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

[scarberiankhatru]

A DRL along Queen could mean Queen 'gets' a subway for potentially a rather long stretch, but we need to ask if 8km (or whatever it ends up being) of subway along Queen is best for travel along Queen since it will impact streetcar service. A subway under the full length of Queen, east and west, is still something that is appealing on a base level, something we perhaps should have had and something the city would find useful in the future. However, a DRL running along Queen for a stretch could be the worst of both worlds. We don't know where stops will be or how deep stations will be, which is of critical importance on Queen, a route with few nodes and high turnover. A subway line that replaces a portion of the Queen streetcar may not provide better service for a lot of rides along Queen.

Also, it could decimate Dundas and King service, too, and not necessarily for the better. A downtown subway line that is designed as one that primarily serves a route like King or Queen and just happens to swing up to meet Bloor/Danforth would still provide substantial relief to the YUS loop by merely existing, but it does seem as if the 'relief' aspect of the DRL is driving the project and so I doubt we'll see 800m spacing or that it'll designed as a route to replace the E/W streetcars in any way (even though service on the streetcar routes could be greatly affected).

Add the stable neighbourhoods along Queen and the high probability of a subway driving away much of Queen's character (and not just by altering things like rents...a subway means stations and escape shafts and hydro substations and this means redevelopment) and it's a fair amount of risk. For what benefit, though? If anyone seriously thinks people will walk from Queen to, say, College or Front, that means they'll walk from Front or College to Queen, too. They probably won't though...they'll take the YUS line if they need to walk more than like 5 minutes, or they won't take the DRL at all. Build a second south exit at College station and you'll subtract many Ryerson-bound riders...who's left that would prefer Queen? Not nearly as many people as it seems, that's for sure. No matter where the DRL intercepts the YUS line, the DRL will only lure some people from the YUS line.

Giambrone is an ardent LRT fan and does not get that in heavily populated corridors subways are better because they don't require widening and chopping off sidewalks and provide faster through speed and higher capacity that attracts more riders than LRT. I talked to him about the idiocy that is Sheppard subway + LRT and he said its no big deal, people can make a quick transfer, there is no demand from Scarborough to North York (well of course not with the lack of a seemless conection).

With Miller+Giambrone at the helm, the TTC will only get more bloated with service continuing to deteriorate.

If there's no demand then what the hell is the multi-billion dollar Sheppard subway bypass via Finch West-Finch East-Sheppard East for? It'll provide a not useful ride across the city and to get it all we have to do is sodomize the city's most useful bus route.

 

[Chuck]

Oops, looks like my previous post above ended up in the wrong thread (thank you Firefox for allowing me to open 10 windows at once). It was intended for the Union Station Renovation thread, where people are still pondering how the DRL can be routed into Union Station. Thus, I had to state my opinion that the bigger issue is that Union is an awful alignment for the DRL in the first place!

 

[CDL.TO]

Oops, looks like my previous post above ended up in the wrong thread (thank you Firefox for allowing me to open 10 windows at once). It was intended for the Union Station Renovation thread, where people are still pondering how the DRL can be routed into Union Station. Thus, I had to state my opinion that the bigger issue is that Union is an awful alignment for the DRL in the first place!

I moved the post as discussion about DRL route options is in this thread. Just trying to keep things neat and tidy.

This thread: Is Union a good alignment for the DRL?
That thread: Is there room for a DRL at Union station?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I moved the post as discussion about DRL route options is in this thread.

This thread: Is Union a good alignment for the DRL?
That thread: Is there room for a DRL at Union station?

Yes...and yes

 

[golodhendil]

Do you have to ask?

Rather ironic choice of a picture you've got. Where are the LRT tracks? All I see are the "M" signs --- for Barcelona's metro Line 3. So I guess this is how Yonge, Bloor or Sheppard are supposed to look like in a few decades? (Maybe that's exactly your point --- to get Euro style avenues, we need HRT!)

