Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[Edward Skira]

Maybe not significantly, but it will help. While the bulk of riders transferring at Bloor-Yonge are from the east, some do come from the west.

If anything, the U to Dundas West will significantly help the 504 and 505 more than Bloor-Yonge. Why can't it be a Reflief Line for those routes too?

Because there's a limited amount of money. The goal of the DRL isn't to help the 504 and 505 but to help the at capacity Yonge line. Even the short version from University to Pape won't do much according to the planners. It needs to go to Sheppard to get the maximum benefit. Putting billions going west is counter-productive to the main goal of relieving the Yonge line properly. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Translude15]

Maybe not significantly, but it will help. While the bulk of riders transferring at Bloor-Yonge are from the east, some do come from the west.

If anything, the U to Dundas West will significantly help the 504 and 505 more than Bloor-Yonge. Why can't it be a Reflief Line for those routes too?

DRL Long to Sheppard (or Finch) is first priority over any westward extension due to Yonge overcrowding. Given the limited resources available, anything built west potentially takes away from the more important aim of extending DRL north of Pape-Danforth.

 

[44 North]

You mean people coming from Kennedy Station and going to Bathurst or Spadina and Queen actually go to Yonge, head south to Queen and then walk or take the streetcar across? Wouldn't most stay on Bloor and get off at Spadina or Bathurst and then take a streetcar south?

That's a fair point, and the Spadina "LRT" as it was once dubbed was in a way part of the overall DRT / Yonge Relief plans in the 80s. But I think as a quasi-auxillary means of helping Yonge crowding, so to would preventing a percentage of riders avoid Bloor/Yonge and St George station if we can (yes, even those on trains simply passing through these stations). One hiccup through that stretch, and these Spadina or Bathurst-bound riders are thrown into the chaotic mix. As many are aware this isn't simply about getting on a Yonge train, but the safety of those traveling through stations that were never designed for such loads, or getting them on temporary shuttle services that are incapable of handling such loads.

If we can avoid that by bringing the DRL to Queen/Bathurst, we're in a way creating network redundancy with the streetcar network as well as the subway network. What would the added cost be of bringing the line to Bathurst? Not sure. But it'd be nice if the City/TTC were gifted some of the $150M Metrolinx received from the Prov so they can continue the excellent work they've been doing and explore these more finer details.

 

[ksun]

Really? Who are the 53,000 people using the 504 King then? Also, for local service the streetcar may still be faster than the subway (i.e. if your origin and destination is between two stops).

Apply some basically logic here. 53,000 people ride the 504 because they have no other affordable option, not because they like it. The King streetcar is not exactly some sort of successful urban transit example.

 

[LNahid2000]

Apply some basically logic here. 53,000 people ride the 504 because they have no other affordable option, not because they like it. People need to get to work, don't they?

As to "local services", I am not sure what it is as it kept being mentioned on this forum. Does that mean a tram system that stops every 150 meters that doesn't seen to exist elsewhere, including cities 3 times Toronto's density? If spacing is 600m for a subway, that is "local enough" to most riders. Exactly how local do you want?

I was responding to andrewpmk's "and actively avoid it if possible" post. This obviously isn't true.

Also, I already mentioned another city that has a tram line on top of two subway lines. This works very well on Market St. in San Francisco, which has 700m stop spacing.

 

[JasonParis]

Maybe not significantly, but it will help. While the bulk of riders transferring at Bloor-Yonge are from the east, some do come from the west. If anything, the U to Dundas West will significantly help the 504 and 505 more than Bloor-Yonge. Why can't it be a Reflief Line for those routes too?

The west already has the Spadina leg of the #1 acting as their Relief Line. The east does not have an equivalent. Which is one of the reasons that capacity issues are so much greater at Bloor-Yonge, than St. George.

The east always has to be first in any logical RL plan. In fact, there's a good chance it would get extended north too (to Eglinton, maybe Sheppard), before heading west as the capacity issues are that great, especially if Yonge North gets built.

 

[Forgotten]

It does seem that someone floated a flavour-of-the-month paper about turning City Hall into some sort of destination, and the planning department suddenly felt the need to bow to this new totem in everything they produce. This concept is not a very compelling reason for focusing on Queen.

Having said that, while City Hall is not worth worrying about, Queen has more potential to capture walkership all the way to Dundas and beyond. People at King and Bay do not need the subway in their basement - a walk to Queen is tiny compared to the walk-to-the-tube in many other major cities.

What is truly shortsighted is ending Phase I at University when there are so many destinations in the University to Bathurst sector. Going those one or two extra stops west will have major impact on getting people off Line 2 at Pape, and reduces the significance of surface connections. There will be no offset of King Car ridership if people get off at University and need to transfer to the streetcar for the last half mile.

- Paul

Queen may have more potential to capture hypothetical walkership but if you believe the planning models King captures more actual real ridership. You know, the thing that 99% of people here complains about in Scarborough? Dump on King and Bay not deserving a "subway in their basement" like everybody else is doing but the real issue as you alluded to are the two job centres at the "Two Kings" Kesmat is always taking credit for.

If the Yonge line didn't exist right now, and the dept of Tory and Kessmat said build a subway under Jarvis and Mt Pleasant (even if it cost more to build) half the people here would be saying that's great, there's no difference, it's a short walk, simply because they're a fan of whatever Kessmat says. Yonge might be lined with office buildings but Hooker Harvey's has more off peak usage and future development potential! 1 Ted Rogers Way is the psychological heart of the city!

 

[MisterF]

How many cities have a scenario like the F line in San Francisco? While they're relatively well used, the F line streetcars have a minor niche in the overall transit picture. Ridership is a fraction of the metro and BART trains and lower than any of Toronto's main streetcar lines. I question how much relief they actually provide for the rapid transit below.

