Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[ehlow]

It's less than ideal if the Tory plan results in the cancelation of the Relief Line. GO RER + the Relief Line is clearly the better option.

Sure... both is better than one.

Yonge will still be there 200 years from now (assuming nothing horrible happens).

It's amazing you can say that with such confidence given that cars, streetcars, subways, and lightbulbs were not widely used or invented 200 years ago.
The 1st electric underground train aka subway was built 124 years ago in 1890, so no subway has ever lasted even close to 200 years.

I don't know about that. All I can say is that if I had to pick between waiting 7 years for something to be built that I'd get to use within my lifetime, or waiting 15 years for something better that I'll never get to use it in my lifetime, I'd easily pick the latter. I still want this city to build things the right way even if I'll have zero use for it. It's for similar reasons why I support my taxes paying for things that I know I have no personal use for.

Maybe my perspective will change 30 years from now, when my impending mortality is more a concern.

To me the point of transit is to make people's lives better, and I do care about people that are alive now. 15-20 years is a big chunk of someone's life. I have nothing against long term projects but for me a line being open in 7 years vs 15 is a big difference, to me.

If you don't care whether it's 7, 15, or 25 years later because you're concerned about the year 2214... ok

It's not about age, I'm not that old

 

[diminutive]

Let's assume for a moment that this Tory version of a DRL is what gets built and the 'real' DRL is a long ways off. Not saying I agree with that, but assuming this is the case, what can be done to make Tory's plan better?

I'd suggest the following (and no, I haven't costed any of this out):

• More stations through the core and "shoulder areas," especially in lieu of where density is going and especially since this is to be financed via TIF. Probably four extra stations between Dundas West and Main are required, three in the west and likely one around St. Lawrence.
• Potentially having the line veer off the rail corridor to operate in a tunnel through the core under Wellington (perhaps between Jarvis-area and Spadina-area). This would help to alleviate the crowding situation at Union.
• Remove all parking along the route and create a dedicated ROW for all streetcars on either the 504 King or 505 Dundas lines to somewhat replicate the path of a 'real' DRL. A larger step would be to bury this streetcar line through the core too (perhaps Parliament to Bathurst). This would somewhat relieve Yonge-Bloor Station istelf too, but there would still be issues as Don Mills / Leaside, etc. would no longer be served via DRL.
• Extend the Eglinton Crosstown instead to service the Airport Corporate Centre as it is going that way anyway. SmartTrack should remain on the rail corridor and simply terminate at YYZ (similar to the UPX, but as a local 'cheaper' service).

More core stations definitely seems like a good idea. Ideally, the line would have a station everywhere it could have a transfer to a streetcar route.

As for a tunnel component, what would it add? Arguably it could save some congestion at Union, but that would be at the expense of having to deal with congestion issues at King stn or wherever, where it would be much more expensive to deal with. The issue with Union isn't space, it's issues in handling trains (long dwell times) and narrow platforms and vertical separation. It would be much cheaper to fix those than to build underground interchange stations.

I think LRT-ifying much of the downtown streetcar network would do way more for local transit than any 'real' DRL. If you managed to consistently keep route speeds in the 18-23 km/h range, a DRL wouldn't even be faster once you include inevitably higher access times. Coupled with more cycle routes with better protection and local transit downtown could see a big bump.

I was surprised by the Eglinton West component of the line as well. Without more detailed info it's hard to say, but there could be some benefits to that component though. It wouldn't surprise me if the Mississauga Transitway was a much bigger source of riders than Pearson. MT feeder routes could use the Transitway to feed into this Eglinton West line and have a relatively quick trip downtown. Especially if expanding GO transit service on the Milton line proves to difficult/expensive, feeder buses from a fairly big area could feed into this line for a quick ride downtown.

The Western ECLRT seems like it would serve a totally different market. I'm not sure it would be very useful for MT transfer riders, due to lower intended speeds. I don't really know what an LRT on Eglinton West would serve that a bus couldn't do just as well.

 

[ehlow]

More core stations definitely seems like a good idea. Ideally, the line would have a station everywhere it could have a transfer to a streetcar route.

As for a tunnel component, what would it add? Arguably it could save some congestion at Union, but that would be at the expense of having to deal with congestion issues at King stn or wherever, where it would be much more expensive to deal with. The issue with Union isn't space, it's issues in handling trains (long dwell times) and narrow platforms and vertical separation. It would be much cheaper to fix those than to build underground interchange stations.

