"Downtown Core Line" - Possible Alignments?

[kEiThZ]

In the Toronto context, would the TTC really agree to using express trains when we have no experience with them whatsoever?

 

[prosperegal]

In the Toronto context, would the TTC really agree to using express trains when we have no experience with them whatsoever?

There's a first time for everything, right?

 

[Darren B]

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.

Actually, that along with two levels is the only way NYC runs express. One platform for each direction. NYC also has thinner trains then ours in most of their tracks. They have two classes, one called A and one called B. I cant remember which is which, but I know that the TTC was given the choice, and they chose the wider ones.

 

[Darren B]

There's a first time for everything, right?

Agreed. We went from tram to subways at some point in history.

 

[Dan416]

My map with the DRL added in. I used my own favoured Front-ish alignment.

I don't know why I ended up with so many stations in the east (I had to cut out Church) and so few in the west

 

[ganjavih]

How much would it cost to dig a friggin' tunnel to connect Downsview with Yonge-Sheppard on the Sheppard line. Forget the extra stop, just connect the two sides of the loop already!

 

[AKS]

My map with the DRL added in. I used my own favoured Front-ish alignment.

I don't know why I ended up with so many stations in the east (I had to cut out Church) and so few in the west

all those lines will probably take 50-60 years to build :O Using the sheppard line as a time frame example

 

[scarberiankhatru]

How much would it cost to dig a friggin' tunnel to connect Downsview with Yonge-Sheppard on the Sheppard line. Forget the extra stop, just connect the two sides of the loop already!

A bare-bones Sheppard extension to Downsview, with no added stations (other than Downsview), and with minimal or no property acquisitions or "contingency" costs, who knows, maybe it could be done for like $600M. But do we want a bare-bones extension?

I can understand no stop at Faywood or Senlac, but no stop at Bathurst & Sheppard? There's probably 8000 people within a few minutes walk, a connection to the Bathurst bus, and room for a zillion new developments. Even if they gold-plate the station, it'll be like $100M more...hardly a deal breaker.


It's easy to guess project costs by taking $X/km figures and multiplying ad nauseaum, but these guesses are usually off by a fair bit. We don't know if the DRL will be tunnelled the whole way (either because people insist on it, or because people deem anything else impossible), or if it might run in trenches or on the surface or elevated for stretches, or how many stations there will be, or how much the stations themselves will cost based on how deep they are, or what % of contingency will be added, or how much a new yard might cost, or how gold-plated it'll be, or how much beyond the necessary minimum will be wasted on engineers and consultants and architects...or even how long the line will be. Bring on the [hopefully, as unbiased as possible...except a bias for low-costness] studies!

 

[cacruden]

I would like to see the subway go from the Scarbourough towncentre all the way to Weston. I have been out the other way a few times to get to Laosian grocery store - and I believe that part of the line would get used -- not sure the volume - but there is seems to be a considerable number of high rises in the area..... I just think that once they started the line, that having Sheppard crosstown, Eglinton, Bloor, and DRL and eventually having a few more lines NS on the outer region (DRL intersect terminate at Sheppard/Weston) would provide Toronto a good backbone. I of course have no idea if it is all feasible.

 

[prosperegal]

My map with the DRL added in. I used my own favoured Front-ish alignment.

I don't know why I ended up with so many stations in the east (I had to cut out Church) and so few in the west

Why do you have a line downtown on the far west but not the east? What's that line called?

ETA (RE: west-west line): Shouldn't it go east somewhere?

 

[PSC]

My map with the DRL added in. I used my own favoured Front-ish alignment.

I don't know why I ended up with so many stations in the east (I had to cut out Church) and so few in the west

So many stations in the east would seem, to me anyway, to kill the whole political motivation for putting this line in early - ie providing a tangible relief to the Y-B station. (Too many stations = slow ride) I also think that Union or south is wrong, but I'm sure keithz will eventually correct me there.

We don't know if the DRL will be tunnelled the whole way (either because people insist on it, or because people deem anything else impossible), or if it might run in trenches or on the surface or elevated for stretches, or how many stations there will be, or what much the stations themselves will cost based on how deep they are, or what % of contingency will be added, or how much a new yard might cost, or how gold-plated it'll be, or how much beyond the necessary minimum will be wasted on engineers and consultants and architects...or even how long the line will be. Bring on the [hopefully, as unbiased as possible...except a bias for low-costness] studies!

This bias, I think, holds back many of the would-be planners on this forum. The existence of consultants and engineers outside the formal structure of the TTC is a direct result of the TTC not carrying them in-house. You think bringing them into the TTC's bureaucracy will result in efficiency?

