Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

The DRL could certainly start running from Union to Pape or something like that...they wouldn't keep the whole thing closed until a longer "complete" DRL from Dundas West to Eglinton (or beyond in one or both directions). There's no good reason to stop the DRL at Don Mills & Eglinton - to really provide maximum relief to the Yonge line it must go as far north as Finch (conveniently, it passes through plenty of stuff and jobs and people along the way). Oh, wait, it may not be at capacity north of Eglinton...and any inch of subway line that isn't filled to capacity is horrible.

First of all, the need of DRL subway north of Eglinton will depend on the fate of Richmond Hill GO REX service. If it materializes, then a subway up Don Mills, so close to GO, would be redundant. GO will handle most of long-range commutes, while surface light rail up Don Mills will be sufficient for short and medium trips.

However, there is no guarantee that Richmond Hill GO REX gets implemented. It might hit technical hurdles, or appear to cost almost as much as a subway line. It will be nice to see details of this proposal when the RTP is published.

In the absence of Richmond Hill GO REX, there is a good case for subway all the way up Don Mills. It will carry decent loads, be good for system connectivity, and provide a rapid link downtown from the areas that currently do not have it.

Nevertheless, we can be pretty darn sure that Don Mills North subway is not getting implemented in the present round. Neither TTC nor Metrolinx is proposing it. Don Mills north of Eglinton will either get LRT, or will continue with buses.

I guess the only part of plan that might be open for amendments is the section between Danforth and Eglinton. It is going to be tunnelled and cost quite a bit anyway. So, it matters whether it is built as just an LRT tunnel, or a subway-spec tunnel temporarily used for LRT, or a subway line from the onset. Each option has certain pros and cons.
 
I meant the Union subway station, more so than GO.
Oh okay. But a line on Queen for example would be just as easy for transfers to Y-U-S. It's just that the transfers would be at Osgoode and Queen instead of at Union.

Anyway, I'm not saying that a Queen line would necessarily be better than a line in the rail ROW, I'm just saying that the importance of a Union connection is overstated by some. And I do think that regional rail/S-bahn/Cityrail in the rail ROW and a subway on Queen (or King or somewhere in between) is the ideal solution. And it's realistic.
 
A similar argument was bandied around the Jane LRT thread where it was presumed that 8 tracks were needed to handle the combined load of VIA, GO, an LRT and Blue 22. The truth is that the 14 tracks in Union station is more than enough to handle the capacity of that station for the forseeable future. Berlin, for example, can accommodate all its main east-west intercity and S-bahn traffic on just 3 platforms in the central station. Clapham Junction, which sees 121 trains per hour has just two more tracks than Union station, and it could probably have had less if it wasn't for the fact that a gigantic wye that directs trains to different directions lies just to the east of the station itself.

If we dedicate the northernmost 2 tracks to the DRL, the other 12 tracks can very easily be allocated to GO and VIA.

That's also an operations issue. Right now, GO needs all the tracks it uses, but that is only for about 90 minutes in the morning and 120 minutes in the afternoon. That is because of dwell times and turn-back of the monster push-pull train sets, especially the Lakeshore expresses and the rush-hour only lines where trains in the morning arrive, dump 2000 people on a narrow and inadequate platform and wait to reverse (in many cases) to the Mimico or the closer North Bathurst or Don Yards. In the afternoon, a lot of trains deadheading to Union back up near the CNE and the CN Tower to get in position. Through RER-type trains operating at RER frequencies (Lakeshore, Mississauga-Markham, Brampton-Richmond Hill) would need much less space and dwell times, though I concede that maybe two tracks might be needed for additional rush hour trains. VIA, even with improvements, shouldn't need more than 4-5 tracks - there are 14 usable tracks right now at Union, and we really only need 12 at most. No problem fitting in a DRL, even though at Union itself, it might make sense to have the subways at the same level.
 
