Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[BurlOak]

Your thought process on how to build transit is all backwards. You Build the LRT first to build ridership in the area, and replace it with rapid transit 40-50 years after it is finished as demand warrants it. Our downtown streetcars have had over 100 years to build ridership, and now is at the "middle ridership" level of rapid transit, when rapid transit should be built at the "low level" of usage. (I.E. the university line south of St. Clair) because of this delay, ridership demands has far outstripped service capability, and capital expenditure on rapid transit is even more urgent.

This would save us a big chunk of money. First we need a streetcar along front and up Pape to Leaside. Only after we prove that this is at capacity (and I suppose we also wait until it needs a major rehab since there is no point in ripping up a brand new line) does it get changed to in-median LRT. When this is proven to be over-capacity (plus the wait time again so a line is not ripped up) we finally build the subway.

 

[gweed123]

The number one priority is to determine how a frequent service GO network would work. When possible, lines should be paired up (between east and west) so that they do not terminate at Union - this improves the efficiency of Union Station. For the lines with no pair (since there are more lines in the west than the east), the lines should go one stop beyond Union (i.e. Portlands) so that the terminal station is not the busiest one. If a new station is required, it should be within easy walking transfer distance of Union - either Wellington and Bay area or Bay and Lakeshore.

After this, the route for the DRL can be determined. The DRL could have stops on several of the GO lines to improve connectivity and relieve some passengers from Union.

It seems transit planning in Toronto is all backwards. We build the streetcars and LRT first, instead of building the high capacity transit first and the lessor routes last.

I like that idea of having the "odd man out" line terminate 1 stop east of Union. I hadn't considered that before, but it certainly makes a lot of sense from an operational standpoint.

I think the "odd man out" would most likely be the Milton line, and I think terminating it at Main St would be a wise place. There's more room there than there would be at a station like Riverdale.

FWIW, I think the pairings that you're mentioning should be Lakeshore (obviously), Kitchener-Stouffville (Brampton-Markham), and Barrie-Richmond Hill. All of those lines should end up having roughly the same frequency, so it makes sense to pair them.

 

[innsertnamehere]

The broadview and king streetcars already act effectively on building density in the area. There is such a dense streetcar network already In the area that you don't need to put a subway line directly along the existing streetcar lines, especially if it is serving a double purpose like the DRL is (Bloor-Yonge relief and local service)

Proving it that it will have high ridership is as simple as an EA. actually acheiving the said ridership targets required for subway often needs LRT to build the density and ridership.

The way you propose we build transit is absurd, apparently. What I am getting from the jist of you posts is that we should build subways anywhere, and just pray they get used.

 

[gweed123]

What I am getting from the jist of you posts is that we should build subways anywhere, and just pray they get used.

Yonge and Bloor-Danforth vs Spadina. The first two followed existing streetcar routes with proven demand. The latter reserved the alignment for an expressway. Which are more successful?

Yup.

 

[Dan416]

A second Union station is a dumb idea. I also think the DRL not going through Union is a dumb idea

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

A second Union station is a dumb idea. I also think the DRL not going through Union is a dumb idea

Union is already slammed enough.

 

[sixrings]

Union is already slammed enough.

I like the idea of a second union at wellington... close enough to walk to king, st Andrew and union...

 

[M II A II R II K]

There can be a 2nd or even 3rd Union if it's along the same route, so not everyone would have to get off and transfer at only one Union. The other Unions of course would have to have their own subway transfers to make it more worthwhile.

 

[rbt]

Union is already slammed enough.

Here is the main problem with Union:

http://www.gotransit.com/electrification/en/current_study/Appendix Files/Appendix 5.pdf

The minimum turn‐around time at Union Station is 10 minutes and for through trains, the minimum dwell time is 5 minutes

Add in time for the train to get into/out of the station and you've got a very low number of trains per hour per track. This would be much worse if there was a large reverse commute from downtown to the suburbs.


Sydney, which also has bilevel cars, only seem to stop for 1 to 2 minutes at any given downtown station but they have a large number of downtown stations. Spreading out the passengers allows them to run more trains per hour per track. Doors on the mid-level cars rather than the lowest level seemed to help with flow of people.

