"Downtown Core Line" - Possible Alignments?

[Darren B]

^ Darren and Keith agreeing on something - actually maybe it is time to pause and celebrate for a little while before getting back on topic!

On that note I'd like to point out that in this thread's voting system Queen is about to overtake Union/Front. I guess the tides are turing and that the pro Queen crowd is bringing very relevant info to the table.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Darren and Keith agreeing on something - actually maybe it is time to pause and celebrate for a little while before getting back on topic!

Hey hey....I am not a disagreeable fella. There are a few things here and there that I defend....but there's plenty I'll find common ground on with others.

And if one persuades me, I can be won over. I had epic debates with scarberian earlier and he has convinced me on some issues...ie SM LRT.

 

[kEiThZ]

On that note I'd like to point out that in this thread's voting system Queen is about to overtake Union/Front. I guess the tides are turing and that the pro Queen crowd is bringing very relevant info to the table.

I still think it's inaccurate though because we should be doing it by alignment not street. Having a choice between Richmond and Adelaide but not King makes no sense. That being said, the vote is only coming to reflect the opinions in this thread....strong preference for Queen by some and a more southern preference by others.

 

[nfitz]

On that note I'd like to point out that in this thread's voting system Queen is about to overtake Union/Front. I guess the tides are turing and that the pro Queen crowd is bringing very relevant info to the table.

Given that putting it down Wellington is pretty much the equivalent of putting it down Front - and probably a no-brainer when you look at how it would connect with King and St. Elsewhere - I'd say that the southern alignment is still in the lead.

 

[cacruden]

I actually think adding another subway line at Union would be not the best thing - in my opinion you want to spread out the points of transfer between subways to more stations. Union already has a lot of lines (yes most of them are GO), they have Via (less of an issue), and they have the subway, during peak times adding another subway will just make it too much at one location (again in my humble opinion).

Number two, the subway with future development plans in mind. The subway would not open for at least several years, it will be used in 5, 10, 20 years BUT not today - so future development plans should be a big factor in development of a subway.

We have taken the assumption that the east route and the west route are the same DRL line, they of course do not need to be, the west one could terminate at Yonge, and the east one could terminate at University. For example - you could have the west come down Adelaide, and the east come down south through St. Lawrence Market (I don't remember much north of that location being developed at this point). In the future, you could actually take the west line and terminate it at some place like Parliament (slightly east) -- i.e. intersecting the west line.

You could also take the east line, and turn it south at around Union and run it down to a station on the waterfront and have a station with the LRT line not having to turn north into Union Station. Of course much farther in the future it could then curve west again if the LRT gets overloaded.

Just some thinking outside of the box. Would splitting the west and east lines be an option?

I was thinking about my own possible option of having different subways, and I followed that option a little. I was thinking that there could be the Adelaide West brought downtown to Yonge, but reconfiguring the Union station a little - breaking apart the YUS line into two lines. One would come in as DRL east, along front (or a little south), which would go through Union, and run up YUS - University side. The second line (Yonge line) would go down Yonge straight (no more screaching ) [ or possibly curving a little towards bay as it does now - then south], down to Queens Quay, which would be where the LRT ran through.

Of course if it did curve through Bay and become parallel at one point, they could have the transfer going north onto DRL east be on the same centre platform, and the other level be a transfer from DRL east to Yonge South to the waterfront.

The Adelaide route would come in and have transfers at King Stations on two subway lines .... phase one would terminate at Yonge, maybe a later phase bringing it a little east 'til it intersects with the DRL east (which will curve north - maybe around Parliament).

Maybe it would be close enough to the ferry to have the Queens Quay stop having a connection to the ferry service to centre Island

 

[Whoaccio]

In my mind, an advantage of a Richmond/Adelaide or otherwise more northerly alignment is that it would make it practical to finally move trams off of Queen/King, or at least their central portions. It makes no sense that the Queen/King trams, despite serving the densest and, ostensibly, most transit friendly parts of the city are less viable than system averages. Consolidating to one grade separate line should, in the long run, save money by removing the 70 odd trams that ply Queen/King during rushhour in favor of a handful of trains running faster, in tighter headways and with bigger loads. Plus that would free up a ton of rolling stock for the City's more practical tram routes.

 

[Chuck]

I think that it's important to recognize the difference between "waste $1 billion today," and "spend $1 billion extra today to save $4 billion tomorrow."

Waste 1 billion today includes such projects as underground bus stations with 28 bays at Yonge and Steeles, cavernous subway stations like Finch, and multi-hundred million dollar, architecturally renowned subway stations in the middle of nowhere.

Spend 1 billion extra to save money tomorrow includes such projects as doubling the strength of the Bloor Viaduct to accommodate your grandchildren's subway system, or building express subways today for tomorrow's crush loads.

 

[CDL.TO]

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

London has express services as well. The Metropolitan Line has local, semi-express, and express services. Express trips skip up to 7 stops on the line.

