DRL routing. Where would you put it?

[CDL.TO]

Putting the line south of Queen (King, Wellington, etc.) would be too close to the rail corridor which should be served by an upgraded GO Transit.
A line across Queen, and up through the Pape/Don Mills alignment is really the only one that isn't redundant.

Anyone who wants to see a DRL should be pushing for:

1. Electrification of GO transit, running small, fast EMU's with all day service.
2. Fare integration (better yet, just have Metrolinx take over the ttc) & better connections at transfer stations.
3. Infilling stations at key locations (e.g. West Donlands, Fort York, Parkdale, etc.)

Once this is accomplished, this will solve most of the problems a DRL is supposed to address.

In the map below, the red line is the Georgetown line, purple is Lakeshore, and orange is a Queen/East York line.

A Queen-Don Mills line combined with electric Georgetown & Lakeshore lines would provide the benefits of all of the suggested alignments.

Try the map again, but with stop locations this time. Frequent, electrified GO transit has minimal overlap with a DRL if many new stations aren't added to serve those within-downtown trips.

 

[M II A II R II K]

I think a combination of the plan 4A and 6A of that GO study would be good.

 

[Ryan]

Try the map again, but with stop locations this time. Frequent, electrified GO transit has minimal overlap with a DRL if many new stations aren't added to serve those within-downtown trips.

I mentioned the need for new stations to be added... and if necessary, express trains can be used to bypass those.


Anyone trying to start a serious campaign for a "DRL" subway should take into consideration the following:

-it has to be a reasonable length (pushing for full subways up to Sheppard or Weston for example just wouldn't be productive... no one is going to fund a 30km line)

-It should offer the biggest impact. So as I suggested in my last post, putting subway tunnels under existing rail corridors that can (& will) just be upgraded themselves probably wouldn't be the best place to start.


I'm sticking with the original Queen-Pape-Don Mills alignment for the reasons above... expansions north/south/east/west can happen later, the thing is to just get a key portion built... and the exact routing doesn't really matter anyways, that's for the engineers to decide.

I'm looking into starting a campaign, promoting it as "the missing link" in the system, using the original 1966 Toronto Subway plan below.
It would be around 15km long, so at $300 million per km that would be $4-5 billion.

 

[Dan416]

A Queen line as a Queen line I have no problem with. A Queen line as a DRL I do not like.

Although I understand, seeing as this IS Toronto after all, that we're unlikely to get both. And I can sooner live without a Queen line (we have a streetcar there) than I can live without a DRL.

There are many simple ways to improve the Queen streetcar. We can LRT-ize it. Less stops. Give it its own ROW.

I just consider the DRL a completely different animal.

 

[Ryan]

A Queen line as a Queen line I have no problem with. A Queen line as a DRL I do not like.

Although I understand, seeing as this IS Toronto after all, that we're unlikely to get both. And I can sooner live without a Queen line (we have a streetcar there) than I can live without a DRL.

There are many simple ways to improve the Queen streetcar. We can LRT-ize it. Less stops. Give it its own ROW.

I just consider the DRL a completely different animal.

Well then what would a "Rail Corridor DRL" do better than an upgraded GO corridor + a Queen/Don line?

I think it's a good idea to start thinking of GO/TTC as a single system.

 

[BurlOak]

I think a combination of the plan 4A and 6A of that GO study would be good.

I agree that these 2 options are the best long term solution. They can either be built concurrently, or at least planned together so the construction of one does not prevent the other from being built.

For option 4A, I think the main priorities Metrolinx is showing is that the rail corridor is full (at grade) and the DRL must go elsewhere. Second, they want DRL to intercept the (Lakeshore West and Georgetown) GO lines. They show the DRL along Queen with sharp turns northwards at Roncecvalles - with any type of radius on this curve, this would preclude a station at Queen/Roncecvalles since stations are not placed on curves.

For option 6A, I see going north to Wellington being more realistic than Queen. Also, it might make more sense for the Georgetown and Richmond Hill lines to go this way instead of Lakeshore, although this may depend on electrification.

 

[BurlOak]

I still think that an interlined DRL-BD would be easiest to sell to all Torontonians. Next would be Dundas to Pape via downtown with an extension to Eglinton. With this, the extension to Eglinton would be in phase 2 and many would be sceptical that it may never get built (i.e. think of Sheppard).

