Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study

[Creighton]

Since the beginning of the year I've seen enough transit plans to wallpaper my living room! I must say though that the graphics in this one are much more colourful than they were when it was first proposed in 1985. The 2020 plan should be a dazzler!

 

[W. K. Lis]

There is no mention of the type of technology the DRL would use. It could be heavy rail, light rail, swan boats, or something else. There are, however, six recommendations:

Recommendation 1: The City, TTC and Metrolinx continue to work jointly to plan for new and/or improved grade-separated rapid transit services into the downtown from the east and the north that will help achieve the City’s, and Metrolinx’s, planning objectives of intensification and the evolution of a more compact urban form. To support this recommendation the following actions are identified:

• TTC proceed with evaluating and detailing DRL alignments, technology, station locations and level of service.
• Metrolinx continue to identify the DRL as a high priority project.
• City of Toronto protect for the DRL in the City’s 2012 Official Plan Update.
• Metrolinx / GO Transit be encouraged to identify and assess GO Rapid Transit (Express) Service alternatives along the Lakeshore corridor and the North-South corridors (e.g. Barrie line, Richmond Hill line, Stouffville line) that will help alleviate the anticipated future capacity constraints.

Recommendation 2: Do not proceed with the Yonge Subway Extension in advance of the provision of additional rapid transit capacity into the downtown. The decisions regarding the Yonge Subway Extension be made in conjunction with the additional rapid transit improvements (such as the DRL) necessary to ensure transit service into the downtown is sufficient to meet the demand from within Toronto and the rest of the GTAH region.

Recommendation 3: TTC and the City of Toronto undertake the studies and actions needed to protect for a possible future expansion of Bloor-Yonge station and develop a plan for improvements that will be needed in the future.

Recommendation 4: City of Toronto continue to study means of reducing congestion in the downtown area via the optimization of existing infrastructure in its ongoing “Downtown Transportation Operations Study.” This should provide a framework for implementing various transportation improvements. The benefits of a DRL should be noted here with significant improvements to quality of transportation service in addition to intensification opportunities.

Recommendation 5: Maintain, and where possible enhance policies in the City’s Official Plan that will help to minimise the need for future investments in rapid transit facilities into the downtown while achieving the City’s planning objectives related to City-building and sustainable transportation. Specifically, it is recommended that the City continue to:

• Implement policies that support transit-oriented redevelopment.
• Implement policies that encourage high self-containment in the downtown.
• Implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) policies such as staggered hours, compressed work weeks, work from home / tele-work, incentivizing off-peak travel etc.

Recommendation 6: TTC conduct further investigation into the future demands and transfers expected at subway stations in the downtown and identify those stations that should be given priority in TTC’s station modernization program. King Station in particular will see high passenger demand and operational issues regardless of the presence of a DRL.

The stations do not have to be as shown in the report. Personally, I would rather see an express service for the DRL, leaving local service to streetcars.

If it were light rail, I can see them taking over the middle lanes of the Leaside Bridge (AKA Millwood Road), going underground at each end of the bridge. That should save some gravy. It would still leave 4 lanes for single-occupant automobiles.

 

[BurlOak]

That's actually not surprising. There's so much latent demand on the Yonge line as it is. A lot of people avoid the Yonge line like the plague, and while the DRL will open up some spots, more people will fill those emptied spots almost instantly, especially when you factor in the North Yonge extension.

The DRL is meant for people south of Eglinton and east of Yonge to provide an alternative route to downtown. It will do nothing for people north of say Lawrence, and those near Yonge. The DRL is just to make sure that people near downtown can actually find a space on a subway train.

If people at Yonge and Eglinton, or anywhere south, have trouble getting on the train, then the DRL has not done its job.

 

[k10ery]

After a quick read of the report, I would say this is not a study, it's a snow job. There is no consideration of a DRL subway versus the other way to meet the demand, i.e. an electrified GO network with infill stations and significantly enhanced service.

In fact, to make the case that the existing network cannot meet demand, they appear to have substantially lowballed Metrolinx's own projections of GO capacity in 2031.

They also bolster the case by pulling out of a hat the projection that Toronto employment will be 1.83 million in 2031. Really? To paraphrase Jean Drapeau, "Toronto employment can no more rise 30% in the next 20 years than a man can have a baby". And a lot of men would have to, to make that forecast come true.

Perhaps I have not read enough of these to be sufficiently cynical. But really, 3 years and $2 mil for this? If they just wanted an ad campaign there are ways that are faster and more cost effective!

 

[nfitz]

They also bolster the case by pulling out of a hat the projection that Toronto employment will be 1.83 million in 2031. Really?

Why do you think they pulled it out of a hat? 2031 forecasts for Ontario and municipalities have been floating around for years, based on the 2006 census. I haven't confirmed to see if that's where the number came from, but why do you think they used something else?

 

[ssiguy2]

I was being sarcastic when I talked about a subway to Barrie kids.

