Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[sunnyraytoronto]

Putting in a subway, in most cases, will bring high density development along it. So even if it were only low or medium density today, in a decade or two after it opens, the surroundings will change.

Ie.

So do not look at what there is now, but what could develop over the years to come.

Both buildings still exist.

In the top photo is the Dempsey Store (north-west corner of Yonge & Sheppard), it was relocated a few blocks north west (around 1997 due to Sheppard Subway construction) to Beecroft Road north of Park Home Avenue.

In bottom photo, the Canadian Bank of Commerce building, is now at the north east corner of Yonge & Empress Avenue. It's a beauty supply store now.

 

[JasonParis]

How is it ridiculous? Again, we're talking about 5 days a week use vs the occasional visit to the Ex. If we run the line along the western rail lands, then it will be conveniant for those visiting the Ex, instead of those who live along Queen west and currently pack articulated streetcars. These people are obviously coming from somewhere in order to pack those streetcars. How can you compare packed articulated streetcars along Queen west to Markham?

Let's not forget that many people riding those "packed articulated streetcars" will have an opportunity to intercept and transfer onto the DRL from points east (i.e., Leslieville) and west (i.e., Liberty Village), thereby increasing the speed of their ride into the core. It would also leave the legacy streetcar lines through the core to better act as the "local" services they essentially are.

Also, your argument about a DRL merely catering to "Monday-Friday" use instead of wider use is pretty weak. Queen Street it essentially a stable neighbourhood for most of its length, although does have a few pockets of development (actually, where the DRL would cross Queen anyway). Not that I think "this is what I see everyday so it must be right" arguments make much sense, but from a personal perspective, I've lived in three different locations in downtown Toronto over the last 12 years (all within a block north or south of Queen) and I'm quite convinced that a DRL alignment makes the most sense somewhere between Wellington and the rail corridor as it recognizes where people are going, where development is occurring and where development is slated to continue (especially the Portlands which is the largest future development node in this city). Would a DRL Queen alignment serve me better? Sure. Do I want it on Queen? Not really.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

How is it ridiculous? Again, we're talking about 5 days a week use vs the occasional visit to the Ex. If we run the line along the western rail lands, then it will be conveniant for those visiting the Ex, instead of those who live along Queen west and currently pack articulated streetcars. These people are obviously coming from somewhere in order to pack those streetcars. How can you compare packed articulated streetcars along Queen west to Markham?

It's ridiculous to assume a Queen alignment is best because people will walk from Queen to Front but won't walk from Front to Queen (how would they get back home, then?). It's ridiculous to consider the Ex the only thing along the rail lands/Front that would be convenienced by a subway (or even the only event held on the Ex grounds). Transit could be well-used along the Front/railway corridor, but there is currently no transit, so people either end up walking quite a ways or just driving. If we're going to tie worth with growth (which shouldn't be the main criteria), much of Queen West is currently losing population and now has residential densities similar to parts of Markham...Queen is hardly the only street that matters but it gets treated that way. If "high density" deserves more transit, well, then the raillands/Front deserves more transit because it is high density (and will be much higher in the future...and future conditions must trump existing conditions).

Putting in a subway, in most cases, will bring high density development along it. So even if it were only low or medium density today, in a decade or two after it opens, the surroundings will change.

Not quite. Development only happens where it's permitted to happen, and even if it's encouraged, it still may not happen. 43 years later, both Bloor and Danforth remain mostly untouched by redevelopment. Even developments along Yonge are extremely localized, proof of development occurring only in designated places and not just wherever the subway runs. Subway zones are more likely to be redesignated growth/development zones, though.

 

[Darren B]

..Also, your argument about a DRL merely catering to "Monday-Friday" use instead of wider use is pretty weak.

I believe you misunderstood my comment. All my comments here urge for a line to be used 5 days and more a week. The Ex, ACC, Rogers Centre, are event places where people go to occasionaly, and far less then 5 days a week

 

[Darren B]

It's ridiculous to assume a Queen alignment is best because people will walk from Queen to Front but won't walk from Front to Queen (how would they get back home, then?). It's ridiculous to consider the Ex the only thing along the rail lands/Front that would be convenienced by a subway (or even the only event held on the Ex grounds). Transit could be well-used along the Front/railway corridor, but there is currently no transit, so people either end up walking quite a ways or just driving. If we're going to tie worth with growth (which shouldn't be the main criteria), much of Queen West is currently losing population and now has residential densities similar to parts of Markham...Queen is hardly the only street that matters but it gets treated that way. If "high density" deserves more transit, well, then the raillands/Front deserves more transit because it is high density (and will be much higher in the future...and future conditions must trump existing conditions).

