Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

gweed123 said:
I was referring to the WEST portion of the 501. In the east it's a completely different story. All I'm saying is that with the Waterfront West LRT 'taking over' the Etobicoke portion of the 501, the number of people travelling along (or through) the section of the line from Roncesvalles to downtown will be significantly reduced, as the majority of people from southern Etobicoke who were using the 501 will then use the Waterfront West LRT. As a result, the ridership along that portion of the line will not warrant a subway. I'm not even going to touch Queen East, because that's a completely different story.
Click to expand...

Nowhere did I mention Queen East. Of the 12,000 501 riders in Etobicoke (that isn't Queen East) only 50% of those travel from/to east of Humber Loop (still not Queen East) on a daily basis. That means around 15% of all riders on the line on any portion east of Humber come from west of Humber on a daily basis. How can that small amount equate to the majority of 501 Queen riders west of Bathurst? Do you believe that of that of the 43,500 riders on the 501 less than 6,000 originate or are destined to places between Roncesvalles and Bathurst from east of Bathurst leaving 31,500 to 34,500 501 passengers (72-79%) which never travel west of Bathurst? That seems far fetched to me.

How can the Queen line not warrant a subway which exists for the purpose of DRL (i.e. relieving pressure from the Bloor-Danforth and Yonge lines)? Does it provide relief downtown... yes. Mission accomplished.
 
I would love to see a subway loop of Queen and King between where each street meets on the east and west side, with one of the stops being in Liberty Village.

:D
 
EnviroTO said:
I know. But what exactly would the DRL be connecting to at Union that the Queen line wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Further, what is along the rail corridor that won't get served by the panoply of projects already slated for the area? The various Waterfront LRT schemes are pretty robust and simply improving the Exhibition GO station while rejigging the fare structure could satisfy a lot of the Liberty Village market.

jwill said:
The Union/Front alignment has the advantage of serving what will soon be a corridor of high density condos along the lake (from the Exhibition to the Portlands). There is little development potential on Queen. For this reason, it will almost certainly go to Union.
Click to expand...

The one problem I see with this is that mono-purpose neighborhoods tend to have anemic transit demand. There may well be a lot of people living in that corridor but if it is just a residential area, there won't be much demand for off-peak transit or contra-flow transit. The one area of significant commercial development, around the ACC, is fairly well connected to Union station as is. The area north of the rail corridor has a strong mix of commercial (in the CBD), retail, entertainment and residential land use which should keep demand strong throughout the day.
 
This may be a silly point but why does a 'subway' line have to follow an actual surface street? Can't underground lines zigzag and connect key surface points where it makes the most sense? isn't it at all conceivable that the western stretch of the DRL could take in parts of Wellington/King/Queen/ Lakeshore through a zig here and a zag there where needed? In other words, maybe we need to stop viewing the line as linear, even if we would represent it on a subway map as such.

That said, I do think it would be important and more feasible to avoid Union. A number of reasons have already been given but at the end of the day a transfer to Union from an east/west DRL would not be a huge inconvenience. Toronto also needs to stop viewing itself as only having one transit hub. This is an outdated notion and ignores the massive development that has happened here in last hundred years or so since Union Station was built. As with other major cities several important transit hubs are in order for more long term planning.
 
EnviroTO said:
Nowhere did I mention Queen East. Of the 12,000 501 riders in Etobicoke (that isn't Queen East) only 50% of those travel from/to east of Humber Loop (still not Queen East) on a daily basis. That means around 15% of all riders on the line on any portion east of Humber come from west of Humber on a daily basis. How can that small amount equate to the majority of 501 Queen riders west of Bathurst? Do you believe that of that of the 43,500 riders on the 501 less than 6,000 originate or are destined to places between Roncesvalles and Bathurst from east of Bathurst leaving 31,500 to 34,500 501 passengers (72-79%) which never travel west of Bathurst? That seems far fetched to me.

How can the Queen line not warrant a subway which exists for the purpose of DRL (i.e. relieving pressure from the Bloor-Danforth and Yonge lines)? Does it provide relief downtown... yes. Mission accomplished.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that the transferring of those Etobicoke passengers from the 501 to the Waterfront West LRT will reduce the load on the western portion of the 501. If the DRL is built using the rail corridor, it will even further reduce it because you now have 2 higher order transit lines taking passengers away from the 501.

