News   Feb 20, 2024
 184     0 
News   Feb 20, 2024
 1.8K     2 
News   Feb 20, 2024
 598     0 

Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study

Optimal solution should be...


  • Total voters
    253
I can see a streetcar on dufferin from eglinton south, but not Wilson. It would have to be built more like an LRT above eglinton.. Plus st. Clair is currently the northernmost streetcar line. While bringing streetcars to eglinton is feasible, Wilson is a bit absurd.

Otherwise, I'm amazed there are no serious plans for a dufferin treetcar.
 
I can see a streetcar on dufferin from eglinton south, but not Wilson. It would have to be built more like an LRT above eglinton.. Plus st. Clair is currently the northernmost streetcar line. While bringing streetcars to eglinton is feasible, Wilson is a bit absurd.

Otherwise, I'm amazed there are no serious plans for a dufferin treetcar.

What about ending it at Yorkdale? Could be a pretty decent terminal.

The Dufferin ROW south of Eglinton is narrower than the St. Clair ROW is, correct? Just trying to determine if it's possible to put in a streetcar ROW and still maintain 2 lanes of traffic.

At the very least, I'd like to see a streetcar ROW and 1 lane of traffic in each direction, plus turning lanes so that lane doesn't back up. Widening to two lanes north of Eglinton, because the ROW is wider.
 
What about ending it at Yorkdale? Could be a pretty decent terminal.

The Dufferin ROW south of Eglinton is narrower than the St. Clair ROW is, correct? Just trying to determine if it's possible to put in a streetcar ROW and still maintain 2 lanes of traffic.

At the very least, I'd like to see a streetcar ROW and 1 lane of traffic in each direction, plus turning lanes so that lane doesn't back up. Widening to two lanes north of Eglinton, because the ROW is wider.

A terminal for a Dufferin LRT could certainly be done at Yorkdale. But due to the close proximity to the Spadina line I'm not too sure how feasible it would be.

Regarding the Dufferin ROW, I really don't see how it could be done. Directly south of Eglinton, Dufferin becomes relatively small with only 4 traffic lanes. Sidewalks are also fairly narrow so I don't see a ROW fitting there. If a Dufferin streetcar or LRT was to be built it would almost certainly be tunneled south of Eglinton. The costs to do this would be enormous and the money would be better spent elsewhere imo.

I also don't believe that a Dufferin alignment would be as good as Jane for NS travel.
 
The DRL will most likely be a short line with a handful of widely-spaced stations in the downtown core; I don't see how this affects the viability of streetcar routes that extend much farther in both directions.

This doesn't seem likely. If the DRL was constructed as an express route primarily between Pape and the financial area to relieve Yonge/Bloor it wouldn't really generate any new ridership. That's fine insofar as it will ease congestion at Yonge/Bloor, but if that's mostly all it does then it'll inevitably be subject to cost/benefit analysis against expanding Yonge/Bloor.

If the only purpose of a DRL is to relieve Yonge/Bloor, it'll usually be more efficient to just enlarge Yonge/bloor. As tricky as expanding Yonge/Bloor would be, it would be much simpler than building a new interchange station at King or Queen or Union.

If we assume a Yonge/Bloor expansion is 1billion and a Pape-downtown DRL is 3billion, you would need to justify the extra 2b in terms of new ridership served. If all you're getting for that extra 2 billion is a handful of low volume stations then what's the point?

There's not much point in building a subway line through some of the densest residential areas in the city and passing some pretty substantial destinations and not having it stop. As something of a corollary, the surface streetcar and bus network would also have to be somewhat redesigned to feed the DRL. At 400-500 million dollars per kilometer rapid transit can't just be a relief valve for existing RT; it has to generate new ridership.
 
Last edited:
The DRL should act as a short range rapid transit service to move mass volumes of people over short distances in addition to relief. A Queen or just south of Queen would certainly do that, as for going northeast it can also act as a line to scoop up GO riders at Leslieville and at Gerrard Square for the other 2 GO routes which can take people downtown and act as a Union Station relief also, which of course would be vital during rush hour only, but still.
 