You havent understood the crux of my comment. Those people riding those ariuculated streetcars dont work anywhere on Front. They get off their streetcar and walk 2 block or less to work. A line close to Ex will be beneficial to those people who visit the Ex, and will not benefit as much so the Queen West streetcar ridership.

And you use the word 'ridiculous' so much that you should label your claim that Markham is a dense as Queen west as 'ridiculous'. Thats by far the most 'ridiculous' comment here. Homes along that area of the city, and anywhere south for Bloor for that matter, are all on smaller lots. Those houses on Queen are semis or rowhouses, with smaller rooms and more people living per km then in Markham. Many of those rowhouses also have seperate entry basement apartments which are rented out. The lots along Queen proper have storefronts with apartement on the second and third floor. You would know this if you lived downhere.

So please dont compare apples to oranges.

 

[JasonParis]

I believe you misunderstood my comment. All my comments here urge for a line to be used 5 days and more a week. The Ex, ACC, Rogers Centre, are event places where people go to occasionaly, and far less then 5 days a week

I didn't misunderstand anything. Yes, the Ex, ACC, Rogers Centre, etc. add to the call for a southern DRL alignment, but they are not by any reason the impetus for it. The impetus for it is to relieve Yonge/Bloor, service growing neighbourhoods, make-use of an existing ROW (where possible) and to take people to where they are going (or where they can easily connect to where they are going).

 

[JasonParis]

And you use the word 'ridiculous' so much that you should label your claim that Markham is a dense as Queen west as 'ridiculous'. Thats by far the most 'ridiculous' comment here. Homes along that area of the city, and anywhere south for Bloor for that matter, are all on smaller lots. Those houses on Queen are semis or rowhouses, with smaller rooms and more people living per km then in Markham. Many of those rowhouses also have seperate entry basement apartments which are rented out. The lots along Queen proper have storefronts with apartement on the second and third floor. You would know this if you lived downhere.

People are going to take real offence to your posts if you constantly suggest that "you are more downtown" than they are which is basically what you are doing here. Moreover, you have no reason to know that so-and-so doesn't live downtown and that perhaps so-and-so simply see things differently than you do.

Despite all you said above, most census tracts along Queen have been losing population due to gentrification for a while now, while those hugging the rail corridor have been growing exponentially.

 

[Darren B]

People are going to take real offence to your posts if you constantly suggest that "you are more downtown" than they are which is basically what you are doing here. Moreover, you have no reason to know that so-and-so doesn't live downtown and that perhaps so-and-so simply see things differently than you do.

Despite all you said above, most census tracts along Queen have been losing population due to gentrification for a while now, while those hugging the rail corridor have been growing exponentially.

Ok granted that came across abit stand offish, but Im trying to dispel this notion that Queen west can be compared to Markham. As its obvious to anyone who has ever lived there or visited family and friends there. Lets all admit that Queen West and Queen East has some of the highest density in Ontario.

Goodnight to all - I'll be heading out to grab the 506 and then transfer to the 504 to get downtown; ie part of the path of the potential DRL

 

[scarberiankhatru]

You havent understood the crux of my comment. Those people riding those ariuculated streetcars dont work anywhere on Front. They get off their streetcar and walk 2 block or less to work. A line close to Ex will be beneficial to those people who visit the Ex, and will not benefit as much so the Queen West streetcar ridership.

And you use the word 'ridiculous' so much that you should label your claim that Markham is a dense as Queen west as 'ridiculous'. Thats by far the most 'ridiculous' comment here. Homes along that area of the city, and anywhere south for Bloor for that matter, are all on smaller lots. Those houses on Queen are semis or rowhouses, with smaller rooms and more people living per km then in Markham. Many of those rowhouses also have seperate entry basement apartments which are rented out. The lots along Queen proper have storefronts with apartement on the second and third floor. You would know this if you lived downhere.

So please dont compare apples to oranges.

The crux of your argument is that Queen is important, and everything else can take a cab or walk or drive or take a bus.

