[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yeah, the whole downtown bit of the alignment seems a little hokey, but at this stage, they can always trade more underground for increased price, and there is some merit to using an above ground alignment northward anyways. If they go for Broadview, they might as well tie it up with the current relief line corridor A & C hybrid:

Corridor A

Corridor C

Perhaps they should just bury it and forget about going above and underground after Broadview.

AoD

 

[nfitz]

I am a little curious about how the diversion from Yonge was projected to be 2K higher than DRL long even though it has the same amount of rail connectivity, markedly fewer stations, lower level of bus connectivity and a very marginal decrease in travel time.

Good question. I'd assume it's very sensitive to travel time. Most of which they've gained by having less stops between Danforth and Yonge. Could probably achieve similar at Pape using stops.

I'm a bit concerned it's so far from Thorncliffe, and doesn't serve Flemingdon Park. Though I wonder if a hybrid between what they have north of Eglinton and the Long Subway route south of Eglinton mightn't be the best choice.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Good question. I'd assume it's very sensitive to travel time. Most of which they've gained by having less stops between Danforth and Yonge. Could probably achieve similar at Pape using stops.

I'm a bit concerned it's so far from Thornecliffe, and doesn't serve Flemingdon Park. Though I wonder if a hybrid between what they have north of Eglinton and the Long Subway route south of Eglinton mightn't be the best choice.

I don't know how valid that sensitivity is - it seems rather overstated. Agree re: hybrid.

AoD

 

[Forgotten]

They also put 27 minutes as travel time from Don Mills to Union, which would only even be close to that when the system is running normally. I.e. sunday mornings

That document is filled with so many spelling errors and typos it wouldn't surprise me if it spilled over into the numbers. How embarrassingly unprofessional. The numbers may not be cooked, they could simply be wrong. That's the problem with leaving responsibility for large volumes of text like this to unpaid interns or worse.

 

[nfitz]

The numbers may not be cooked, they could simply be wrong. That's the problem with leaving responsibility for large volumes of text like this to unpaid interns or worse.

I doubt very much there are any unpaid interns. That practice is not common in the engineering sector - mostly because Section 77 7(v) of Regulation 941 under the Professional Engineers Act requires "adequate compensation for engineering work". Thus engineering consultancies don't tend to have unpaid interns ... other than perhaps the occasional high-school student who'd never come with a 10-foot pole of any work product.

I didn't really notice numerous spelling errors/typos when I browsed through it. I'm sure there's some ... I'm always shocked at what I find reading my work years later - despite numerous reads from multiple reviewers.

 

[jaybe]

Interesting Report. It dismisses RER (SMART Track) from further analysis as an option to effectively address the requirement for Yonge Relief.

Looking at the surface subway route (Figure 6.6: Option 5 - Surface Subway) and evaluating it based on the DRL study of proposed stations/stops and the criteria they used, this option makes little sense. Most of the route is through valued green space in the Don Valley and area. It does not directly service key population centers (including the underserved Thorncliffe and Flemington Park neighborhoods). It provides little room for future development because much of the route is in green space. Not surprising, it has pretty good travel time to St. Andrew when compared with the long subway (it has only 8 stops vs 14 for the long subway) and is less expensive. I'm surprised to see the ridership numbers for the Surface Subway and Long Subway) are relatively the same.

I gather it is presented as a necessary comparison point to the more costly long subway option.

 

[CapitalSeven]

There are some mistakes in the document, including the travel times in a couple of cases, but most of it seems solid, and you have to give them credit for applying some imagination. The surface subway may have been included to some degree as an extreme example of what you could do to emphasize most relief at lowest cost, but disregarding "city building" factors. There are many important areas we've been assuming to be on or near the DRL that are completely ignored. It's a study in contrast with "long" which does both but costs a lot more. What are you willing to pay? Who are you willing to piss off?

 

[Rainforest]

Of the two shortlisted options, "Long" is certainly more appealing:

1) As has been mentioned by others, "Long" option is much more useful for East Toronto, East York, Thorncliffe / Overlea, and Flemmington areas. The "Surface" options basically bypasses all of them.

2) "Long" option is much easier to split into phases, and that partly mitigates its higher cost. Once Phase 1 is built from downtown to Danforth or to Eglinton, it will be relatively easy to secure funding for the remaining section up to Sheppard or Finch.

"Surface" option has few stops even if built in full; the number of stops would be ridiculously small for a shorter Phase 1.

3) Cheaper "Surface" option relies on a number of assumptions that may turn to be either not doable at all or costlier than expected once the detailed studies are complete. In that case, we will be stuck with an inferior route that is not much cheaper than the optimal one.

"Long" option is costly, but at least its cost can be predicted with better accuracy.

 

[Rainforest]

Perhaps they can select "Long" option, but borrow the idea of at-grade running along Don Mills Rd from the "Surface" option. If the line runs on surface in the middle of Don Mills from just south of Sheppard to just north of The Donway, that saves 3 km of tunneling and at least $600 million in costs. After The Donway, the line can go underground and follow the conventional DRL route.

