Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[nfitz]

Well, I am the author of the website www.briangraff.com and actually posted it on Steve Munro's site as well... and one more thing, I am runing for Council in ward 32

let me explain the genesis and reasoning here... from several viewpoints

You've missed the most important factor. Your line does nothing to relieve Bloor-Yonge. It's not going to get get people to change from the Bloor line at Castle Frank. It doesn't improve travel times to downtown. And there's no natural ridership on that corridor (AM peak on the Parliament bus is about 3 buses an hour - less than 200 per hour).

Sure it's cheaper than a DRL. However, with no relief provided, it doesn't stop the need for the DRL. And is a waste of money.

Not sure why we need anyone else running in Ward 32. McMahon is popular enough, and has wide support (no I didn't vote for her). There's not reason to think she won't win by a landslide (might vote for this time though - because there's no point going back to the past now).

I'm not sure why you think tunnelling a subway in bedrock near the West Donlands would be a problem. The bedrock is shallow - it would be easier to tunnel there, than in the flowing sands on Eglinton. They didn't have any problems with that recent TBM they used to tunnel the new north-south sewer under the same area as far as I know (it was certainly completed on time, without fuss). Why then do you think a subway would be difficult - it's not like your going to put it at ground surface!

 

[salsa]

Well, I am the author of the website www.briangraff.com and actually posted it on Steve Munro's site as well... and one more thing, I am runing for Council in ward 32.

It's funny how new transit plans always come out during an election.

 

[btg]

It's funny how new transit plans always come out during an election.

I came up with this a long time ago and only decided to run in July. It was mentioned on Munro's site in January, the powerpoint done in April

 

[btg]

That unused station at Yonge and Queen is completely useless to us. Part of it is an underground pedestrian walkway to connect the north and south platforms. The rest of it is full of utilities that I'm sure would be expensive to relocate.

See http://transit.toronto.on.ca/subway/5006.shtml

This is a city that put a convention centre under a roundhouse and park... these are trivial problems and depending on the costs, there is always the option of where the route could go.

 

[btg]

You've missed the most important factor. Your line does nothing to relieve Bloor-Yonge. It's not going to get get people to change from the Bloor line at Castle Frank. It doesn't improve travel times to downtown. And there's no natural ridership on that corridor (AM peak on the Parliament bus is about 3 buses an hour - less than 200 per hour).

Sure it's cheaper than a DRL. However, with no relief provided, it doesn't stop the need for the DRL. And is a waste of money.

Bussin is also running, and I won't get into that discussing the local race here...


how is the travel time any shorter on the proposed DRL if it goes under, say Pape of Coxwell? A trip from Victoria Park station to Yonge and Queen will be phyiscal as long if it is a combination or pure east-west lines - the only way a line is shorter is if it is ona diagonal.

Stops with any system (LRT or subway") will be relatively close together - 1/2 km to 1km, so top speed is not an issue, acceleration and deceleration is not that different, the time in the station is roughly the same, lrts can actually run closer together, though the capacity is lower, please explain how there is a significant diference in time, if the LRT is underground? Plan B with surface routes will take longer, of course.

so, if you can avoid the jam at Yonge Bloor and get off 2 stops earlier, get on an underground LRT with roughly the same travel time, then why not take it if it is less congested?

It requires study to see how many people would use it - maybe it makes no sense, but why not study it to see what impact it would have on travel patterns...

There are other options... how about the line underground down arliament, but rather than Queen station, then it turns under Richmond (westbound) and Adelaide) "eastbound) to run through the Core, then the vehicles run north/south using the Spadina LRT ROW...

This is a city where we fail to think ahead or welcome new ideas... when they built the railwaylands, they could have buried the Gardiner, or provided for it an an option and left land vacant for it to be relocated later, and/or roughed in a tunnel for transit under Bremner Boulevard. Nobody ask the right questions, or was it because we like cheap fast and expedient.

Instead of having open minds, someone suggests something and immediately someone else will dismiss it, rather than asking questions or exploring the potential in it to see if it might lead to something else that might be even better. So much for Toronto being a city of creative people!

