Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[WislaHD]

2 Reasons to have the DRL as a shallow, cut-and-cover line.

1. Stations are much less expensive.
2. Much less time for riders to get from street to transit.

Rainforest is right, the number of stations is all related to cost. An extra few stations will not affect ridership (assuming no matter how many they add, it will still be less than Bloor). If the DRL goes close to peoples destination, they will use it. If not, they will transfer to the Yonge line.

I feel like cut-and-cover could be done with not as much disruption as we might all think too.

Cut-and-cover one minor section of Queen at a time, it wont be all that bad.

 

[MisterF]

^Let's argue about it for another decade then put all the money into a one stop subway to Scarborough the budget of which will have climbed north of 10 billion!

P.S. in response to the general conversation over the last few pages. I don't think system length is much of an indicator of public transit anything. Cities have very different built forms and travel dynamics. Total ridership and transit mode share breakdowns matter. I have been on "subways" that are no bigger than a TTC streetcar.

Often those systems are in smaller cities with less demand or there are more lines to handle the crowds. Madrid for example has smaller trains than Toronto but their system is much more extensive.

The size of Toronto's trains doesn't make up for how small our network is. While you're right that length doesn't always say much about the quality of the system, in Toronto's case it says a lot.

The fact that the buses and streetcars do much of the heavy lifting, as mentioned earlier, speaks to how inadequate the rapid transit system is.

 

[Hopkins123]

I didn't mean the entire 501, just the downtown section. The full DRL would have stations at both ends where King and Queen connect, so the "501" would either continue south onto the King transit mall, which can handle more vehicles, or it would operate for just the outer parts and expect people to transfer.

This is what I picture:

View attachment 102629

Notice the extra wide stop spacing east of Yonge compared to the west end. Why one area gets central Bloor-Danforth style spacing while the other gets Sheppard subway style spacing is beyond me. Only 3 stations between Yonge St and Pape Ave is atrocious. It has the density and future growth potential to accommodate four.

 

[WislaHD]

Notice the extra wide stop spacing east of Yonge compared to the west end. Why one area gets central Bloor-Danforth style spacing while the other gets Sheppard subway style spacing is beyond me. Only 3 stations between Yonge St and Pape Ave is atrocious. It has the density and future growth potential to accommodate four.

At the very least, replacing Sherbourne for stations at Jarvis and Parliament makes sense to me.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The main reason for choosing a relatively wide stop spacing on the Relief Line is the cost of stations. There is more infrastructure to deal with than in the days of Yonge or Bloor line construction, and in addition we don't do cut-n-cover any more. The cost of Relief line will be humongous anyway, but going from say 1.5 km spacing average to 1.0 km would add another billion or more, just for the eastern leg. For the western leg, it could be as much as 2 billion dependent the route. Those extra money can be spent in the midtown or inner suburbs, instead of downtown that is already well endowed with transit.

By keeping both Queen and King streetcar lines in addition to the subway Relief line, we can provide a comparable overall quality of transit in downtown, but for a lower capital cost.

The highlighted philosophy does not make sense - if you are putting this much money into the line, maximize the utility and find other ways to reduce cost (e.g. don't deck the stations out to the max where it isn't necessary, cut and cover where possible).

There is something a bit perverse about building a line through downtown - where transit can be of such limited utility due to network deficiencies and capacity issues - and then not spend the money at least help rectify the problems when you can. Don't plan relief line just for relief of Yonge.

AoD

 

[salsa]

 

[aquateam]

At the very least, replacing Sherbourne for stations at Jarvis and Parliament makes sense to me.

Notice the extra wide stop spacing east of Yonge compared to the west end. Why one area gets central Bloor-Danforth style spacing while the other gets Sheppard subway style spacing is beyond me. Only 3 stations between Yonge St and Pape Ave is atrocious. It has the density and future growth potential to accommodate four.

I agree 100%, I just chose that stop spacing for the eastern part because that's what the current "preferred alignment" of the city has. West of Osgoode is fantasy territory so I'm free to give Bloor-Danforth spacing.

4 stations between Yonge and Pape: Jarvis, Parliament, River (to intercept RER), Unilever would be my ideal spacing.

 

[Hopkins123]

I agree 100%, I just chose that stop spacing for the eastern part because that's what the current "preferred alignment" of the city has. West of Osgoode is fantasy territory so I'm free to give Bloor-Danforth spacing.

4 stations between Yonge and Pape: Jarvis, Parliament, River (to intercept RER), Unilever would be my ideal spacing.

Now we just need the same kind of moral suasion that got us both a Laird and a Sunnybrook Park station as opposed to one just at Brentcliffe, to be applied to the DRL.

The Sumach station really should be shifted further east and the Sherborune station shifted west in order to fill in these outrageous spacing gaps. Parliament has a Blue Night route and cuts through so many major neighbourhoods yet gets overlooked. Kilometre apart or wider spacing does not belong in a downtown core. We only need look to Chicago or NYC to see spacing done right. Or even more locally Bay and Bloor-Yonge or St Andrew and Osgoode.

