DRL routing. Where would you put it?

[Palma]

There's already a "DRL west" -- the University-Spadina line. That's why the east is the most important part right now. And as sixrings says, relief in the west could also potentially be provided by the Air Rail Link, if we were ever to operate it as a regular transit line rather than a premium express service.

University is 2 stops west of Yonge. i do not see how that makes it a DRL west? Its the same as saying Yonge is DRL east to me. If you have a line east of Yonge has part of the DRL then it makes sense to have a line west of university line. Thats the way I have always seen the maps of the DRL when shown,

 

[car4041]

University is 2 stops west of Yonge. i do not see how that makes it a DRL west? Its the same as saying Yonge is DRL east to me. If you have a line east of Yonge has part of the DRL then it makes sense to have a line west of university line. Thats the way I have always seen the maps of the DRL when shown,

The main purpose of the DRL is to relieve the Yonge line. The University line already does an admirable job of this for passengers coming from the west, whereas there's currently nothing to intercept passengers coming from the east. Maybe someday the University line will require relief of its own, but right now it's Yonge that needs it.

 

[nfitz]

Good article in Today's star about the downtown relief line with a map ...

Isn't that they same map they published in the late 1980s?

Yes, here it is. Page B1 on February 8, 1986:

Interesting to see Steve Munro's comment on the article, in relation to East York Mayor Johnson's statement that it should be extended north to Flemingdon Park, Thorncliffe, Don Mills, and Eglinton 'Transit critic Steve Munro agrees. As the relief line is planned, he says, "it will serve absolutly no local traffic. They've left out the most important part — the Don Mills subway," he said'. I guess Steve Munro is nothing if not consistent.

So a quarter of a century later, we are at exactly the same place.

 

[junctionist]

The main purpose of the DRL is to relieve the Yonge line. The University line already does an admirable job of this for passengers coming from the west, whereas there's currently nothing to intercept passengers coming from the east. Maybe someday the University line will require relief of its own, but right now it's Yonge that needs it.

I wouldn't focus entirely on relief, a 1980s idea for a downtown line emerging before we saw the revitalization and increased density of many east and west end neighbourhoods between downtown and the post-World War II suburbs. We can bring rapid transit to numerous neighbourhoods in the urban east and west ends in Toronto between downtown and Etobicoke/Scarborough where people want to live, work, and spend their leisure time while achieving relief for Yonge. These are densely-populated neighbourhoods like The Junction, Trinity-Bellwoods, Liberty Village, the Distillery District, the West Don Lands (in the future) that also have many destinations where people travelling between them spend twice as long as driving using a combination of buses and streetcars connecting with a threadbare subway network.

This situation is inadequate, and if we're going to build a new subway line, shouldn't we address it? Even with the Nunziata/Layton version, the ARL at most can provide a relatively limited collection of stations in the isolated railway corridor onto which many neighbourhoods turn their backs. It would be aimed at people travelling to Union or the airport, not the local rapid transit that's also needed. I understand that a new subway line in the east end is most urgent to address capacity issues on Yonge, but the situation in the west end also merits a branch shortly afterwards if not at the same time.

 

[car4041]

I wouldn't focus entirely on relief, a 1980s idea for a downtown line emerging before we saw the revitalization and increased density of many east and west end neighbourhoods between downtown and the post-World War II suburbs. We can bring rapid transit to numerous neighbourhoods in the urban east and west ends in Toronto between downtown and Etobicoke/Scarborough where people want to live, work, and spend their leisure time while achieving relief for Yonge.

[...]

I understand that a new subway line in the east end is most urgent to address capacity issues on Yonge, but the situation in the west end also merits a branch shortly afterwards if not at the same time.

Well, we're talking about two distinct justifications for building a new downtown/Old Toronto line:

(1) to bring new rapid transit to dense urban neighbourhoods
(2) to relieve a bottleneck on the existing rapid transit network, thus allowing the Yonge line to be extended even farther into the suburbs

I completely agree with you that #1 has great merit, but the unfortunate reality is that nobody outside of Old Toronto cares about it, and #2 appears to be the only politically realistic justification for a new downtown subway. (And this is not just a Ford-era thing -- the political climate in Toronto has favoured suburban subways for a long time; maybe this can be changed, but good luck...)

Given that reality, I don't expect to see a DRL West until the University-Spadina line is just as packed as the Yonge line currently is, and despite being busy in rush hour, it still has quite a way to go. So if there's an alternate proposal to bring rapid transit to this area, it probably warrants consideration.

Even with the Nunziata/Layton version, the ARL at most can provide a relatively limited collection of stations in the isolated railway corridor onto which many neighbourhoods turn their backs. It would be aimed at people travelling to Union or the airport

This I don't agree with -- the stop spacing between Bloor and Lawrence shown in this map of the Nunziata/Layton proposal (Weston Station should be shown at Weston & Lawrence; the map is wrong) is equivalent to subway stop spacing, so it's not really a "limited collection of stations." And we can't realistically expect a DRL West to go as far north as Lawrence (or even north of Bloor), so the Nunziata/Layton proposal would bring rapid transit to a much larger area than a DRL subway. Also, the railway corridor is not that isolated -- the stations in the Nunziata/Layton proposal would intercept many surface routes (Lawrence, Weston, Jane, Eglinton, Rogers, St. Clair, Dupont), providing a huge increase in mobility for people using or connecting to these routes, regardless or whether they're going to Union or the airport.

