"Downtown Core Line" - Possible Alignments?

[Darren B]

Adelaide would be mint for me personally, but I'm still of the opinion that Queen would better serve the city.

 

[cacruden]

Adelaide is a great choice IMHO, I think they could design the stations to have access from King, and Queen, and new buildings (if there are ever any) could have direct access to the subway (as well as Queen).

 

[prosperegal]

Adelaide is a great choice IMHO, I think they could design the stations to have access from King, and Queen, and new buildings (if there are ever any) could have direct access to the subway (as well as Queen).

What do you mean by "access"? Like they can get from one station to another without paying?

 

[cacruden]

What do you mean by "access"? Like they can get from one station to another without paying?

Access - like in the English word access - even though it might run on Adelaide, the stairs up to ground level would reach around Richmond - which would be the backside of any "office" building built on Queen. And no hip professional women would not get access free.....

 

[prosperegal]

Access - like in the English word access - even though it might run on Adelaide, the stairs up to ground level would reach around Richmond - which would be the backside of any "office" building built on Queen. And no hip professional women would not get access free.....

LOL! But isn't that a given for any station on PATH?

 

[gweed123]

Just a thought on this, I've been reading through and there are a lot of great ideas here. It seems that there are no bad choices for alignment of the DRL, but simply different choices, servicing different neighbourhoods, but having the same ultimate goal. Having said that, I offer up this possible solution to the DRL alignment problem, and for it I referred back to the original subway plans from the early post-war period:

The original post-war plan contained 2 "subways": an actual subway underneath Yonge from Union to Eglinton, and a streetcar subway underneath Queen. Having said that, I think that this type of thing would once again work.

Have a completely tunnelled LRT subway (similar to what is being proposed along Eglinton with the Transit City plan) that runs the complete DRL route (Dundas West, down to Queen, up to Pape). However, with that, run the section of the 501/502 that overlap the tunnel in the tunnel as well. The main issue with the Queen streetcars is the fact that they are running on a shared ROW, and thus cannot run at a service level that is efficient enough to effectively carry the ridership numbers. However, if you ran it in a tunnel, it could increase both speed and efficiency.

If any of you have ever been to Boston, and have rode on the Green Line, you'll know what I'm talking about. The Green Line is in essence an LRT subway that begins in downtown, and once it exists downtown, branches out into 3 different lines, where it runs in a separate but at-grade ROW (but this is not until it is outside the downtown core). So what I'm saying is you would basically be running 1 LRT line along the entire DRL (Dundas West-Queen-Pape), and the 501 through it as well (from Roncesvalles to Pape).

Another advantage of doing it as an LRT would be a direct connection to the current Don Mills LRT proposal. If they were using the same technology, etc, in essence they would become one line, as opposed to 2 separate lines requiring a transfer as would be the case if the DRL were built as a subway. I would also propose using the rail corridor adjacent to Dundas West station to be used to extend the LRT line northwestward from Dundas West up to Eglinton, in essence creating a second, wider YUS loop, servicing midtown and south of Bloor.

I realize that there are several issues with this proposal, mainly the interlining of DRL and 501 vehicles, as well as capacity issues if the line experiences higher than projected ridership. Also, when considering LRT vs subway, station distances can become a factor.

In summary: if the subway option is chosen, I believe it should be along the rail/Wellington corridor (least disruption to existing subway/streetcar service during construction, greater capacity for intensification around the line). However, if LRT is chosen, it should be along Queen, for the reasons mentioned above. It should also be noted that if the LRT is chosen along Queen, it does not rule out the chance of having a subway along Wellington/the rail corridors at some point, as the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive options.

 

[kEiThZ]

Have a completely tunnelled LRT subway (similar to what is being proposed along Eglinton with the Transit City plan) that runs the complete DRL route (Dundas West, down to Queen, up to Pape). However, with that, run the section of the 501/502 that overlap the tunnel in the tunnel as well. The main issue with the Queen streetcars is the fact that they are running on a shared ROW, and thus cannot run at a service level that is efficient enough to effectively carry the ridership numbers. However, if you ran it in a tunnel, it could increase both speed and efficiency.

Exactly what Queen street needs. It's a bad idea to run a subway under a street like Queen with stops over a half km apart, when we can build LRT subways with stops that are 400m or less apart for much cheaper. That would complement Queen's vibrant nature much more. Why does it have to be HRT subway or bust?

Another advantage of doing it as an LRT would be a direct connection to the current Don Mills LRT proposal. If they were using the same technology, etc, in essence they would become one line, as opposed to 2 separate lines requiring a transfer as would be the case if the DRL were built as a subway. I would also propose using the rail corridor adjacent to Dundas West station to be used to extend the LRT line northwestward from Dundas West up to Eglinton, in essence creating a second, wider YUS loop, servicing midtown and south of Bloor.

In addition to transportation options, that would also spur some development of Queen outside the core.....

 

[gweed123]

Exactly what Queen street needs. It's a bad idea to run a subway under a street like Queen with stops over a half km apart, when we can build LRT subways with stops that are 400m or less apart for much cheaper. That would complement Queen's vibrant nature much more. Why does it have to be HRT subway or bust?

I agree. LRT can be built for a fraction of the cost, would better serve the local population, and would still bring relief to the Bloor-Danforth subway. If the line does happen to become over capacity, there is always the option of either upgrading that line to a full subway, or building another line along the rail/Wellington corridor. Some may see this as simply a band-aid solution, and that would be a valid criticism. Metrolinx has stated that the DRL is expected to divert 17,000 peak hour passengers away from the B-D subway, which is well within the capacity limits of an LRT. Even when you factor in transfers from the Dundas, College, Spadina, and Bathurst streetcars (Queen is purposely not included in that, because no line transfers would be required), it is still within the capacity limits of an LRT.