 

[Kitsune]

I agree 100%, I just chose that stop spacing for the eastern part because that's what the current "preferred alignment" of the city has. West of Osgoode is fantasy territory so I'm free to give Bloor-Danforth spacing.

4 stations between Yonge and Pape: Jarvis, Parliament, River (to intercept RER), Unilever would be my ideal spacing.

Except the Relief Line is at Bloor-Danforth-ish spacing. Yonge to Sherbourne to Sumach to East Harbour is almost identical to Yonge to Sherbourne to Castle Frank to Broadview. The Broadview to Pape to Donlands is also very similiar to the Pape to Gerrard to Queen East. The Queen East to East Harbour is the only portion longer then its equivalent on BD.

 

[Avenue]

Except the Relief Line is at Bloor-Danforth-ish spacing.
The Broadview to Pape to Donlands is also very similiar to the Pape to Gerrard to Queen East.

Except there's Chester between Broadview and Pape.

 

[gweed123]

Except the Relief Line is at Bloor-Danforth-ish spacing. Yonge to Sherbourne to Sumach to East Harbour is almost identical to Yonge to Sherbourne to Castle Frank to Broadview.

True, but much of that space on Bloor is taken up by the Don Valley/Rosedale Ravine, which isn't the case around Queen. The stop spacing may be the same, but what's in between them is completely different.

 

[Rainforest]

The highlighted philosophy does not make sense - if you are putting this much money into the line, maximize the utility and find other ways to reduce cost (e.g. don't deck the stations out to the max where it isn't necessary, cut and cover where possible).

There is something a bit perverse about building a line through downtown - where transit can be of such limited utility due to network deficiencies and capacity issues - and then not spend the money at least help rectify the problems when you can. Don't plan relief line just for relief of Yonge.

AoD

I have to disagree here. For the majority of riders, the appeal of the Relief line is exactly that, its ability to relief Yonge. Plus, riders coming from the east will be able to cut the corner and board the downtown-bound line at Don Mills rather than at Yonge. That's the main reason they will agree to fund the line.

Residents who will benefit from the more frequent subway stop spacing inside downtown, will constitute a tiny fraction of all riders. I am not sure how that small majority will convince the rest of the city to spend additional hundreds of millions of dollars in order to put a subway station closer to their doorsteps. Especially, since they already have access to decent transit, and will be able to reach the next subway station after taking a short streetcar ride.

 

[Rainforest]

2 Reasons to have the DRL as a shallow, cut-and-cover line.

1. Stations are much less expensive.
2. Much less time for riders to get from street to transit.

I don't mind at all

But, given that they did not dare to propose cut-n-cover along McCowan or Brimley or Midland in Scarborough, I doubt they will do so on Queen.

Too bad we couldn't do both King and Queen. Relief Line could be three or four tracks coming down Pape/Don Mills, but west of East Harbour it diverges into two separate 2-track sections. The King section could be designed more as an express line (e.g minus Sumach and Sherbourne) thus serving the CBD direct, not unlike the separate services on NYC's lines. And perhaps the Queen section could be spec'd to 4-car 100m max to save costs. Whether the line is on King or Queen I have doubts whether the tiny stations of St Andrew, King, Osgoode, and Queen could adequately handle the influx of peak riders without significant redesign and $$$. But by splitting the RL service peak loads would be naturally diffused between the two corridors.

That would be fantastic. But, unfortunately not very likely.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I have to disagree here. For the majority of riders, the appeal of the Relief line is exactly that, its ability to relief Yonge. Plus, riders coming from the east will be able to cut the corner and board the downtown-bound line at Don Mills rather than at Yonge. That's the main reason they will agree to fund the line.

Residents who will benefit from the more frequent subway stop spacing inside downtown, will constitute a tiny fraction of all riders. I am not sure how that small majority will convince the rest of the city to spend additional hundreds of millions of dollars in order to put a subway station closer to their doorsteps. Especially, since they already have access to decent transit, and will be able to reach the next subway station after taking a short streetcar ride.

Like I've said, if the only thing you are after is relatively long distance point A to B travel, use GO, not the subway. The whole point of subway in the core is relatively frequent stops to support intensive urban activity - particularly when it is acting like a network. Toronto doesn't have it - and in fact I would argue the so called streetcar network as practiced in the city make people avoid using mass transit in the core where possible, period (due to convenience, speed and reliability issues)

As to the willingness by the rest of the city - unlike SCC, I am fairly certain it would be relatively easy to recover at least some portion of adding one station through development charges. Only in Toronto will we drop stations where densification is the trend.

AoD

 

[CapitalSeven]

The stations are going to have entrances quite far apart, particularly the clever layout fo rthe one serving Sumach as well as the West Donlands area, and the Queen car is not disappearing. There is no money to add stations; indeed, there is as of now no money to pay for what's on the drawing board. This is as urban as it's going to get.