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Rather ironic choice of a picture you've got. Where are the LRT tracks? All I see are the "M" signs --- for Barcelona's metro Line 3. So I guess this is how Yonge, Bloor or Sheppard are supposed to look like in a few decades? (Maybe that's exactly your point --- to get Euro style avenues, we need HRT!)

That and that we need to build it in areas that have the population density to support it. Not out into the boon docks.

 

[lead82]

We wont ever get 'euro-style' avenues in Toronto. We're too timid for that. No bold dreamers on city council, and a mayor with no guts and no vision for the city.

10 years from now, we'll be having the same debates about the crappy state of our transit system, only it will be worse because it will be over-crowded, and each delay will seem much worse than it is today. I'm very cynical about the prospects for the DRL and transit in this city because I don't see any positive actions. Construction projects for transit take forever to get started and when they do, they take forever to complete.

The only sparkle of hope left is the waterfront redevelopment.

 

[Whoaccio]

However, a DRL running along Queen for a stretch could be the worst of both worlds. We don't know where stops will be or how deep stations will be, which is of critical importance on Queen, a route with few nodes and high turnover. A subway line that replaces a portion of the Queen streetcar may not provide better service for a lot of rides along Queen.

Of course we don't know where stops will be. How many projects ever know what they will look like before anybody even begins to do research. Just like we can't know how deep or where stations will be placed along a rail corridor alignment. At this stage of planning, i.e. fantasy, we should assume each route will be designed to operate most effectively. I know it doesn't always happen, but otherwise you just get into a circle of double standards as everyone makes best case assumptions for their option and assumes the rest will be horribly botched.

A downtown subway line that is designed as one that primarily serves a route like King or Queen and just happens to swing up to meet Bloor/Danforth would still provide substantial relief to the YUS loop by merely existing, but it does seem as if the 'relief' aspect of the DRL is driving the project and so I doubt we'll see 800m spacing or that it'll designed as a route to replace the E/W streetcars in any way (even though service on the streetcar routes could be greatly affected).

Same issue. You can't assume it won't be designed to replace trams because there is nothing to base that off (once again, fantasy line). I admit that the argument we should try to replace trams with some kind of metro is in the minority here but that is still the argument. To that end, the 'relief' role of the DRL is not the best course of action. Financially, it will imply the TTC expending many billions to simply leech existing riders from money center routes. The 'relief' factor of the DRL is inversely related to ridership gain and I don't see why the TTC should spend many billions simply to make existing passengers more comfortable for a few peak hours. If we wanted to simply lessen that crowding as opposed to ridership growth, we should just run more parralel express buses to the Yonge Line during rush hour. That makes way more sense because we could just stop outside of peak hours when demand is unremarkable, whereas a subway's high capital costs make it impractical solely for rush hour relief.

I know a more northerly DRL alignment could simply leech riders from Queen/King cars, so what is the difference between leeching from Queen/King and leeching from Bloor? Those routes loose money. That's not abnormal for public transit, but given their higher vehicle capacity (more passengers/operator) way higher rider density, lower fuel/energy costs and purported upkeep cost benefits, it makes no sense whatsoever that they operate at the same, or greater, loss than some suburban bus routes. That doesn't even include their higher capital costs or the impact their slow speeds have on rider's time value. The best thing the TTC can do is move those two routes from slow, uneconomic money sinks into something that doesn't stop every hundred meters and doesn't have to run 70+ vehicles at rush hour.

Add the stable neighborhoods along Queen and the high probability of a subway driving away much of Queen's character (and not just by altering things like rents...a subway means stations and escape shafts and hydro substations and this means redevelopment) and it's a fair amount of risk. For what benefit, though?

Zoning policy is like a bus route. Both are a lot easier to alter than a tunnel. I suppose I would ask the obvious question, what is the issue with Queen's character changing? It is a truism that characters always change, and it seems incredulous to suggest providing faster, more reliable transportation constitutes a "fair amount of risk" to a neighborhood. Integrating subway stations or escape shafts into an urban landscape is hardly a major challenge, and the ability to redevelop such sites could go a ways towards lowering overall costs. Clearly more so than trying to build condos on top of the rail corridor.

