Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Chicago is actually a LOT cheaper than Toronto. I mean A LOT. You can buy a 800sf condo for under 300K in near North Side with a lake view. Similar condo would cost $500K nowadays in Toronto. Car insurance is $800 a year, not $2500. Plus, similar jobs pay 20% more in Chicago.

NYC is also cheaper than Toronto, excluding housing, if you live a normal life, just because the economies of scale. Housing is a different story as NYC is a different league. You pay a premium for living in truly world cities. A friend of mine moved Toronto from Boston, one of the most expensive cities in the US, and find Toronto to be a lot pricier. Everything costs 20% more, with much less discounts, and 13% sales tax vs 6.25%.

I often wonder why Toronto is so expensive for what is actually offers. I am single, so there is not much pressure. However, for those middle income working families, who make $70-80K year, one third would go to income tax, 13% goes to HST, how can the remaining money be sufficient to buy much for the daily necessities, not to mention $450k "median priced" homes? Canada often claim to offer superior "quality of life", but I just fail to see it. Most households hardly have any money left at the end of month. I know money is not everything, but underestimating it is dead wrong too.

I don't think there will be an exodus either, as not everyone is 24 and can simply move everywhere he wants. They have families, established social network etc. There is visa issues, as you can't just pack up and move to the US or Europe to work there. Most will stay, and new people will come as Canada is still one of the easiest countries to immigrate to.

To relate this to the thread, torotno is impossible to get around. Chicago is so easy, never more then 10 min from a L stop by bus. Or 15 min by walk.

 

[Rainforest]

Approximately how much would the eastern leg of the DRL cost?

Downtown to Pape / Danforth is about 7 km. At $400 million per km, that comes to $2.8 B.

It is likely that a premium has to be added for the downtown section and its 2 or 3 stations, because of the complexity of tunneling between the existing massive foundations and the PATH. However, that section is only 1 - 1.5 km; east of Sherbourne and all the way to Pape, it should be normal construction.

So, I'd say $3.5B; a nontrivial amount but not prohibitively expensive.

 

[M II A II R II K]

And unlike the Sheppard subway it would be money well spent. If the west is covered by GO then a western DRL can just go on Queen and link up with the Lakeshore West line to provide an additional transfer to the TTC to get downtown than just Union.

 

[11th]

And unlike the Sheppard subway it would be money well spent. If the west is covered by GO then a western DRL can just go on Queen and link up with the Lakeshore West line to provide an additional transfer to the TTC to get downtown than just Union.

It (on Sheppard subway) can still be considered well spent if it means connecting Yonge to Spadina and extending it east past the 404 bottleneck. Remember the new Crosstown is going to take a lot of people off the Danforth, so for $3.5B as estimated above, it better gives us either 1) downtown to Eglinton/Don Mills, or 2) Pape-Bloor to Dundas West via "downtown".

 

[gweed123]

It (on Sheppard subway) can still be considered well spent if it means connecting Yonge to Spadina and extending it east past the 404 bottleneck. Remember the new Crosstown is going to take a lot of people off the Danforth, so for $3.5B as estimated above, it better gives us either 1) downtown to Eglinton/Don Mills, or 2) Pape-Bloor to Dundas West via "downtown".

The problem is that the needs East of Yonge and the needs West of Yonge are very different animals. East of Yonge, there needs to be a heavy rail rapid transit link between the Bloor-Danforth line (at the very least) into downtown. The name of the game there is a semi-express line that bisects the two major east-end streetcar lines, and creates two distinct transit nodes, one in Riverdale and one in Leslieville. Because it doesn't follow a single street, it's very hard to create an 'avenue plan' out of it, so it's better to go with a nodal plan.

West of Yonge, the need is for a more local east-west rapid transit line, somewhere between King and Queen. It doesn't need to be an express line, it just needs to be reliable and efficient. The connection up to Bloor isn't as necessary there, because the University subway already exists. Any N-S connection can be handled by GO, especially considering that there will be 4 GO lines passing along the Georgetown corridor south of Bloor, which will create near subway-like frequencies along that stretch, even if they're only each running 30 minute off peak service (total of 8 trains per hour).