To get a really better network at the end of the day, the DRL subway would have to go further east along the waterfront, perhaps to Coxwell or Woodbine, and then turn north to reach Danforth. But then, Don Mills LRT will not have a direct connection to DRL between 2028 (when DRL reaches Danforth) and 2040 (when it reaches Eglinton per your count).
This is kind of what I was thinking actually.

And here's how you do it to avoid the 12-year (or more) disconnect.

The LRT is constructed in a streetcar tunnel down Pape to Pape Station.

Later the DRL subway is constructed to Pape, so that the platforms are on the same level as the LRT platforms.

Sometime even later, a new subway tunnel is constructed from Gerrard/Pape (or Queen/Pape, or wherever) and the tunnel heads to Coxwell or Woodbine or somewhere and then strikes north to Don Mills Road/Eglinton, with a new intersection with Danforth at Coxwell or Woodbine.

At this point you have a few options. You could run two branches. Or you could simply convert to LRT the relatively short section of subway tunnel from Pape Station to a station where the DRL extension branches, and run the LRT down to it.

In a similiar manner to how in London a chunk of the Jubilee line that was only 20-years old between Green Park and Charing Cross was closed when it was extended east to Stratford. (and TFL is still talking of converting some of that tunnel to an extension of the DLR line into Bank).
 
It looks like there is plenty of room for another two tracks, but who knows.
Ultimately 4 tracks is possible, but there would have to be a lot of infrastructure work, though most of the line was already set up for three tracks.

However this is where GO has just constructed the 3rd track for the Lakeshore East line (you can see some of the grading in the photographs).

Given the Super Go proposal, and VIA's various high-speed proposals, if there ever is a fourth track here, it will be for that.

The conclusion in 1985, was that you couldn't run a subway along this line - at least not north of Eastern.
 
First of all, the need of DRL subway north of Eglinton will depend on the fate of Richmond Hill GO REX service. If it materializes, then a subway up Don Mills, so close to GO, would be redundant. GO will handle most of long-range commutes, while surface light rail up Don Mills will be sufficient for short and medium trips.

No, it would not be redundant...that GO line would do a pretty lousy job of providing local or medium distance service along Don Mills between Markham and downtown. Yeah, fine, you'll take people from 'the 905' to Union Station, but nowhere else, really...and it's the "everywhere else" trips that will form the overwhelming majority of new rides along such a line. Creating a series of stubways is precisely *not* how to build a subway system - you cannot reap what you do not sow.

The only people proposing a DRL subway run up Don Mills are the people posting in this thread. The Transfer City line on Don Mills would not be tunnelled north of Millwood, anyway.
 
Check this out...

The DRL: Why...and when?

The Downtown Relief Line (DRL) continually falls somewhere between long-term planning and long-term lore when it comes to heavy rail infrastructure ideas for Toronto. While the idea lay dormant for a generation, we now seem to be back in an era when it has come out of its fabled state and into some vision of long-term reality. While it might not be something on the average Torontonian’s radar yet, it is once again being seriously discussed, not only on transit blogs and forums, but also in some halls of power.

The DRL was first studied in the mid-1980s as part of the Network 2011 transit plan for what was then Metro Toronto. The line was envisioned to connect Union Station with Pape and Dundas West Stations by running large portions of the line at grade via mostly existing railway right-of-ways which would also help to significantly reduce the cost of such a major investment. The DRL would, in effect, have created a second, wider subway ‘U’ for Toronto, and thereby taken enormous pressure off the existing system. For instance, if one were coming from the east, one would have the option of switching lines at Pape instead of Yonge-Bloor Station for a quick ride downtown. The DRL could also be thought of as a heavy rail version of the King streetcar, but following a wider route and playing a more regional role.

