"Downtown Core Line" - Possible Alignments?

[scarberiankhatru]

Why would a BRT suffice for Don Mills north of Eglinton, considering a) densification of of the Lawrence, Sheppard node and b) the role of the line reliefing YUS by diverting feeder traffic and c) trip generators such as Seneca College and d) redevelopable, low density industrial lands . For all the talk about needing crosstown subway lines, a full DRL is of a far more certain utility.

This is a transit thread...you're not supposed to say things that make sense.

Because the Yonge line is over capacity specifically south of Bloor. Relieving it north of Eglinton is not urgent.

Taking the DRL north of Eglinton is the only way to properly relieve Yonge - south or north of Bloor.

 

[Dan416]

This is a transit thread...you're not supposed to say things that make sense.



Taking the DRL north of Eglinton is the only way to properly relieve Yonge - south or north of Bloor.

If the TTC cared about relieving Yonge then they'd be busy planning the DRL. Are they? No. Are there any concrete alignments for the DRL other than idle speculation on UT? No. The DRL appears to be the one subway everyone can agree on, yet it's barely even on the agenda. It's the #1 priority of SOS, yet members mock SOS for including the DRL. So which is it, is the DRL necessary or just something that's popular to support but not actually want?

 

[nfitz]

I congratulate SOS for including DRL. It's the two subway lines to Scarborough Centre that I mock, and the the use of subway where cheaper technologies are more appropriate.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Sending our troops over to Afghanistan in rowboats would be cheaper than flying them in. Walking to Ottawa would be far cheaper than driving or flying. And living on the streets has enormous cost benefits over living in an actual house. Yet somehow, these aren't seen as favourable. Some people, in fact many entire cities, have realized that a good transit network takes investment. By going for a "cheap" band-aid solution of LRT instead of building a core subway network, it'll just increase our transit debt. We need something to get us ahead of the game. Aggressive subway building will do that. LRTs to every ward, unfortunately, will not.

 

[jwill]

I think your post says it all. Yes, walking would be cheaper than flying or driving. But flying and driving both get you to Ottawa in reasonable time. Many choose to fly for speed and many choose to drive for convenience and affordability. The Subway/LRT debate is not a choice between flying and walking. What we should be doing is using the appropriate level of speed, capacity, frequency and reliability. Some corridors will require subway, some LRT, some bus. There's no sense in over-spending just because some of us get a little too excited when we think about the subway map, nor should we under-build corridors just to satisfy the trendy pro-LRT crowd.

I also agree with SOS for including the DRL as a subway. How far it goes, and what priority it gets over other corridors is up for debate.

 

[M II A II R II K]

They could turn the SRT into a subway and extend it on both ends so it goes downtown and on the other end go up into Markham, which would also combine at least 2 projects and relieve both the Yonge and Danforth subways.

 

[Rainforest]

^ But how do you extend SRT to downtown for a sane cost? The distance from Kennedy STN to say Yonge / Queen is about 16 km. That would cost a lot more than DRL to Pape.

 

[M II A II R II K]

It would be an express line all the way through and mostly outside so hopefully it would be well worth the cost, especially if it negates the need for other projects that would have gone through if this didn't. It could be the Lakeshore/Scarborough Line, or maybe Eastern Express Line.

 

[Paleo]

Sending our troops over to Afghanistan in rowboats would be cheaper than flying them in. Walking to Ottawa would be far cheaper than driving or flying. And living on the streets has enormous cost benefits over living in an actual house. Yet somehow, these aren't seen as favourable. Some people, in fact many entire cities, have realized that a good transit network takes investment. By going for a "cheap" band-aid solution of LRT instead of building a core subway network, it'll just increase our transit debt. We need something to get us ahead of the game. Aggressive subway building will do that. LRTs to every ward, unfortunately, will not.

In the same vein, flying to work or the grocery store in a helicopter is generally faster than the alternatives.

 

[Fresh Start]

I congratulate SOS for including DRL. It's the two subway lines to Scarborough Centre that I mock, and the the use of subway where cheaper technologies are more appropriate.

Well, the TTC has long in mind intended to have the Sheppard Line end at Scarborough Centre and ridership along the SRT has grown to the point that talking about replacing it with a subway doesn't seem unreasonable. 8000pphpd by 2021 is again in subway threshold territory (if we're to consider 10000 pphpd as a absolute determinant in isolation regardless of other factors like preexisitng demand, urban growth potential, proximity of other nodes from SCC - UTSC, Centenary, Progress Campus, Malvern, proximity of Highway 401 for park n' ride commuters, etc.).

And there's nothing cheaper about light-rail through a tunnel as the Metrolinx documentation proves. It'd appear we could route buses underground and it'd still cost a small fortune.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Don't even mention the 10k pphpd as a reason. That's the most stupid, most arbitrary method of determining subway effectiveness that one could possibly imagine. Firstly, it doesn't even make much sense as a limit, as successful subway systems around the world have lines well under 10k pphpd.

And aside from that, it doesn't take any other factors into account. Having 8k pphpd along 5 km of trackage is much more impressive and makes much more sense than 8k pphpd over 10 km, or 15 km. How could the subway connect regions, resulting in higher overall transit usage or feeder bus usage? How much development could it attract? Will it take pressure off of other lines? And all these questions need to be asked with an open mind, not in a "how can we answer so that it's good for what we want?" light.

 

[Tulse]

it doesn't even make much sense as a limit, as successful subway systems around the world have lines well under 10k pphpd.

Successful subway systems around the world aren't nearly as dependent on the fare box as the TTC is.

 

[hbl33]

Successful subway systems around the world aren't nearly as dependent on the fare box as the TTC is.

+1! Win.

 

[GTS]

Downtown Rapid Transit Study

I was just reading some literature from the the last public meeting of the TTC meeting and it included the 'Summary of Authorized Wxpenditures between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 for the period Feb. 1/10 to Mach 31/10.

This piece of literature states under Engineering & Construction that the TTC spend $ $1,600,000 and had 5 bids. The vendor was HDR/TRANS and the description was as follows:

"Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study
The Commitssion requires the services of a Consultant to perform a study of transit expansion in downtown Toronto. The purpose of the Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study is to undertake a strategic planning overview of the need for improved transit service/accessibility inot the downtown core giben planned capacity improvements and ridership factores, trends and projections. There is a need to idntify additional transit investment strategies to service the downtown including consideration of fare strategies, service initiatives, additional rapid transit, improved transit intergration or other sutable policy initiatives."

That was the from the TTC literature handed out at the commission meeting. The expenditure of $1,600,000 for this study looks like this is really getting some serious consideration.