Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study

[gweed123]

OC Transpo is mostly using the double deckers for express routes, I believe. And yes they do take much longer to load and unload, especially if people actually follow the instructions not to use the stairs while the bus is moving.

Yup. Regular buses for normal routes, artics for Transitway and other high ridership routes, and double deckers for some express routes.

Most of the people using the express routes get off at one of the few stations downtown, so dwell time and ability to move around the bus isn't as big of an issue as it would be with a regular route.

 

[andrewpmk]

The frequency of trains on the rail corridor is irrelevant if there aren't the same number of stations that a subway line would have. Trains passing through Fort York, CityPlace, East Bayfront, West Donlands, Distillery, and Queen East without stopping offers no relief to those neighbourhoods.

I'm not saying that a Front/rail corridor alignment is the best choice. I'm just saying that other rail services on the rail corridor isn't a valid argument against it.

Also, the Yonge line is overcrowded well before the Eaton Centre opens each day at 10:00am.

The rail corridor is wide enough except right around Union Station that a local/express stopping pattern could easily be established. Under Union would require tunneling of course. Hence the idea that a separate line should be built under Queen.

Also subway overcrowding due to the Eaton Centre is a major problem in PM rush hour.

 

[MisterF]

Queen just doesn't make sense for the DRL. It's well north of existing development at King and Bay, has poor PATH connections, and is completely useless to the vast new developments going on south of Union. East and west of downtown, it's even worse. Subway stations are ideal locations for major new development an intensification--the kind of thing that's happening all along Front and the rail corridor. Re-development and intensification is exactly what we don't want in the stable and unique neighbourhoods along Queen.

It's not well north of Bay and King and some of the biggest financial district towers are closer to Queen than they are to Front. As for the vast developments south of Union, they're being served by upgraded GO service and new LRT lines. There's been vast develoment north of Union as well, with thousands of new residents and jobs east and west of downtown, and more coming. With all this talk about densification along new subway lines, nobody seems to talk about building subway lines to areas that have already densified. A Queen or King DRL combined with regional expess rail along the GO lines would serve both needs as well as relieving existing subway lines.

I don't think that Queen St needs a full subway, especially if the DRL is built further south. I'll say it again, Queen St is a local street that needs local stop spacing in order to be effective. This leads me to believe that something like what is being built on Eglinton is more suitable for Queen. Even in the late 1940s plan, Yonge had a subway and Queen had a streetcar subway.

So a DRL along Queen or King with Bloor-like local station spacing would relieve Bloor-Yonge and provide rapid transit to the streets it runs along. Seems win-win to me. When did people start getting the idea that subway lines can't have local station spacing? People will ride the new line even if it's not substantially faster than the existing lines.

 

[unimaginative2]

It's not well north of Bay and King and some of the biggest financial district towers are closer to Queen than they are to Front. As for the vast developments south of Union, they're being served by upgraded GO service and new LRT lines. There's been vast develoment north of Union as well, with thousands of new residents and jobs east and west of downtown, and more coming. With all this talk about densification along new subway lines, nobody seems to talk about building subway lines to areas that have already densified. A Queen or King DRL combined with regional expess rail along the GO lines would serve both needs as well as relieving existing subway lines.

Well, don't take my word for it. It was studied in detail and there was found to be far more square feet of office space near Front or Wellington than Queen. Queen is the northern fringe of the financial district while Front and Wellington are increasingly right in the middle of it. I also wouldn't like to see the Queen and Spadina, Queen and John, Queen and Yonge, Queen and University torn up for years for construction. Wellington and Spadina or Front and John would be much less of a loss. Front Street is also much wider, which would make construction staging easier.

None of this addresses the issues surrounding the neighbourhoods along Queen east and west of downtown: they're stable residential and commercial communities that nobody wants to see intensively redeveloped. The area along Front and the rail corridor, by contrast, is already filled with high-density developments and is poised to see many, many more. St. Lawrence, East Bayfront, Distillery District, West Don Lands, Cityplace, Wellington West, Fort York neighbourhood... All of them are much closer to Front and the rail corridor than they are to Queen. Other than Moss Park (and even its towers in the park aren't that dense), most of the Queen Street corridor is comparatively low density both east and west of downtown.

So a DRL along Queen or King with Bloor-like local station spacing would relieve Bloor-Yonge and provide rapid transit to the streets it runs along. Seems win-win to me. When did people start getting the idea that subway lines can't have local station spacing? People will ride the new line even if it's not substantially faster than the existing lines.

