"Downtown Core Line" - Possible Alignments?

[prosperegal]

I think we should just build platforms big enough to allow for future car additions (maybe enough for seven cars, instead of the current six?). That's probably the cheapest way to "make room."

 

[paraone]

I'm not going to get into the mess of arguments going on in this thread, but just one idea that hasn't surfaced yet in regards to express tracks, which actually works quite well in New york outside of manhattan (7 train as well as I think the Q line in Brooklyn), skip stop service.
Instead of 4 tracks you have 3 tracks, express in peak direction. This would need a "terminal" in a central location with at least 4 bays to function properly. Basically for anyone that hasn't been on it, you have an express and local heading into downtown, once you reach the terminal, the express would then switch to local service for the non-peak direction. It becomes a little tricky making the switch but it's totally do-able. It also reduces some of the cost at other station, by how much who knows, but could be an interesting idea to look at.

 

[nfitz]

I think we should just build platforms big enough to allow for future car additions (maybe enough for seven cars, instead of the current six?). That's probably the cheapest way to "make room."

It may make room; but it doesn't allow for express service. Though if you were to do this, surely making space for 8 or even 10 cars would make sense, compared to 7.

3 tracks - that's a thought. With automatic train control, you could probably do a lot more with 3 tracks than you could 50 years ago.

 

[cacruden]

That might work - but we have not had great luck with our switching - that tends to be one thing that breaks down more than anything other I believe.

You would have to have the signs at the station indicating the time to next train (multiple - like in England) and where they are going. You would not be able to add more trains (probably a few less), just some would be express (maybe every 10 minutes), and the rest would be local (or something like that). The construction of it would be more problematic - even more of the street would have to be shut down - and for longer - during construction. You either have to carve out more width all along the way - or do it in strips -- and you would likely have more businesses fail during construction (yes, weaker businesses usually get killed during construction).

 

[paraone]

I was thinking that as well with automatic train control, the 3 track system would work quite well, but I'm not sure the union would let that happen as there membership would take a huge hit. The terminal would be very tricky to build, but not something that is impossible.

 

[JasonParis]

NYC is the only city with express/local services on some of its subway lines (as far as I know). Yet, many cities much larger than T.O. operate with local-only subway lines quite efficiently and we likely can too. Still, it never hurts to prepare for the future, so breakaway walls for an extra car and perhaps saving some space around DRL statations/alignment (should express service be required later) makes sense, but I really can't see anything more concrete being required at any point in the next 30 years.

 

[prosperegal]

NYC is the only city with express/local services on some of its subway lines (as far as I know). Yet, many cities much larger than T.O. operate with local-only subway lines quite efficiently and we likely can too. Still, it never hurts to prepare for the future, so breakaway walls for an extra car and perhaps saving some space around DRL statations/alignment (should express service be required later) makes sense, but I really can't see anything more concrete being required at any point in the next 30 years.

I thought London had express as well? I recall them going through certain stations.

 

[nfitz]

I was thinking that as well with automatic train control, the 3 track system would work quite well, but I'm not sure the union would let that happen as there membership would take a huge hit.

Automatic Train Control is already being designed and installed; I don't think the Union has said anything; however there's no reason that you have to reduce staffing on the train just because you have ATC. Montreal installed ATC in the mid-1970s and still had 2 people on each train for years afterwards.

 

[cacruden]

I don't remember any express trains when I lived in London - all trains stopped at all stops. They did have switching to have two subway routes to have the same core line. So as you moved out at one stop, a train went left or right - which ended up at different destinations.

They do have an extensive regional train network, although they were very very susceptible to any rain/cold conditions

 

[Whoaccio]

I thought London had express as well? I recall them going through certain stations.

The stations you were going through may have been closed for repairs. I think I remember last time coming in from Heathrow, Hounslow West was shut down for repairs and we just rolled through. Then again, when the Piccadilly and District lines overlap, doesn't the Piccadilly train roll through some District Stations?

 

[Railization]

That's the kind of narrow-minded lack of foresight that got Yonge built without express tracks. It's at 2/3 capacity now; imagine where it will be in 100 years (and can you think of a reason that it wouldn't still be in use in a 100 years?) I'm not saying build it now; but design for it now.

Except it isn't at 2/3rds capacity now, it will be in 2031. That's a little more than 20 years into the future. Bloor-Danforth will also drop dramatically in stress, and will also be at about 2/3rds in 2031 if a DRL is built. So you don't need express tracks on either. They'll be fine for at least 40 years if not 60.

Sorrry - typo. I meant 20 metres (as I have posted many, many times before) - 66 feet - one chain. Plenty of space - there are 4-track tunnels in New York City that are only 50-feet wide.

