Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[RyanM12]

I think Steve Munro's alignment is the most practical. Wellington to front & spadina. The western leg should be a repurposed UPX.

That's why I think the Don Mills leg should just run EMUs, so they can through-routed.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Of course the DRL should go to Sheppard. It doesn't look like the demand is there now because everyone takes the bus to the Yonge Line. The whole point of this execize is the relieve yonge, so let's do that and not build a stub from Pape to St Andrew or Bathurst-King. Which, of course will overload very soon knowing Toronto.

 

[innsertnamehere]

King street is, well, King. no reason why the DRL can't be or shouldn't be on King. Streetcar is close enough to Queen that people can deal for a couple of years and go there instead.

 

[RyanM12]

The ttc has said they prefer the Wellington alignment, so that's where it'll probably go.

Wellington (or King) means it can intercept both Queen and king streetcars in the east and west, with stations at Queen/dufferin, King/Strachan, Queen/Broadview (or Queen/River, or Queen/Degrassi).

And Roncesvalles is not happening. It will use the rail corridor (though I think it should go up Dufferin, the busiest bus route).

 

[aquateam]

The ttc has said they prefer the Wellington alignment, so that's where it'll probably go.

Wellington (or King) means it can intercept both Queen and king streetcars in the east and west, with stations at Queen/dufferin, King/Strachan, Queen/Broadview (or Queen/River, or Queen/Degrassi).

And Roncesvalles is not happening. It will use the rail corridor (though I think it should go up Dufferin, the busiest bus route).

When has the TTC said that they prefer a Wellington alignment? My impression is that they are currently studying alignment options through the core. I hope you're not referring to this April Fool's day article. Not that I'm saying Wellington isn't a good choice.

Personally I prefer the Parkside alignment to the West. It's more of a diagonal for a faster route into downtown, it doesn't disrupt businesses, and it doesn't disrupt the streetcar service (which should stay on Roncesvalles as a parallel local service and would be threatened by the DRL). There's also lots of space for the staging/machinery in High Park, and connecting at Keele (where Bloor-Danforth is above ground) would be cheaper than at Dundas West. Parkside could be done cut-and-cover. Going further west also means that you can have an effective eastern terminus for the Lakeshore streetcar/WWLRT before the Queen car gets bogged in traffic downtown.

The rail corridor has a few problems since 1) the corridor is already full of tracks for the GO RER and UPX and 2) There are technical/regulatory issues with mixing subways and passenger rail (assuming the DRL is traditional subway, which I think it should be). If we have to dig, and if we are offering a separate service than GO RER, then it might as well be a different route that hits different spots (covers more of Parkdale/LV/QW).

I think that not going up the last kilometer and a half to connect to the BD line would be a mistake. St. George will likely be in the same situation in 10 years as Yonge-Bloor is now (considering the Vaughn extension, Finch West LRT, and Eglinton LRT will be directly feeding into the Spadina line) and the connection to GO at Dundas West is no more relief for the west than the connection to GO at Main is relief for the east.

 

[MisterF]

Roncesvalles likely won't happen, but it would be a very good route.

In any case, I wish people, including Byford, would stop talking about the DRL as if its only purpose is relieving Bloor-Yonge. It's such a myopic view. East-west rapid transit through the downtown core doesn't exist, which is kind of pathetic for a city as big as Toronto. Providing that is just as important as Bloor-Yonge, if not more so. Continuing to ignore that aspect only minimizes the line's merits and delays it even more.

And then there's Smarttrack, an unnecessary and redundant line that just duplicates what the DRL and electrified GO are already going to deliver. It's just going to delay important projects that have been in the works for years. Why does every mayor candidate insist on coming up with their own drawn-on-a-napkin transit plan? Every new mayor means another reset button.

That's not an unusually large amount of transfers. A typical trip on the TTC could be Eglinton & Bayview to Liberty Village for example:

Eglinton bus->Yonge subway->Bloor subway->Dufferin bus

Yeah you could take the King streetcar but it's often slower than taking Bloor across. I would think many trips have 2 transfers or more.

A trip like this could be well served by both the DRL and GO REX.