 

[gweed123]

Sorry, it was 17,500, not 17,000...

I also offer this exert from my article on the DRL which is due to be published in this month's Ontario Planning Journal, just some food for thought on the current situation of transit in downtown:

Not only would the DRL relieve congestion on the downtown portion of the subway system, but it would also intersect or overlap portions of the nine streetcar routes that service downtown Toronto. These routes account for approximately 215,000 passengers a day, or 45 percent of the volume that the Bloor-Danforth Subway currently carries. The 506 Carlton, 501 Queen, 505 Dundas, 504 King/508 Lake Shore, and 510 Spadina/509 Harbourfront each carry between 35,200 and 47,900 passengers a day, approximately the same volume per day as the Sheppard Subway (41,290 passengers a day).

 

[Paleo]

Another advantage of doing it as an LRT would be a direct connection to the current Don Mills LRT proposal. If they were using the same technology, etc, in essence they would become one line, as opposed to 2 separate lines requiring a transfer as would be the case if the DRL were built as a subway. I would also propose using the rail corridor adjacent to Dundas West station to be used to extend the LRT line northwestward from Dundas West up to Eglinton, in essence creating a second, wider YUS loop, servicing midtown and south of Bloor.

I don't think that would be possible because the longer trains you'd need to run in the underground section wouldn't be possible to run on the street in Don Mills.

In summary: if the subway option is chosen, I believe it should be along the rail/Wellington corridor (least disruption to existing subway/streetcar service during construction, greater capacity for intensification around the line).

Least disruption to service during construction is probably why the Sheppard-Yonge rebuild cost $200 million.

Metrolinx has stated that the DRL is expected to divert 17,000 peak hour passengers away from the B-D subway, which is well within the capacity limits of an LRT. Even when you factor in transfers from the Dundas, College, Spadina, and Bathurst streetcars (Queen is purposely not included in that, because no line transfers would be required), it is still within the capacity limits of an LRT.

I'm not sure where you get 17,000 per hour as being well within the limits of LRT. I thought 10,000 per hour was the limit for LRT. The Yonge subway at the moment has a maximum capacity 25,000 per hour given the current signaling system and it is pretty much full. 17,000 would seem to be a rather healthy utilization for a subway.

 

[gweed123]

I'm not sure where you get 17,000 per hour as being well within the limits of LRT. I thought 10,000 per hour was the limit for LRT. The Yonge subway at the moment has a maximum capacity 25,000 per hour given the current signaling system and it is pretty much full. 17,000 would seem to be a rather healthy utilization for a subway.

Well when you consider that the TTC is estimating that the Eglinton Crosstown LRT (arguably the closest comparison to an LRT DRL, LRT through a tunnel for the majority of the line) is projected to carry 159,000 people per day (or 58.2 million per year) in 2021, apparently it is within the limits of LRT.

And where did you get your stat for the Yonge line capacity? From everything I've read from the TTC, the current capacity of the Yonge line is 30,800 peak hour passengers. With the signal improvements, new rolling stock, etc, it will be upped to 48,000. But yes, you're right, the Yonge line is full, it's carrying 28,000 peak hour currently.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I agree. LRT can be built for a fraction of the cost, would better serve the local population, and would still bring relief to the Bloor-Danforth subway.

Underground LRT lines are not a fraction of the cost of underground subway lines (unless you're considering, say, 4/5 a "fraction"), and there's no rule that says subway stations must be 1km apart while LRT stations must be 500m apart. For one thing, having twice as many stations on an underground LRT line would add quite a bit to the cost.

 

[gweed123]

Underground LRT lines are not a fraction of the cost of underground subway lines (unless you're considering, say, 4/5 a "fraction"), and there's no rule that says subway stations must be 1km apart while LRT stations must be 500m apart. For one thing, having twice as many stations on an underground LRT line would add quite a bit to the cost.

True, I used a bit too strong of a wording there. However, buying LRT vehicles is less expensive than buying custom-order subway trains (yay for not using standard gauge rail). LRT stations however do require shorter platforms, etc, so that would offset some of the cost of having more of them.

 

[Paleo]

Well when you consider that the TTC is estimating that the Eglinton Crosstown LRT (arguably the closest comparison to an LRT DRL, LRT through a tunnel for the majority of the line) is projected to carry 159,000 people per day (or 58.2 million per year) in 2021, apparently it is within the limits of LRT.

And where did you get your stat for the Yonge line capacity? From everything I've read from the TTC, the current capacity of the Yonge line is 30,800 peak hour passengers. With the signal improvements, new rolling stock, etc, it will be upped to 48,000. But yes, you're right, the Yonge line is full, it's carrying 28,000 peak hour currently.

I was basing that on an estimate of 1,000 per train at 2.5 minute frequencies. I did some digging and that might have been a bit low as the specs say that the trains can theoretically hold 1,250 people which yields 30,000.

As for the TTC's estimates, I think they are unrealistically optimistic. The new trains are supposed to have 10% more capacity which ups it to 33,000 per hour at the same frequency. The new signaling won't fix the bottlenecks at the downtown stations which will ultimately limit how much service (and capacity) that you can safely run.

 

[Paleo]

Underground LRT lines are not a fraction of the cost of underground subway lines (unless you're considering, say, 4/5 a "fraction"), and there's no rule that says subway stations must be 1km apart while LRT stations must be 500m apart. For one thing, having twice as many stations on an underground LRT line would add quite a bit to the cost.

I doubt there would be many cost savings to having an underground LRT over a subway line when you need to run massive trains which need massive 300-400 foot stations (stations being the biggest cost of any underground line).