Apologies for my poor sketching skills, but this is how I think the DRL-Pape-Greenwood interchange would work. (Blue, Purple and Red are different generally constant levels and Green is sloping either up or down to get to another level. Coming down from Pape is the LRT, coming to a cross-platform transfer at Riverside). TRZ may have had a somewhat more complex proposal.

At Keele-Dundas, there is a provision for LRT coming in from the north - again a cross-platform transfer may be possible. It is unclear how the Jane LRT would make it over to (below) the Georgetown line - perhaps it would follow Dundas West or the rail corridor itself. Trains have to turn around at Keele, but this could be done as a single level with only one turning conflict. Also, the LRT's could make a loop to turn around (I hate to say it, but SRT style).

 

[nfitz]

Why would you want to set up something that's only going to create operational difficulties like interlining.

It might function well on lines that only run every 10 minutes or so ... but on lines like Danforth, where at peak, the next train can be on the platform, before you've had time to walk the length of the platform to get off, it's only going to create a functionality nightmare.

 

[gweed123]

Why would you want to set up something that's only going to create operational difficulties like interlining.

It might function well on lines that only run every 10 minutes or so ... but on lines like Danforth, where at peak, the next train can be on the platform, before you've had time to walk the length of the platform to get off, it's only going to create a functionality nightmare.

I agree. I much prefer branching over interlining (even though they are technically the same thing). By branching I mean have a central trunk route through downtown, which then branches out into more local routes as it exists downtown. This type of configuration is much more suited to LRT or BRT than it is to HRT though, because LRT and BRT can operate in much more flexible environments.

In the case of a Queen line, I envision a trunk tunnel under Queen, which then at Roncesvalles and Broadview branches off. One branch continues along Queen/the Queensway, and the other turns north and becomes the Jane and Don Mills LRTs, operating in-median north of Eglinton.

Another branching option is on Eglinton, where one route runs the Eglinton Crosstown route, and the other runs a Jane-Eglinton-Don Mills route, creating a U. The headways on the outer sections of Eglinton will be large enough that another line can be slotted in between them without much difficulty, especially if longer trains are used.

EDIT: Just to give a real-life example, think Green Line in Boston. Trunk tunnel going into downtown, branches out into different operating environments once it exits downtown.

 

[Ryan]

For option 4A, I think the main priorities Metrolinx is showing is that the rail corridor is full (at grade) and the DRL must go elsewhere.

This is a key point.
And I agree a combination of 4A & 6A/B is the best option...

I think generally Metrolinx is headed in the right direction and will make good decisions. The problem is, transit planning needs to be removed from the political process so label salesmen and lawyers can't make up new plans every four years.

I say, burst the bloated TTC and give more power to Metrolinx to create a true regional transit system.

 

[Tulse]

A Queen line as a Queen line I have no problem with. A Queen line as a DRL I do not like.

Why? As I see it there is little benefit to the DRL just being an express line.

 

[Earlscourt_Lad]

EDIT: Just to give a real-life example, think Green Line in Boston. Trunk tunnel going into downtown, branches out into different operating environments once it exits downtown.

Either the Distric, Central, or Metropolitan lines in London would be a good example as well.

 

[dunkalunk]

Why? As I see it there is little benefit to the DRL just being an express line.

GO would be the express line, while streetcars and buses would be more local. A DRL would best fit in between these two with stop spacing lying around 1km except where there is higher densities or important cross-corridors. The more closely subway stations are built, the less viable the line becomes because of the frequent stops and the added cost of building more underground station boxes. Closer stop spacing would also make streetcars on King and/or Queen highly redundant.

 

[M II A II R II K]

A Queen Line would be a needed service in and of itself and for relief too, and to have a second hub station connect with it closer to City Hall too for some of the GO Trains go through there.

The Bathurst North hub can work if some of the Lakeshore Trains had to stop there to transfer onto it, and the same for an east side hub.

 

[W. K. Lis]

With the expansion of Toronto's PATH, the DRL would end up pouring people into and out-of PATH, wherever the stations end up. But the powers-that-be should also put that into considering to make sure where the connections will be able to handle the crowds.