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

[rbt]

Great, so why is ST happening then? Cancel the lot and put it into DRL W. There's too many city-owned lines in the northeast while the rest of the city gets stuck with what it has.

That chart doesn't include the SmartTrack option.

Ridership in the inner GTA is highly sensitive to pricing and frequencies. RER+ (which I can't find a definition for frequency wise) fails pricing at very least.

We need yet another study with Smart Track in a doable format (enough track space for frequent service) and an affordable fare policy in place (affordable both for government and the customers). I would be gobsmacked if 5 minute frequencies and TTC fare policy didn't remove 10% of ridership of Bloor/Yonge at a fraction of the price of DRL (both operating and capital).

In my mind, we build Smart Track first then we put ~$4B into the Richmond Hill line (straighten it out, boost frequencies, cut fare, add stations with bus terminals, and fix/add transfer points at Sheppard and Eglinton).

Lake Shore too of course. It's like LRT, we need the example of what can be done to really get the average voter to demand it from their representatives. 15 minute frequencies is great start but it becomes really interesting at the 5 minute level with Paris style fare integration.

Once surface corridors are used to their full potential, we can look at underground again. Operating costs are manageable; it's the capital renewal budget (SOGR line-item for TTC) that is the killer.

I'm starting to sound like AreBe (they had the right idea; horrible presentation of it though).

 

[Euphoria]

There's little connecting of dots or long term perspective in this discussion. If we want transit coverage with decent speeds in separate rights of way, it doesn't matter to the user whether it comes in the form of heavy rail, LRT, or subway, as long as it only requires a standard TTC fair. The question is, what gives us the fastest, cheapest implementation? We know ST has wide support and is relatively cheap. Is it complete coverage? No. But the DRL and other spurs can be added incrementally over time to fill the gaps. What bothers me is that there is no thought to how something like a DRL could be funded and connected to another goal like burial of the Gardiner. If we're digging for a DRL, why not provide for an underground Gardiner (and Allen extension?) in the same tunnel. Maybe the road tolls can help pay the capital costs of subway tunnel construction. I suggest connecting DVP to the Gardiner under Richmond and Adelaide (also use a Front St. extension west of Bathurst like in the City's old Gardiner plan?). That would allow us to remove the elevated Gardiner, provide needed funding for DRL, and reduce construction disruption with one set of tunnels. You'd also have added to the tax base through added land development (tax incremental financing). We could scrap the half-assed hybrid Gardiner option. I know this is too big for many to get their heads around, but imagine having a DRL through the core, no highway barrier to the lake, and some financing for a DRL. We could even leave the elevated Gardiner in place until it's built. Now imagine eventually running the Allen underground south with subway from Eglinton West station to connect with it. I'd suggest reasonable tolls for the Gardiner portion (since it is replacing an existing route) and very expensive tolls for an underground Allen Expressway, since it is a new express route. Anyone who thinks people won't pay outrageous road tolls for convenience has only to look to the 407. I think the Bay St. and Muskoka set would be willing to pay. This would give us DRL from Eglinton West south to west of Bathurst and Richmond, and east to the DVP. That's more than half of your DRL. We'd still have to finance tunneling for the eastern leg of the new subway route. I suggest all of this assuming we will also have ST. Anyone who thinks an underground toll highway is hard to build needs to look only at Paris's A86. Each of the two parallel tunnels would provide room for one direction of highway and subway. We need creative solutions to pay for transit and highways, and we need to provide more accessible transit and faster commute times that improve productivity, air quality, the pedestrian experience at street level, and overall quality of life.

 

[crs1026]

And I will continue to vociferously oppose it, because I am sick and tired of multi-billion dollar projects being kicked around for one particular piece of the city, while my $15MM loop keeps getting pushed out due to budgets and I have to wait 15 mins in morning traffic to get from Park Lawn to the Humber River, .

Your loop?