I have no doubt that a line along Queen would provide relief to downtown, but in my opinion it is not the optimal route for the DRL for the following reasons:

1) Limited densification potential. City officials and NIMBYs will not allow Queen to be significantly densified. The railway alignment definetly wins in this department, because those brownfield industrial sites can be redeveloped around the subway.

2) CBD: Why pass near it when you can pass through it? Union and Queen may be equidistant from FCP, but Wellington and Queen aren't. Wellington also provides 3 connection points to YUS, as opposed to Queen's 2. Wellington and Queen are also equidistant from Adelaide.

3) Building along the rail corridor has the line bisect the YUS 3 times, and the King Queen Dundas and College streetcars.

4) Queen street is the type of street that needs stops very close together in order to make it effective. The whole purpose of the DRL is to provide a less crowded and faster route downtown. Residents along Queen would probably want spacing similar to B-D, when what the line really needs to be effective is spacing like Sheppard.

In short, build the DRL using the rail alignment now, and then if Queen is still overcrowded a few years down the road, build a Queen LRT, because that type of technology (and station spacing) is more suited for Queen than a subway is.
 
gweed123 said:
1) Limited densification potential. City officials and NIMBYs will not allow Queen to be significantly densified. The railway alignment definetly wins in this department, because those brownfield industrial sites can be redeveloped around the subway.
Click to expand...
A Railway alignment would be absolutely amazing to service new development. The area around the rail corridor easily has the most high density construction in Downtown, probably even the entire GTA.

gweed123 said:
2) CBD: Why pass near it when you can pass through it? Union and Queen may be equidistant from FCP, but Wellington and Queen aren't. Wellington also provides 3 connection points to YUS, as opposed to Queen's 2. Wellington and Queen are also equidistant from Adelaide.
Click to expand...
I think it'd be pretty easy to just tunnel up through the CBD, so that it turns to a bit more of a Wellington alignment for a short stretch between Jarvis and Simcoe. Instead of going under the current Union subway station, it could go beside it.
I'm not sure if I totally like this idea vs. just going under the current Union Station, but they both have their ups and downs. An alignment underneath Union would improve connectivity greatly, but an alignment beside Union would probably provide better capacity.

gweed123 said:
4) Queen street is the type of street that needs stops very close together in order to make it effective. The whole purpose of the DRL is to provide a less crowded and faster route downtown. Residents along Queen would probably want spacing similar to B-D, when what the line really needs to be effective is spacing like Sheppard.
Click to expand...
I think it's more like Queen would want stop spacing similar to the downtown portions of the YUS (350-500m apart,) while the DRL would need something just a bit longer than the B-D. When you think about it, you'd need stops at Cherry St, somewhere in the Distillery District, Jarvis, then possibly Yonge, Union and University, then Spadina, Then Bathurst, then one in Liberty Village and/or the Ex. That's closer to B-D spacing, but I think it'd still do a fine job of downtown relief.

gweed123 said:
1) Limited densification potential. City officials and NIMBYs will not allow Queen to be significantly densified. The railway alignment definetly wins in this department, because those brownfield industrial sites can be redeveloped around the subway.
Click to expand...
A Railway alignment would be absolutely amazing for new development. There most development going on is in that area, and it would provide a solid backbone for the Waterfront Developments.

gweed123 said:
2) CBD: Why pass near it when you can pass through it? Union and Queen may be equidistant from FCP, but Wellington and Queen aren't. Wellington also provides 3 connection points to YUS, as opposed to Queen's 2. Wellington and Queen are also equidistant from Adelaide.
Click to expand...
I think it'd be pretty easy to just tunnel up through the CBD, so that it turns to a bit more of a Wellington alignment for a short stretch. Instead of going under the current Union subway station, it could go beside it.
I'm not sure if I totally like this idea vs. just going under the current Union Station, but they both have their ups and downs.

gweed123 said:
In short, build the DRL using the rail alignment now, and then if Queen is still overcrowded a few years down the road, build a Queen LRT, because that type of technology (and station spacing) is more suited for Queen than a subway is.
Click to expand...
That'd be the best option. You'd probably want to do it like Eglinton; LRT with an underground bit through downtown, maybe from Spadina to Parliment. It'd serve the area much better and would improve speed and capacity greatly.

My dream situation would be to build the DRL while putting the rail corridor underground. Then, it could easily hug the northern part of the corridor, dipping out of it occasionally to better service an area. If that idea ever resurfaces (though I can pretty well guess that it won't,) it'd solve most of the issues that a railway alignment currently has which mostly concerns space.
 