In 1985 the first phase of the DRL — from Pape (on the Danforth line) to Spadina (near the coming domed stadium) — was budgeted at $565 million and was seen as requisite to relieving large portions of the Yonge and Bloor-Danforth lines, especially Yonge & Bloor Station which was becoming severely overcrowded in the run-up to the TTC’s all-time ridership record of 463 million riders in 1988. Despite all this though, the DRL never came to fruition. There are several reasons and speculations as to why, but basically the line had no champion and some of the more personality-driven politicians in Metro’s boroughs were against “another downtown subway” and favoured system expansions in their own fiefdoms instead. Another blow to the DRL was the fact that “intensification” was not the buzz word it is today and that “stable neighbourhoods” would have been the equivalent of the time. Basically, many residents — and their politicians — looked at the DRL sceptically as a developer-driven scheme to change their neighbourhoods. Also, post-1988, the TTC’s ridership began to drop for more than a decade and a modest extension to the Bloor platform at Yonge-Bloor Station relieved some of the crowding problems and cemented the DRL as something off the agenda.

Today we find ourselves in a strikingly similar position to the mid-1980s. Transit expansion is back on the agenda and a variety of proposals are being vetted, including the DRL. The Yonge line is once again nearing a breaking point — as is Yonge-Bloor Station — and the TTC is flirting with besting its all-time ridership numbers. Also, as downtown Toronto has grown as a multi-purpose destination, people have become increasingly frustrated with the unreliability of transit routes into and through the downtown as admitted by the TTC and as documented in various articles.

Twenty years later there are also some significant differences, but they only seem to add to the call for a DRL. Firstly, intensification is the order of the day and many of the previously industrial neighbourhoods that the DRL would run through are now some of the most significant and dynamic growth areas of Toronto. In fact, the original proposed alignment of the DRL appears more attractive than ever as it passes through emerging neighbourhoods such as Leslieville, The West Donlands, CityPlace, Liberty Village, Parkdale, Roncesvalles, etc. Toronto’s central business district is also once again attracting significant office development and there is increasingly not a quick and effective way of going cross-town through the city unless one is relatively close to the Bloor-Danforth line. As Toronto has matured and densified, transit has not kept pace with where this urbanization has been occurring. Therefore, the DRL could now provide double the bang for the same buck as it would both relieve existing subway services (and thereby help those coming in from the suburbs), but would also give those living closer to the core a better, more reliable and faster route cross-town while connecting some of the primary neighbourhoods where Torontonians increasingly live, work and play.

Despite all this, the DRL has a curious spot in the minds of our current civic administration. While there is recognition that some form of a DRL needs to be part of the long-term planning for downtown Toronto, it does not appear to be a high priority for the current administration. Mayor David Miller and TTC Chair Adam Giambrone seem preoccupied with selling their Transit City light rail plan that envisions modern streetcars in their own rights-of-way pushing out into Toronto’s suburbs. While the merits of Transit City are generally good, it does not offer much to the downtowner wondering why it is taking 45 minutes to get from Parkdale to Parliament. Also, while Transit City’s noble goal of getting higher priority transit into more parts of Toronto is sound, it could run the risk of overwhelming part of the existing subway system as these new, faster and more attractive tram lines will be feeding into the same subway system that is also being expanded northerly in Vaughan. In a way it seems a case of putting the cart before the horse which is perhaps why Metrolinx is viewing a version of the Downtown Relief Line as imperative to reliable transit across the region.

Metrolinx will be presenting its Draft Regional Transportation Plan and Investment Strategy at their next board meeting, now scheduled for September 26. However, elements of the plan have already been leaked to the media and it is widely expected that they will be calling for a Downtown Core Line that mostly mimics the DRL, but could have a much more expensive southerly alignment on King or Queen Streets instead. The province had always intended for Metrolinx to examine their MoveOntario 2020 plan and to allocate provincial funding based on their sober second look. However, while even Metrolinx’s more pro-subway stance on GTA transit issues recognizes the need for a DRL/DCL, they too are arguing that it is not likely to start anytime before 2020.

