Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[Translude15]

They shouldn't spend and more money studying the DRL for at least the next 10 years.

ST is on it's way and will use the rail corridor with closer inner city stations and due to interlining those areas will enjoy subway service and not just subway speed. ST could end up being so successful by that they may find that a DRL may not even be necessary. I thinks it's obvious that all of Toronto's current GO corridors will eventually turned into ST serving the 416. The huge passenger loads they carry may sufficiently relieve Yong and especially Y&B station.

Eventually if trains from ST and GO serving Union become so frequent that delays begin then they should look at a ST tunnel for a few of the ST routes and the obvious best choice is Queen.

Before the City starts pouring billions into a DRL they should wait til ST is fully built out so they can determine the best route or if it's even needed.

I really think relying on SmartTrack to miraculously solve the capacity constraints within the DT core is incredibly misguided. ST is Tory's way of putting a TTC sticker on what GO/Metrolinx have already planned with RER, not to mention there are plans to add infill stations to already existing GO routes.

The DRL will enhance the surface transit on whatever artery is chosen as the best option, which seems likely to be either Queen or King. I still think King is the better option given how busy the 504 is and considering the current and future developments occurring along that corridor. A future GO RER tunnel should come after the DRL and would ideally go under Queen with transfer nodes at Sunnyside/Roncesvalles in the west and Gerrard Square in the east.

 

[44 North]

I had the impression that the station would be at River street, not directly next to the Don. The connection to the RH line isn't the best, but flooding shouldn't be an issue.

That sounds like a pretty awful scenario. For a subway line, the costs are with the tunnelling, the benefits are with the stations. I hope that we don't go through the massive multi-billion dollar expense of a DRL just to build a shuttle between the Danforth line and the CBD, because we'd rather save a couple hundred million than serve the shoulder areas of downtown.

I don't think there can be an RH platform in that area due to the physical constraints, and most importantly the flooding issue. And even if there was, the connection would be awkward with no actual portal on the RH platform connecting to a DRL (i.e no direct connection).

And I wouldn't say things on the DRL front are awful, but they're not looking too good. A couple of years ago I'd say for sure we could see close stop spacing and that this project is guaranteed. But now that commuter rail has become the talk of the future - and the Prov and mayor's priority - I can't see a DRL being built that mimics downtown-level stop spacing seen on Line 1 or 2. And TBH, I think we'll be lucky to see this line built at all.

Clearly, you didn't comprehend what I wrote.

Yes, transit infrastructure is definitely needed. Yes, it isn't needed to spur development. That is true of almost everywhere in the City of Toronto. Development is going to happen regardless of transit, because developers want to make money. However, that doesn't mean that planned transit infrastructure (such as the DRL) is unnecessary for the east side of downtown. Like you said, these areas are coming back to life, despite the lack of high-order transit. But I'd argue that is not necessarily a good thing.

This is why the comment you made about seeing two stations between Yonge and the Danforth is sheer lunacy. That kind of subway would be nothing but an expensive shuttle service that doesn't service local populations at all, which is a service that would be better off being provided by GO. Even a relief line with six stops from Pape to Yonge&Queen or Yonge&King would be faster than transferring at Yonge & Bloor.

I comprehended it. And I never said the "DRL is unnecessary for the east side of downtown". The focus of our discussion is WDL, which is nearing completion. Rapid transit would definitely be an improvement over the status quo. But because WDL is a midrise pocket with medium density, I think the view from the City is that both the 504 and 501 - with the Cherry spur, added capacity of the LFLRVs, and proposed East Bayfront streetcar - is enough to "support" the neighbourhood. Compared to many new neighbourhoods/developments in TO, I think WDL is a lot better off.

Re: spurring development. In many instances in TO major developments are not "going to happen regardless of transit". One, because the zoning can't be changed/increased without higher order transit. And two, it may not be worthwhile to developers because without the increase in property values brought on by railed transit infrastructure, the area is nowhere near as valuable as downtown sites like WDL.

Re: "two stations". Personally I'd like to see ten stations between Yonge and Danforth. But I think we need to look at this situation realistically, or step back to see the big picture. If two RL stations serve their respective surrounding neighbourhoods, and the line meets the criteria for a Relief line, I think it'd be a contender.

 

[Translude15]

I don't think there can be an RH platform in that area due to the physical constraints, and most importantly the flooding issue. And even if there was, the connection would be awkward with no actual portal on the RH platform connecting to a DRL (i.e no direct connection).

And I wouldn't say things on the DRL front are awful, but they're not looking too good. A couple of years ago I'd say for sure we could see close stop spacing and that this project is guaranteed. But now that commuter rail has become the talk of the future - and the Prov and mayor's priority - I can't see a DRL being built that mimics downtown-level stop spacing seen on Line 1 or 2. And TBH, I think we'll be lucky to see this line built at all.