South of Bloor there are fewer benefits, but south of Bloor we also have easy access to the Bloor subway and streetcars that go straight downtown (and even DRL subway proposals usually only add one extra station between King/Queen and Bloor -- at Sorauren or Howard Park).

 

[nfitz]

Notorious pro-subway advocate Steve Munro asks Where Should We Put the “Downtown Relief” Line? - http://stevemunro.ca/?p=6218

 

[Dan416]

Thanks for the link.

 

[k10ery]

Notorious pro-subway advocate Steve Munro asks Where Should We Put the “Downtown Relief” Line? - http://stevemunro.ca/?p=6218

Some great ideas, for 1995. Tunneling a subway under a rail line that is being upgraded and could in less time provide near-subway capacity?

 

[BurlOak]

Some great ideas, for 1995. Tunneling a subway under a rail line that is being upgraded and could in less time provide near-subway capacity?

Especially in the East, I think the rail line is used just to help make the 90 turn from Pape (or any other North-South road) to the East-West direction. To fit in a 300m radius curve (which I believe is the TTC minimum) anywhere else would require significant expropriation.

In the Western leg, I think you have a point, although depending on the North-South alignment, there again would be problems curving back up to the north.

 

[Rainforest]

Some great ideas, for 1995. Tunneling a subway under a rail line that is being upgraded and could in less time provide near-subway capacity?

That routing is Phil Orr's (DRL Now).

Steve Munro just used that routing as a starting point for discussion.

 

[k10ery]

Especially in the East, I think the rail line is used just to help make the 90 turn from Pape (or any other North-South road) to the East-West direction. To fit in a 300m radius curve (which I believe is the TTC minimum) anywhere else would require significant expropriation.

Not in the proposal Munro is talking about.

 

[nfitz]

Especially in the East, I think the rail line is used just to help make the 90 turn from Pape (or any other North-South road) to the East-West direction. To fit in a 300m radius curve (which I believe is the TTC minimum) anywhere else would require significant expropriation.

Not in the proposal Munro is talking about.

Looks like it makes a turn from the rail line to Pape - http://drlnow.com/googlemap.html

 

[k10ery]

That routing is Phil Orr's (DRL Now).

Steve Munro just used that routing as a starting point for discussion.

Munro criticized certain aspects of the drlnow proposal, but not the part about tunneling a couple of km under the Lakeshore line.

Personally I can't see why anyone would bother talking about DRL as a HRT subway on anything like a Pape to Dundas W routing. The alternative is a full upgrade of GO service between Kennedy, Union, and Pearson. This would cost something like:

- electrification: <$1 billion
- 10 GO-style infill stations: <$300 million
- pedestrian tunnels to TTC at Danforth and Bloor GO: $20 million?
- fare integration (i.e. free transfers to TTC from GO, FOREVER): $600 million

That's, what, 40 km of rapid transit for $2 billion, in place of <7 km you could buy with subway tunnels.

(Note I didn't include any cost for track work on the Georgetown corridor, or improvements at Union, because the solution there is free: kill the ARL! But I guess something should be counted for an extra track or two on the Lakeshore E line to make this work.)

 

[Rainforest]

Personally I can't see why anyone would bother talking about DRL as a HRT subway on anything like a Pape to Dundas W routing. The alternative is a full upgrade of GO service between Kennedy, Union, and Pearson. This would cost something like:

- electrification: <$1 billion
- 10 GO-style infill stations: <$300 million
- pedestrian tunnels to TTC at Danforth and Bloor GO: $20 million?
- fare integration (i.e. free transfers to TTC from GO, FOREVER): $600 million

That's, what, 40 km of rapid transit for $2 billion, in place of <7 km you could buy with subway tunnels.

(Note I didn't include any cost for track work on the Georgetown corridor, or improvements at Union, because the solution there is free: kill the ARL! But I guess something should be counted for an extra track or two on the Lakeshore E line to make this work.)

1) The Lakeshore East corridor may not be wide enough for the kind of service you are proposing.

2) Connection at Kennedy will not divert enough riders from Danforth to relief the Yonge / Bloor interchange, and the Yonge line south of Bloor.

Better service on the Stouffville GO line, with fare integration, will be quite helpful for the north-east of Toronto; but it won't negate the need for DRL East.

DRL West is another story. The Weston corridor could handle that function, both because it is wider and can support more tracks, and because another subway (Spadina) exists west of Yonge. So, upgrading the ARL from the business express to a TTC-fare city rail would be a good idea.

 

[k10ery]

1) The Lakeshore East corridor may not be wide enough for the kind of service you are proposing.

Sure it is. Track expansion is already planned for regional GO service. Or were you talking about peak hour passenger capacity? I thought it was about 15000 pph, even without EMUs. Correct me if I am wrong.

2) Connection at Kennedy will not divert enough riders from Danforth to relief the Yonge / Bloor interchange, and the Yonge line south of Bloor.

Better service on the Stouffville GO line, with fare integration, will be quite helpful for the north-east of Toronto; but it won't negate the need for DRL East.

Says who? With fare integration and <10 minute headways, I would surely choose a fast ride on GO from Kennedy to the CBD, over a slow ride on the subway, with a change at a congested Bloor-Yonge station. Has a modelling exercise ever suggested others would not?

DRL West is another story. The Weston corridor could handle that function, both because it is wider and can support more tracks, and because another subway (Spadina) exists west of Yonge. So, upgrading the ARL from the business express to a TTC-fare city rail would be a good idea.

Agreed. But TTC fare seems like going a little far - GO fare for the combined TTC-GO ride seems about right.