Though, about stop spacing, the DRL could probably get away with slightly wider stop spacing than Bloor-Danforth due to station design.

Most BD stations only have one exit, whereas I think standard code would require at least two exits nowadays. Assuming each exit was at opposite ends of a 200m station, that should theoretically allow stations to be 200m farther apart from a walk-in perspective.

Though, depending on alignment, 200m stations are likely complete overkill for the DRL.
 
I think there should be 7 new stops, not including pape, yonge, or university. the line should run like this :

pape
Gerrard
Carlaw
Don River
Parliament
Jarvis
King-Yonge
St. Andrews
King-Spadina
 
A terminal for a Dufferin LRT could certainly be done at Yorkdale. But due to the close proximity to the Spadina line I'm not too sure how feasible it would be.

The Dufferin bus sees pretty decent ridership even north of Eglinton, so clearly the Spadina line is either too far away, or doesn't go where people want to go.

Regarding the Dufferin ROW, I really don't see how it could be done. Directly south of Eglinton, Dufferin becomes relatively small with only 4 traffic lanes. Sidewalks are also fairly narrow so I don't see a ROW fitting there. If a Dufferin streetcar or LRT was to be built it would almost certainly be tunneled south of Eglinton. The costs to do this would be enormous and the money would be better spent elsewhere imo.

That is why I suggested have an in-median ROW with one lane plus left turn lanes on either side. Realistically Dufferin is one lane in each direction most times anyway, because there's either parking in the right lane or someone turning left in the left lane, which forces traffic to swerve. Not to mention buses constantly pulling in and out of traffic.

I also don't believe that a Dufferin alignment would be as good as Jane for NS travel.

Jane is better north of Eglinton, but Dufferin is better south of Eglinton.
 
I think there should be 7 new stops, not including pape, yonge, or university. the line should run like this :

pape
Gerrard
Carlaw
Don River
Parliament
Jarvis
King-Yonge
St. Andrews
King-Spadina
If your going to go all the way to Spadina, given how unusable the 504 is during rush hour between Spadina and Bathurst, wouldn't it make sense to go the additional 650 metres and an extra station to Bathurst/King? From Bathurst to Dundas West, the 504 seems comparatively speedy.
 
This doesn't seem likely. If the DRL was constructed as an express route primarily between Pape and the financial area to relieve Yonge/Bloor it wouldn't really generate any new ridership. That's fine insofar as it will ease congestion at Yonge/Bloor, but if that's mostly all it does then it'll inevitably be subject to cost/benefit analysis against expanding Yonge/Bloor.

I think something like innsertnamehere's list of stations is probably realistic: Danforth, Gerrard, Queen, Don River, Parliament, Jarvis/Sherbourne, Yonge, University, Spadina. Is this sufficient to allow us to ditch the 501 and/or 504? (I don't think so; these routes cover a lot more territory than just this bit.) Conversely, is this so little that it won't generate any new ridership? (I doubt it.)
 
Regarding a potential Dufferin LRT, remember that Dufferin between Eglinton and Rogers has many steep hills (as well as Dufferin at Davenport). Either the street needs to be more gradual to accommodate the LRVs, the LRVs be modified to operate on steep slopes, or use additional cables under the street just like in San Francisco.
 
Regarding a potential Dufferin LRT, remember that Dufferin between Eglinton and Rogers has many steep hills (as well as Dufferin at Davenport). Either the street needs to be more gradual to accommodate the LRVs, the LRVs be modified to operate on steep slopes, or use additional cables under the street just like in San Francisco.

You are going to have to elevate it or tunnel in this area. Davenport will have to be tunnel south of it to St Clair.

All on street parking will have to be remove. I can hear the crying and bitching!!
 
Conversely, is this so little that it won't generate any new ridership? (I doubt it.)
If it makes the Yonge line usable in rush hour, it might create new ridership, simply because the capacity of the network has increased, and it's currently at capacity.
 
If it makes the Yonge line usable in rush hour, it might create new ridership, simply because the capacity of the network has increased, and it's currently at capacity.

Any ridership removed from Yonge will almost certainly be filled again within 5 years.
 

Top