I get a strong impression that you really don't know the city very well...what's in the suburbs, what's along the Gardiner, where the tower clusters are, where the jobs are, etc. That'd be fine if you were arguing with people from Saskatoon or Stockholm, but you're not...hell, I was actually born on Queen Street.

And, yes, the "high density" area north of Queen West isn't really any denser than parts of Markham. Strange, and a bit sad, but true. Note that I said parts of Markham. That area north of Queen West is also gentrifying and losing population. That doesn't mean it doesn't need better transit, of course, but combined with the much higher densities (residential, employment, and entertainment) south of Queen, it does seriously compromise the notion that Queen is somehow the inherently best alignment (it's not even the busiest downtown streetcar route). Transit needs to go where it'll move people, not to where it'd "disrespect" the fewest people, or to where we'd like it to go as some kind of reward for being more urban than some random other place.

 

[kEiThZ]

This is a bit off topic, but there's no wall or curtain blocking anything. Why should drivers have a view of the water from the Gardiner? It's not on the waterfront! Toronto is a city of high rises that stops at the last major street before the water. It's no different from Hong Kong or Sydney or Chicago.

Now if you could barely see the water while driving along Queen's Quay, then the "wall of condos" argument would have some merit.

Really? Than why is it that our chattering classes keep arguing that the Gardiner cuts off the city from the waterfront? How is the Gardiner any less of a psychological barrier than the condos?

Now, I am not opposed to the condos or redoing the Gardiner corridor. I am just pointing out the argument that's used and it's limitations. I was just responding to Darren who said, 'I simply dont think that the city would allow more condos so close to our lakeshore. It cuts off the lakeshore to the rest of the city.'

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that a Queen alignment would prioritize relatively fewer riders than Union based on GO ridership. More people ride the downtown streetcars than the GO lines.

It'll be interesting to see the results of the study that the TTC has been instructed to do.

Like I said, there's no point debating it now. We'll have to wait to see the ridership estimates. That's what makes debates about where to put the line irrelevant at the moment. Though, it's a valid exercise for CDL.TO and Darren B to go back and forth on how much development there is on Queen vs. Front.

For me, I'll support whichever alignment pulls in the most riders.

Yeah, I think alot will be riding on this study. I think many councillors will wait for this study to decide if they should further back the DRL

It won't be downtown councilors deciding the merits of this line. It will be their suburban counterparts who have to hear complaints from their constituents who make the transfer at Yonge and Bloor everyday. You know those same monday to friday 9 to 5'ers that you were giving less importance to. They will form the bulk of the ridership for the new line. All the riders drawn from the development in the core will not compare to the number of inner suburbanites who will be riding the DRL.

The alignment will be whatever is convenient for most of those riders coming into the core. IMHO, that's why it's hard to make the case for Queen, when most of them are heading for offices somewhere between King and Front. Combine that point with the development taking place at the edge of the core at the Portlands and on Lakeshore west, the tourist attractions along Front, the presence of an existing transit hub at Union and you have a very strong case for a Front-Wellington alignment.

That's what Queen is competing with. It would have to commercial development to rival Wellington/Front, residential development to rival the Lakeshore and sufficient traffic from the entertainment district to rival all the attractions on Front. After all, who'd argue against having a subway stop specifically for the CN Tower and the SkyDome.

But I guess we'll all have to wait for the study to be proven right or wrong. Maybe the best corridor win.

 

[Dan416]

Personally I really think the DRL should run through Union. And it should definitely serve the CN Tower, Rogers SkyDome, the Exhibition, and all that good stuff.

And since I strongly believe that the DRL should serve Union, and apparently the expansion of Union is being designed now (even though we thought construction had already started!), I think whoever is designing it should be designing it with DRL platforms in mind.

If the city is serious about the DRL, they have to make Union able to accomodate the DRL. With millions being spent on that second platform, they should design it to facilitate easy transfers being the DRL and the YUS.

 

[jamesbow]

One thing that we should note is that both fiscal reality and the raison d'etre of this line (relieving pressure on the Bloor-Yonge interchange) means that this service will be an express service, rather than a local one, meaning that station stops, on average, will be substantially wider than what we see for the Bloor-Danforth subway, which as well as functioning as a commuter route is providing local support to Bloor Street and Danforth Avenue.