Backers of the Downtown Relief Line — myself included — have waited a long time for the DRL to find a place on the agenda again. While there is certainly some satisfaction with seeing it return to the books in some form, it also comes with the frustration that it will have to wait on a shelf as our next generation of subway expansion will not be following typical urban growth patterns, but will instead plough expensively north to what is now a power centre in Vaughan. Interestingly, the DRL never seems to be considered in current infrastructure projects either, such as eliminating the Dufferin jog or in the designs for the CityPlace complex on the former railway lands. In a city that prides itself for having had the foresight to build the Bloor Viaduct with a second tier for a future subway, it is curious at best, prohibitively expensive at worst to be ignoring the fact that a subway line is needed here at some point in the not-too-distant future. While construction may not be imminent, planning for the DRL should be. The DRL would also be easily expandable north of Bloor-Danforth (particularly on the western leg), yet it strangely holds no place in current discussions for finally connecting Pearson Airport and Union Station via a heavy rail link.

All said, the relatively cheaper cost of the DRL (using the originally proposed alignment) compared to other subway plans and the larger place it would hold in turning our subway system into a proper network should not be ignored. Couple this with how the DRL would strengthen and connect growing neighbourhoods while providing relief to existing overburdened lines can really make one wonder if this is one of those cases where those ideas that are so damn obvious are also the ones that get ignored.

What will the excuse be in 2020? Can we even wait until 2020?
 
... The LRT is constructed in a streetcar tunnel down Pape to Pape Station.

Later the DRL subway is constructed to Pape, so that the platforms are on the same level as the LRT platforms.

Sometime even later, a new subway tunnel is constructed from Gerrard/Pape (or Queen/Pape, or wherever) and the tunnel heads to Coxwell or Woodbine or somewhere and then strikes north to Don Mills Road/Eglinton, with a new intersection with Danforth at Coxwell or Woodbine.

At this point you have a few options. You could run two branches. Or you could simply convert to LRT the relatively short section of subway tunnel from Pape Station to a station where the DRL extension branches, and run the LRT down to it. ...

This is an interesting proposal. Indeed a better network at the end, and the plan is good for incremental deployment.
 
No, it would not be redundant...that GO line would do a pretty lousy job of providing local or medium distance service along Don Mills between Markham and downtown. Yeah, fine, you'll take people from 'the 905' to Union Station, but nowhere else, really...and it's the "everywhere else" trips that will form the overwhelming majority of new rides along such a line.

The ability of GO line to handle trips other than '905 to Union' will partly depend on the location of GO stations. The Oriole and Old Cummer stations can be relocated for smooth integration with the Sheppard E and Finch E transit, and a new stop can be added at Don Mills or Eglinton. Then, the Richmond Hill line could handle a fair number of 'North York to Union' and '905 to North York trips.

Creating a series of stubways is precisely *not* how to build a subway system - you cannot reap what you do not sow.

A line from downtown to Eglinton/Don Mills won't be exactly a "stubway". It would be about as long as the original Bloor subway (Keele to Woodbine), and actually longer than the original Yonge line (Union to Eglinton).

If the subway line does get extended north of Eglinton, the question is whether it should run along Don Mills (pretty close to the REX GO line) or tilt east to Vic Park or Warden, to spread out the access to fast rail services.
 
It should run along Don Mills north of Eglinton...it should not be shifted over to some point midway between two other arbitrary points just to look proper and orderly on maps, which is all shifting it would accomplish without a good reason (something "access" is not). There's something to be said for a diagonal line, but, then again, no, there isn't, because the Midtown GO line (which could have a string of well-located stations offering seamless bus connections) will do this.

As long as great terminus points like Fairview or Finch/Seneca and potentially very busy stops like Don Mills & Lawrence are all just a few km away, it'd be a stubway*. All of Toronto's subway lines are currently stubways.

*cue people baselessly suggesting this will lead to endless extensions.
 
As long as great terminus points like Fairview or Finch/Seneca and potentially very busy stops like Don Mills & Lawrence are all just a few km away, it'd be a stubway*. All of Toronto's subway lines are currently stubways.