 

[btg]

Here are photos of the 2 bridges - and you can see how the one older bridge is a duplicate of the Bloor Street Viaduct/Prince Edward Viaduct.

It has the same ability to accept a lower deck for public transit. The bridge couldn't be used for a subway in the 1960s, and generally the TTC has forgotten about it but with the ability to put in underground LRTs, it is possible to put in transit under the bridge and have it be able to avoid the subway line, and to connect farther east into Castle Frank station.

Castle Frank also has easy access to the DVP - it is really a good place for some TTC express buses or even GO buses to stop, so it becomes a sort of transit node.

The point I have been trying to make is that this bridge which has the capacity to accept LRTs with minimal modifications opens up several opportunities to improve transit in the core by running something underground at least as far as Parliament south of Bloor - it could just be the ability to link streetcars into Castle frank, or it could be something far more ambitious which could be a substitute for the DRL which can be built for less, and therefore built far sooner.

 

[nfitz]

Bussin is also running

She is indeed. I thought Bussin made a good councillor, she was very active in the ward, I think she was more effective than McMahon and I supported her in 2010. But I can't understand why she's back. It wasn't even close in 2010, and McMahon is widely supported.

and I won't get into that discussing the local race here...

Fair enough.

how is the travel time any shorter on the proposed DRL if it goes under, say Pape of Coxwell?

I don't think it can go down Coxwell. That trunk sewer I think sterilizes that route.

The simple answer is - less stations and a much easier transfer. You'd have an interchange station at Pape (or Donlands - which is what the 1960s TTC plans showed), where transfers are easy. Look at Castle Frank - where are you going to put the new platforms? And then you'd have only a handful of stations from Donlands/Pape to Queen or King. Say Gerrard, Queen/Broadview, River, Sherbourne, Yonge. So from Donlands to Yonge you only have 5 stations. Currently you have 6 from Donlands to Yonge - and you still haven't left Bloor! There's another 4 or 5 on Yonge to get to Queen or King.

A trip from Victoria Park station to Yonge and Queen will be phyiscal as long if it is a combination or pure east-west lines - the only way a line is shorter is if it is ona diagonal.

A diagonal line would help. But go back to the physics of it. Less stations is more important than a shorter line.

so, if you can avoid the jam at Yonge Bloor and get off 2 stops earlier, get on an underground LRT with roughly the same travel time, then why not take it if it is less congested?

This is the problem though. It's roughly the same travel time. The beauty of why the DRL works is the reduced travel time, and you've lost it. Quite frankly, I'd fear you might even get a longer travel time - though I'm one of those rare 200 on the Parliament bus in AM peak.

It requires study to see how many people would use it - maybe it makes no sense, but why not study it to see what impact it would have on travel patterns...

Really what we need in the next phase of study, is an evaluation of various alignments, and what it does with the modelling to reduce crowding on the Yonge line - particularly between Roseville and Bloor - and Bloor and Wellesely. I suppose there's no harm on looking at this alignment. But I expect it would be quickly eliminatd.

Instead of having open minds, someone suggests something and immediately someone else will dismiss it, rather than asking questions or exploring the potential in it to see if it might lead to something else that might be even better. So much for Toronto being a city of creative people!

Surely the last place we should be pulling new alignments out of the air is a political campaign! Sure, there's nothing wrong with ideas. We've been discussing those in this thread for years already ...

 

[TransitPolicyChanger]

View attachment 33205View attachment 33206

Here are photos of the 2 bridges - and you can see how the one older bridge is a duplicate of the Bloor Street Viaduct/Prince Edward Viaduct.

It has the same ability to accept a lower deck for public transit. The bridge couldn't be used for a subway in the 1960s, and generally the tTC has forgotten about it but with the ability to put in underground LRTs, it is possible to put in transit under th ebridge and have it be able to avoid the subway line, and to connect farther east into Castle Frank station.

Castle Frank also has easy access to the DVP - it is really a good place for some TTC express buses or even GO buses to stop, so it becomes a sort of transit node.