I think LRT-ifying much of the downtown streetcar network would do way more for local transit than any 'real' DRL. If you managed to consistently keep route speeds in the 18-23 km/h range, a DRL wouldn't even be faster once you include inevitably higher access times. Coupled with more cycle routes with better protection and local transit downtown could see a big bump.

I was surprised by the Eglinton West component of the line as well. Without more detailed info it's hard to say, but there could be some benefits to that component though. It wouldn't surprise me if the Mississauga Transitway was a much bigger source of riders than Pearson. MT feeder routes could use the Transitway to feed into this Eglinton West line and have a relatively quick trip downtown. Especially if expanding GO transit service on the Milton line proves to difficult/expensive, feeder buses from a fairly big area could feed into this line for a quick ride downtown.

The Western ECLRT seems like it would serve a totally different market. I'm not sure it would be very useful for MT transfer riders, due to lower intended speeds. I don't really know what an LRT on Eglinton West would serve that a bus couldn't do just as well.

This idea of LRT-ifying the streetcars is interesting to me. How much could we improve the streetcars, and how? For me improving would mean faster and more reliable.

Here are some ideas that come to mind, some are already happening:
- banning cars from the streetcar lane
- banning left turns, or somehow rearranging the road/signal so that you a streetcar never waits behind a left turning car
- could we make traffic lights give green to streetcars either through signalling or simply giving green to the main streetcar roads most of the time?
- further stop spacing
- the new vehicles with have all-door low floor boarding and off board payment should decrease dwell times

Would doing all the above create a significant improvement in capacity reliability & speed?

With regards to Eglinton west, what I found interesting was that unlike the ECLRT west extension, instead of going to the airport I'm interpreting it as continuing along Eglinton to say Dixie, which would be useful for those who work there.

 

[W. K. Lis]

This idea of LRT-ifying the streetcars is interesting to me. How much could we improve the streetcars, and how? For me improving would mean faster and more reliable.

Here are some ideas that come to mind, some are already happening:
- banning cars from the streetcar lane
- banning left turns, or somehow rearranging the road/signal so that you a streetcar never waits behind a left turning car
- could we make traffic lights give green to streetcars either through signalling or simply giving green to the main streetcar roads most of the time?
- further stop spacing
- the new vehicles with have all-door low floor boarding and off board payment should decrease dwell times

Would doing all the above create a significant improvement in capacity reliability & speed?

With regards to Eglinton west, what I found interesting was that unlike the ECLRT west extension, instead of going to the airport I'm interpreting it as continuing along Eglinton to say Dixie, which would be useful for those who work there.

And resetting the gasoline tax to inflation, to help pay for the road maintenance (which continues to grow due to inflation). The gasoline tax has been at 14.3¢ per litre since 1992, and has never been adjusted for inflation.

 

[howl]

This idea of LRT-ifying the streetcars is interesting to me. How much could we improve the streetcars, and how? For me improving would mean faster and more reliable.

Here are some ideas that come to mind, some are already happening:
- banning cars from the streetcar lane
- banning left turns, or somehow rearranging the road/signal so that you a streetcar never waits behind a left turning car
- could we make traffic lights give green to streetcars either through signalling or simply giving green to the main streetcar roads most of the time?
- further stop spacing
- the new vehicles with have all-door low floor boarding and off board payment should decrease dwell times

Would doing all the above create a significant improvement in capacity reliability & speed?

This is essentially the St.Clair model. The only problem with St.Clair is they left in too many stops so it operates more like a local bus route, as far as speed, than a LRT.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Legacy streetcar routes will never be able to operate as transit city style LRTs, there are simply too many traffic lights for them to navigate.

The DRL is what is really needed to improve access to the "shoulder" parts of downtown, as the DTRES determined over a year ago.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Indeed. As much as I love having streetcars in the core area, the reality is that you can't depend on them for quick travel within it. As mentioned pages ago, there is a tension between the Yonge-relief aspect and the more generic supporting city building and connecting nodes within the core one, and I am inclined to think the latter should get more attention - the core is getting intensified fast, and subways are pretty much the only mode that can deal with the increased ridership and need for dependability.

That, and one shouldn't compromise the one major benefit of subways in the core - i.e. stations that are relatively close to one another serving high intensity developments throughout the core in order to benefit long-distance commuters.

AoD

 

[MisterF]

Thing is, the tension between local downtown service and Yonge relief is completely unnecessary. Even with 3 stations between Yonge and the Don it would have fewer stations than the route it's relieving and be a faster ride. It can relieve Yonge-Bloor and replace one or even two streetcar lines in the core, all the while improving trip times for everyone.

