Spadina Rapid Transit Line (Speculative)

[BurlOak]

Bloor line change - Google My Maps

Bloor line change

drive.google.com

As you see, it adds stations without loosing stations.

Ok - I see how this works, and it does solve some problems, but adds a few as well.

The biggest things are that:

• This requires twice as much track (down Spadina and up Bay) compared to mine (just down Elizabeth /York).
• This requires twice as many stations, whereby the Spadina ones are already reasonably served by the LRT.
• This has more disruptive tie-ins to the existing lines. Your Bloor and West of Spadina tie-in is similar to my Spadina north of Bloor tie-in, but the Bay/Bloor is much more complicated due to the area already having two levels there, whereby I just duck under the Bloor line where it is 1 level.
• You have 4 large curves (Spadina/Bloor, Spadina/Front, Front/Bay, and Bay/Bloor. Each of these have implications with building foundations. I have 2 curves, 1 at Spadina/Harbord and the other basically under the grass of Queen's Park Circle.
• Your downtown U would only have half the service, as it appears you still have a B-D route that just goes straight across, so likely only half serve your U. I get full use out of each piece of infrastructure.
• You do not lose any service for any existing Spadina line passenger, which is a good thing. That is why I chose going down Elizabeth/York, as I think it may actually be an improvement - although people may complain because it's a change.
• As a rough guess, I'd put your cost at $3B to $3.5B, whereas mine would be $1.5B to $2B (i.e. 75% more).

 

[NotAToy]

I think it is really about increasing capacity into downtown, not interlining or decoupling or anything else. While interlining/decoupling will work for the moment, we need to think at LEAST 30 years into the future. That's why entire new lines are needed, not additions to existing ones.

As you see, it adds stations without losing stations.

I disagree. The city needs a direct E-W line, not a line that snakes in and out of downtown. I will put forth my own proposal.

New Line Downtown - Google My Maps

New Line Downtown

www.google.com

It will be insanely expensive to implement, but I think it will be worth it. It also eliminates transfers, full stop.


Is an express service on Yonge skipping everything from Eglinton to B-Y help?

Edited: I didn't see your post, BurlOak.

 

[BurlOak]

I think it is really about increasing capacity into downtown, not interlining or decoupling or anything else. While interlining/decoupling will work for the moment, we need to think at LEAST 30 years into the future. That's why entire new lines are needed, not additions to existing ones.

I disagree. The city needs a direct E-W line, not a line that snakes in and out of downtown. I will put forth my own proposal.

New Line Downtown - Google My Maps

New Line Downtown

www.google.com

It will be insanely expensive to implement, but I think it will be worth it. It also eliminates transfers, full stop.


Is an express service on Yonge skipping everything from Eglinton to B-Y help?

Edited: I didn't see your post, BurlOak.

Interlining is a way of getting a new line, of sorts, into the downtown. It essentially means that every second train from East or West goes directly downtown.
The purpose of interlining is to reduce transfers. If these locations (East and West) have direct access to downtown, it means less transfers.
The only reason of decoupling is to allow for interlining, which allows for direct access to downtown for more people.

As you can see, my long term vision does have more lines going to downtown. First, the Ontario Line, which would intercept people before they get to the Yonge Line. Next is the Scarborough Line, which allows those in the NE to directly access downtown without transfer. This would also go up the NW side.

I don't like branches that have half service - unless the branch is built in some type of right-of-way where the cost is much lower. As you have shown, I imagine both Relief Line branches would be mostly tunneled, but only have half service each (because the Dundas portion would have the regular service). Of course the specifics of the Relief Line routes can easily be debated.

 

[micheal_can]

Ok - I see how this works, and it does solve some problems, but adds a few as well.

The biggest things are that:

• This requires twice as much track (down Spadina and up Bay) compared to mine (just down Elizabeth /York).
• This requires twice as many stations, whereby the Spadina ones are already reasonably served by the LRT.
• This has more disruptive tie-ins to the existing lines. Your Bloor and West of Spadina tie-in is similar to my Spadina north of Bloor tie-in, but the Bay/Bloor is much more complicated due to the area already having two levels there, whereby I just duck under the Bloor line where it is 1 level.
• You have 4 large curves (Spadina/Bloor, Spadina/Front, Front/Bay, and Bay/Bloor. Each of these have implications with building foundations. I have 2 curves, 1 at Spadina/Harbord and the other basically under the grass of Queen's Park Circle.
• Your downtown U would only have half the service, as it appears you still have a B-D route that just goes straight across, so likely only half serve your U. I get full use out of each piece of infrastructure.
• You do not lose any service for any existing Spadina line passenger, which is a good thing. That is why I chose going down Elizabeth/York, as I think it may actually be an improvement - although people may complain because it's a change.
• As a rough guess, I'd put your cost at $3B to $3.5B, whereas mine would be $1.5B to $2B (i.e. 75% more).

1) You are right. But this also means that it is not interlining anything.

2) Twice as many options for people to access downtown better. Makes the subway downtown even more walkable.

3,4,5) If this was implemented, you could run all Line 2 service through the new U. What you could do also is have weekend service straight across and weekday service through downtown. or even alternate downtown and thru service.. The curves would be tight, but if we use a TBM and go deep so that we don't need much utility relocating, we should be fine with the curves too. They would be tight, but they would be no worse than the current ones already on Line 1.

6) You are right, I do not loose service. I do gain service. Bay St would now have subway service to it. It doesn't even have streetcar service to it. Toronto's main bus terminal would be served by this new line. This means travelers now have an easier way to get around the city. This would mean now all 3 modes of intercity travel to Toronto (Pearson, Union and the bus terminal) would now be on an RT line.

7) Double the cost for double the line? Sounds about right.

The problem is we have congestion on Line 1. The second problem is Yonge - Bloor station is congested. Both of our plans will work. However, mine solves both better than interlining.

 

[tayser]

If said consultants weren't taking the piss, they'd be telling Toronto authorities that Melbourne & Sydney are doing the darndest to untangle interlining and loop structures!

Just to illustrate this point, I just posted an explainer in this thread.

 

[NotAToy]

Interlining is a way of getting a new line, of sorts, into the downtown. It essentially means that every second train from East or West goes directly downtown.
The purpose of interlining is to reduce transfers. If these locations (East and West) have direct access to downtown, it means less transfers.
The only reason of decoupling is to allow for interlining, which allows for direct access to downtown for more people.

As you can see, my long term vision does have more lines going to downtown. First, the Ontario Line, which would intercept people before they get to the Yonge Line. Next is the Scarborough Line, which allows those in the NE to directly access downtown without transfer. This would also go up the NW side.

I don't like branches that have half service - unless the branch is built in some type of right-of-way where the cost is much lower. As you have shown, I imagine both Relief Line branches would be mostly tunneled, but only have half service each (because the Dundas portion would have the regular service). Of course the specifics of the Relief Line routes can easily be debated.

View attachment 223573

I'm not an expert, I'm not going to debate specifics. I'm imagining that the Scarborough branch of my relief line would be a sort of express service towards Kennedy or STC, skipping everything between Kennedy and Coxwell. With the current proposal for DRl, we are just shifting pressure to Pape.

I think that the downtown section of my RL would be 4 tracked, even though I know it would be expensive. I think that it would split off into 2 branches in the east too, one to Etobicoke and maybe Mimico, the other heading north towards York and joining and even replacing service on Line 1 north of Lawrence or something.

Also, I know we are going to need extra capacity. My line essentially offers maybe 30-50 years of relief, before we need a new line.