I comprehended it. And I never said the "DRL is unnecessary for the east side of downtown". The focus of our discussion is WDL, which is nearing completion. Rapid transit would definitely be an improvement over the status quo. But because WDL is a midrise pocket with medium density, I think the view from the City is that both the 504 and 501 - with the Cherry spur, added capacity of the LFLRVs, and proposed East Bayfront streetcar - is enough to "support" the neighbourhood. Compared to many new neighbourhoods/developments in TO, I think WDL is a lot better off.

Re: spurring development. In many instances in TO major developments are not "going to happen regardless of transit". One, because the zoning can't be changed/increased without higher order transit. And two, it may not be worthwhile to developers because without the increase in property values brought on by railed transit infrastructure, the area is nowhere near as valuable as downtown sites like WDL.

Re: "two stations". Personally I'd like to see ten stations between Yonge and Danforth. But I think we need to look at this situation realistically, or step back to see the big picture. If two RL stations serve their respective surrounding neighbourhoods, and the line meets the criteria for a Relief line, I think it'd be a contender.

I agree any tunneling or station design in the floodplain of the Don will be difficult and probably next to impossible.

That said, the DRL and whatever version of RER comes to fruition should complement each other rather than compete for ridership. Ultimately, as has been reiterated countless times, the DRL will cater to more localized trips whereas any RER service will serve longer trips within the 416 and beyond. Both are still necessary transit initiatives in their own right.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Perhaps SmartTrack could be a subway with subway frequencies and have it's own separate trackage. Still a need for an eastern DRL so Osgoode to Pape would be good in addition.

 

[44 North]

That said, the DRL and whatever version of RER comes to fruition should complement each other rather than compete for ridership. Ultimately, as has been reiterated countless times, the DRL will cater to more localized trips whereas any RER service will serve longer trips within the 416 and beyond. Both are still necessary transit initiatives in their own right.

For sure. And I'm expecting that eventually the two services will do more than compliment each other, but rather the Prov and City will join forces and go back to the drawing board to present some kind of hybrid RER-RL.

 

[M II A II R II K]

And if only one tunnel can be afforded then perhaps SmartTrack could be elevated or something.

 

[ssiguy2]

I really think relying on SmartTrack to miraculously solve the capacity constraints within the DT core is incredibly misguided. ST is Tory's way of putting a TTC sticker on what GO/Metrolinx have already planned with RER, not to mention there are plans to add infill stations to already existing GO routes.

The DRL will enhance the surface transit on whatever artery is chosen as the best option, which seems likely to be either Queen or King. I still think King is the better option given how busy the 504 is and considering the current and future developments occurring along that corridor. A future GO RER tunnel should come after the DRL and would ideally go under Queen with transfer nodes at Sunnyside/Roncesvalles in the west and Gerrard Square in the east.

You may be absolutely right, I'm not saying a DRL isn't needed. My point was that before the city spends yet more time and money studying the DRL they should know what they are dealing with.

After ST is implemented then they can make a more informed decision about where the DRL should go, down what corridors and the station location. Why make a plan when you don't even know up to date ridership numbers and where those riders are going and how they are getting there? The DRL may still be needed but ST will definitely effect how those riders get to where they are going so wait until it's implemented and base the DRL plan on facts and not conjecture which is what is happening now,

 

[wopchop]

You may be absolutely right, I'm not saying a DRL isn't needed. My point was that before the city spends yet more time and money studying the DRL they should know what they are dealing with.

After ST is implemented then they can make a more informed decision about where the DRL should go, down what corridors and the station location. Why make a plan when you don't even know up to date ridership numbers and where those riders are going and how they are getting there? The DRL may still be needed but ST will definitely effect how those riders get to where they are going so wait until it's implemented and base the DRL plan on facts and not conjecture which is what is happening now,

If you actually read the link, it clearly states that they are studying them all together (Relief Line, GO RER, and SmartTrack) to determine how the ridership of each one will affect the others.

We are currently in the process of undertaking the integrated assessment of these projects through detailed ridership modelling. Work on each project will inform the analysis of the other projects. - See more at: http://reliefline.ca/the-project/coordinated-transit-planning#sthash.RwjIWmdo.dpuf

An updated transportation model will help us understand how each project is related.

Key features of the GTAModel V4.0 model include:

Covers the entire Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area
Calibrated using current travel survey information
Explicitly represents individuals and households
Trips are modelled for entire 24-hour week-day time period (using five time periods)
Considers crowding effects on the transit system and fare differences
- See more at: http://reliefline.ca/the-project/coordinated-transit-planning#sthash.RwjIWmdo.dpuf

 

[Kitsune]

If it does go Queen - how is the Queen streetcar going to be handled ? There doesnt seem to be much room to build a loop at eithier ends of the Queen Subway. With King - you could eliminate half the streetcar line, especially if Broadview is extended into the port lands and gets its own streetcar line. A king alignment with a station at Broadview/Queen in this situation would likely be one of the busiest in the system.

