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

I'm probably not the only one who has speculated about running the DRL straight down to Lakeshore then going over the Don on what is now the ramps from the Gardiner. Elevated stations at Cherry and Unilever. But it would be tricky to get it back under ground and hook up to Union.
 
I'm probably not the only one who has speculated about running the DRL straight down to Lakeshore then going over the Don on what is now the ramps from the Gardiner. Elevated stations at Cherry and Unilever. But it would be tricky to get it back under ground and hook up to Union.

Hook up to Union? Yeah I'm not sure it is a front-runner as a connection...

Downtown_Connection_Stations.jpg

Legend_A.jpg
 
Both of these are problematic (and unworkable IMO), considering that south of Broadview they run on the surface alongside the Don River. This doesn't work, and it needlessly bypasses +50k people in the WDL, Regent Park, and much of the east downtown shoulder. The LRT is also dumb because it's proposed to run in-median along Front when all evidence says it needs to be underground. This is why I'm fully supportive of the City/TTC relief line plans: we've clearly asserted that it can only be a subway, and must be fully grade-separated. Even though we're timidly only planning it as a Phase I, we're planning it right IMO.

However, if Metrolinx does decide to accept our relief line criteria and work alongside us, I think some aspects of YRNS could hypothetically be morphed into the City/TTC routing options. Particularly "Option A" south of Broadview. So rather than running alongside the Don River south of Broadview as the YRNS proposes, the elevated structure would continue across the valley (in the Riverdale Park area), enter the valley wall, then run south along River Street toward King/Queen.

I'm more upbeat about the prospects of the surface subway. The obvious downside is, as you note, less ideal station placement in downtown's eastern shoulder (~Dundas or Gerrard). In the context of the overall project this seems fairly minor though. That station will probably have modest ridership and wouldn't suffer hugely from being located 400m to the east. It seems the main ridership purpose of the DRL is to connect major East-West routes to the CBD. The surface option gives the most flexibility to expand as far north as possible.

Given that the segment from Yonge to Danforth will only ever have 2-3 stations, it's likely it won't contribute hugely to improving local transit in that area. Subways in general are a poor way to service local travel demand since access times are significant and vehicle speeds are less determinative of total travel times.
 
I'm probably not the only one who has speculated about running the DRL straight down to Lakeshore then going over the Don on what is now the ramps from the Gardiner. Elevated stations at Cherry and Unilever. But it would be tricky to get it back under ground and hook up to Union.

Hm, that's actually a rather interesting idea, and I've never heard it mentioned here before. Though I'm dubious about it being workable, I think it's a great example of planning transit / city-building holistically and in conjunction with other nearby projects (e.g Gardiner rebuild/realignment, EBF streetcar, DRL, Lower Don Lands redevelopment, etc).

@crs1026's idea is also interesting, particularly in that it shares a lot of parallels with the original original 1985 DRL. Which was shortlisted from three alignments, down to one (this one having a route from Eastern east of the Don, along and overtop USRC to Union, or a possible tunnel along Front to Union.

Though IMO both of these ideas brings the DRL too far south. We've already got plans for transit along the waterfront, and I think a DRL near Lake Shore, Eastern, or Front might be cutting too close to the waterfront LRT's catchment.

I'm more upbeat about the prospects of the surface subway. The obvious downside is, as you note, less ideal station placement in downtown's eastern shoulder (~Dundas or Gerrard). In the context of the overall project this seems fairly minor though. That station will probably have modest ridership and wouldn't suffer hugely from being located 400m to the east. It seems the main ridership purpose of the DRL is to connect major East-West routes to the CBD. The surface option gives the most flexibility to expand as far north as possible.

Given that the segment from Yonge to Danforth will only ever have 2-3 stations, it's likely it won't contribute hugely to improving local transit in that area. Subways in general are a poor way to service local travel demand since access times are significant and vehicle speeds are less determinative of total travel times.

Fair enough. And I'm personally trying to accept the reality that all levels of government (even the City) will want to do this as cheap as possible. We have a century of evidence that shows this. This is why I think Mlinx's "Surface Subway" does have certain merit (north of Danforth). However, south of Danforth I think it could easily be morphed into the City/TTC Option A. So south of Danforth we get proper subway stations in well-populated areas (unlike Metrolinx's proposal to run a subway along the volatile Lower Don floodplain, bypassing tens of thousands in the process). But north of Danforth we can have a lower-cost, higher-speed surface subway (with stations at Thorncliffe Park, Eglinton, York Mills, and Sheppard.

Naturally though, I'd much rather have a real deal subway line going all the way to Pape, up Pape, then under Don Mills to Sheppard. We've built deep bore heavy rail subways in unpopulated Big Box industrial scrubland in Vaughan (where preexisting bus ridership can be counted on ones fingers), so I don't see why we coudn't do the same in the highest density downtown of North America's 4th largest city.

I tried to make a map of all the plans that exist right now (and the 1985 "DRL" for comparison). The narrow lines are where a detailed alignment has been given, and the blurrier lines are ones that haven't yet been aligned in detail. The Metrolinx Short/Long proposal in YRNS is vague, and their map of the route does seem a bit dodgy - but I've tried to transcribe it so it can be included it as well. *the map looks a bit crazy, but if you know which line is which and who's forwarding the proposal for each, it's easier to understand (I hope).