My point was simply that none of these proposals has any chance in hell of getting built within the next 30 years, if ever. Where the hell is Toronto suppose to get the money for all of this? Despite all the talk about revenue streams that requires political will and there is zero in Toronto and that's not just due to Ford. Toronto wants these lines but isn't putting one nickel towards TC {or whatever the hell it's called now} because Queen's Park {meaning everyone else in Ontario} should pay for it.
This "study" will collect dust like all the rest of DRL fantasy proposals, this report was strickly a public relations exercise.

This study tells everyone about the huge over capacity that already exists on Yonge and how this will all get worse...........I'm so glad they are here to tell us such things as no one up til now had any idea. I feel so enlightened.

Not only was this report just stating the obvious but their options for a DRL where very narrow. What the hell happened to Queen? It may not be some people first choice but not to even consider it is a gross oversight as many would see Queen as a top priority. It goes on to mention King but says nothing about the massive extra expense, time, inconvience of having to dig a new line under the massive PATH system. Not only would it be a logistical nightmare but I can also see the law suits being filed as we speak. Tearing up the middle of a street is one thing but closing whole sections of an already massive underground shopping mall is quite another........akin to tunneling under the Eaton's Centre. Even if they could do it the stations would have to be so increibly deep a further 100 meters would land them in China.

The study also talks about "rapid transit" but gives no hint of what that might be. It also doesn't even consider the idea of building both.aka interlining. They could interline the route along the existing rail ROW and then have them split on each end of Queen, a "U" route and a east/west route and sharing track between each end of Queen thru the Union/Waterfront section. It doesn't even mention transfering the Airlink to electric EMU service which would cover most of the cost of the western section and provide rapid transit to Humber and Pearson but at regular fares so Torontonians will actually be able to use the dam thing. The Airlink could just be the western section of the line and using the rail ROW to Pape and Scar.

The only thing this resport does definatively is tell Torontonians something they already know......their transit service is overburdend and that will continue but it took them $3 million to provide us this revelation. It does state that Yonge extention north should not take place without a DRL first. Big deal. It's not like Toronto had the money for that anyway.

 

[gweed123]

If people at Yonge and Eglinton, or anywhere south, have trouble getting on the train, then the DRL has not done its job.

That's assuming that the DRL is not running at or near capacity as well. The Yonge Subway is always going to be relatively full. People from Eglinton southward are likely still going to have to squeeze onto a pretty full train, even after the DRL is built. What the DRL is intended to do is take those people that were trying to squeeze on even more at Bloor-Yonge, and move them somewhere else.

The primary purpose of the DRL is to relieve the Yonge line SOUTH of Bloor. Realistically, it isn't going to do much for north of it, except for people boarding at Eglinton. There are no bus routes that connect to Davisville, St. Clair, Summerhill, or Rosedale that also bisect the proposed DRL route, so no "relief" is really possible for those stations.

If you want to relieve the Yonge line NORTH of Bloor, your best bet is to build an express subway down Avenue Road, which branches off from the Yonge line just north of Eglinton.

If you want to get people from wayyy up there off the Yonge line, your best bet is to increase GO service levels.

The DRL's primary purpose is to relieve the single biggest point of failure on the system: Bloor-Yonge. Any other "relief" is secondary.

 

[gweed123]

If it were light rail, I can see them taking over the middle lanes of the Leaside Bridge (AKA Millwood Road), going underground at each end of the bridge. That should save some gravy. It would still leave 4 lanes for single-occupant automobiles.

This is why part of me thinks that a Parliament-Don Valley alignment is the best choice. I mean think about it: any alignment that crosses the Don Valley at or around it's mouth is going to need a massive crossing further upstream. If you stay on the west side of the valley, that crossing isn't an issue.

Also, between Bloor-Danforth and Thorncliffe Park, there is projected to only be 1 station at Cosburn, assuming a Pape alignment. That's 2km of tunnel and 1 massive bridge for 1 station, and a lightly used one at that. Is that 1 station really worth ~$700 million in added costs? Especially when the alternative is running the line at-grade along an existing abandoned rail corridor? The cost differential is pretty significant.

Yes, Castle Frank would be a more complicated interchange than Pape-Danforth, but digging under Parliament is no more complicated than digging under Pape, and the possibilities for intensification along a Parliament route are orders of magnitude larger than they are along a Pape route. Getting into the Don Valley from Castle Frank would be a bit of a challenge, but a slowly sloping elevated structure into the valley can be built near Bayview. Plenty of rail lines have negotiated the slopes of the valley before.

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't be so set on a Pape alignment, or any alignment that goes through Riverdale for that matter. It's a longer route, with far more tunnelling involved, for some stations that will not be that heavily used.

 

[k10ery]

Why do you think they pulled it out of a hat? 2031 forecasts for Ontario and municipalities have been floating around for years, based on the 2006 census. I haven't confirmed to see if that's where the number came from, but why do you think they used something else?

First of all, the planning numbers are not projections, they are "targets," and we all know how well that worked out for the Sheppard subway. Second, yes, for the DRTES they threw it away and made up their own number.

