My Masters Projects on the Downtown Relief Line

[Jupiter]

I do agree with this. The airport doesn't make sense as a terminal point for Stage 4. Dundas West does make sense and you could probably cut off the idea and costs related to the DRL at Stage 3.

My view on it is the people in North Etobicoke have terrible, terrible transit service. This gets them a lot closer to the subway and with the density along Dixon... it's not like it's going to be cutting through the middle of nowhere.

Still... I'm well aware that the other stages are more important, hense why it's stage 4. If Stage One gets constructed I'll be ecstatic.

 

[reaperexpress]

My view on it is the people in North Etobicoke have terrible, terrible transit service. This gets them a lot closer to the subway and with the density along Dixon... it's not like it's going to be cutting through the middle of nowhere.

Still... I'm well aware that the other stages are more important, hense why it's stage 4. If Stage One gets constructed I'll be ecstatic.

I think that what people are getting at is that north of Bloor in the west end, the line has negligible "relief value" for Bloor-Yonge and the Yonge line. Essentially, it would be no different than other suburban subway extensions: improving transit to a badly served area. That said, I too strongly support extending it to Eglinton, and it would be nice if it went to the airport too. As you said on the site, that's way off into the future anyway so there's no point really worrying too much about it now.

And in the east, I'm torn on the value of extending the line to Seneca. On one hand:
- There's lots of room to build a high capacity bus terminal and an enormous parking lot in the hydro corridor.
The parking lot is particularly important since we may end up tolling the DVP. Drivers would have a strong incentive to get off the 404 or 401 and use the DRL, but at Don Mills station, there is not much room for more parking.
The bus terminal is important because Don Mills' terminal will not be able to handle the increase in bus traffic if the DRL is built.

On the other hand:
- While there are lots of towers in the area, they are very scattered, so it would be difficult to serve them with one or two subway stops. BRT to Don Mills station would be more effective for them.

I have a few personal opinions about the site:
- The orange background is a bit hard on the eyes (on my screen at least). Maybe something with smoother gradients would help.
- At the bottom of the "What is the DRL" page, you refer to the "history" section. It would be great to put a link directly on the words "history of the Downtown Relief Line".
- In the first sentence of the last paragraph in "Why did you choose to run the subway along Dixon Road?" you wrote "which" twice. "part of which on the western end which would need to be tunnelled anyway".
While were on that topic, I'm not sure the Dixon alignment would actually be any faster. Although it is shorter, the average speed would also be much lower, because on the rail corridor alignment stops could be around 4km apart, allowing speeds over 100km/h.
- On the General information page, there is too much writing. I would just have a few words for each topic. For example:

How you can help: Sign the petition, check out the facebook group and make suggestions.

Other than that, the website is awesome!

 

[EnviroTO]

There are some very unlikely routings. For example the positioning of a station at Bay & Wellington and then on Bremner has too many issues and not much benefits from the added expense. The route cuts under tall buildings and then there is a station in the middle of the south convention floor. A routing should stay on a street or in a corridor as much as possible.

 

[Jupiter]

There are some very unlikely routings. For example the positioning of a station at Bay & Wellington and then on Bremner has too many issues and not much benefits from the added expense. The route cuts under tall buildings and then there is a station in the middle of the south convention floor. A routing should stay on a street or in a corridor as much as possible.

Yeah, I considered the depth of the stations when I decided on this. I talked with Rod McPhail about it, and he said you can tunnel under buildings without any real incident... the issue simply becomes depth.

The added expense is something like $2 million per extra metre you have to go deeper. I would say the issue is less the expense, and more how much time is wasted by commuters having to go up and down 30 metres or so. Ultimately given how much is being constructed along Bremner combined with the dome, CN tower, and convention centre, then Cityplace west of that, I figured it was worth the extra depth myself.

Regardless, I understand there will be a lot of disagreement on the specifics of the proposal. Ultimately I selected a certain route to make the creation of the site easier, but an actual proper study would need to be done to determine the most optimal route. I feel the purpose of the site is less about the specific station placement and more to convince the public of the value of such a line, and I'm hoping it comes across well in that regard.

 

[Jupiter]

I think that what people are getting at is that north of Bloor in the west end, the line has negligible "relief value" for Bloor-Yonge and the Yonge line. Essentially, it would be no different than other suburban subway extensions: improving transit to a badly served area. That said, I too strongly support extending it to Eglinton, and it would be nice if it went to the airport too. As you said on the site, that's way off into the future anyway so there's no point really worrying too much about it now.

And in the east, I'm torn on the value of extending the line to Seneca. On one hand:
- There's lots of room to build a high capacity bus terminal and an enormous parking lot in the hydro corridor.
The parking lot is particularly important since we may end up tolling the DVP. Drivers would have a strong incentive to get off the 404 or 401 and use the DRL, but at Don Mills station, there is not much room for more parking.
The bus terminal is important because Don Mills' terminal will not be able to handle the increase in bus traffic if the DRL is built.

On the other hand:
- While there are lots of towers in the area, they are very scattered, so it would be difficult to serve them with one or two subway stops. BRT to Don Mills station would be more effective for them.

