News   Feb 20, 2024
 1.4K     2 
News   Feb 20, 2024
 553     0 
News   Feb 20, 2024
 501     0 

Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study

Optimal solution should be...


  • Total voters
    253
Any ridership removed from Yonge will almost certainly be filled again within 5 years.
Isn't that a good thing? That would be significant ridership growth.

Though there are still all the options on the table to increase the Yonge line capacity.
 
Isn't that a good thing? That would be significant ridership growth.

Don't know if it's a good thing, it would be proof that transit is underbuilt, but London has been experiencing exactly this phenomenon. Within a few years of adding capacity, they find it's essentially full again. Some of their signalling/rolling stock changes have been boosting capacity by 50% on some lines and they've been rolling out capacity boosts for a number of years now along with fare hikes.

If TTC maintains current loading standards on feeder routes, they'll be bumping frequencies on most and Eglinton LRT can feed 1/3rd of the total capacity of Yonge without any effort at all.
5,000 pphpd on Eglinton is going to be nearly 10,000pph going southbound on Yonge in morning rush.
 
Last edited:
If the DRL gets built to Steeles, 35% of existing riders on the Yonge line will use it.

There is going to be a need for a 2nd Yonge line regarless how many move to the DRL or Spadina by 2050, as there will 2-3 times more many people living along the line then than now.

If one looks at all the development plan now from Bloor to Steeles, you can see the tip of the ice berg coming down the road.

This new line need to be built for double deck cars and be 8 cars long trains. You can use this new line as an express line with the current one being local.

If the DRL doesn't get built north of Danforth or Eglinton, the new line will have to be built sooner than later. Otherwise, long wait to get on a train if you can get the headway down to 2 minute headway, let along trying for 90 seconds.

Its time TTC start looking at building a true equal lenght 7 car train for the YUS so the new ones in service now can be move to the BD. Adding a short 7th car is a waste.

The current system is underbuilt period.

Having this 2nd line will allow TTC/Metrolinx to close the exist line to do major rebuilt stations/tunnels/tracks faster in a shorter time frame than now. You would then have 7/24/365 service that is baddly need now.

If you look at the ridership number for the night buses, its at LRT standards now to the point you bring back streetcar service to Yonge St 7/24/365 like the past, but a longer line.
 
If the DRL gets built to Steeles, 35% of existing riders on the Yonge line will use it.

There is going to be a need for a 2nd Yonge line regarless how many move to the DRL or Spadina by 2050, as there will 2-3 times more many people living along the line then than now.

If one looks at all the development plan now from Bloor to Steeles, you can see the tip of the ice berg coming down the road.

It's a problem as old as Toronto itself: how do we fix the congestion along Yonge St?

First it was put in a streetcar line. Then it was electrify the streetcar line. Then it was double-track the streetcar line in more suburban areas in order to increase capacity. Then it was build a subway. Then it was extend the subway further north to replace the streetcar completely. Then it was build a subway to the west in order to syphon off some of the traffic. Now it's build a subway to the east in order to syphon off some of the traffic. Next it'll be build an express line that parallels the local line.

If there's one thing that traffic on Yonge has shown, it's that increases in demand and increases in capacity will always be playing leapfrog with each other.
 
Don't know if it's a good thing, it would be proof that transit is underbuilt, but London has been experiencing exactly this phenomenon. Within a few years of adding capacity, they find it's essentially full again. Some of their signalling/rolling stock changes have been boosting capacity by 50% on some lines and they've been rolling out capacity boosts for a number of years now along with fare hikes.

If TTC maintains current loading standards on feeder routes, they'll be bumping frequencies on most and Eglinton LRT can feed 1/3rd of the total capacity of Yonge without any effort at all.
5,000 pphpd on Eglinton is going to be nearly 10,000pph going southbound on Yonge in morning rush.

That's assuming that a) everyone transferring at Yonge is going southbound, and b) those riders won't take the extra couple stops and get off at Spadina instead, for the exact reasons you mention.

Eglinton is primarily going to be two groups: people who were already on the Eglinton buses, and people who would have bussed down to Bloor-Danforth. Most of the ridership is really just a ridership shift from one place to another. Now, whether or not by having that shift those recently-vacated spots get filled by someone else remains to be seen.

Yes, there is going to be an increase in ridership as the result of new riders, but most of the Eglinton riders are going to be people who used to take another route.
 
If the DRL doesn't get built north of Danforth or Eglinton, the new line will have to be built sooner than later. Otherwise, long wait to get on a train if you can get the headway down to 2 minute headway, let along trying for 90 seconds.