"Within the City of Toronto, a modified forecast has been developed as the base case for the DRTES which meets the same population target for the City, but increases the employment total from 1.64M to 1.83M."

Clearly this is crazy talk. Actual employment in 2011 was about 1.3 million.

 

[diminutive]

Much as I like the idea of a DRL, it seems difficult to justify at 8.3 billion for the full route. That's over 450m/km, nearly a half billion! It's very hard to justify things at that level. Even for sections which could easily avoid tunneling, like Eglinton-Pape, the costs remain high.

It would be nice if the TTC looked like it was trying to contain these costs. The - longer - Canada Line cost 1/4 of the projected DRL costs, so clearly there are alternatives. A Canada Line like medium capacity system is close to the projected peak 2031 demand volumes for a DRL (15k pph/pd vs. 14k pph/pd, respectively) so it's not like the TTC 'needs' a full blown subway. I can understand not building so close to capacity, but I think the point that Vancouver built a slightly longer line for a quarter of the price with sufficient or near sufficient capacity is highly illustrative.

Other TTC materials have estimated costs up to 10 billion for the full line. There's almost no point in considering transit investments at that cost/km; the TTC/City would be better off seriously reflecting about what it can do to bring down costs/km.

Why not stop building fare paid areas in new stations? The fare loss from a PoP system would probably be much less than the cost of building massive underground fare areas. Why not look at medium capacity systems? Why not build on viaducts in areas like Don Mills and Eglinton where the urban fabric is appropriate. Does the line trade frequency for capacity to the greatest extent possible?

 

[datamouse]

My understanding of the use of the year 2031 is that it's based off the work from the Official Plan that was done back in the early 2000s. Since 30-year projections are the farthest distance that can be reliably predicted that places the year at 2031 (2001+30=2031). Since the Official Plan came into effect in 2006 that's why it's under going it's mandatory 5 year review now. It's been a decade since the projections were done so it wouldn't surprise me that trends have changed that might push projected employment numbers higher than expected. No clue how realistic 1.64M to1.83M is though.

 

[jaycola]

Understanding that I do have personal interest in the area north of Finch on the Yonge line, this report totally ignores a large segment of the population where transit demand already exists.

Recommendation 2: Do not proceed with the Yonge Subway Extension in advance of the provision of additional rapid transit capacity into the downtown. The decisions regarding the Yonge Subway Extension be made in conjunction with the additional rapid transit improvements (such as the DRL) necessary to ensure transit service into the downtown is sufficient to meet the demand from within Toronto and the rest of the GTAH region.

This study tells everyone about the huge over capacity that already exists on Yonge and how this will all get worse.

There's so much latent demand on the Yonge line as it is. A lot of people avoid the Yonge line like the plague, and while the DRL will open up some spots, more people will fill those emptied spots almost instantly, especially when you factor in the North Yonge extension.

The DRL is meant for people south of Eglinton and east of Yonge to provide an alternative route to downtown. It will do nothing for people north of say Lawrence, and those near Yonge. The DRL is just to make sure that people near downtown can actually find a space on a subway train.

It is generally accepted that demand for transit service north of Finch is so high that any extension of the Yonge will overwhelm the system down the line. So what it the alternative for those in the area between Finch and Hwy 7 not served adequately by transit at the present time? Go trains does not serve the densely populated areas north and south of Steeles between Dufferin and Bayview so how will Go improvements make a difference for these areas? I understand that the purpose of the DRL is to ease the pressure further south but this report offers no alternatives or even suggestions for the existing demand north of Finch.
It simply states demand is high so we cannot accommodate it.

My wife lives here L4J5M9 and works here M5A1E8. What options does she have to get to work?

There is a glaring hole in the middle of the urban region, where demand already exists, that is being not only ignored but cast aside by this report.

 

[balenciaga]

My wife lives here L4J5M9 and works here M5A1E8. What options does she have to get to work?

Walk 15 minutes to Steeles ave, take a bus to Finch station and then get to King and take King streetcar? Your wife's problem is so much easier than many.

Honestly, for someone who lives in York Region, they have already made the choice of a long cross-city commute, and that chore doesn't fall on the TTC. It is the problem of those people to figure out a way to get to the closest commuter train. Commuter trains unlike subway stations, can't be as extensive. Usually people drive to the train station.

You can't first choose to live 20km away from office because you want a bigger house with a large yard and then complain how difficult it is to go to work.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Downtown any additional subway could be a Toronto El Train to save money and not get in the way of things, but would have to have quieter wheels though.

And then there's doubling up the Yonge Line with another line next to it that's express.

 

[rbt]

And then there's doubling up the Yonge Line with another line next to it that's express.

There is no need for a Yonge express. Most people use Yonge because that's where the bus dropped them off. If you took the buses somewhere else then Yonge would be pretty empty.

Far better to distribute the lines geographically.

Aside from that, I can't imagine trying to provide bus service for Yonge line problems when you take out capacity for 90,000 pphpd; a station fire will evacuate both express and local.