It is also true that the rail corridor area already is receiving a large amount of high quality transit. The existing and planned Waterfront LRTs are clearly more 'rapid' and effective than mixed operation routes to the North, and the upcoming Queen's Quay redesign will only make it better. The addition of a metro line directly paralleling the LRT is redundant. Planned upgrades to GO will also improve access.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Of course we don't know where stops will be. How many projects ever know what they will look like before anybody even begins to do research. Just like we can't know how deep or where stations will be placed along a rail corridor alignment. At this stage of planning, i.e. fantasy, we should assume each route will be designed to operate most effectively. I know it doesn't always happen, but otherwise you just get into a circle of double standards as everyone makes best case assumptions for their option and assumes the rest will be horribly botched.

Same issue. You can't assume it won't be designed to replace trams because there is nothing to base that off (once again, fantasy line). I admit that the argument we should try to replace trams with some kind of metro is in the minority here but that is still the argument. To that end, the 'relief' role of the DRL is not the best course of action. Financially, it will imply the TTC expending many billions to simply leech existing riders from money center routes. The 'relief' factor of the DRL is inversely related to ridership gain and I don't see why the TTC should spend many billions simply to make existing passengers more comfortable for a few peak hours. If we wanted to simply lessen that crowding as opposed to ridership growth, we should just run more parralel express buses to the Yonge Line during rush hour. That makes way more sense because we could just stop outside of peak hours when demand is unremarkable, whereas a subway's high capital costs make it impractical solely for rush hour relief.

I know a more northerly DRL alignment could simply leech riders from Queen/King cars, so what is the difference between leeching from Queen/King and leeching from Bloor? Those routes loose money. That's not abnormal for public transit, but given their higher vehicle capacity (more passengers/operator) way higher rider density, lower fuel/energy costs and purported upkeep cost benefits, it makes no sense whatsoever that they operate at the same, or greater, loss than some suburban bus routes. That doesn't even include their higher capital costs or the impact their slow speeds have on rider's time value. The best thing the TTC can do is move those two routes from slow, uneconomic money sinks into something that doesn't stop every hundred meters and doesn't have to run 70+ vehicles at rush hour.

Zoning policy is like a bus route. Both are a lot easier to alter than a tunnel. I suppose I would ask the obvious question, what is the issue with Queen's character changing? It is a truism that characters always change, and it seems incredulous to suggest providing faster, more reliable transportation constitutes a "fair amount of risk" to a neighborhood. Integrating subway stations or escape shafts into an urban landscape is hardly a major challenge, and the ability to redevelop such sites could go a ways towards lowering overall costs. Clearly more so than trying to build condos on top of the rail corridor.

It is also true that the rail corridor area already is receiving a large amount of high quality transit. The existing and planned Waterfront LRTs are clearly more 'rapid' and effective than mixed operation routes to the North, and the upcoming Queen's Quay redesign will only make it better. The addition of a metro line directly paralleling the LRT is redundant. Planned upgrades to GO will also improve access.

You have your "someone's defending streetcars! must attack!" threshold set way too low.

You also conveniently skipped the part where I said if the Queen streetcar is replaced by a subway (and perhaps it should), it should be for the full length of Queen, and not a partial replacement along some unknown distance with what is likely to be a quasi-express line. The DRL should go further south...Queen is a poor alignment.

 

[Whoaccio]

You have your "someone's defending streetcars! must attack!" threshold set way too low.

I defend streetcars where they are worth defending. In this case, the waterfront LRT projects are much more capable than the mixed operation routes to the north. If you had to replace one or the other, which is basically what this boils down to, I would replace the ones with less ability to meet demand.

You also conveniently skipped the part where I said if the Queen streetcar is replaced by a subway (and perhaps it should), it should be for the full length of Queen, and not a partial replacement along some unknown distance with what is likely to be a quasi-express line. The DRL should go further south...Queen is a poor alignment.