No, people aren't going to switch to the DRL if it isn't faster than the Bloor and Yonge line combination. That's a key element of the "relief" aspect of the line and it's why they originally recommended only one intermediate station between Pape/Danforth and Union. While I certainly think that's excessive, we can't have too many stations without slowing down the service.

 

[nfitz]

Well, don't take my word for it. It was studied in detail and there was found to be far more square feet of office space near Front or Wellington than Queen. Queen is the northern fringe of the financial district while Front and Wellington are increasingly right in the middle of it.

And yet the busiest station of them all in rush hour, seems to be Dundas some days when I go through. Did you include academic traffic as well as traffic from offices? Ryerson students have a very high share of transit use compared to office workers - and even U of T students, who seem to more frequently live on/near campus.

 

[unimaginative2]

And yet the busiest station of them all in rush hour, seems to be Dundas some days when I go through. Did you include academic traffic as well as traffic from offices? Ryerson students have a very high share of transit use compared to office workers - and even U of T students, who seem to more frequently live on/near campus.

King and Union are both significantly busier than Dundas and since Dundas has far more off-peak/weekend attractions than King, one can assume that King's rush hour ridership is even more significantly higher.

 

[Palma]

No, people aren't going to switch to the DRL if it isn't faster than the Bloor and Yonge line combination. That's a key element of the "relief" aspect of the line and it's why they originally recommended only one intermediate station between Pape/Danforth and Union. While I certainly think that's excessive, we can't have too many stations without slowing down the service.

This is ridiculous that people will only ride subways with wide spacing. Where is this illogic coming from?. Are people not riding Yonge or Bloor subways, etc because of the close spacing? I don;t know when rapid now means the ability to get on a subway say at Bloor and Yonge and be able to get down to King with no stops. This is crazy. Look at all the riders the TTC would loose in fares without those in between stops that passengers could get on. Oh but I guess we are only concerned with the long haul passengers that are getting on the subway somewhere north and need to come south. Forget about the people already living in the centre of the city

 

[MisterF]

Well, don't take my word for it. It was studied in detail and there was found to be far more square feet of office space near Front or Wellington than Queen. Queen is the northern fringe of the financial district while Front and Wellington are increasingly right in the middle of it. I also wouldn't like to see the Queen and Spadina, Queen and John, Queen and Yonge, Queen and University torn up for years for construction. Wellington and Spadina or Front and John would be much less of a loss. Front Street is also much wider, which would make construction staging easier.

That's great that there's more office space at Front than at Queen, and that's why the existing rail lines in that area are being upgraded. There's no need to put another line on top on an existing one that will already serve the area well. There's more to downtown than just Front Street, and a Queen alignment is much closer to future towers like the future phases of the Bay-Adelaide and Richmond-Adelaide Centres.

None of this addresses the issues surrounding the neighbourhoods along Queen east and west of downtown: they're stable residential and commercial communities that nobody wants to see intensively redeveloped. The area along Front and the rail corridor, by contrast, is already filled with high-density developments and is poised to see many, many more. St. Lawrence, East Bayfront, Distillery District, West Don Lands, Cityplace, Wellington West, Fort York neighbourhood... All of them are much closer to Front and the rail corridor than they are to Queen. Other than Moss Park (and even its towers in the park aren't that dense), most of the Queen Street corridor is comparatively low density both east and west of downtown.

A DRL along Queen would still be easy walking distance to the neighbourhoods that have transformed over the last 15 years like Liberty Village and King East. A King Street alignment would also work well. Even without any future developement, a Queen alignment would still get massive ridership. Why do we continue to ignore existing urban neighbourhoods while chasing the holy grail of densification? As for construction disruptions, if Rome can build a new subway line through its historic heart, surely Toronto can figure out how to build a subway along a relatively wide and straight street like Queen.

No, people aren't going to switch to the DRL if it isn't faster than the Bloor and Yonge line combination. That's a key element of the "relief" aspect of the line and it's why they originally recommended only one intermediate station between Pape/Danforth and Union. While I certainly think that's excessive, we can't have too many stations without slowing down the service.

Like Palma, I have no idea where this idea comes from. A new subway line doesn't need to be faster than existing subway lines for people to swith to it. People on this forum have some pretty funny ideas. People coming south towards Pape and people living along the route would naturally use the DRL even if it's exactly the same speed as the other lines. Even people coming west along the Danforth line and working at Bay and King would use the DRL and walk south from Queen. People walk exactly the same distance north from Union every day.