I don't mind transfers myself, but I'm told that people tend to avoid them. So, what will encourage commuters coming in from Scarborough to transfer to the Downtown Relief Line at Pape or Donlands? Part of it will be the areas of the downtown core that are brought within walking distance of a new subway stop, but a big factor is that there will be fewer station stops, meaning a quicker ride downtown. (Assuming the transfer points are at Pape and Union and a rider wants to get to St. Andrew, he or she faces twelve stops plus a transfer via the current route (Pape to St. George, St. George to St. Andrew) or six stops plus two transfers via the new route (Pape to Union, Union to St. Andrew).

Which means, if we place this service beneath Queen Street, or even King Street, we'll likely have to maintain local transit service on top of it, to cover those areas of the downtown that are not only too far to easily walk to a subway stop, but would now otherwise have no access to transit whatsoever if the local service was removed.

We don't want to add too many stops to this service lest it slows the subway cars to a crawl (this isn't to say that the stops couldn't be carefully placed for maximum access to density, but of the intermediate stops enroute in the 1985 proposal -- Gerrard, Queen East, Cherry, St. Lawrence (Sherbourne) -- only Queen East and St. Lawrence were guaranteed), so be careful about where the line is placed. It isn't going to be providing local service; rather it will provide express service, with pinpoint support of major nodes.

...James

 

[AKS]

I don't mind transfers myself, but I'm told that people tend to avoid them. So, what will encourage commuters coming in from Scarborough to transfer to the Downtown Relief Line at Pape or Donlands? Part of it will be the areas of the downtown core that are brought within walking distance of a new subway stop, but a big factor is that there will be fewer station stops, meaning a quicker ride downtown.

I think many will take it even from the west and east. Yonge line is so congested and there's frequent problems. I think people will take the line and avoid yonge if they think Yonge will be congested. Also if Yonge line is down, they have option to take another route rather than getting stranded downtown or taking long bus rides trying to get home.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

One thing that we should note is that both fiscal reality and the raison d'etre of this line (relieving pressure on the Bloor-Yonge interchange) means that this service will be an express service, rather than a local one, meaning that station stops, on average, will be substantially wider than what we see for the Bloor-Danforth subway, which as well as functioning as a commuter route is providing local support to Bloor Street and Danforth Avenue.

I can see lots of people arguing for more than just a stop or two between the Danforth and Yonge lines...the very existence of the DRL would have more than enough 'relief' value that it would not be compromised by a few stops like Gerrard or Cherry. If the difference between 2 stops and 5 stops on the way meant 3 extra minutes of travel time, most people wouldn't even notice those 3 minutes and most would not consider 3 minutes to be worth switching to/from a route for, but thousands more people would use the line. If the DRL ran up Don Mills, we could 'get away' with more stops between Danforth and Yonge, through shifting even more people away from the Yonge & Bloor interchange by keeping them off the Yonge and Bloor lines altogether...if you slash 15 minutes off someone's trip by shortening their bus trip to the subway, adding 3 stops (3 minutes) farther down the line still saves them a noticeable chunk of time.

One feature of the DRL if it ran south of King is that it wouldn't really be replacing any existing service, just adding new service. It's too early to tell how severely service would be slashed on the King/Queen/Dundas/College streetcars if it ran north of Front/Wellington, but there probably won't be a shred of incentive to ever improve service on the east/west streetcar routes if the DRL did overlap one or more of them. Subways aren't necessarily better for very short trips, particularly if they may not be stopping every 1km or so, and if they're deep enough to require a not-so-fun-filled walk up/down mezzanine staircases. If a Queen subway line was built, it'd be far better continuing both east and west beyond where the DRL would run.

 

[MisterF]

Really? Than why is it that our chattering classes keep arguing that the Gardiner cuts off the city from the waterfront? How is the Gardiner any less of a psychological barrier than the condos?

Now, I am not opposed to the condos or redoing the Gardiner corridor. I am just pointing out the argument that's used and it's limitations. I was just responding to Darren who said, 'I simply dont think that the city would allow more condos so close to our lakeshore. It cuts off the lakeshore to the rest of the city.'

I think you may have misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about the Gardiner cutting off the city from the water, I was talking about the belief that the buildings south of it do. You know, the "wall of condos" argument.

The condos are only a psychological barrier to drivers on the Gardiner and maybe people in office towers further inland. To a pedestrian actually going to the waterfront they're just the opposite - they unite the city with the waterfront.

For me, I'll support whichever alignment pulls in the most riders.

I'll support pretty much any alignment - as long as it gets built!