It's not "plenty of space." You cannot fit platforms with 4 tracks. You'll blow AT LEAST 16 metres on the running tracks alone plus the outer foundation walls. However, the TTC isn't likely to construct a 4-track span with no supports in between. If there's supporting walls between tracks, as is the norm, then you're looking at 18.33m on just the running structure. You also cannot bore such a tunnel, as bored tunnels need to be dug farther apart. You'd have to tear up the entire street, including sidewalks, for the entire length of the line to build this. This is insane. I'd recommend understanding how something is built before you insist it is something that should be built as if it were obvious.

But we could put in a parking tax, and toll roads, and do congestion charges - which would be a logical way to fund transit. And instead Miller has decided he doesn't want to be umpopular, and had deferreed that one to Metrolinx - who then dodged it in turn.

It is only a logical way to fund transit if it is done across the region in a coordinated manner. If it is done in just Toronto and nowhere else, it simply hurts Toronto economically. The long run would see that hurt transit as well, since there'd be an overall change in balance of where activity is happening in the region. You can't assume that Toronto will be fine without the 905 being taken along for the ride. There are consequences. It's not easy, and Miller is being smart for recognizing these interrelationships, and coordinating the issue with Metrolinx.

 

[cacruden]

Except it isn't at 2/3rds capacity now, it will be in 2031. That's a little more than 20 years into the future. Bloor-Danforth will also drop dramatically in stress, and will also be at about 2/3rds in 2031 if a DRL is built. So you don't need express tracks on either. They'll be fine for at least 40 years if not 60.

Not to mention, if they max - great, gives the opportunity to run a third parallel service - maybe south of Union - making Keith happy

 

[Railization]

Since I am looking at future development, how is that looking at studies that are 10 years old?

Because it is based on the 1980s' studies in an era where streetcars/LRT would never be considered. You're not looking at "future development" just because it is stuff that hasn't completed construction. The plans are current, and the plans include transit that you are ignoring, and you're ignoring it because they didn't exist in the 1980s.

All you've provided is current stuff. I disagree with your interpretation of it. And obviously so do half the voters in this poll. Let's move on.

Just because they vote doesn't mean they understand. This is why these things aren't decided by popular opinion. The stuff I've provided is more current than what you have provided. This "my argument is based on future plans" doesn't hold any water. The links I supplied are also about future development, and shows that there will in fact be substantial development along the King/Queen corridor.

Really? Wow it's news to me that a provincially mandated agency has to rely on money given to them by the province.

You obviously don't understand how Metrolinx works if that's your attitude. Metrolinx has no revenue tools. They are not guaranteed any funding. They are only really able to make recommendations to the Province, and cross their fingers that the Province will fund their recommendations.

But who's to say that TC was the right response given that the political mood in the province has changed. And who's to say that 50 billion dollars is the right amount. Had they stuck to the original 100 billion amount, we might not be having this debate. Given the changing political mood in the province when it comes to transit, arguing for some amount greater than 50 billion over more than a quarter century, I don't think would be too hard a sell. Indeed, if we are talking about a second line, over and above 50 billion that's only a marginal increase in cost to the whole RTP.

The political mood hasn't changed as much as you think. The reason why the plan dropped from 100 to 50 is because the Province wasn't going to pay that price.

We'll see. Should Metrolinx ditch its cadre of municipal politicians I suspect that deciding project priority based on 905 vote potential will end.

It isn't the municipal politicians that skew it to 905. It's the Province. Should be obvious. No Tory will ever win a seat in Toronto, so the Liberals will be out to bribe 905 votes. That's how the system works, however sad that reality may be.

If we are throwing around projections here that say there's a case to be made for building express tracks and such, than it's quite likely we have the riders to build branch lines. As for building the BCA, I am quite sure that's what Metrolinx planners are supposed to do....

There are no projections that say there's a case to be made for building express tracks. That's pure fantasy land, based on some imaginary projections. You're only deluding yourself by thinking there's a case for express tracks.

 

[kEiThZ]

Not to mention, if they max - great, gives the opportunity to run a third parallel service - maybe south of Union - making Keith happy

Yay!!! Personally, I'd rather see more lines built than spending money on express tracks. Leave the job of express service to GO. If GO was fare and network integrated (ie with the crosstown line) it'd be a far more efficient express service inside the 416 than any express subway line.

If we are to have express subway service, then let's have it on the BD and YUS lines first where there'd be more bang for the buck. Along the DRL it'd be a waste of resources. The time savings would not be that significant at all.

 

[cacruden]

^ I prefer more lines over express. If YUS overloads, then have another one or two lines come in downtown through Bay and Spadina (maybe going slightly south of Union - so LRT line does not have to come up to Union) south of bloor then fanning out in different directions north of bloor. Whalla.... overload solved - and more subway lines to distribute the load