If all of this hubris is because traffic at Park Lawn and the Lakeshore is stupid, you're taking the long way round to solve the problem. How about just having the City agree to not approve any more condo buildings down here until a full traffic study has been done. (to my knowledge, there has never been a proper traffic study done on Lakeshore-Park Lawn). How about restoring the traffic lanes on Lakeshore East at the Humber, which the City removed so that the curb could be moved northwards, because there wasnt quite enough land to build said condo's the way the developers wanted them?

I'm not convinced we even need a WLRT out here, we just need the current 501 trackage from Sunnyside to Park Lawn improved and much better measures put in place to the east so that 501/504 speeds and capacity are improved. The relief line can terminate at Liberty, giving 504 riders the choice of continuing by surface to downtown, or getting on DRL to reach the Donlands, Danforth, or beyond.

- Paul

 

[ssiguy2]

The DRL is needed although less so with ST but it's a future project. Torontonians need rapid transit as soon as possible and ST offers that, DRL will not qualify for any of the feds future infrastructure money as it is a long term project and they don't even know the route yet to say nothing of the endless community consultations and environmental reviews.

Toronto is constantly bitching about a lack of federal support for transit and now it's here so they should take full advantage of it and the DRL is simply too far in the distance to beginning construction. Also by being a long term project it risks being completely stalled due to a change in governments and policy when Wynne and Trudeau eventually leave office.

 

[Euphoria]

I agree. Too much bickering over ST versus other projects runs the risk of getting nothing anytime soon. Get ST rolling and supplement where needed as funds allow later on. Between Finch LRT, ST, Crosstown, and something in Scarborough (subway/LRT), we'll have a decent network in place. All of this has earmarked funding. Build DRL as a longer term plan and there won't be much need for big transit additions in the city proper. A few extensions and short spurs will do the trick.

 

[goreckm]

The DRL is needed although less so with ST but it's a future project. Torontonians need rapid transit as soon as possible and ST offers that, DRL will not qualify for any of the feds future infrastructure money as it is a long term project and they don't even know the route yet to say nothing of the endless community consultations and environmental reviews.

Toronto is constantly bitching about a lack of federal support for transit and now it's here so they should take full advantage of it and the DRL is simply too far in the distance to beginning construction. Also by being a long term project it risks being completely stalled due to a change in governments and policy when Wynne and Trudeau eventually leave office.

You keep repeating this every few posts, without any actual proof to back it up. Saying something over and over again does not make it true. In fact, I would say the DRL is more shovel ready than SmartTrack is at this point. For SmartTrack to event begin construction, the province needs to do their electrification work, which, knowing the speed of Metrolinkx, probably won't happen on that corridor for at least 10 years. We don't even know what kind of vehicles will be running, and if is going to be the province operating the vehicles, or the TTC. We don't even know if 5 minute frequencies are possible, all of these studies done so far assume it's possible, but I don't think the engineering studies have been done. It may also require a change of federal safety regulations. The fact that both the city and province have to do work in tandem tells me this is going to be a long and complicated process. SmartTrack is not something that will be operational anytime soon, and if DRL got funding, it could probably be up and running quicker. Now, you are correct that politically, SmartTrack will probably get the funding based on the simple fact that it runs through more ridings, and the ridings are more 'important', electorally speaking, but this has nothing to do with the merit or construction time of either option.

 

[Euphoria]

The reason is cost.

 

[rbt]

You keep repeating this every few posts, without any actual proof to back it up. Saying something over and over again does not make it true. In fact, I would say the DRL is more shovel ready than SmartTrack is at this point.

Neither is close to shovel ready. They both have a minimum of 24 months work required to get to tender stage (6 month EA, 12 months with IO to prepare tender, 6 months to award contract).

I think SmartTrack is actually closer simply because it has about 3 months less discovery work required (no drill holes to test soil conditions for tunnelling for example) and IO will prioritize a provincial project (RER) over a city project.

For SmartTrack to event begin construction, the province needs to do their electrification work, which, knowing the speed of Metrolinkx, probably won't happen on that corridor for at least 10 years.

That seems highly unlikely. Wynne needs to lock things up by 2018 (firm contracts) or a) she won't be re-elected, and b) she won't leave a legacy (power change will stop all work for some time).