The point I have been trying to make is that this bridge which has the capacity to accept LRTs with minimal modifications opens up several opportunities to improve transit in the core by running something underground at least as far as Parliament south of Bloor - it could just be the ability to link streetcars into Castle frank, or it could be something far more ambitious which could be a substitute for the DRL which can be built for less, and therefore built far sooner.

Using this bridge for this "plan" makes no sense, and would provide minimal overall improvement for a lot of money.

Just because it has capacity for an underground line does not mean there is any value in using it - the alignments make no sense, there would be no ability to extend west (where would it go?) and it doesn't serve to expand the subway network as a whole and serve other parts of the City. This plan would only serve one purpose - to reduce the load at Bloor-Yonge. There would be almost no local demand, I dont really follow the DVP point, and would be a terrible spot for a transit node.

 

[btg]

Using this bridge for this "plan" makes no sense, and would provide minimal overall improvement for a lot of money.

Just because it has capacity for an underground line does not mean there is any value in using it - the alignments make no sense, there would be no ability to extend west (where would it go?) and it doesn't serve to expand the subway network as a whole and serve other parts of the City. This plan would only serve one purpose - to reduce the load at Bloor-Yonge. There would be almost no local demand, I dont really follow the DVP point, and would be a terrible spot for a transit node.

Extending "West" - the idea is that is does go west from this bridge only to Parliament, where it turns south... there is no point in go west of Parlimanet along Bloor as of course it then goes to Sherbourne station.

"Expanding the Subway network" - well, do you consider the buried portions of the "Crosstown" as subways or as LRTs? Traditional "subways" like the YUS are at least twice as expensive per km as LRTs and we lack the funding for even doing somethin glike extending Sheppard or doing the extension of the Bloor Danforth line without raising other proposed lines.

LRTs that run down the middle of a major road are controversial - not very fast, interfere with road traffic (left hand turns, no other vehicles can use the lane unlike HOVs) and are not the way to go in most areas, particularly in the Core. If the idea here is that we need high capacity transit (more than cheaper buses can provide) then we either need to elevate or bury transit lines.

Reusing this bridge would provide a "buried" high capacity means of public transit to link the Bloor Danforth line and the Financial Core, adding in extra capacity, being roughly as fast as the YUS if it was buried, and adding transit capacity in a part of the city that lacks anything other than buses running north-south, and where the Official Plan calls for intensification, as opposed to building transit lines through stable areas where virtually no growth is to occur (with the only exception being that many Avenues are possible intensification areas - that is another debate)

And if we do not do the full underground LRT line to the core, then at the very minimum, streetcar tracks from Parliament and Carlton can be run north, then go underground just south of Bloor (similar to the Spadina LRT) and then provide an extra connection between streetcars and subways that helps to siphon on riders from the stations along Yonge south of Bloor.

 

[btg]

The simple answer is - less stations and a much easier transfer. You'd have an interchange station at Pape (or Donlands - which is what the 1960s TTC plans showed), where transfers are easy. Look at Castle Frank - where are you going to put the new platforms? And then you'd have only a handful of stations from Donlands/Pape to Queen or King. Say Gerrard, Queen/Broadview, River, Sherbourne, Yonge. So from Donlands to Yonge you only have 5 stations. Currently you have 6 from Donlands to Yonge - and you still haven't left Bloor! There's another 4 or 5 on Yonge to get to Queen or King.

A diagonal line would help. But go back to the physics of it. Less stations is more important than a shorter line.

This is the problem though. It's roughly the same travel time. The beauty of why the DRL works is the reduced travel time, and you've lost it. Quite frankly, I'd fear you might even get a longer travel time - though I'm one of those rare 200 on the Parliament bus in AM peak.

Other than the current subway stops on the BD or YUS line, the number of stops is not determined. In theory, a line underground from Castle frank to Queen and Yonge could have no stops and be purely an express route - but look how far apart the stops are on the buried part of the Eglinton Crosstown.

