WislaHD said:
And ultimately, I find the high cost of the Relief Line to Sheppard to be a mute point when considering the very high Benefit/Cost ratio of the line. For each $1.00 a Torontonian puts into the Relief Line the expected return is $1.80. It is just a matter of financing that initial capital cost.
Click to expand...

Anyone who thing RLL costs too much needs to read the YRNS. Long subway handily beat every other option in every category, including net economic benefit. The report leaves absolutely no ambiguity in their assertion that RLL is the best option for Toronto.

This is the most important new infrastructure in Toronto in 70 years. This is not the project to play cheap with.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Anyone who thing RLL costs too much needs to read the YRNS. Long subway handily beat every other option in every category, including net economic benefit. The report leaves absolutely no ambiguity in their assertion that RLL is the best option for Toronto.

This is the most important new infrastructure in Toronto in 70 years. This is not the project to play cheap with.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely; but there are several variations which have not been studied.

We shouldn't plat cheap with it but at the same time if the same results (including economic) can be achieved for a lower price then it should be explored.

Specifically, what does the model give if we invest $5B into the Richmond Hill line? 4 stops (Steeles, Sheppard, Eglinton, Union or somewhere downtown), 5 minute frequencies, TTC integration including free transfers (see Paris fare system), straightened corridor, etc. Might need a bit of tunnel work through downtown to avoid Union (perhaps 2.5 minute interlined frequencies with SmartTrack?).

If it sucks, that's fine. At $7B we should spend 3 months and $1M exploring the option.
 
nfitz said:
I assume you mean 506.

Hang, on. The 506 is normally packed like a sardine by the time you hit Marjory in AM peak. No one east of their benefits from the relief line; why would you change it? The relief line might even out the flow a bit (emptying many off at Carlaw), but it still fills up again by Parliament (there's a huge amount of on/off along the route - many people aren't going all the way into town).

Personally, I'd extend the 505 east on Dundas, and run it into a loop (under the tracks before Carlaw?) that accesses the new subway station, eliminating service on Broadview (which 504 already does).

Other than that, need to see the alignment and station locations. I can't really see streetcars being eliminated on King or Queen, if there's only 3 or 4 subway stations constructed.
Click to expand...

Yeesh, I do mean the 506. Thought there was something missing. I second the extension of the 505.
 
That's the one uncertainty about this line. Whether it be on Queen or King or further south than that.

And will it have BD stop spacing downtown or be more Victoria Line-esque and be a rapid relief line with far apart stations throughout.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
Well assuming we start moving forward with the Relief Line, I'm interested in discussing the profound impact this will likely have on streetcar routing. Below are my thoughts.

501 and 504
* Note: a "/" indicates that the station or street depends on the alignment chosen.

A full Relief Line-U eliminates the need for the 504 between Dundas West and Sunnyside, and the 501 or 504 between Sunnyside and the Don. If we assume the Relief Line terminates at the University Line, based on studies to date, I would expect the 504 to become a service between Dundas West and St Andrew/Osgoode. The 501 could develop a new branch to serve Broadview, but should still terminate at Neville Park loop.

For a Queen alignment scenario, the 501 could run on King between Sunnyside and the Don. The 504 could turn from Roncesvalles to Queen and terminate at Osgoode.

514
What happens to the 514 if a King alignment is chosen? Perhaps it could become the new route running from Broadview station, down Broadview and King, to the Distillery District?

502 and 503
Will these need to be separate routes? Can they just be folded into one, terminating at the first Relief Line station on Queen?

505
The odds look good to me for a station to be at Gerrard and Carlaw. In this case, I believe it makes the 505 a bit redundant between Main Street and Gerrard @ Carlaw. I can see it terminating at this new Relief Line station, but would it continue east to Main Street?
Click to expand...

Well, 502 and 503 should probably be folded into one today; not even waiting for DRL.

Overall, I would try to run streetcar service on all major downtown streetcar lines that have service today. Obviously, the frequencies would be reduced on the routes competing with DRL, and the route structure may be changed so that some routes feed DRL rather than go directly into downtown.

Reasons to retain all major lines:
- DRL stop spacing will be much wider than on the YUS loop, hence a granular local service will be needed.
- When a scheduled or unscheduled subway service interuption occurs, it will be easier to substitute with large streetcars TTC is currently buying than with much smaller buses.
- The potential operational savings from providing the local service using buses instead of streecars will be small on the overall scale of TTC, since the length of affected routes is small.

Yet, some savings can be achieved from:
- Reducing the frequency of streecar service where it competes with DRL, and
- Taking out of service and eventually removing some of the connecting tracks, such as on Richmond, Adelaide, Bay, McCaul, Victoria etc. Currently, those tracks are maintained mostly for operational reliability. With DRL in place, TTC can afford a bit more operational risks in the streetcar system, and hence some of the redundant non-revenue track can be retired.
 
M II A II R II K said:
That's the one uncertainty about this line. Whether it be on Queen or King or further south than that.