I would be very surprised if the majority of the RER work (SmartTrack is RER) wasn't fully tendered by 2018. I think the Barrie line bridge discussion demonstrates just how earnest Metrolinx is in completing this work as quickly as possible.

 

[Translude15]

Neither is close to shovel ready. They both have a minimum of 24 months work required to get to tender stage (6 month EA, 12 months with IO to prepare tender, 6 months to award contract).

I think SmartTrack is actually closer simply because it has about 3 months less discovery work required (no drill holes to test soil conditions for tunnelling for example) and IO will prioritize a provincial project (RER) over a city project.



That seems highly unlikely. Wynne needs to lock things up by 2018 (firm contracts) or a) she won't be re-elected, and b) she won't leave a legacy (power change will stop all work for some time).

I would be very surprised if the majority of the RER work (SmartTrack is RER) wasn't fully tendered by 2018. I think the Barrie line bridge discussion demonstrates just how earnest Metrolinx is in completing this work as quickly as possible.

Electrifying all GO corridors while also adding infill stations is still a very, very tall order that will take upwards of 10 years. Hence the redundancy and unlikeliness of ST ever being implemented as advertised. Hello DRL Long.

 

[muller877]

Your loop?

If all of this hubris is because traffic at Park Lawn and the Lakeshore is stupid, you're taking the long way round to solve the problem. How about just having the City agree to not approve any more condo buildings down here until a full traffic study has been done. (to my knowledge, there has never been a proper traffic study done on Lakeshore-Park Lawn). How about restoring the traffic lanes on Lakeshore East at the Humber, which the City removed so that the curb could be moved northwards, because there wasnt quite enough land to build said condo's the way the developers wanted them?

I'm not convinced we even need a WLRT out here, we just need the current 501 trackage from Sunnyside to Park Lawn improved and much better measures put in place to the east so that 501/504 speeds and capacity are improved. The relief line can terminate at Liberty, giving 504 riders the choice of continuing by surface to downtown, or getting on DRL to reach the Donlands, Danforth, or beyond.

- Paul

The city was quite happy to have the seedy motels gone from this stretch (and I am too). The city does not have a plan to keep industrial jobs within Toronto nor has a plan to encourage commercial property development near high order transit outside of the downtown core. This is the reason why the Humber Bay area is being developed into condos. The cities lack of a comprehensive urban plan that encompasses the provinces growth projections and the NIMBY-ism of the politicians and city staff have given the developers the right and ability to appeal and win at the OMB.

This is why areas such as Humber Bay are allowed to grow at this rate. And this is why we lose good industrial jobs like Mr Christie and why we can't build more commercial at STC nor Islington area. It's not the developers...they are given a set of rules by the city and province and follow them (note that the provincial rules trump the city rules unless the city has followed the provincial stipulations when setting their rules). It's the city that is behind and we keep on voting in counsellors who encourage NIMBY arguments where there is already high order transit while encouraging development outside of their ward (ideally where there is only industrial and hence no transit where there are no voters to complain.

(sorry...but good rant!)

Only recently the city has been getting up to speed on urban development and having a plan in place that meets the provinces rules (avenues, etc). If the NIMBY-ism stops we will see great midrises (6 story wood frame construction plus 20+ story concrete near transit stops) along these routes very quickly. We will see it even more quickly if the city encourages industrial and commercial areas to remain industrial and commercial (and hopefully grow). There needs to be tax credits for new commercial builds near high order transit (outside of the downtown core), lowered industrial rates so we can compete with other cities, etc. If the city can stop the conversion of industrial to residential the residential growth will focus more on the avenues and near high-order transit.

The Park Lawn area is a fait accompli. It will have 20 more condos before it is complete. For young families and older couples it is a great area. One person can work downtown and the other by the airport or Mississauga and both have a short commute. Where else is there this type of compromise location for these couples? We have to serve these residents somehow. But not just downtown which a GO station will solve. They also need connections north and west.

Will a DRL solve it? No. But this community is in dire need of transit and that is why they are screaming for any possible solution. And a 1 hr slow jaunt along Queen or King during rush-hour won't cut it.