Its like a grid. to get from any point on a grid to any other point, if everything is right angles, is the same distance regardless of which east-west and north-south segments you use, unless you run diagonals. But the same is true of how many stations you have - we can have stations at every major intersection on the grid of streets, or we can skip some with any buried line. A line under Parliament would likely have the same stops at the Yonge subway line, but then there will still be some surface streetcars on Parliament (if it didn't zig-zag or cut diagonally over to Jarvis using deeper tunnels, for example).

This is the trade-off - having fewer stations farther apart makes transit faster for people coming from farther way, but means less local service and longer walking distances. On Danforth, subway stations are far apart, about 1km this is quite different than the Queen streetcar.

the problem is we need both - people like "subways" as they are fast and you go co a long distance quickly and comfortably, providing the stop is close to your destination or is well connected to other transit. But we also need local service like buses and streetcars - a transit line cannot do both functions well, and things like the St. Clair LRT are not all that much faster than before, nor is the capacity increased much.

Your argument about travel time makes no sense to me, frankly.

For the sake of convenience, assume the difference here is between a "subway" type DRL running under Broadview to Queen, then turning west, which is in the study area, and my proposal under Parliament. Assume that both alternatives go to Parliament and King Street... any BD stations east of Braodview are used with either route, and any stops on King west of Parliament are common...

The difference in the number of stations is minimal and depends on

 

[btg]

So, the TTC/Metrolinx are looking at a Broadview route as one of their options - presumably it would use "subway" heavy rail (in blue) but could be LRT type vehicles, depending on a variety of factors, but TTC is not looking at the red alignment from Castle Frank, in RED, which really cannot be a "subway" (anything is possible, but I am not considering it as viable).

In terms of the number of stations there is no difference really just one extra station, in terms of physical length, there is no real difference and the Parliament route means less new tunneling, and avoids going under the Don River.

The reason why the Parliament Route has an extra stop is because of Wellesley - whereas east of the Don River on Broadview or Pape, ther is no major east west rod between Gerrard and Danforth.

NOW look at the population density along each route. The Parliament route runs right by St. Jamestown and Regent Park, and Queen and Parliament is also closer to some of the employment uses in the brick and beam area and where new condos are going or already exist.

There is another option 2 - which is to do the Parliament route and then build another tunnel east to, say Eastern Avenue or Queen & River street, which would man that streetcars on Queen could actually go underground, for something like the crosstown LRt where part is in a tunnel and part is above grade...

Think of the proposed DRL as an expensive subway though residential areas, whereas what I am proposing is really BURYING the King streetcar ADN running an underground extension up to Bloor, to connect in to the only place possible in the core, where no other major transit line is proposed depite the extra density that is or will be built.

 

[sixrings]

View attachment 33210

So, the TTC/Metrolinx are looking at a Broadview route as one of their options - presumably it would use "subway" heavy rail (in blue) but could be LRT type vehicles, depending on a variety of factors, but TTC is not looking at the red alignment from Castle Frank, in RED, which really cannot be a "subway" (anything is possible, but I am not considering it as viable).

In terms of the number of stations there is no difference really just one extra station, in terms of physical length, there is no real difference and the Parliament route means less new tunneling, and avoids going under the Don River.

The reason why the Parliament Route has an extra stop is because of Wellesley - whereas east of the Don River on Broadview or Pape, ther is no major east west rod between Gerrard and Danforth.

NOW look at the population density along each route. The Parliament route runs right by St. Jamestown and Regent Park, and Queen and Parliament is also closer to some of the employment uses in the brick and beam area and where new condos are going or already exist.

There is another option 2 - which is to do the Parliament route and then build another tunnel east to, say Eastern Avenue or Queen & River street, which would man that streetcars on Queen could actually go underground, for something like the crosstown LRt where part is in a tunnel and part is above grade...

Think of the proposed DRL as an expensive subway though residential areas, whereas what I am proposing is really BURYING the King streetcar ADN running an underground extension up to Bloor, to connect in to the only place possible in the core, where no other major transit line is proposed depite the extra density that is or will be built.