Last edited:
Tewder said:
This may be a silly point but why does a 'subway' line have to follow an actual surface street? Can't underground lines zigzag and connect key surface points where it makes the most sense? isn't it at all conceivable that the western stretch of the DRL could take in parts of Wellington/King/Queen/ Lakeshore through a zig here and a zag there where needed? In other words, maybe we need to stop viewing the line as linear, even if we would represent it on a subway map as such.
Click to expand...

Cost makes it impractical to zig-zag a subway line. Going under properties means either expropriation or supporting the existing structures above from all vibrations. Zig-zagging also adds length to the line and more length is both more money to construct and longer trips once constructed. Queen is easily walkable from King and the other side of the tracks where the Waterfront LRTs are is easily walkable from Front. Other than a Shaw pedestrian bridge to give walking access to the King streetcar from Liberty village, there isn't many areas out of reach from transit, its just that existing transit isn't fast or reliable.
 
gweed123 said:
All I'm saying is that the transferring of those Etobicoke passengers from the 501 to the Waterfront West LRT will reduce the load on the western portion of the 501. If the DRL is built using the rail corridor, it will even further reduce it because you now have 2 higher order transit lines taking passengers away from the 501.
Click to expand...

The distance from the Waterfront LRT to the rail corridor is less than 100m on Bremner, less than 50m at the CNE. Why on earth would you need two lines so close together? Then on Queen you would still have a streetcar stuck in mixed traffic and a 800m walk to the rail corridor for service that is fast.

gweed123 said:
1) Limited densification potential. City officials and NIMBYs will not allow Queen to be significantly densified. The railway alignment definetly wins in this department, because those brownfield industrial sites can be redeveloped around the subway.
Click to expand...

The Waterfront LRT lines serve those sites along the rail corridor already.

gweed123 said:
2) CBD: Why pass near it when you can pass through it? Union and Queen may be equidistant from FCP, but Wellington and Queen aren't. Wellington also provides 3 connection points to YUS, as opposed to Queen's 2. Wellington and Queen are also equidistant from Adelaide.
Click to expand...

There is no place for new towers in the CBD on Wellington. Wellington is a mere block from Union station which a place with unparallelled transit access. There is no need to add more service to a place so accessible. The bulk of potential new office development properties are north of King.

gweed123 said:
3) Building along the rail corridor has the line bisect the YUS 3 times, and the King Queen Dundas and College streetcars.
Click to expand...

It doesn't bisect the YUS 3 times... you are proposing a large single station complex that spans 6 blocks which couldn't possibly have a single paid fare area without a ridiculous cost.

gweed123 said:
4) Queen street is the type of street that needs stops very close together in order to make it effective. The whole purpose of the DRL is to provide a less crowded and faster route downtown. Residents along Queen would probably want spacing similar to B-D, when what the line really needs to be effective is spacing like Sheppard.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. The routing I mentioned above take 10 stops from Jane to Osgoode. A current trip on the Bloor-Danforth and University line takes 15. If you have hardly any stops then you might as well take the GO from Bloor or Exhibition station.

gweed123 said:
In short, build the DRL using the rail alignment now, and then if Queen is still overcrowded a few years down the road, build a Queen LRT, because that type of technology (and station spacing) is more suited for Queen than a subway is.
Click to expand...

They already have streetcars on Queen. The only way to fix the problem is to go underground. Once underground it has similar costs to a subway. A Queen subway replaces a Queen streetcar that doesn't work well. A rail corridor subway duplicates service, runs next to GO trains doing the same route, and replaces nothing.
 
Is it possible to build an underground section for a queen LRT with spacing similar to the Eglinton line with stops starting at west bathurst, spadina, univeristy, Yonge, Church, Jarvis, Parliment. This underground section could be used by both a LRT DRL and a Queen LRT. The DRL would simply turn north when close to pape while the Queen line would continue east till Queen ends. Similarly the West could have the DRL move north and connect to dundas west while the Queen line could continue to High Park. The LRT would simply have to be labled to know which way it is heading. This would be similar to the C train line in calgary. It also would serve two problems while keeping costs down to one.

ANY Thoughts?
 
EnviroTO said:
The distance from the Waterfront LRT to the rail corridor is less than 100m on Bremner, less than 50m at the CNE. Why on earth would you need two lines so close together? Then on Queen you would still have a streetcar stuck in mixed traffic and a 800m walk to the rail corridor for service that is fast.