Money spent on consultants and engineers isn't de facto wasted; the waste is built in by the project selection - i.e. it's not who you select, it's what you put out to tender.

Architects similarly respond to the desire of the client, they don't drive the process that results in more or less expensive projects... The expense is built in by the selection of architects in the first place.

 

[golodhendil]

I would like to see the subway go from the Scarbourough towncentre all the way to Weston. I have been out the other way a few times to get to Laosian grocery store - and I believe that part of the line would get used -- not sure the volume - but there is seems to be a considerable number of high rises in the area..... I just think that once they started the line, that having Sheppard crosstown, Eglinton, Bloor, and DRL and eventually having a few more lines NS on the outer region (DRL intersect terminate at Sheppard/Weston) would provide Toronto a good backbone. I of course have no idea if it is all feasible.

I agree.. the DRL could/should be extended (eventually) north to ~Weston in the west, and up Don Mills in the east to Eglinton, Sheppard or Steeles. I would like to think it's all "feasible", it's only a matter of whether there is the political will to get it done (within our lifetime / ever). It's not the first time I said it but, ah, if only...

Why do you have a line downtown on the far west but not the east? What's that line called?

it's an LRT/(perhaps HRT in the distant future?) on Hurontario, in Missisauga

 

[Chuck]

So many stations in the east would seem, to me anyway, to kill the whole political motivation for putting this line in early - ie providing a tangible relief to the Y-B station. (Too many stations = slow ride) I also think that Union or south is wrong, but I'm sure keithz will eventually correct me there.

This is why I firmly believe that the DRL must be located on Queen, and must have express service. This is the only scenario that would allow people who use the DRL to walk to both the CBD and Ryerson (rather than transferring back onto YUS), would cut travel time by 75% for existing users, and still allow 15+ new subway stations to be built downtown.

The existence of consultants and engineers outside the formal structure of the TTC is a direct result of the TTC not carrying them in-house. You think bringing them into the TTC's bureaucracy will result in efficiency?

Correct. Go back 10-20 years, and the TTC actually did all of its consulting in house. The exponential growth of transportation related consultants is partially attributed to the removal of in-house "consulting" in the public sector.

What we currently have is the worst of both worlds, because new transit projects are too politically driven. Take any corridor, such as Eglinton. Currently, the TTC tells consultants that it wants to build an LRT on Eglinton with stops every 500m, and only consultants who are willing to support this idea may bid. The opposite should happen - the TTC should tell consultants that it wants to improve east-west transit across the middle of the city, and the final decision of what to build and where should be driven by the consultant's engineering judgement.

 

[afransen]

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.

That sounds like it would be the best design. It really shouldn't add substantially to cost, except by improving station spacing, which really is a significant improvement in the service the line provides to the area. The local stations could be a bit more humble, too. They shouldn't need to handle huge trains.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

We can run the DRL along Queen assuming almost anybody between College and Front will transfer to it and then walk to their final destination, but is that assumption valid? If we're going to add a 5-10 minute walk to someone's commute, we need to save them 5-10 minutes somewhere else, or they're just not going to switch routes. The farther north the DRL goes, the more people there'll be who would prefer to switch back onto the YUS line and continue south (to King or Front or wherever). Of course, they won't switch twice, they'll still go through Yonge & Bloor.

We also need to factor in how substantially the downtown streetcar lines might/could be improved (POP, low floors, proper route management, etc.), as they could possibly be useful for people to take the DRL down to connect to the Dundas or Queen or King streetcar (wherever they may conenct with the DRL) and then take the streetcars over into the core. With all the talk here of euthanizing the Queen streetcar via a DRL, why not consider some scenarios in between where it and other lines could become more useful?

This bias, I think, holds back many of the would-be planners on this forum. The existence of consultants and engineers outside the formal structure of the TTC is a direct result of the TTC not carrying them in-house. You think bringing them into the TTC's bureaucracy will result in efficiency?

Money spent on consultants and engineers isn't de facto wasted; the waste is built in by the project selection - i.e. it's not who you select, it's what you put out to tender.

Architects similarly respond to the desire of the client, they don't drive the process that results in more or less expensive projects... The expense is built in by the selection of architects in the first place.

I'm not sure who this lecture is aimed at because it's not a response to what I actually wrote.

What I said was that transit projects are becoming more and more bloated (and when projects get bloated, yeah, money is wasted on consultants and architects working on the bloated parts...like the colossally bloated Leslie station, for example). Perhaps the trend can be halted in time to plan and design a more sensible and streamlined but equally as functional and attractive DRL.