Really? Who are the 53,000 people using the 504 King then? Also, for local service the streetcar may still be faster than the subway (i.e. if your origin and destination is between two stops).

As ksun mentioned, it gets that kind of ridership (it's actually well over 60,000) because it's people's only choice. People do actively avoid it - pedestrian and bicycle traffic downtown has never been higher. But the growth along the route means that it's full no matter how many people avoid it, and I have no doubt that ridership will skyrocket if the streetcars ever get proper priority. Of course, it's the Queen car that will be affected most by the RL with the recommended plan.

If the Yonge line didn't exist right now, and the dept of Tory and Kessmat said build a subway under Jarvis and Mt Pleasant (even if it cost more to build) half the people here would be saying that's great, there's no difference, it's a short walk, simply because they're a fan of whatever Kessmat says. Yonge might be lined with office buildings but Hooker Harvey's has more off peak usage and future development potential! 1 Ted Rogers Way is the psychological heart of the city!

A more accurate comparison would be that you'd be arguing in favour of a Bay subway instead of Yonge, because that's where the office buildings are and Yonge might as well be in the middle of nowhere.

While Queen is farther from the heart of the financial district, it still adequately serves everything north of Front and south of Dundas, maybe even College. Plus it serves more areas that RER can't. King would have a much narrower service area.

If a bus line ran on Yonge all the way downtown frequently like on Market St in SF (which has streetcars, buses, bike lanes, underground streetcar and subways), it would be well used.

Conversely, maybe the bus line is that short and infrequent because there's little demand for the bus.

Some form of realignment of streetcar services is probably unavoidable, but I have a feeling the DRL is being used as a trojan horse to achieve ends that have nothing to do with improving public transit but to increase road access.

I mean, there is one easy way to show that - if the argument is that having DRL on Queen meant removing of existing tracks, sure - I will suggest that the sidewalk should be widened and Queen be changed to 3 travelling lanes total. Surely we can argue for that given the reduction in stops and increase in transit capacity will lead to higher degree of pedestrian traffic.

AoD

I'd say the latter scenario is more likely than the RL being some scheme to give the surface over to cars. Eglinton Connects is evidence of that.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'd say the latter scenario is more likely than the RL being some scheme to give the surface over to cars. Eglinton Connects is evidence of that.

Oops, I've deleted the word "by some" from my post - wasn't suggesting that it is a conspiracy at an official level. It's more a suggestion that some on UT are fixated on DRL being able to remove streetcars far more so than its' utility. Re-added it in my original post.

AoD

 

[Hopkins123]

Well, it's not like there isn't a market for a western extension of the DRL. According to 2014 TTC Ridership stats:

510 Spadina = 43,900 riders per weekday
511 Bathrust = 17,400 riders per weekday
63 Ossington = 22,100 riders per weekday
29 Dufferin = 44,000 riders per weekday

A sizable chuck of that ridership on the bus routes in particular is heading south of Bloor. A five stop addition to Parkdale (Spadina, Bathurst, Trinty-Bellwoods, Ossington, Dufferin) is a reasonable request, particularly if the DRL isn't expanded upon til another generation. The more mileage we can get out of the initial construction phase, the better.

 

[dunkalunk]

Well, it's not like there isn't a market for a western extension of the DRL. According to 2014 TTC Ridership stats:

510 Spadina = 43,900 riders per weekday
511 Bathrust = 17,400 riders per weekday
63 Ossington = 22,100 riders per weekday
29 Dufferin = 44,000 riders per weekday

A sizable chuck of that ridership on the bus routes in particular is heading south of Bloor. A five stop addition to Parkdale (Spadina, Bathurst, Trinty-Bellwoods, Ossington, Dufferin) is a reasonable request, particularly if the DRL isn't expanded upon til another generation. The more mileage we can get out of the initial construction phase, the better.

While we're at it, we might as well extend it to Roncesvalles to have an easy place to extract the TBM.

This is the definition of scope creep.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Nobody denies that there is a market for the western relief line. That market is just much smaller than what exists in the east, with the eastern Relief Line moving nearly twice as many people as the west.

 

[W. K. Lis]

From the Relief Line's Frequently Asked Question's website, at this link:

 

[Forgotten]

A more accurate comparison would be that you'd be arguing in favour of a Bay subway instead of Yonge, because that's where the office buildings are and Yonge might as well be in the middle of nowhere.

These are the logical leaps that planning supporters make. At King St there are literally only two buildings separating a Yonge St address and Bay St address.

While Queen is farther from the heart of the financial district, it still adequately serves everything north of Front and south of Dundas, maybe even College. Plus it serves more areas that RER can't. King would have a much narrower service area.

Another huge stretch of logic. Did you know Bloor St is the same distance from College as Queen is? How many people make a 2km detour via Bloor and two extra transfers if they're going from Pape to University (4km)? You'd be adding 50% more distance and two extra transfers. Bloor would still be better because it has more stations that are easier to access (see below). King and Dufferin to Bay is 4km. A detour to Queen adds 20% and 2 transfers. Ain't nobody got time for that.

Queen is a jack of all trades, master of none. That's why it's projected to have lower ridership at ALL times of the day. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. "Wider" service area that costs more and used by far fewer people is favoured only in Toronto.

The ironic thing is Tory and Kesmat's henchmen were out saying this subway would be drilled into rock which means stations on Queen will be much MUCH deeper than on King. It makes the hysteria over having to dig under PATH at King moot. I thought people here hated deep cavernous stations because they cost so much right? Deep stations make access a pain in the ass right? Queen was chosen for one reason only and that's to keep it away from Tory's crown jewels.

 

[Kitsune]

Those are going to be some fun escalator rides just go get to the concourse of the stations.