 

[lead82]

I think Steve Munro's alignment is the most practical. Wellington to front & spadina. The western leg should be a repurposed UPX.

That's why I think the Don Mills leg should just run EMUs, so they can through-routed.

That is the most practical alignment but we shouldn't stop the DRL at Front/Spadina when there is a dense population node at Liberty Village that desperately needs a subway. I would say that the DRL first phase should be Liberty Village through downtown up through Pape and terminate at Eglinton and Don Mills. The western leg from there can be UPX or Smart-track or anything above-ground. Exhibition can be the Union-West station.

 

[aquateam]

Exhibition can be the Union-West station.

I really dislike this Metrolinx scheme for dumping passengers 2 kilometers short of their destinations and then having them transfer onto the TTC. It's as though half the trains on the Yonge line only went to Summerhill in order to improve the Bloor-Yonge situation. At least at Union station, people can walk to their destinations. If they use this Union West proposal with an appropriated DRL scheme, you'll have entire crush loads of GO train passengers transferring onto the subway.

If they really can't squeeze capacity out of the ~20 tracks at Union to have all the GO trains stop there (even with through-routing), then they need to tunnel.

 

[salsa]

I really dislike this Metrolinx scheme for dumping passengers 2 kilometers short of their destinations and then having them transfer onto the TTC. It's as though half the trains on the Yonge line only went to Summerhill in order to improve the Bloor-Yonge situation. At least at Union station, people can walk to their destinations. If they use this Union West proposal with an appropriated DRL scheme, you'll have entire crush loads of GO train passengers transferring onto the subway.

I'm worried that this scheme may actually happen. You kill two birds with one stone, by building the DRL while also relieving Union station with said scheme. It's more politically palatable than spending billions more for a GO tunnel in addition to the DRL, for the exact same outcome.

 

[44 North]

Richmond isn't a good compromise in the long-running King vs Queen debate, because that debate is ill-informed in the first place. Wellington/Front is easily is best route through the core and the east as it provides the best connections to St. Andrew and King stations while also allowing for an underground walkway below Bay Street to Union. Another advantage of those streets is that the existing streetcars won't be disrupted during construction, and that is a big deal, an under-appreciated one frankly. Finally, there's more ability to intensify along and close to Front than along Queen.

Poppycock. A meandering DRL that switches routing between Adelaide and Richmond addresses everything you mention. For one, the line will be deep. Aside from elevators, any surface entrances can be designed to exit north and south of the line. This could put the surface portals fairly close to either Queen or King. For its connections along Y-U-S, the stations can be equidistant between Osgoode and St Andrew, and Queen and King. Its catchment is widened significantly.

Another point I like about a Richmond/Adelaide combo is its constructibility. The street can be closed without affecting surface routes, and there are fewer businesses fronting onto either road so any closures would have less of an effect. One lane can be kept open for local traffic, but aside from that the whole roadway can be put in hoarding with much of the non-driving public oblivious.

Somewhat related, but when is the next round of DRL reports supposed to come out? I though Metrolinx or TTC would've offered routing options by now.

 

[Adjei]

Roncesvalles likely won't happen, but it would be a very good route.

In any case, I wish people, including Byford, would stop talking about the DRL as if its only purpose is relieving Bloor-Yonge. It's such a myopic view. East-west rapid transit through the downtown core doesn't exist, which is kind of pathetic for a city as big as Toronto. Providing that is just as important as Bloor-Yonge, if not more so. Continuing to ignore that aspect only minimizes the line's merits and delays it even more.

And then there's Smarttrack, an unnecessary and redundant line that just duplicates what the DRL and electrified GO are already going to deliver. It's just going to delay important projects that have been in the works for years. Why does every mayor candidate insist on coming up with their own drawn-on-a-napkin transit plan? Every new mayor means another reset button.



A trip like this could be well served by both the DRL and GO REX.

That's one thing I hate about transit in Toronto, every politician thinks they are a transit planner.

 

[M II A II R II K]

One could make the underground section of the Crosstown a trunk route, and have an additional route on the surface that goes north on Don Mills in the east, and north on Jane in the west. So half of those streets get their transit city and with one less transfer.

 

[WislaHD]

Moving discussion from the Scarborough Subway thread.