In addition, the west also needs a better link to the developing Waterfront communities. The Harbourfront streetcar is adequate for now, but it doesn't really serve CityPlace, which is still growing.

These 3 problems require 3 entirely different solutions, and cannot possibly be solved by a single line. This is why I'm leaning more and more towards this option:

1) Break the link between the University-Spadina and the Yonge Subways, and have the DRL be the eastern branch of the University-Spadina Subway (and rename it the Downtowner or something like that, or simply the Red Line. Or if you want to follow a numbering standard, S4).

2) This would naturally require a near complete rebuild of the Union Subway station, or at least the tracks leading up to it. This can be done by completely shutting down Union for a while, and having trains turn back at King and St. Andrew respectively. Keep the top level of the station as the Downtowner platform, and build a new platform underneath for the Yonge line.

3) This opens the Yonge line up to being extended south or west from Union. The new Yonge platform should run about NE-SW, bisecting the existing platform diagonally. This would allow the line to be extended to the southwest, following a similar alignment to what Metrolinx had in the GO expansion documents. Potential stops at Simcoe/Rogers Centre, Spadina, Bathurst, and the Ex.

4) An underground LRT under Queen from Roncesvalles to just east of Broadview (intersection with the DRL), with the line jumping down to Richmond St from west of Bathurst to the Don River. With stop spacing like that of Bloor-Danforth and Eglinton, it would adequately serve the local nature of Queen St, while being a catalyst for condo development south of Queen St. I suggest Richmond closer to downtown because a) it would cause less disruption, and b) Richmond is a better candidate to be densified, because it is often seen as 'the back alley of Queen St'.

Each of these lines solves a specific problem, and it doesn't attempt to jerry-rig the entire thing into a one-size-fits-all solution.

 

[Palma]

It (on Sheppard subway) can still be considered well spent if it means connecting Yonge to Spadina and .

How is that money well spent? There is nothing between Yonge and Spadina (Dufferin). In fact between Bathurst and Yonge (actually Avenue Rd) there is a bridge which means nothing will be built in that stretch. So then all you have is Bathurst to dufferin and a bunch of 8 storey condos. And you need a subway for that?

 

[gweed123]

How is that money well spent? There is nothing between Yonge and Spadina (Dufferin). In fact between Bathurst and Yonge (actually Avenue Rd) there is a bridge which means nothing will be built in that stretch. So then all you have is Bathurst to dufferin and a bunch of 8 storey condos. And you need a subway for that?

Network connectivity.

 

[W. K. Lis]

By 2016, we will be expecting the completion of the New York City Second Avenue Subway, after delays of 75 years, it was started in 2007. The total cost of the 8.5-mile (13.7 km) line is expected to be over $17 billion. Hopefully, our DRL will not cost as much. Wonder how much will the private sector kick in, seeing how much they have kicked in for the Sheppard Subway extension?

 

[kkgg7]

How is that money well spent? There is nothing between Yonge and Spadina (Dufferin). In fact between Bathurst and Yonge (actually Avenue Rd) there is a bridge which means nothing will be built in that stretch. So then all you have is Bathurst to dufferin and a bunch of 8 storey condos. And you need a subway for that?

I agree. I don't get the obsession with connecting the Yonge and Spadina lines in the north. Just for the sake of having a "complete" circle? Who would travel from, say Sheppard/Don Mills to Sheppard/Dufferin? There is nothing at sheppard/dufferin as far as know.

Money should spent where the demand is, where the gridlock is. The most important thing right now is to alleviate the pressure of Yonge line, not feeding it with more people from the north, nor connecting it with some frivolous new lines. People need to get to downtown, and that's where the demand is. With the current budget, it makes least sense to connect two suburbs up in the middle of nowhere . The result is whatever newly added capacity would worsen the situation on Yonge line, not helping with it. No more new lines aimed at feeding Yonge north of Bloor! Nothing is worse than that.

I don't even think the need for the Eglinton line should precede a DRL. The Eglinton line is bound to make the Yonge line more busy. Following the same logic, any East-West line north of Eglinton makes very little sense either. It is essential to realize that an E-W line only makes sense if it crosses the downtown area, between King/Queen, without an interchange anywhere on Yonge north of Bloor.