I have a few personal opinions about the site:
- The orange background is a bit hard on the eyes (on my screen at least). Maybe something with smoother gradients would help.
- At the bottom of the "What is the DRL" page, you refer to the "history" section. It would be great to put a link directly on the words "history of the Downtown Relief Line".
- In the first sentence of the last paragraph in "Why did you choose to run the subway along Dixon Road?" you wrote "which" twice. "part of which on the western end which would need to be tunnelled anyway".
While were on that topic, I'm not sure the Dixon alignment would actually be any faster. Although it is shorter, the average speed would also be much lower, because on the rail corridor alignment stops could be around 4km apart, allowing speeds over 100km/h.
- On the General information page, there is too much writing. I would just have a few words for each topic. For example:

How you can help: Sign the petition, check out the facebook group and make suggestions.

Other than that, the website is awesome!

Thanks, I and some friends tried editing it, but some things will always be missed. I'll give some thought to the background, add the link to the history section, and fix the Dixon thing.

The only way the rail corridor would be faster is if there are fewer stops, and then you have the question of if it's just the fastest, cheapest route to the airport, or if you're trying to have local service as well. Islington and Kipling both actually have the densities to support subway, I'm not sure anything along the Rexdale route would.

I'll also see if I can compress the general information page... Since the menus are expected to be used as submenus, that was more just for iPhone/iPad users, but I might as well try to make it better. That said... it may not be tonight. I really could use a break after the last week.

 

[GraphicMatt]

You did a really nice job on this. About the only thing that stood out to me was the notion that stop spacing on the DRL needs to be spread out to attract ridership. I don't think the line needs to be any faster than Yonge - ridership will happen because it's an alternative to the overcrowded Yonge line. You've essentially proposed an express train through Toronto East of the Don River with only two stops South of Bloor. This kind of proposal will be catnip for NIMBYs, rightly or wrongly.

 

[Jupiter]

You did a really nice job on this. About the only thing that stood out to me was the notion that stop spacing on the DRL needs to be spread out to attract ridership. I don't think the line needs to be any faster than Yonge - ridership will happen because it's an alternative to the overcrowded Yonge line. You've essentially proposed an express train through Toronto East of the Don River with only two stops South of Bloor. This kind of proposal will be catnip for NIMBYs, rightly or wrongly.

Appreciate the comments.

I considered that, but there's really nowhere north of Gerrard that deserves a stop, Eastern is only 300m or so away from Queen, so the only stop that you can make a case for as being "left out" is Dundas, but even then Dundas and the railway tracks are still within the 500m catchment zone of Gerrard and Queen... it's really not necessary, IMO. That said I don't live at Dundas and Logan, so... if I did I may feel differently.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I think it's something that's really important to consider, and maybe residents in the area can speak more to it. I just don't think you'd get a ton of traction proposing a multi-year construction project that will see a mostly above-ground train built through residential neighbourhoods that doesn't provide much in the way of local service.

 

[nfitz]

Edit: I see I can't edit the title. Hooray for unnecessary pluralization. I guess that's what happens when it's 5:00 in the morning and you haven't gone to bed yet.

I'd be more concerned about the spelling mistake. Unless your golfing, your not going to get a Masters! I thought it was a typo at first, but I noticed it's also spelled "Masters" on your website!

 

[Jupiter]

I'd be more concerned about the spelling mistake. Unless your golfing, your not going to get a Masters! I thought it was a typo at first, but I noticed it's also spelled "Masters" on your website!

Ugh. You can chalk that one up to incompetance. Time for find/replace...

 

[Jupiter]

I think it's something that's really important to consider, and maybe residents in the area can speak more to it. I just don't think you'd get a ton of traction proposing a multi-year construction project that will see a mostly above-ground train built through residential neighbourhoods that doesn't provide much in the way of local service.

FWIW, the original 1985 plan only had stops at Gerrard and Queen too, and it took a longer route. There hasn't really been a lot of development north of Gerrard since then... But you're right, the residents would have to be considered. But so would those who want a faster trip.

 

[Tulse]

I'm not sure I understand the "vibrancy" arguments against a Queen routing. Certainly there are several spots on current subway lines with vibrant communities, in spite of the stop distances and no local surface service (e.g., Greektown, the Annex). I'm not necessarily a partisan for taking the DRL along Queen (arguably its current heavy use might mitigate against it being a very good "relief" route for Y/B), but I don't think long-term impact on the community is a reasonable argument against it.

 

[Second_in_pie]

The point is that a route like Queen really needs local service. The DRL might need around 800m spacing along a Front/Rail alignment to serve the communities well, while it would need 400m spacing along Queen to serve the community properly. And Queen has nowhere near the same type of density that Front-Waterfront has.

 

[Tulse]

The point is that a route like Queen really needs local service.

Again, Greektown does without local surface service, as does The Annex, and I'd suggest that they are every bit as "vibrant" as Queen East (by which I presume most people really mean "The Beach" as there are long stretches of un-vibrancy from Yonge east until The Beach). I don't see why any argument for Queen wouldn't apply equally to those areas.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Firstly, I was talking about it specifically from a transit needs POV. Secondly, read the rest of the post. I mention that Front/Railway has way, way more density than Queen has. Thirdly, the point of the point is that Queen's built form necessitates at least 600m stop spacing, if not closer to 400m. Compare that time to 800m that could be done on Front/Rail corridor and it's a done deal when the line has to hold up to non-local passengers as well.