It's a poor alignment if you make it a poor alignment. Yes, I would agree running a pseudo express subway between Carlaw and Bay along Queen and calling it a tram replacement is a bad idea. I don't know who is saying it would be a good one. I think its pretty clear that most people who would favor a more northerly alignment (somewhere between King/Queen) neither favor a pseuo express station scheme nor favor the line only covering 4km. Generally, most would favor a line roughly between Parkside and Carlaw and with typical urban stop spacing. Obviously not everyone will agree, but at least criticize what is being proposed, not a fabricated worst case scenario.

I also didn't ignore that you think Queen should be replaced in full, I just assumed it was implicit that I didn't think that. If you read through Steve Munro's thoughts on the Queen Car, he makes a good case the route should be split into three segments anyways, as opposed to a 24km anaconda. It isn't exactly a colossal leap of logic to think replacing the central, most congested part of that with RT is feasible without replacing the other 2/3rds. The main portion of the 508 could also be consolidated into this central RT as well. That was the main plan of the original Queen streetcar-subway, and the basic idea is sound. Long Branch doesn't need subway.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I don't support a Queen subway per se. Ideally it would be some kind of subway running along Adelaide or Richmond.

 

[unimaginative2]

Just to be extra-clear here, building a subway line on Queen would be incredibly difficult. Just imagine the street being torn up for a year or more every few blocks. Since it's a streetcar route, the entire streetcar service would have to be shut down even if only a small section is actually torn up. That's why Wellington was recommended rather than King back in the original study. Picture Queen and Spadina, Queen and Yonge, Queen and University, Queen and Bathurst, Queen and Broadview all torn up for a year or more. Then imagine multiple buildings in all of those areas being torn down for station entrances, ventilation, emergency exits, construction access, etc. Front, however, could easily handle it. It's not a shopping street with vulnerable stores and restaurants. It doesn't have a particularly attractive streetscape that would be holed for station entrances. All it has are big, tall buildings with lots of workers and residents and a nice wide street for construction.

I just don't understand the fixation with Queen. There just isn't all that much along Queen, certainly not in comparison with streets further south (King, Wellington, Front). It would also encourage redevelopment of some of Toronto's best neighbourhoods, and wouldn't do a thing for the waterfront.

Though I think the advantages of a Front-Railway alignment more than outweigh the disadvantages, I can certainly understand people pushing for Wellington or King. I really don't get Queen, at least in a relief line context, and neither did the original study which dismissed it as the least attractive option. As an independent subway line running from the Beach all the way to Etobicoke, it would make more sense. Again, though, I wouldn't want to see massive redevelopment of the neighbourhoods it would serve.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I agree with you. A DRL along Queen would encourage more office buildings and high rise condos to be built on Queen, because it would be so easily accessible to the rest of the City. Not only would that totally destroy neighborhoods on Queen, but that's exactly what Front Street needs.

A Queen Subway on the other hand, would be great. It would connect downtown Toronto with southern Etobicoke and Sherway Gardens. I have kind of chosen the middle ground though, as I think the best thing to do on Queen would be to make it LRT and make a new route with ROW along Queensway in Etobicoke. The route would then split between Long Branch and Sherway Gardens.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I defend streetcars where they are worth defending. In this case, the waterfront LRT projects are much more capable than the mixed operation routes to the north. If you had to replace one or the other, which is basically what this boils down to, I would replace the ones with less ability to meet demand.

Again, you're missing the point. The DRL will probably be a poor replacement of the streetcar lines. I know you think a streetcar line replaced by *anything* else is a good thing, but the goal here is to provide substantially better service than what was there before...and in the case of the streetcar lines like Queen, better service than what could be achieved with minor route management/POP features. No one here ever pays any attention to what the DRL would do to existing routes downtown. It's easy to say 'hey, everyone on Dundas can use a DRL on Queen, too!' but is that true?