The Eglinton line would make perfect sense if the government aims at having more office buildings around Yonge/Eglinton so that a significant of riders taking the line would actually not head southbound after reaching Yonge St. Our so-called midtown is not a "town" at all, and I strongly believe that more office buildings, rather than condos should be there so that we would have a real midtown (nothing everyone has to come to south of Bloor for work and entertainment).

 

[Rainforest]

I don't even think the need for the Eglinton line should precede a DRL. The Eglinton line is bound to make the Yonge line more busy.

Strategically, that's true. But practically, Eglinton is at a much more advanced stage now, as the EA and design are complete and the construction has started. DRL has no design, no EA, and not even a preferred route. So, it won't be a good idea to stop Eglinton now for the sake of DRL.

 

[Rainforest]

1) Break the link between the University-Spadina and the Yonge Subways, and have the DRL be the eastern branch of the University-Spadina Subway (and rename it the Downtowner or something like that, or simply the Red Line. Or if you want to follow a numbering standard, S4).

2) This would naturally require a near complete rebuild of the Union Subway station, or at least the tracks leading up to it. This can be done by completely shutting down Union for a while, and having trains turn back at King and St. Andrew respectively. Keep the top level of the station as the Downtowner platform, and build a new platform underneath for the Yonge line.

3) This opens the Yonge line up to being extended south or west from Union. The new Yonge platform should run about NE-SW, bisecting the existing platform diagonally. This would allow the line to be extended to the southwest, following a similar alignment to what Metrolinx had in the GO expansion documents. Potential stops at Simcoe/Rogers Centre, Spadina, Bathurst, and the Ex.

I like that configuration, as it won't cost much more than simply building a new line (DRL), and its side effects solve some other problems. In particular, the subway frequency balance could be improved: Yonge is the busiest and can retain the highest possible frequency both at peak and at shoulder hours, whereas both University and "Downtowner" (aka DRL East) lines could operate at a slightly lower frequency during the shoulders. Also, the super-tight curve of Yonge tracks approaching Union could be excluded from the revenue service, and that will be good for the wheels, tracks, and the passengers' ears.

 

[11th]

I agree. I don't get the obsession with connecting the Yonge and Spadina lines in the north. Just for the sake of having a "complete" circle? Who would travel from, say Sheppard/Don Mills to Sheppard/Dufferin? There is nothing at sheppard/dufferin as far as know.

Well, somene can get from NYCC, via Sheppard, transfer to Spadina, and to GO buses at the 407 hub ? The subway is a route, doesn't mean the ends will be destinations of their own. Not saying it should precedes DRL or Eglinton, but if that's built, it shouldn't be considered money wasted.

Network connectivity.

With that and Eglinton completed, maybe there won't be a need for shuttle buses at all when the Yonge line shuts down (for whatever reasons).

 

[gweed123]

I like that configuration, as it won't cost much more than simply building a new line (DRL), and its side effects solve some other problems. In particular, the subway frequency balance could be improved: Yonge is the busiest and can retain the highest possible frequency both at peak and at shoulder hours, whereas both University and "Downtowner" (aka DRL East) lines could operate at a slightly lower frequency during the shoulders. Also, the super-tight curve of Yonge tracks approaching Union could be excluded from the revenue service, and that will be good for the wheels, tracks, and the passengers' ears.

The frequencies thing is a big thing. Trains are packed on the Yonge line right from Finch, but they don't really get busy on Spadina until Eglinton or St. Clair West. I would expect similar passenger volumes on the DRL East.

The other big thing is that it means that the DRL doesn't need a new yard, because it would use the Wilson yard. If Yonge is pushed further southwest, it may be possible to build another smaller yard around the Ex, as I don't think Davisville could support 100% of the trains in the future.

 

[kkgg7]

This is why I'm leaning more and more towards this option:

1) Break the link between the University-Spadina and the Yonge Subways, and have the DRL be the eastern branch of the University-Spadina Subway (and rename it the Downtowner or something like that, or simply the Red Line. Or if you want to follow a numbering standard, S4).

2) This would naturally require a near complete rebuild of the Union Subway station, or at least the tracks leading up to it. This can be done by completely shutting down Union for a while, and having trains turn back at King and St. Andrew respectively. Keep the top level of the station as the Downtowner platform, and build a new platform underneath for the Yonge line.