The Waterfront LRT lines serve those sites along the rail corridor already.
Click to expand...

Only until Bathurst, after that it cuts north, and bisects 4 major streetcar lines, giving the potential for transfers from the streetcars onto the subway.



EnviroTO said:
There is no place for new towers in the CBD on Wellington. Wellington is a mere block from Union station which a place with unparallelled transit access. There is no need to add more service to a place so accessible. The bulk of potential new office development properties are north of King.
Click to expand...

There isn't much room along the north side of Queen either (Osgoode Hall, City Hall, Old City Hall, Eaton Centre). The only E-W street with development potential along it that is closer to Queen than to Wellington is Richmond. And even then, a mere 40 metres or so.

Also, the CBD can be extended E-W as well as N-S. The new hotel and office complex adjacent to Simcoe Place for example.

EnviroTO said:
It doesn't bisect the YUS 3 times... you are proposing a large single station complex that spans 6 blocks which couldn't possibly have a single paid fare area without a ridiculous cost.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that idea? I specifically said in one of my other posts a new station at Wellington between Bay and York (with access to Union), and new platforms at St. Andrew and King (exiting onto Simcoe and Church Streets respectively).

EnviroTO said:
That makes no sense. The routing I mentioned above take 10 stops from Jane to Osgoode. A current trip on the Bloor-Danforth and University line takes 15. If you have hardly any stops then you might as well take the GO from Bloor or Exhibition station.
Click to expand...

Why would you go to Jane? Tunnelling all that extra distance for what? You're passing south of High Park for most of it. You'd be overlapping the Waterfront West LRT on top of it. Dundas West makes far more sense, especially given the tentative plans to extend the Jane LRT south to Lakeshore.

EnviroTO said:
They already have streetcars on Queen. The only way to fix the problem is to go underground. Once underground it has similar costs to a subway. A Queen subway replaces a Queen streetcar that doesn't work well. A rail corridor subway duplicates service, runs next to GO trains doing the same route, and replaces nothing.
Click to expand...

The way to fix the problem is to reduce the number of people that use it by offering more attractive alternatives.
 
toronto star editorial

EDITORIAL
Time for transit relief
Email story
Print
Choose text size
Report error or complaint
License this article



Aug 24, 2009 04:30 AM
It's welcome news that a thorough study is planned for an old idea that just might be the way of the future – a subway "relief line" coursing through Toronto's downtown.

The line is envisioned as a broad "U" anchored at Union Station and linking Pape station with the Dundas West stop on the Bloor-Danforth line. This additional route would give east-west subway riders a new way to get downtown, easing commuter pressure on the system's already-choked Yonge-Bloor station.

The concept was seriously studied 20 years ago but went nowhere. Now, Toronto Transit Commission officials say they are re-examining the relief line with a thorough analysis that will include public consultations. That makes eminent good sense.

This city, especially its downtown, has changed dramatically since the TTC's earlier investigation of the relief line concept, done in 1989. A fresh look is needed.

Toronto city council has formally expressed support for such a study. It did so in light of a proposed expansion of the Yonge St. line, north to Richmond Hill, planned by Metrolinx, the agency co-ordinating transportation growth in the Greater Toronto Area.

City councillors worry that the Yonge line, and especially the Yonge-Bloor station, simply can't absorb a substantial new influx of subway riders from York Region

Construction of a relief line could significantly ease that pressure. Metrolinx tentatively backs work on this useful route, though only in the context of the agency's long-term, 25-year plan.

But work on the Yonge line's northward expansion remains a Metrolinx priority, making its completion likely well before a relief line would open.

A comprehensive and convincing TTC analysis of the proposed line and its potential – including projected costs and ridership – might succeed in pushing this concept higher up on the Metrolinx agenda.

And that could bring welcome relief, even sooner, to beleaguered riders on Toronto's increasingly overcrowded public transit system.
 
I really dislike the idea of connecting two disparate subway lines into one. I want a Queen Subway. I also want a DRL. It doesn't mean I want to connect the two.

As for having the DRL connect YUS at two points instead of one, it'd be more expensive to build two transfer stations rather than one. Furthermore, avoiding Union also avoids a good transfer point and forces a transfer. And I've had enough of forced transfers (see my Sheppard East petition).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top