City-TTC+YRNS+1985_DRL-plans2.png
 

Attachments

  • City-TTC+YRNS+1985_DRL-plans2.png
    City-TTC+YRNS+1985_DRL-plans2.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 613
Last edited:
It seems that all alignments have very tight curves. I could see them using SkyTrain type vehicles which can handle I think 100m radius curves compared to 300m for TO subways. The preferable radius IIRC is 150m or 200m for SkyTrain and 750m? for subway.
They also require smaller tunnels and probably shorter trains. A few key stations would have all door boarding.
It would also be compatible with the Eglinton line ;)
 
It seems that all alignments have very tight curves. I could see them using SkyTrain type vehicles which can handle I think 100m radius curves compared to 300m for TO subways. The preferable radius IIRC is 150m or 200m for SkyTrain and 750m? for subway.
They also require smaller tunnels and probably shorter trains. A few key stations would have all door boarding.
It would also be compatible with the Eglinton line ;)

Anything is possible, but one needs to know the ridership projection before entertaining a 'light' technology. We have been talking about DRL as justifying a heavy capacity line. I could see going to New York or Chicago style rail cars - shorter, but still heavy rail - as a way of addressing curvature.

If it turns out that all we need is light rail, then the case for a relief line changes. There might be appetite for an auto-excluded surface line on Queen, for instance, rather than tunnelling costing a couple billion or more across downtown.

I'm a big fan for LRT otherwise, but for DRL I would say, go heavy or go home.

- Paul
 
It seems that all alignments have very tight curves. I could see them using SkyTrain type vehicles which can handle I think 100m radius curves compared to 300m for TO subways. The preferable radius IIRC is 150m or 200m for SkyTrain and 750m? for subway.
They also require smaller tunnels and probably shorter trains. A few key stations would have all door boarding.
It would also be compatible with the Eglinton line ;)

The light blue (1984/5 DRL) line was Skytrain. Rather, it was to be ICTS, but designed for the longer (and never built) ALRT vehicles - which were almost identical, but longer. Though the specs in the DRT report were made so that at any time during further design they could switch to conventional subway. I have all the quotes from the 1985 report further back in this thread.

Aside from the light pink YRNS "Surface LRT" route, the curves for the neon green "Surface Subway" seem pretty standard for conventional subway - though it's still early in the shortlist phase and I transcribed it only using their rudimentary map/routing detail. But keep in mind that the blurred lines (Long Subway and City/TTC A through D) are ones which don't yet have exact alignments yet.
 
Last edited:
Anything is possible, but one needs to know the ridership projection before entertaining a 'light' technology. We have been talking about DRL as justifying a heavy capacity line. I could see going to New York or Chicago style rail cars - shorter, but still heavy rail - as a way of addressing curvature.

If it turns out that all we need is light rail, then the case for a relief line changes. There might be appetite for an auto-excluded surface line on Queen, for instance, rather than tunnelling costing a couple billion or more across downtown.

I'm a big fan for LRT otherwise, but for DRL I would say, go heavy or go home.

- Paul

I know I'm a pain in the ass for continually bringing it up, but Metrolinx's preliminary numbers estimate 19,200 on a long DRL (to Sheppard @ Don Mills), which is 8,400 more than the short DRL (Pape or Broadview to downtown). That puts it in subway territory.

J2KpLIa.png
 
An incident at Union creates a single point of failure for entire network - GO, YUS and Relief Line. That, and the difficulty of managing the existing volume of pedestrian flow to/from Union, makes an alignment no further south than King critical, to my mind. Anyone who wants to go to Union/Southcore can still use YUS, especially if Relief Line reaches Eglinton and chops a chunk out of what Crosstown feeds into the Yonge line.
 
I searched for capacity of SkyTrain adn am not sure if I fully believe everything I read.

http://www.greg-vassilakos.com/traindwg/lg_bombardier_innovia_300.gif
http://www.bombardier.com/en/transp.../transportation-systems/automated-metros.html

So what is believable.

Maybe 100 passengers per 12m long car (thats about 3 passengers per m2) x 8 cars per train = 800 passengers per train x 30 trains per hour (120 second headway) = 24,000 ppdpd (it also = 100m platforms).
With all door boarding at key busy and interchange stations, a headway of 100 seconds should be achievable which would give close to 30k.
 
I would think that any station that becomes the DRL connection point - say Queen - would need to be upgraded to handle the added volumes.
 
I searched for capacity of SkyTrain adn am not sure if I fully believe everything I read.

http://www.greg-vassilakos.com/traindwg/lg_bombardier_innovia_300.gif
http://www.bombardier.com/en/transp.../transportation-systems/automated-metros.html

So what is believable.

Maybe 100 passengers per 12m long car (thats about 3 passengers per m2) x 8 cars per train = 800 passengers per train x 30 trains per hour (120 second headway) = 24,000 ppdpd (it also = 100m platforms).
With all door boarding at key busy and interchange stations, a headway of 100 seconds should be achievable which would give close to 30k.
What would we use for the yard if we adopted SkyTrain for the Relief Line?
 

Back
Top