I disagree. The YUS and BD lines are full fledged 'subway' lines. one crosses the lower middle area of the city and the other provides north south travel through the central area of the city. What would you consider a subway if these are just stubways?
 
It should run along Don Mills north of Eglinton...it should not be shifted over to some point midway between two other arbitrary points just to look proper and orderly on maps, which is all shifting it would accomplish without a good reason (something "access" is not). There's something to be said for a diagonal line, but, then again, no, there isn't, because the Midtown GO line (which could have a string of well-located stations offering seamless bus connections) will do this.

What is it so special that Don Mills possesses while Vic Park or Warden do not? Seneca College and Fairview? New developments on other streets can match them. Regarding the E-W bus or rail routes, they will connect to a Vic Park or Warden line just as nicely as to Don Mills.

As long as great terminus points like Fairview or Finch/Seneca and potentially very busy stops like Don Mills & Lawrence are all just a few km away, it'd be a stubway*. All of Toronto's subway lines are currently stubways.

*cue people baselessly suggesting this will lead to endless extensions.

By that definition, nearly every subway line in the world is a stubway, unless it is circular. By the time you extend Bloor / Danforth to STC and Sherways, or Don Mills to Finch, or Yonge to RH, new developments will likely occur further east / west / north, and our extended lines will have to be qualified as 'stubways' once again.
 
Quick question for the DRL proponents:

I was looking at Google Maps, and it seems like the Rexdale corridor, especially where the proposed Islington North and Martin Grove North stations would be located, are in the middle of nowhere.

Would zoning even permit dense residential units around these stations?
 
What is it so special that Don Mills possesses while Vic Park or Warden do not? Seneca College and Fairview? New developments on other streets can match them. Regarding the E-W bus or rail routes, they will connect to a Vic Park or Warden line just as nicely as to Don Mills.

By that definition, nearly every subway line in the world is a stubway, unless it is circular. By the time you extend Bloor / Danforth to STC and Sherways, or Don Mills to Finch, or Yonge to RH, new developments will likely occur further east / west / north, and our extended lines will have to be qualified as 'stubways' once again.

Ahh, the classic "ignore all existing and proposed conditions and busy routes because subways can be justified anywhere with theoretical redevelopments" approach. True, a subway line anywhere could trigger a few North York Centres and could eventually have more stuff on it than Don Mills, but what if it doesn't? You'll have bypassed a perfectly good corridor for nothing. If people going to Seneca can take a bus or streetcar after getting off a rapid transit line, people living along Warden or VP can take a bus or streetcar to get to a rapid transit line...it cuts both ways. Other than the two clusters at Bridletowne and Bamburgh, Warden is lined with nothing but houses all the way into Markham. Even if you shifted over to VP and then went up Warden northeast of Consumers, you still wouldn't run past as much as you would going up Don Mills - and Don Mills can be intensified easier than VP or Warden. If you're going to argue against a straight Don Mills line for the sake of argument, make it a sufficiently wild (and crazy-enough-it-might-just-work) alternative, like extending the DRL up the Midtown GO corridor and across Progress to STC...

A stubway is a line that clearly doesn't go far enough, not a line that should keep getting extended as long as more than zero people might ride it...whether it was built this way on purpose or whether it just never happened due to funding or whatever else, the effects are the same. I don't think there's another city in the world that would have stopped the Yonge line at Finch because too many people would find it useful if it kept going, or stopped the Spadina line a few km short of a huge university and busy intersecting bus routes, etc. Kipling, Kennedy, Downsview, and Finch are kinda awful as terminus points, especially since stuff like York U and STC predate them. Jane & #7 will be a future silly terminus point...Yorkdale and York U make great termini - Wilson, Downsview, #7...not so much. Don Mills & Eglinton makes a reasonable point to open one phase of the DRL, though, as opposed to random points like Overlea or York Mills.
 

Back
Top