There are also cases where two lines run in the same corridor, with one making local stops and the other running express. Examples are the Jubilee/Metropolitan between Baker Street and Wembley Park and District/Piccadilly between Earl's Court and Action Town. Tube lines also offer local service in the same corridor as mainline trains (which run express). Examples are the District line from Bromley-by-Bow to Upminster, the Piccadilly line from King's Cross to Finsbury Park, and the Bakerloo line from Queen's Park to Harrow and Wealdstone. This would be like building a subway or LRT in the Weston corridor to provide local stops, with GO Trains only stopping a major locations.

 

[nfitz]

The Metropolitan Line has local, semi-express, and express services. Express trips skip up to 8 stops on the line.

A bit, yes - nothing like New York. See map.

 

[CDL.TO]

A bit, yes - nothing like New York. See map.

Well, duh. It's only one line, only 7 stops skipped.
`

 

[Darren B]

I think that it's important to recognize the difference between "waste $1 billion today," and "spend $1 billion extra today to save $4 billion tomorrow."

Waste 1 billion today includes such projects as underground bus stations with 28 bays at Yonge and Steeles, cavernous subway stations like Finch, and multi-hundred million dollar, architecturally renowned subway stations in the middle of nowhere.

Spend 1 billion extra to save money tomorrow includes such projects as doubling the strength of the Bloor Viaduct to accommodate your grandchildren's subway system, or building express subways today for tomorrow's crush loads.

Thats VERY true! The DRL could be built with two level express/local. Only the local would be used until the line grew in length and demand to warrant use of the express. And it also make for better servicability as having express tracks below local tracks means that trains can be re-routed through the express tracks in emergencies.

 

[Dan416]

I'm all for accomodating for the future, but express tracks on the DRL I don't think are really needed. Most people will be heading downtown from either the eastern or western leg of the DRL, and there won't be that many stops anyway, so what's the point? If the cost was marginal, then sure. But it really depends. Someone would have to do a cost-benefit analysis.

 

[golodhendil]

NYC is the only city with express/local services on some of its subway lines (as far as I know).

London has express services as well. The Metropolitan Line has local, semi-express, and express services. Express trips skip up to 7 stops on the line.

So does a section of Philadelphia's SEPTA (Broad St Line) and Chicago's L (Red/Brown/Purple lines).

There are also cases where two lines run in the same corridor, with one making local stops and the other running express. Examples are the Jubilee/Metropolitan between Baker Street and Wembley Park and District/Piccadilly between Earl's Court and Action Town. Tube lines also offer local service in the same corridor as mainline trains (which run express). Examples are the District line from Bromley-by-Bow to Upminster, the Piccadilly line from King's Cross to Finsbury Park, and the Bakerloo line from Queen's Park to Harrow and Wealdstone. This would be like building a subway or LRT in the Weston corridor to provide local stops, with GO Trains only stopping a major locations.

This is actually a pretty common situation in Japan, where services from several companies, some coming from different destinations, would operate through shared corridors, with some trains providing local, express, rapid, limited express, superexpress, and varieties of all of these that are local/express on different sections. (Granted, a lot of Japan's urban rail is aboveground so there's more room for expansion and manoeuvre). Boston's MBTA also does something similar with the outer sections of its Orange and Red lines, where they share corridors with the commuter rail that only stops at major stations.

I dont think so. Thats what GO service is for. Subways are meant to be lean and fast.

Not necessarily. It's pretty common for other metro systems to build platforms longer to accommodate future lengthening of trains. And as long as the capacity demands, trains of 8, 10 or even 12 cars are not unreasonable (and have examples in the world). There's no reason for subways to be "lean" (whatever that is referring to), and having longer trains doesn't significantly slow down trains, it's the number of stations that makes the difference.

 

[Chuck]

I'm all for accomodating for the future, but express tracks on the DRL I don't think are really needed. Most people will be heading downtown from either the eastern or western leg of the DRL, and there won't be that many stops anyway, so what's the point? If the cost was marginal, then sure. But it really depends. Someone would have to do a cost-benefit analysis.

The DRL runs through the densely populated inner city, as well as many areas ripe for redevelopment. Stops should be every 500m, like on the downtown YUS. But like I've said before, it also has to be fast, which is why express stops should be spaced every 2000m. A double decker tunnel would fine on narrow streets where a 4 track tunnel could not be accommodated.

As an alternative to placing express trains on one level and local trains on the other, the tunnel width could be further reduced by placing eastbound tracks on one level, and westbound tracks on the other. This would allow for one side platform to be built on each level to serve the local trains, rather than a wider island platform or two side platforms. Express stations could have one island platform on each level, which serves both local and express trains. You just walk from one side of the platform to the other to switch from local to express - no stair climbing.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I can see tracks/tunnels being used by both local and express trains. To stop at a station, a train would just switch to a layby (def. place beside the main road or track where vehicles may wait) track/tunnel, just like some buses do on suburban arterial roads. The express trains would stay on the main track/tunnel and bypass the local train using the layby station.
An express station would be used by both local and express trains.
A bypass track could also be used at express stations to park disabled trains.
If a right-of-way was wide enough, such an arrangement could be setup on all rapid transit systems.