Rather than politicians coming up with their own transit schemes it would make much more sense to go on urban Toronto and copy paste GWEEDS or skyscrapercity TRZS or stevemunro.ca!

 

[btg]

Look at Castle Frank - where are you going to put the new platforms?

This should answer that... the current platorms are under the bus terminal - there is space under Bloor Street itself, and space for a loop under the grass in front of the Danforth School for the Arts..

The tricky part is ensuring that if this is ever extended north, that the LRT can go under the subway tunnels just before they go into the Prince Edward Viaduct

View attachment 33213

 

[sixrings]

This should answer that... the current platorms are under the bus terminal - there is space under Bloor Street itself, and space for a loop under the grass in front of the Danforth School for the Arts..

The tricky part is ensuring that if this is ever extended north, that the LRT can go under the subway tunnels just before they go into the Prince Edward Viaduct

View attachment 33211

Just confused why you would rather come up with your own plan then just consult an expert. Ego?

 

[nfitz]

Extending "West" - the idea is that is does go west from this bridge only to Parliament, where it turns south... there is no point in go west of Parlimanet along Bloor as of course it then goes to Sherbourne station.

Ah ... I see. It's an interesting idea.

It would provide for quite a convenient connection at Castle Frank. Though it still suffers the other issues I noted. There just isn't the demand on Parliament, and it doesn't provide the time savings that intercepting the Danforth subway further east provides.

Other than the current subway stops on the BD or YUS line, the number of stops is not determined. In theory, a line underground from Castle frank to Queen and Yonge could have no stops and be purely an express route - but look how far apart the stops are on the buried part of the Eglinton Crosstown.

True. And a pure underground express from Castle Frank to say Queen and Yonge (or King and Yonge) would work as effectively for relief. But how much would it cost? Your still looking at about 3.5 km of tunnel. Your only looking at 5.5 km to get to Donlands, and at the same time, you provide other transit solutions, such as getting subway to Gerrard Square. Queen East. And a couple of stations between Yonge and the Don, that would provide some good transit.

You'd save money on all the stations I suppose. And that's the biggest cost of a subway. You know, I could perhaps see such a scheme in the far future, when a DRL isn't enough.

Still looking at your plan - https://web.archive.org/web/2014081...3/4/5/5/3455467/brian_graff_revised_-_drl.pdf

I see issues. Underground loop? Why not simply have two-ended operation like on Eglinton? I suppose that's a detail.

Okay, if your serious about having no stops, I'll withdraw my comment about it being completely absurd. However, we have some other very serious issues that a subway can deal with, such as the disaster on King Street, especially with all the new development on both King East and King West. And how to service the Unilever lands. Combining an east-west subway here (to at least Bathurst), with the Downtown Relief line into Pape/Donlands, and then an extension up to the very dense Thorncliffe/Flemingdon Park area creates a relatively short 12.5 km or so line, that would by some of Metrolinx's modelling be busier than the Bloor-Danforth line. That's very attractive.

On Danforth, subway stations are far apart, about 1km this is quite different than the Queen streetcar.

1-km spacing on Danforth? It's 3.8 km on the original Danforth subway from Broadview to Woodbine, and there's 7 stations. That's an average spacing of about 600 metres - and most are even closer, given it's 900 metres on the much longer stretch from Coxwell to Woodine! If there was 1-km spacing there would only be 3 stations between Broadview and Woodbine, rather than 5.

Your argument about travel time makes no sense to me, frankly.

Because the only way you can make your DRL work, is to have no (or one) station between Castle Frank and downtown. Intecepting Danforth further east allows both for an improved travel time, and some additional stations.

Without the improved travel time, your not providing the incentive for people to change vehicles at Castle Frank, and you don't create enough relief of Bloor-Yonge station.

So, the TTC/Metrolinx are looking at a Broadview route as one of their options

Are they? It's also very flawed. One of the requirements of an environmental assessment is to look at multiple options. Sometimes you just toss in one you know is going to fail. I have to wonder if this is it.