That was my conclusion of the DRL study as well. The only way to relieve Yonge is to intercept as many riders from the Yonge line as possible. This means the West (Spadina) and East (Don MIlls) relief lines need to be extended just as far north as the Yonge line goes.

Its time TTC start looking at building a true equal lenght 7 car train for the YUS so the new ones in service now can be move to the BD. Adding a short 7th car is a waste.

Another point I like. I would even suggest having 8 full sized cars and one and a bit cars would not line up with the station (and of course, not have doors open). It could be something like north of Bloor, the front 1.5 cars do not line up at the station, and South of Bloor, it is the last 1.5 cars. People who get on near the top of the line can casually make their way to the front of the train (with walk-through cars) and then the front doors would open at their destination.

It may not be ideal, but it is an inexpensive way to increase capacity. Look at how many portions of freeways in Ontario have less than desirable shoulder widths. This was done to squeeze out some extra capacity in the most cost effective way - realizing that it is not the ideal solution.
 
That's assuming that a) everyone transferring at Yonge is going southbound, and b) those riders won't take the extra couple stops and get off at Spadina instead, for the exact reasons you mention.

Spadina to downtown is a longer trip unless you work near Queens Park or Ossington. The only reason to do that is if Yonge is full.

And yes, I kept the Eglinton to Yonge math very simple. It won't be everybody but it will be a larger ratio than Bloor transferring southbound onto Yonge due to 1) fewer destinations to the North, and 2) fewer destinations on Eglinton than Bloor.

Still looking at 75% of the peak point ridership heading south; and the peak point ridership is basically Yonge and Eglinton in both eastbound and westbound directions.
 
Last edited:
Spadina to downtown is a longer trip unless you work near Queens Park or Ossington. The only reason to do that is if Yonge is full.

And yes, I kept the Eglinton to Yonge math very simple. It won't be everybody but it will be a larger ratio than Bloor transferring southbound onto Yonge due to 1) fewer destinations to the North, and 2) fewer destinations on Eglinton than Bloor.

Still looking at 75% of the peak point ridership heading south; and the peak point ridership is basically Yonge and Eglinton in both eastbound and westbound directions.

Yup, I agree. But you still have to wonder how many of those Eglinton riders were a) already transferring at Eglinton, or b) have shifted from transferring at Bloor-Yonge to transferring at Eglinton-Yonge. My guess is the bulk of the ridership will fall into one of those two categories.
 
Spadina to downtown is a longer trip unless you work near Queens Park or Ossington. The only reason to do that is if Yonge is full.

And yes, I kept the Eglinton to Yonge math very simple. It won't be everybody but it will be a larger ratio than Bloor transferring southbound onto Yonge due to 1) fewer destinations to the North, and 2) fewer destinations on Eglinton than Bloor.

Still looking at 75% of the peak point ridership heading south; and the peak point ridership is basically Yonge and Eglinton in both eastbound and westbound directions.

It sounds like a case for congestion tolling ... on the Yonge line itself. With Presto implemented, you could charge e.g. $1 more to anyone who tapped out at stations from Bloor to Union in the morning rush, or tapped on in the pm rush. That might push enough people onto University, or onto any DRL that gets built.

Has any city tried that?
 
It sounds like a case for congestion tolling ... on the Yonge line itself. With Presto implemented, you could charge e.g. $1 more to anyone who tapped out at stations from Bloor to Union in the morning rush, or tapped on in the pm rush. That might push enough people onto University, or onto any DRL that gets built.

Has any city tried that?

Interesting proposal.
That would be the same as making the downtown Yonge stations a separate fare zone.
I could see it working as a "demand management" mechanism to have Bloor line passengers transfer at St. George instead of Bloor-Yonge.
 
It sounds like a case for congestion tolling ... on the Yonge line itself. With Presto implemented, you could charge e.g. $1 more to anyone who tapped out at stations from Bloor to Union in the morning rush, or tapped on in the pm rush. That might push enough people onto University, or onto any DRL that gets built.

Has any city tried that?

The tube in London has a demand management fare structure. At the extreme, a Z1-9 trip during peak is apparently 6.7 GBP vs. 3.9 GBP off-peak. That's an extra 4 dollars! But they don't distinguish between lines since most of them are already over-congested anyways.
 
There is going to be a need for a 2nd Yonge line regarless how many move to the DRL or Spadina by 2050, as there will 2-3 times more many people living along the line then than now.

