitate the Relief Line.
One of the functions of the RL is to reduce usage of Union Station. SmartTrack could push Union Station beyond its limit, forcing us to build a Relief Line.
On the DTRES, the TTC examined a line similar to SmartTrack and found that it would actually increase crowding on Line 1 south of Bloor and have minimal impact on B-Y transfers. if this is also true with SmartTrack, it would again further necessitate the Relief Line.
CDL.TO
Moderator
Well, they're not of course.
Only time will tell but, personally, I'm highly skeptical of the projections for VMC. It's in the 905, sure, but the site doesn't offer the low costs associated with greenfield sites on the fringe or the agglomeration benefits of higher cost locations like downtown Toronto or, arguably, IT companies in Markham. There's a reason why MCC has seen no office development in decades. VMC will offer an interesting experiment... is a subway connection and lower property taxes than the 416 all it takes to meet office development goals?
I'm more supportive of Yonge North because I think it's far more justified by current circumstances and depends far less on hypothetical future development. Yonge is already a relatively busy corridor, as is Hwy 7 East.
In other words, RHC bolsters the case for Yonge North while the case for the Vaughan Extension is dependent upon plans for VMC being delivered upon as promised.
minilude
Active Member
I agree, but isn't it our great government's mentality to build something that demand hasn't established, rather than spend money to solve crowding and ridership demands right? They will say " no, no, ridership is too much and too crowded, we can't build more~"
Agreed completely. The history of transit in the GTA (in most places actually, but the GTA specifically in this case) has shown that rapid transit routes that are built as upgrades to existing lower capacity routes that are approaching capacity are much more successful than routes that don't follow pre-established ridership patterns, and are instead based on "build it and they will come".
I don't think anyone would argue that had the Spadina Subway been built up Dufferin, it would have higher ridership than it does today. The Yonge Subway extension to RHC is very much in keeping with the rationales behind the original Yonge and Bloor-Danforth Subways, while the Spadina extension to VMC seems to be an even further stretch of the rationale that lead to the original Spadina Subway.
aquateam
Active Member
The original Spadina subway was a sort of "greenwashing" of the Spadina expressway. Being built in the middle of a highway means that it is impossible to achieve the same kind of TOD that the Yonge subway had. When the Yonge subway was constructed, it:
-replaced a streetcar line that was at capacity, the busiest route in the city
-resulted in rezoning and significant density bonuses for developments near the stations
-had government offices relocate to be serviceable by it
-Had great connections (bus-bays in station) to a variety of strong ridership East-West routes.
None of these conditions are really present in the Vaughn extension. Maybe a bit of upzoning, but Yonge already had existing density.
RHC is more of an extension of existing development patterns, and has the VIVA routes, so I think it's more likely to be a success.
44 North
Senior Member
I just don’t see how a subway on Yonge north of Steeles is ‘justified by current circumstances’. The current bus ridership along that corridor is something like 17,000; which I guess is “relatively busy†(relatively being the key word). But if that’s justification, then Toronto should probably get cracking on forty-odd new subway lines. As for the projected 10-fold increase in ridership by 2031...to me it appears just as falsely ambitious as the 1986 projections for Eglinton or Sheppard by 2011.
It seems a bit odd that we continually use Sheppard as a scapegoat and constant reminder for poor planning practices; but gladly accept projections for new projects as believable. Sheppard was a busy corridor with major development planned. Why should it have been obvious at the time that the projections and justifications for a subway there were a sham, but for a project like Yonge north of Steeles the projections are more or less guaranteed? *Not actually asking, it’s more of a rhetorical question. Obviously there are considerable differences between the two.*
Ya, I guess that’s true. Though unlike TO, I see it as a common practice elsewhere to build routes that don’t follow pre-established surface patterns. But instead of it being a drawback, a major benefit of these lines is that they arc across and intersect several corridors, and carry riders along the hypotenuse/diagonal (don’t know the technical term). NYC, Washington, Boston, Chicago...these cities have many routes radiating in all directions from the CBD and old city. Whereas in TO - aside from Univ-Spad, and the tail ends of B/D - our subway system seems fairly unique for strictly following roads and former surface routes. This is one of the things I like so much about the DRL east branch: it somewhat mirrors University-Spadina’s arc, and allows for a curving line that can carry riders more directly than if done disjointedly along existing surface routes.
MisterF
Senior Member
Other cities may not always do subway lines that follow existing surface routes, but they do follow general travel patterns. The RL will tap into a huge passenger flow that goes from the northeast into downtown and east-west through downtown. Some of the streetcars follow that route more or less, but they can't address that demand. So from a mass transit perspective they might as well not even be there.
44 North
Senior Member
I guess I was trying to say something like that, but got too wordy. My point was generally that instead of there being two go-to forms of subway planning: i.e – an upgrade of an existing surface route, and a ‘build it and they will come’ situation. The often-overlooked third option is for a new route which carries riders more directly to their destination (e.g on a diagonal). This is how I see the University-Spadina section of Line 1, and the DRL east branch.
But good point about those streetcar routes. The 504 and 505 between Broadview and Dundas West (and maybe the 510 from Spadina to Union to a certain extent) do in a way offer the swooping service from shoulder areas and southward into/across the core. Albeit a tad more disjointedly than would be optimal. And I guess you’re correct in that the RL can be considered somewhat of an upgrade to the 504/505 – something I didn’t really consider.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Although I don't think the DRL is going anywhere for at least a decade, I believe that is a good thing. A RER/ST will serve many more destinations and hundreds of thousands more people.
Also seeing the ST is somewhat running parallel to the Danforth line they may find that it takes a significant amount of ridership off the over capacity Y & B station but conversely may find traffic on the Queen Street streetcar goes up and equal amount as those no going directly to Union but rather the Eaton Centre area may find Queen faster or more convenient. Perhaps due to this a Queen subway more be a better bet under such circumstances.
Maybe, maybe not but they won't be able to tell the best route for a DRL until ST is finished. Toronto should wait till ST is done and then they can make a more informed decision.
Also seeing the ST is somewhat running parallel to the Danforth line they may find that it takes a significant amount of ridership off the over capacity Y & B station but conversely may find traffic on the Queen Street streetcar goes up and equal amount as those no going directly to Union but rather the Eaton Centre area may find Queen faster or more convenient. Perhaps due to this a Queen subway more be a better bet under such circumstances.
Maybe, maybe not but they won't be able to tell the best route for a DRL until ST is finished. Toronto should wait till ST is done and then they can make a more informed decision.
Results of station evaluation for DRL.
http://reliefline.ca/current-work/psa-results
http://reliefline.ca/current-work/psa-results
Attachments
wopchop
Building Toronto
I think this last part, regarding East of the Don River, is going to determine what route they favour West of the Don. The report found limited potential with most options east of the Don, except for the Unilever Site, Gerrard/Pape, Pape/Danforth, & Broadview/Danforth. To me, this is going to weigh the alignment heavily in favor of a route from Pape-Danforth to Unilever and then down King / Wellington. Especially given all of the high-potential sites that they have identified along King.