Penn Station doesn't appear to do much better than Union for dwell time but that might be a track restriction problem rather than the station/train design.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Here is the main problem with Union:

http://www.gotransit.com/electrification/en/current_study/Appendix Files/Appendix 5.pdf



Add in time for the train to get into/out of the station and you've got a very low number of trains per hour per track. This would be much worse if there was a large reverse commute from downtown to the suburbs.


Sydney, which also has bilevel cars, only seem to stop for 1 to 2 minutes at any given downtown station but they have a large number of downtown stations. Spreading out the passengers allows them to run more trains per hour per track. Doors on the mid-level rather than the lowest level seemed to help with flow of people.

Penn Station doesn't appear to do much better than Union for dwell time but that might be a track restriction problem rather than the station/train design.

Yup. The average lakershore west rain that pull in at 11:08 leaves for Oshawa at 11:13 or 11:14

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I like the idea of a second union at wellington... close enough to walk to king, st Andrew and union...

There can be a 2nd or even 3rd Union if it's along the same route, so not everyone would have to get off and transfer at only one Union. The other Unions of course would have to have their own subway transfers to make it more worthwhile.

Why not just reopen summerhill? Lay the track down and open it.

 

[rbt]

A second Union station is a dumb idea. I also think the DRL not going through Union is a dumb idea

I wouldn't mind a North/South facing station at King/Front and a second at Harbour/Queens Quay (Ferry Docks).

Have the DRL run from Pape and along Dundas to turn south while approaching Yonge (interchange with the north end of Queen Station; between the office buildings but under the Eaton Center), run under Old City Hall and continue south on Bay Street with the previously mentioned stops at King/Front and Harbour/Queens Quay.

Obviously it would need to be a very deep bore to get under the Eaton Center (4 underground levels) and Old City Hall but it would be shallow again at Union station and the Ferry Docks. Queens Quay streetcars would run through (East/West) with a stop at the new Ferry Docks subway station.

Old City Hall is shallow like the Ontario Legislative Building so running under it shouldn't be a challenge.


I believe several Bay Street stops, including both North Core and South Core, would do the best job of attracting ridership off Yonge Street and it conveniently solves the $150M Queens Quay portal/loop problem.


Of course, I think we're well passed this being a possibility just because of the fairly sharp curve required.It would have been much easier before Opus/Pantageous was build.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Why not just reopen summerhill? Lay the track down and open it.

Because the subway would be even more crowded. A Gerrard Square stop that intersects the DRL would work, especially if it's a more convenient transfer to the TTC there than at Union. And on the west side a Roncesvalles station could station could do the same.

 

[gweed123]

Because the subway would be even more crowded. A Gerrard Square stop that intersects the DRL would work, especially if it's a more convenient transfer to the TTC there than at Union. And on the west side a Roncesvalles station could station could do the same.

I've always liked the idea of a Liberty Village hub (Queen and Dufferin). Could have an interchange between 3 GO lines, the DRL West, the WWLRT (if it's routed under Queen and terminates there), and the Queen Streetcar. That could take a lot of pressure off of Union, and become a full-fledged hub on it's own.

 

[bleu]

^I think Metrolinx's idea for a second downtown railway station is incredibly stupid. Most cities that actually value regional rail transit are desperately trying to centralize their operations into one main station. Cities like Berlin, London and Paris have spent hundreds of millions - billions, even - on trying to merge railway operations into one or a handful of central railway stations to maximize transfer opportunities. Here we have a perfectly good central railway station in the most central location in the city, and these clowns want to build a second railway station at great cost in a less efficient location, reducing the desirability of the GO network as a whole? This might be the stupidest transit planning idea made in Toronto, and that's saying a lot.

except Union station does NOT have a central location. It is in the very south of downtown. Actually, there is very little to the south of it.
If Union were located at say at the current Dundas/Bay bus terminal, then your argument would work.

Look at London/NYC/Paris' train stations, none is put in a very corner of the city. Grand Central is at 42, Penn station at 31. They are not at the tip of lower Manhattan.