 

[ksun]

Thing is, the tension between local downtown service and Yonge relief is completely unnecessary. Even with 3 stations between Yonge and the Don it would have fewer stations than the route it's relieving and be a faster ride. It can relieve Yonge-Bloor and replace one or even two streetcar lines in the core, all the while improving trip times for everyone.

unless it runs somewhere south of Front st in the downtown portion in which case it will be nothing but a suburban commute line.
The efficiency and speed of streetcars can be improved by eliminating more stops (stops only at major intersections) and banning mixed traffic and street parking on King/Queen. All door boarding will help too. I don't remember how many times I saw 10+ people had to wait when one woman is scrambling for a token/coins in her purse. Our streetcars have the potential to run more efficiently, they just choose not to.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Indeed. As much as I love having streetcars in the core area, the reality is that you can't depend on them for quick travel within it. As mentioned pages ago, there is a tension between the Yonge-relief aspect and the more generic supporting city building and connecting nodes within the core one, and I am inclined to think the latter should get more attention - the core is getting intensified fast, and subways are pretty much the only mode that can deal with the increased ridership and need for dependability.

That, and one shouldn't compromise the one major benefit of subways in the core - i.e. stations that are relatively close to one another serving high intensity developments throughout the core in order to benefit long-distance commuters.

AoD

Thing is, the tension between local downtown service and Yonge relief is completely unnecessary. Even with 3 stations between Yonge and the Don it would have fewer stations than the route it's relieving and be a faster ride. It can relieve Yonge-Bloor and replace one or even two streetcar lines in the core, all the while improving trip times for everyone.

It is unnecessary, but it's there. On one hand we say it's to get people home without using the Yonge Line, to dissipate criticism by suburbanites, on the other we say it's to give new service to the places like Riverdale/Lesileville and the Liberty Village area. How do we do one without sacrificing the other in specific terms?

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Alivin, Mister , ehlow and everyone else

This is a DRL consensus a made up which we can reach in 20 years after phase 1:

But look how many stops there are between Dufferin and Broadview! How does this help commuters get home. Or is that fine because it's to provide more service and open up the inner city a bit. Both arguments have merit.

 

[ksun]

^ the challenge can easily be overcome by running express trains during rush hours.
For example, there is no point to stop at those stations between DVP and Bay st, all those are within walking distance to the CBD.
It seems a novel idea for trains not to stop at every existing station, but many cities do that.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I've always been a fan of having the DRL replace the 504, with stops at pape, Gerrard,
Carlaw/queen, until ever, PAN AM (front and the new park), parliament, Jarvis, Yonge, university, spadina, Bathurst,
Strachan, (maybe Atlantic, not really sure), dufferin, Jameson, queens way, dundas west. That's less stops than the existing route and would still be faster, while still providing a relatively short stop spacing to allow for the 504 to be eliminated.

 

[ksun]

I've always been a fan of having the DRL replace the 504, with stops at pape, Gerrard,
Carlaw/queen, until ever, PAN AM (front and the new park), parliament, Jarvis, Yonge, university, spadina, Bathurst,
Strachan, (maybe Atlantic, not really sure), dufferin, Jameson, queens way, dundas west. That's less stops than the existing route and would still be faster, while still providing a relatively short stop spacing to allow for the 504 to be eliminated.

that's all the stops we need, and for 501 as well. In the end, everyone gets to their destination faster.
Nobody will be terrible inconvienced just because they need to walk 2 minutes more to a stations. For example, in almost all cities, a sheer distance of 500M from Jarvis to Yonge st is completely normal for transit spacing, only in Toronto we need two stops in between.

 

[MisterF]

Den: I don't see the problem. Your map has 5 stations on the DRL between Pape and Union. The equivalent route on existing lines has 10. You could double the number of DRL stations on your map and it would still be competitive with the 1 and 2 lines (not that that should happen, just making a point). The DRL can provide downtown style station spacing where appropriate, expand network coverage to areas like Riverdale and Don Mills, and relieve Yonge-Bloor. There's no conflict between those goals.

Ksun: That's why a DRL south of front makes no sense. Longer distance express commuting is what GO is for (obviously that potential won't be fully realized until fares are integrated and service upgraded). Building a subway that replicates the GO system would be very wasteful. As for the streetcars, the new ones will help but no amount of traffic priority and more efficient boarding will provide the relief that a subway would.