[EDIT: I think I have solved the North connection. Steve Munro's Swan Boat's can go up the Humber to Old Mill Station. All we need is an elevator from the waters edge to the platform! ]

 

[salsa]

All hope is not lost for the DRL.

Also,

FAST - 149 followers
Relief Line Alliance - 323 followers

 

[Johnny Au]

FAST: Not mentioned on Wikipedia
Relief Line Alliance: Has an external link in the Wikipedia article "Downtown Relief Line"

 

[kEiThZ]

Ahh yes. Social media circle jerk is proof of viability!

How many fans for GO RER?

Maybe they should scrap GO RER and redirect all efforts to the DRL?

 

[Palma]

And I applaud yours. I'm sure @ShonTron will agree.








You started this discussion by trashing the DRL unless it goes to your side of town. You asked for facts and proof that ST and DRL to Sheppard are both needed. Several people came forward with exactly that, and all you did was dismiss it and go off on a big rant without providing any of your own proof to support your opinion. Unsurprisingly, you haven't convinced anyone to believe you. But feel free to repeat yourself another 10 times, I'm sure that will work!

I believe it. I have never agreed that both ST and DRL is needed in the East north of Bloor. ST yes but not DRL And the Yonge should stop getting extended past Toronto, Thats what GO or RER is for, not subways. Sapdina shoudl also never have gone into Vaughan but we all know Sobara had a hand in that. And to say that University is the western extension of Yonge is crazy. University got built because obviously it is in the middle of the financial district, then of course it hits all the hospitals up University and UFT at St. George. And we all know why Spadina got built

 

[ILuvTO]

There's little connecting of dots or long term perspective in this discussion. If we want transit coverage with decent speeds in separate rights of way, it doesn't matter to the user whether it comes in the form of heavy rail, LRT, or subway, as long as it only requires a standard TTC fair. The question is, what gives us the fastest, cheapest implementation? We know ST has wide support and is relatively cheap. Is it complete coverage? No. But the DRL and other spurs can be added incrementally over time to fill the gaps. What bothers me is that there is no thought to how something like a DRL could be funded and connected to another goal like burial of the Gardiner. If we're digging for a DRL, why not provide for an underground Gardiner (and Allen extension?) in the same tunnel. Maybe the road tolls can help pay the capital costs of subway tunnel construction. I suggest connecting DVP to the Gardiner under Richmond and Adelaide (also use a Front St. extension west of Bathurst like in the City's old Gardiner plan?). That would allow us to remove the elevated Gardiner, provide needed funding for DRL, and reduce construction disruption with one set of tunnels. You'd also have added to the tax base through added land development (tax incremental financing). We could scrap the half-assed hybrid Gardiner option. I know this is too big for many to get their heads around, but imagine having a DRL through the core, no highway barrier to the lake, and some financing for a DRL. We could even leave the elevated Gardiner in place until it's built. Now imagine eventually running the Allen underground south with subway from Eglinton West station to connect with it. I'd suggest reasonable tolls for the Gardiner portion (since it is replacing an existing route) and very expensive tolls for an underground Allen Expressway, since it is a new express route. Anyone who thinks people won't pay outrageous road tolls for convenience has only to look to the 407. I think the Bay St. and Muskoka set would be willing to pay. This would give us DRL from Eglinton West south to west of Bathurst and Richmond, and east to the DVP. That's more than half of your DRL. We'd still have to finance tunneling for the eastern leg of the new subway route. I suggest all of this assuming we will also have ST. Anyone who thinks an underground toll highway is hard to build needs to look only at Paris's A86. Each of the two parallel tunnels would provide room for one direction of highway and subway. We need creative solutions to pay for transit and highways, and we need to provide more accessible transit and faster commute times that improve productivity, air quality, the pedestrian experience at street level, and overall quality of life.

Well said! We need to think and dream big. And most importantly we need to be willing to implement funding tools that will pay to make these types of proposals a reality. I agree that if we tunnel for the DRL, we should go all out and include the Gardiner replacement in it.