 

[nfitz]

King and Union are both significantly busier than Dundas and since Dundas has far more off-peak/weekend attractions than King, one can assume that King's rush hour ridership is even more significantly higher.

I see a lot of people at King walking to the southbound platform (or arriving at King and getting off on the northbound platform). Much less so than Dundas. The traffic at King seems to be better proportioned heading in both directions than Dundas, making the crowds on the Dundas platforms heavier than what I normally see at King (at PM peak). If the subway stops for 10 minutes, King platform is busy. Dundas is absolutely packed.

Union is also split very much - also seems to have a lot more people boarding at AM peak, and getting off at PM peak, more so than Dundas or King. Don't discount Queen as being far north of the centroid of traffic that a DRL would have impact on.

 

[Tulse]

people aren't going to switch to the DRL if it isn't faster than the Bloor and Yonge line combination.

They will if it's a lot less crowded. They will if they can more reliably get on a train during rush hour.

I'm on the east end, and depending on the time of morning, I often have to let two or three packed BD trains go by before I can get a seat. If I worked downtown, I would much rather go to Pape and take a DRL downtown than wait for a eastbound train with room, then transfer in the mob scene that is Bloor-Yonge.

 

[M II A II R II K]

They would have to bore the entire tunnel under Queen in that case for minimal disruption. Also there would have to be a City Hall station for access to the Square and a short walk south to the Financial District. Also it would take some people getting on and off on just a Queen/Yonge station.

 

[Memph]

Here's the passenger traffic according to wikipedia (not sure what their source is) at subway stations at each street near the potential DRL allignments.

Front: 95,290 (Union: 95,290)
King: 114,040 (King: 60,270, St. Andrew: 53,770)
Queen: 81,960 (Queen: 58,710, Osgoode: 23,250)
Dundas: 100,640 (Dundas: 69,150, St Patrick: 31,490)
College: 96,730 (College: 49,340, Queen's Park: 47,390)

The stations along King do have the highest ridership, but it's not that much higher than those at Queen or Dundas. Also a subway along Queen also serve the areas around King and Dundas quite well, the two streets are only a 5 minute walk from Queen. A subway along Front would not serve the areas around Queen and Dundas quite as well.

I know that the amount of passengers at subway stations is not the best way to measure what the ridership will be, but there are still quite a few destinations North of Adelaide, including a fair bit of offices, the Eaton Centre and Ryerson. Between Yonge and the Don River, a Front allignment would probably be better, but West of Spadina I think a Queen allignment would be better than Front. The areas South of the Gardiner would probably be better served by Queens Quay

 

[unimaginative2]

This is ridiculous that people will only ride subways with wide spacing. Where is this illogic coming from?. Are people not riding Yonge or Bloor subways, etc because of the close spacing? I don;t know when rapid now means the ability to get on a subway say at Bloor and Yonge and be able to get down to King with no stops. This is crazy. Look at all the riders the TTC would loose in fares without those in between stops that passengers could get on. Oh but I guess we are only concerned with the long haul passengers that are getting on the subway somewhere north and need to come south. Forget about the people already living in the centre of the city

It's not me coming up with this idea--it's the TTC's planners. Again and again in the DRL report, they said that a priority had to be making the DRL route quick to make it competitive with the Yonge/Bloor route. I disagreed with them in favour of more stations (Gerrard, Cherry, Jarvis/Sherbourne) but they do still have a point and stop spacing should be reasonable.

 

[nfitz]

Here's the passenger traffic according to wikipedia (not sure what their source is)

Surely it's from http://www3.ttc.ca/PDF/Transit_Planning/Subway ridership 2009-2010.pdf

Didn't know Wikipedia had them all on one page!

Front: 95,290 (Union: 95,290)
King: 114,040 (King: 60,270, St. Andrew: 53,770)
Queen: 81,960 (Queen: 58,710, Osgoode: 23,250)
Dundas: 100,640 (Dundas: 69,150, St Patrick: 31,490)

So more on Dundas than either Queen or Front.

And you see the problem with Dundas station. 69,150 is a huge number for the platforms there - particularly as they all seem to be trying to get off southbound in the morning and northbound in the evening. It's far less balanced than at King. Union of couse is completely out-of-control ... but the second platform should fix a lot of that. Dundas however (and King and Queen really), are at the point where the platform needs widening where possible - it feels very unsafe sometimes.

 

[M II A II R II K]

They could add a GO transfer station at Gerrard and Dundas too.