 

[44 North]

I was trying to design a route diagram for this "Surface Subway" as per YRNS' description, but the point between Broadview and King is pretty vague. And in this section the alignment does differ slightly from the LRT proposal. It makes note that the line exits the valley wall south of Broadview Stn, crosses the Don, then follows "a new rail corridor" (where?) that will "impact adjacent parks" (which park, Riverdale East or West?). This corridor is followed all the way to near Queen before the line somehow goes underground to align below King St, but where and how it does this I don't know. Either way, I don't think it's wise to run a subway line next to the Don River.

And I didn't see it before, but the report does in fact note all seven stations for this proposal - with York Mills being the one I was wondering about. I find it odd that no station would be offered in the Thorncliffe/Leaside area, particularly since the recent New Station Analysis shortlisted a proposal for a GO RH stop along the same corridor at Millwood. If a 300m GO train could stop, why not a subway train?

Yeah, the whole downtown bit of the alignment seems a little hokey, but at this stage, they can always trade more underground for increased price, and there is some merit to using an above ground alignment northward anyways. If they go for Broadview, they might as well tie it up with the current relief line corridor A & C hybrid:

If we were to add more underground to this surface subway proposal, and tie it in with the City/TTC Relief Line, I think it'd be wise to align below River Street instead of running alongside the Don River. Naturally this sounds like I'm trying to push a fantasy proposal, but if Metrolinx supports this current alignment and deems it worthy of full eval; it wouldn't hurt to see if it works. I think a portal NE of Gerrard/River instead of along the volatile Don near King makes more sense. This would give us an opportunity to create a station in Regent Park (near where the Dundas/Sumach green dot is located for TTC's Corridor A). Half a km of tunnel + 1 station, to an area seeing major growth and highrise proposals, shouldn't affect the cost-benefits or 'relief' abilities all that much. If it doesn't work, just as much of the surface subway might not, well who cares. It'll all come out in the wash, and we can go back to the more grounded City/TTC proposals.

 

[Edward Skira]

Perhaps they can select "Long" option, but borrow the idea of at-grade running along Don Mills Rd from the "Surface" option. If the line runs on surface in the middle of Don Mills from just south of Sheppard to just north of The Donway, that saves 3 km of tunneling and at least $600 million in costs. After The Donway, the line can go underground and follow the conventional DRL route.

Just build it properly in the first place. No one will remember the cost 50 years from now but they will benefit from doing it properly. Go long and go underground. It will pay its way in no time.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Just build it properly in the first place. No one will remember the cost 50 years from now but they will benefit from doing it properly. Go long and go underground. It will pay its way in no time.

+1

 

[W. K. Lis]

Eglinton Avenue looking west from Yonge Street in 1920. In 30 years, there would be a subway near there. In 100 years, an underground LRT along this street.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Read the article on The radical re-imagining of Yonge St. at this link.

Toronto’s once-derelict main street is in the midst of the most remarkable transformation in its history, with more than 20,000 condos that will house more than 30,000 people — the population of Orillia — under construction or in the planning stages.

...and all those people maybe waiting and waiting to board already crowded subway trains on the Line 1.

Meanwhile, the 97 Yonge bus, which runs on the surface from Steeles to Queens Quay, has headways of 15 to 30 minutes. While the Line 1 has headways of 5 minutes or better. Miss a bus and take a chance to see if you can board a crowded train underneath.

The 97 Yonge bus should have at the very least 10 minutes headways, 5 minutes would be better. It maybe a small help to relieve crowding on Line 1, until the DRL opens. There is the 6 Bay bus, but it only is helpful below Bloor Street. Too bad there is no Church Street bus service. Still, above Bloor, the service on the 97 Yonge should be increased.

 

[nfitz]

Meanwhile, the 97 Yonge bus, which runs on the surface from Steeles to Queens Quay, has headways of 15 to 30 minutes. While the Line 1 has headways of 5 minutes or better. Miss a bus and take a chance to see if you can board a crowded train underneath.

The 97 Yonge bus should have at the very least 10 minutes headways, 5 minutes would be better. It maybe a small help to relieve crowding on Line 1, until the DRL opens. There is the 6 Bay bus, but it only is helpful below Bloor Street. Too bad there is no Church Street bus service. Still, above Bloor, the service on the 97 Yonge should be increased.

The subway currently runs on headways of every 3.5 minutes or better. At peak it runs 25.5 trains an hour, while the bus runs 4 buses an hour. If you boosted the bus to every 5 minutes, that would an additional 8 buses an hour - or 453 passengers - less than 0.4 of a subway train. That's really not going to have much impact.

To add, say a 20% increase in capacity to the Yonge Line you'd have to add 106 buses an hour. That's about a bus every 30 seconds - and from Steeles to Queens Quay would require 275 buses in service. That's what you have to do to start having a bit of impact. In reality you probably need about 50% not 20% ... with spares that's over 800 buses.