And will it have BD stop spacing downtown or be more Victoria Line-esque and be a rapid relief line with far apart stations throughout.
Click to expand...
The difference is that the Victoria Line mostly serves parts of the city that already have existing tube lines. It doesn't need stations close together because for most of its length you're never more than a few blocks from a tube station already. In Toronto the DRL would serve parts of the city that are nowhere near a subway and need rapid transit service. Keeping stations artificially far apart in an effort to save a streetcar line or two doesn't solve any problems. There's no need to keep stations far apart; even with Bloor style station spacing it would still get people downtown significantly faster than existing lines.

Rainforest said:
Well, 502 and 503 should probably be folded into one today; not even waiting for DRL.

Overall, I would try to run streetcar service on all major downtown streetcar lines that have service today. Obviously, the frequencies would be reduced on the routes competing with DRL, and the route structure may be changed so that some routes feed DRL rather than go directly into downtown.

Reasons to retain all major lines:
- DRL stop spacing will be much wider than on the YUS loop, hence a granular local service will be needed.
- When a scheduled or unscheduled subway service interuption occurs, it will be easier to substitute with large streetcars TTC is currently buying than with much smaller buses.
- The potential operational savings from providing the local service using buses instead of streecars will be small on the overall scale of TTC, since the length of affected routes is small.
Click to expand...
One of the advantages of the DRL is that it brings redundancy into the subway network where today there's none. When one line shuts down most riders have no alternative than to try to catch a replacement bus or walk. With the DRL, riders will have much more choice about which line to take. And if one is shut down, they can simply take another. In other words, there's no need to maintain a streetcar line to fill in when subway service is interrupted. DRL stations can be placed in a way that makes local surface transit unnecessary. Even two or three stations between Yonge and the Don would accomplish this. Continuing to run a surface streetcar on top of a subway would be wasteful and inefficient.

rbt said:
I agree entirely; but there are several variations which have not been studied.

We shouldn't plat cheap with it but at the same time if the same results (including economic) can be achieved for a lower price then it should be explored.

Specifically, what does the model give if we invest $5B into the Richmond Hill line? 4 stops (Steeles, Sheppard, Eglinton, Union or somewhere downtown), 5 minute frequencies, TTC integration including free transfers (see Paris fare system), straightened corridor, etc. Might need a bit of tunnel work through downtown to avoid Union (perhaps 2.5 minute interlined frequencies with SmartTrack?).

If it sucks, that's fine. At $7B we should spend 3 months and $1M exploring the option.
Click to expand...
No Danforth interchange would defeat the purpose of the whole line. Plus it doesn't sound like that route would relieve the streetcars at all. The Richmond Hill line could very well be upgraded to RER anyway, including TTC integration and free transfers, but that's no substitute for a DRL.
 
M II A II R II K said:
That's the one uncertainty about this line. Whether it be on Queen or King or further south than that.

And will it have BD stop spacing downtown or be more Victoria Line-esque and be a rapid relief line with far apart stations throughout.
Click to expand...

Considering that SmartTrack/RER seems here to stay now, I think that a route south of King is out of the question, and Queen is looking to be the most likely. We'll find out next month.
 
torontologist said:
Considering that SmartTrack/RER seems here to stay now, I think that a route south of King is out of the question, and Queen is looking to be the most likely. We'll find out next month.
Click to expand...

You could make a case for either King or Queen, but if I got a vote I would go with King. So many new condos going up, with more to come (Gehry buildings, etc) along with it running through the financial district.
 
Please, if we're going to tunnel a DRL, do it under Richmond (and Adelaide?), so that we can put the Gardiner in the same tunnels, between the DVP and Richmond off ramp westwards. The DRL could probably head north somewhere west of Bathurst, and the expressway could head south under Bathurst to a Front St. Extension, from which it could merge with the Gardiner along the CNE. The elevated Gardiner could be removed. No need to waste funds on a lousy hybrid. Kill two expensive birds with one stone.
 
A Gardiner tunnel through the heart of the financial district would add to the cost immensely. A six lane highway takes up a lot more space than a two track subway line. Not to mention the on/off ramps. Adding a Gardiner tunnel would probably bring the project to Big Dig levels of complexity and cost.
 
Rainforest said:
Reasons to retain all major lines:
- DRL stop spacing will be much wider than on the YUS loop, hence a granular local service will be needed.
- When a scheduled or unscheduled subway service interuption occurs, it will be easier to substitute with large streetcars TTC is currently buying than with much smaller buses.
Click to expand...

These are great points. Interruptions on a subway line are awful, but being able to run shuttle streetcars would be amazing.

Personally I'm betting on Queen because, from what I have anecdotally observed, the activity outside peak hours is higher (particularly during the night time), making demand less peak-y than the 9-to-5 rush on King. I know the 501 has higher ridership, but the Relief line evitably will bleed some of the ridership from it away, AND (this is big) the proposal to build the King pedestrian mall is on the table. Why establish a subway line underneath a street with an existing streetcar ROW?
 
id prefer king so we have proper station transfers at st andrews and king. Really dont look forward to a long transfer like what we see at Spadina station if the subway is built on either adelaide or wellington.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top