It doesn't boil down to replacing one or the other because, like the DRL, the waterfront LRT lines don't exist yet.

It's a poor alignment if you make it a poor alignment. Yes, I would agree running a pseudo express subway between Carlaw and Bay along Queen and calling it a tram replacement is a bad idea. I don't know who is saying it would be a good one. I think its pretty clear that most people who would favor a more northerly alignment (somewhere between King/Queen) neither favor a pseuo express station scheme nor favor the line only covering 4km. Generally, most would favor a line roughly between Parkside and Carlaw and with typical urban stop spacing. Obviously not everyone will agree, but at least criticize what is being proposed, not a fabricated worst case scenario.

And you say this right after going on about how this is still a fantasy line and we can't yet talk about details. What has been proposed is conceptual! What I described are realities that are possible, perhaps even probable. The fantasy here is assuming the DRL will stop every 700m or so on Queen if it ran there, and that service on Dundas and King won't be negatively affected. It doesn't matter what most would favour, it matters what actually gets built. I don't favour the situation I described, but I think it's likely to end up that way. There's a difference between a Queen subway that continues on to the B/D line and a relief subway line that runs along Queen. If even one or two potential stops are foregone to maximize 'relief,' well, then it becomes extremely difficult to point to 'we get to replace an Xkm stretch of the Queen streetcar' as a benefit of a DRL alignment on Queen.

I also didn't ignore that you think Queen should be replaced in full, I just assumed it was implicit that I didn't think that. If you read through Steve Munro's thoughts on the Queen Car, he makes a good case the route should be split into three segments anyways, as opposed to a 24km anaconda. It isn't exactly a colossal leap of logic to think replacing the central, most congested part of that with RT is feasible without replacing the other 2/3rds. The main portion of the 508 could also be consolidated into this central RT as well. That was the main plan of the original Queen streetcar-subway, and the basic idea is sound. Long Branch doesn't need subway.

If Queen is ever replaced by a subway, it should be in full. Either do it all, or leave it alone. A DRL along Queen would do neither. No place needs a subway, but maybe we want a line that runs to Long Branch.

If you read through Steve Munro's thoughts, doesn't he also make a good case that Queen should not be replaced with a subway line because there's nowhere near enough peak demand on Queen to justify one? When a route sees riders coming and going in all directions at all hours of the day and getting on and off all over the place, a subway may not end up providing better service even when existing service is spotty, especially when trip generators along the route are anything but nodal, when many people walk additional blocks even with local streetcar stops, and when you factor in the time it'll take to get to/from subway platforms. If 700m or so spacing materializes, part of the Queen corridor could see improved service, but there will never be a shred of incentive to improve the rest of Queen, or Dundas or King, in any way.

A King alignment, even with 'express' stop spacing could at least replace the entire King streetcar route, which is more focused around the CBD, is within walking distance of more than Queen, has higher peak ridership, would only decimate service on 2 E/W streetcar routes, wouldn't run almost entirely through areas that we don't want destroyed/developed, etc., etc.

 

[LowerBay]

Some of the posts here about a full end-to-end Queen subway are really stupid. There is insufficient demand at the outer ends of Queen to justify a subway.

Any Queen line would have to veer north to connect with the B-D. As for whether the DRL should go under Queen or further south, ideally it should go under King, but there are construction issues there with the PATH.

This is all moot anyway. A DRL or Queen line is not going to happen for at least 20 years. By then, things may shift again to who knows what.

The original DRL was the <expletive-deleted> University subway, so just build another stub, under Church, from Bloor to Union to off-load Yonge and be done with it.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Some of the posts here about a full end-to-end Queen subway are really stupid. There is insufficient demand at the outer ends of Queen to justify a subway.

Stupider than your posts? No transit line of any sort has sufficient demand at the outer ends to justify the line. We build transit for other reasons.

Also note that I'm saying we should not be building a subway on Queen (aka a DRL along Queen), especially a subway that may be a poor replacement of the Queen streetcar.