3) This opens the Yonge line up to being extended south or west from Union. The new Yonge platform should run about NE-SW, bisecting the existing platform diagonally. This would allow the line to be extended to the southwest, following a similar alignment to what Metrolinx had in the GO expansion documents. Potential stops at Simcoe/Rogers Centre, Spadina, Bathurst, and the Ex.

4) An underground LRT under Queen from Roncesvalles to just east of Broadview (intersection with the DRL), with the line jumping down to Richmond St from west of Bathurst to the Don River. With stop spacing like that of Bloor-Danforth and Eglinton, it would adequately serve the local nature of Queen St, while being a catalyst for condo development south of Queen St. I suggest Richmond closer to downtown because a) it would cause less disruption, and b) Richmond is a better candidate to be densified, because it is often seen as 'the back alley of Queen St'.

Each of these lines solves a specific problem, and it doesn't attempt to jerry-rig the entire thing into a one-size-fits-all solution.

This actually makes a lot of sense. I don't see the point of the U-turn at Union. The Yonge and U-S line should function separately, considering the fact that not many actually make the U-turn at Union, unless either the departing or destination is a downtown station. I guess nobody will be crazy enough to take subway U-turn to go from Eglinton to St Clair West or Yorkdale.Within downtown, from Yonge to University is a sheer 8-10 minutes walk.

To link the University line with the east DRL and the Yonge Line with the west branch on QQ sounds like a great idea. Previously I have argued that a DRL that interchanges at Union before heads west along QQ makes very little sense because the train would end up being empty after passing Union in the AM and before reaching Union in the PM everyday, since probably 90%+ who take the train only because they need to depart/arrive at Union station. It is a vast waste of the train's capacity. On the other hand, if the two branches are linked to the Yonge and U-S line respectively, there would be no such problem, as there will be a lot of riders heading to downtown any time of the day!

Maybe you should create a map to show us how it works.

 

[gweed123]

This actually makes a lot of sense. I don't see the point of the U-turn at Union. The Yonge and U-S line should function separately, considering the fact that not many actually make the U-turn at Union, unless either the departing or destination is a downtown station. I guess nobody will be crazy enough to take subway U-turn to go from Eglinton to St Clair West or Yorkdale.Within downtown, from Yonge to University is a sheer 8-10 minutes walk.

To link the University line with the east DRL and the Yonge Line with the west branch on QQ sounds like a great idea. Previously I have argued that a DRL that interchanges at Union before heads east along QQ makes very little sense because the train would end up being empty after passing Union in the AM and before reaching Union in the PM everyday, since probably 90%+ who take the train only because they need to depart/arrive at Union station. It is a vast waste of the train's capacity. On the other hand, if the two branches are linked to the Yonge and U-S line respectively, there would be no such problem, as there will be a lot of riders heading to downtown any time of the day!

Maybe you should create a map to show us how it works.

Ask and you shall receive, haha. And your points make a lot of sense, and I agree with them. Linking the DRL with US makes it less of a commuter line and more of an all-day line.

A few points about the map above:

1) The alignment to the Ex is very rough, and I put in some stations around where I think they should be.

2) There is also the opportunity to eventually extend the Yonge line even further west to Exhibition GO, or to run it part of the way up Dufferin. This would create 2 overlapping U's that both pass through downtown. It would also have the effect of creating a DRL West.

3) Because the Queen LRT is there, it doesn't make much sense to run the DRL along a Front St alignment, because it creates a triangle with 2 subway lines very close together. As a result, I figured a rail corridor alignment was better (and cheaper).

4) The Union interchange will be a bit complex. The first problem is that it will be a pretty steep drop from King Stn to Lower Union, although it will be much less of a curve than the existing line. This may mean that the new Lower Union will need to be built almost exclusively south of Front St under or just east of Bay St, in order to fit in the grade drop, as well as not mess with the underground GO concourse.

The end result will be that the station will have a layout similar to an L, which won't actually be that bad because it will spread out the amount of people walking up from Union, as those exiting the Yonge line will exit on the east side of Bay St.