Predicting out to 2050 is a bit of a mug's game. At that timespan demand is largely a function of zoning. Why the City would concentrate all of its development along Yonge while the Spadina and BD lines are under capacity is a mystery to me. It would be way simpler to funnel development elsewhere than building a 'second Yonge line.'

In the DRTES 2031 peak demand, even with a Yonge extension and no DRL, was under 40k pph/pd. With planned upgrades that's slightly overcapacity, though relatively less so that we currently are. Further measures like a 7th train and fold-up seats would give that some cushioning. Obviously not ideal but hardly justifying twinning the line.

I would say our current network is... less than ideal in that our main EW line (BD) more or less misses downtown, forcing riders to transfer south bound onto Yonge. A DRL, in just about any fashion, would fix a lot of that.

Just to be explicit, if Toronto ever has to twin the Yonge line it will be a MASSIVE failure of planning. There is enough open space in this City that we don't have to resort to that. I don't actually know of any City which has had to do this, even those with populations 10x Toronto's...
 
Last edited:
Predicting out to 2050 is a bit of a mug's game. At that timespan demand is largely a function of zoning. Why the City would concentrate all of its development along Yonge while the Spadina and BD lines are under capacity is a mystery to me. It would be way simpler to funnel development elsewhere than building a 'second Yonge line.'

In the DRTES 2031 peak demand, even with a Yonge extension and no DRL, was under 40k pph/pd. With planned upgrades that's slightly overcapacity, though relatively less so that we currently are. Further measures like a 7th train and fold-up seats would give that some cushioning. Obviously not ideal but hardly justifying twinning the line.

I would say our current network is... less than ideal in that our main EW line (BD) more or less misses downtown, forcing riders to transfer south bound onto Yonge. A DRL, in just about any fashion, would fix a lot of that.

Just to be explicit, if Toronto ever has to twin the Yonge line it will be a MASSIVE failure of planning. There is enough open space in this City that we don't have to resort to that. I don't actually know of any City which has had to do this, even those with populations 10x Toronto's...

Good point.
 
Given the fact that there close to 60 developments plan and underway for Yonge St, the current Yonge line will not support the new ridership from these development. If you look at Yonge St now, those 60 developments are a drop in the bucket for that line down the road.

As for the BD development, never has got off the ground from day one to the point that the subway almost kill most of the street when the streetcars were removed. Danforth took the hargest hit. Bus routes feeding into the BD is what support the ridership in the first place, not the density or lack of it on the street. Take a walk along it and you will see what I am saying. Google helps some what, but being on the street in real life is the real vision.

Build along BD is limited to the fact that the line runs north of the BD and will have an impact on the area between it and the street compare to the Yonge line.

Disagree on the DRTES 2031 number now that you can't get on trains between King & Bloor at PM Peak time without waiting for a train or more than 2 times, if not more.

Yes the DRL will fix some of the current problems in the short run by intercepting riders sooner to the core, but the new Yonge riders will replace them let along going to RHC.

Removing seats is becoming a standard practices world wide to deal with lack of space with TTC following others systems in NA, let alone the world.

You need long range vision today when planning transit and development as things are changing a lot faster now than 40 years ago. We are already 25 years behind the time due to lack of vision, but most of all people in power not making the decession to built systems as well fund them. Took almost 20 years to get lowfloor Steetcars order when it was known back then that this was the way of the future, but no one at city hall was prepared to pay for them on their shift. Most of them are now gone. Same for subways.

You can't force developers or resident to build or live in the first place. There is some market on the BD line, but not that much these days.
 
Last edited:
^

Well, this thread is kind of going off topic with all this Yonge-talk, but as my final comment on the matter I think talk of Yonge line overcrowding is a bit overdrawn. Even with a Yonge extension and without a DRL the line's ok out to 2031. Between fold up seats (or even just all longitudinal seating) and a 7th car we should have some cushion for like a decade.

Plus, it's important to remember that Yonge's congestion is, mostly, PEAK congestion. Kind of an obvious point, but if you ride the Yonge line at 9am it's hardly swamped. Building a huge new twined subway would really only benefit the few hundred people who have to wait 3 or 5 minutes for the next train.

I think any DRL would give the Yonge sufficient breathing room for a few decades. Beyond that, the City will have to look at shaping demand to discourage our over-reliance on Yonge. It's been a conscious decision to funnel almost all of our major feeder routes onto Yonge and locate soo much development along the corridor (while also discouraging intensifcation elsewhere like Dundas West.
 

Top