 

[Translude15]

You may be absolutely right, I'm not saying a DRL isn't needed. My point was that before the city spends yet more time and money studying the DRL they should know what they are dealing with.

After ST is implemented then they can make a more informed decision about where the DRL should go, down what corridors and the station location. Why make a plan when you don't even know up to date ridership numbers and where those riders are going and how they are getting there? The DRL may still be needed but ST will definitely effect how those riders get to where they are going so wait until it's implemented and base the DRL plan on facts and not conjecture which is what is happening now,

I understand your qualms about the DRL study process but further to wopchop's point, the new transit developments within the core+shoulder areas (DRL+ST+RER) are being looked at in conjunction with each other rather than separate entities.

Again, once all the preliminary studies are completes, I think we will see that the DRL and ST/RER will serve different trip generators. More specifically, the DRL will cater to more localized service and RER offering a longer distance and Union-centric service. I know I'm being anecdotal here, but a trip from King-Spadina to Queen St. East or vice versa would make a lot more sense on the DRL than having to go all the way south and taking RER.

 

[aquateam]

If it does go Queen - how is the Queen streetcar going to be handled ? There doesnt seem to be much room to build a loop at eithier ends of the Queen Subway. With King - you could eliminate half the streetcar line, especially if Broadview is extended into the port lands and gets its own streetcar line. A king alignment with a station at Broadview/Queen in this situation would likely be one of the busiest in the system.

Queen would be handled the same way you handle King. Assuming the subway makes it from Broadview to Roncesvalles, if you had a Queen alignment then the Queen streetcar would take King through the core instead of Queen. People wanting to stay on Queen would transfer to the subway. If King were chosen, then the Roncesvalles and Broadview streetcars would take Queen instead of King through the core, and transfer to the subway at Broadview/Roncesvalles stations (or whatever) if they wanted to go to King in the core.

No new short-turn facilities should be necessary.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Queen would be handled the same way you handle King. Assuming the subway makes it from Broadview to Roncesvalles, if you had a Queen alignment then the Queen streetcar would take King through the core instead of Queen. People wanting to stay on Queen would transfer to the subway. If King were chosen, then the Roncesvalles and Broadview streetcars would take Queen instead of King through the core, and transfer to the subway at Broadview/Roncesvalles stations (or whatever) if they wanted to go to King in the core.

No new short-turn facilities should be necessary.

Worst case scenario, if the subway went to Pape, there's a stretch of Queen that has the streetcar overlap with the subway. I don't think its going to kill anybody.

 

[44 North]

Worst case scenario, if the subway went to Pape, there's a stretch of Queen that has the streetcar overlap with the subway. I don't think its going to kill anybody.

Yeah, I don't see a problem with the streetcar staying so as to maintain quality local service. Originally when I thought we'd see closer stop spacing for a RL, I believed it might be a good idea to eliminate a streetcar route (so as to free-up vehicles for other routes). But when looking at the proposed corridors, there's no green dots for stations between Front/Cherry and Gerrard/Pape (with Option D), or Sherbourne/Queen and Gerrard/Pape (with Option B). That's a sizable gap. Nor is there a green dot for a station at Queen/Broadview, which would be a good intermediary locale for a station.

As well, in another thread someone mentioned how the GTA has 51 "Mobility Hubs". I definitely question the work that went into IDing the hubworthiness of such a substantial number of locales. Specific to this, I'm wondering why Pape/Danforth was ID'd as a Mobility Hub, but Broadview/Danforth wasn't. With the 504 originating from Broadveiw Stn, and with many who treat the King car as a psuedo-DRL offering a less crowded alternative to B-Y, I'd say Broadview Stn is quite a mobility hub as it is. It also has 4k more riders than Pape. Another thing is that using Metrolinx's criteria for a hub, basically every station for the Relief Line would be a sizable mobility hub - which would seemingly defeat the purpose of selective "hubs".

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Identifying anything this close , if not contiguous to the core as a "hub" is kind of pointless. And I am totally not in favour of RL having such a low number of stations.

AoD

 

[44 North]

I think everyone wants a large number of stations. But many might be too focused on past Queen Subway / DRL plans which usually (or entirely) involved a bridge to cross the valley - this allowed for a higher number of stations. The DRL of the 21st C will be 100% underground through the south end of downtown, and it will be deep. Years back I recall reading an adage that every metre of station depth costs $1M. I wouldn't be surprised if it's double or triple that now. If we tunnel through bedrock to cross the valley, stations at Queen/River and Queen/Broadview would be +30m deep. That's a lot to spend, particularly for a 500m stop spacing. Mixed-face tunneling could be done at a shallower depth, but I doubt it will be here. The Lower Don is a vital corridor: rail, highway, expressway, gas, water, sewage, hydro, confined volatile river, flood protection...I can't see a shallow tunnel happening. I believe it will be either a station at River St, or one at Broadview Ave. But not both.