I agree that the number of riders in the north will justify a new transit line into downtown, sooner rather than later. I'm puzzled why the 'left turners' (Scarberians making the left turn at Yonge to go downtown) are the ridership body that are selected to justify a subway.One could make the case that the group to target is north-south riders who take a bus east-west and then transfer to the Yonge line. If you build a line down, say, Bayview, run it down Parliament before looping thru the western downtown, you make these riders' bus ride shorter and achieve the same seats into downtown. And you get YRT busses off Yonge St north of Finch, they can deliver to Bayview instead. Or something like that.

My comment about development refers to driving a subway along Pape/Chester, which will put a line of big buildings on a north-south line thru a residential area. Development on Danforth is fine, but Toronto needs to be very careful about preserving the character of the residential neigbourhoods in the old city of Toronto. Just look at Ossington, or, more recently, what's brewing along Bloor West Village.

- Paul

As someone who lives on Bayview... a subway here? haha that's a thought. How would that work, Sheppard&Bayview to Eglinton, a station between Davisville and Millwood, somehow navigating through the Brickworks (above ground even?) onto Castle Frank and Parliament, down Parliament and turning west in a Queen/King/Richmond/Adelaide tunnel to I say Spadina or Bathurst?

I wonder if that option is cheaper than traditional DRL alignments. I think it is less tunneling and easier tunneling along Bayview/Parliament and we won't have to cross the Don River twice. We could use that downtown tunnel for an extension to East York in the traditional DRL alignment one day too.

Maybe bus ridership can justify it a Bayview subway. The Spadina line already acts as a western Yonge Relief Line.

I think I'd rather build one on Don Mills (traditional DRL route) since it has more high density areas & stuff along it, as well as redevelopment potential at places like Eg & Don Mills.

They should increase bus service on Bayview though.

DRL in the Don Mills corridor will have better ridership counts than a DRL running further west and closer to Yonge.

The "traditional" DRL route serves East Toronto and East York (not many stations, but they certainly add riders). It serves the Thorncliffe and Flemmington communities, both of them would have very poor access to a Bayview line. Further north, a Don Mills route gives the eastern bus riders more incentive to switch to DRL rather than stay on the bus till Yonge.

If DRL goes north as far as Sheppard and Finch, it will hit Fairview Mall and Seneca College if it utilizes the Don Mills corridor; there are no such trip generators in the vicinity of Bayview.

A DRL route closer to Yonge is less desirable, and should be considered only if it results in a very large cost saving.

Bayview does have the Glendon campus at Bayview&Lawrence, but I agree, the Don Mills corridor is much better with the Shops at Don Mills, Thorncliffe&Flemingdon Park, Fairview Mall, Seneca College and the ability for Sheppard East riders to transfer onto DRL without transfer.

What needs to be done east of Yonge is a direct bus route on Mt. Pleasant/Jarvis and Bayview to downtown.

Perhaps 44North's DRL alignment idea is what should be considered instead of the traditional DRL alignment:

What about changing the downtown alignment of this route to using Parliament instead though?

That alignment misses all the people. The station at Broadview/Danforth isn't too bad - but there's already a station there. It completely misses the dense area around O'Connor/Broadview/Pape. The next station is near Millwood/Redway that is very undense. Then near the train tracks too far north of Thorncliffe to be that useful. And finally at Don Mills/Eglinton. It completely misses Thornecliffe/Flemingdon. It's just not a useful alignment. Nor do I see building above round railway track through both Riverdale West AND East parks as ever happening.

Quite frankly, it's hard to imagine a worse DRL alignment!!!

I'm not sure what this has to do with the SRT to LRT conversion. I'd think this should at a minimum go in a subway thread, preferably the DRL thread - and perhaps a fantasy thread.

It's been addressed (by myself as it would seem!), I just didn't want to clog up the page with pictures. Here is the link to BurlOak's alignment changes.

The best DRL alignment if adopting the SmartTrack proposal is this:



SmartTrack follows its proposed alignment to Queen and Degrassi before continuing west along Queen Street/Queensway to Park Lawn. As such this allows a DRL to follow the traditional Don Mills-Overlea-Pape-rail corridors alignment (well I use the Esplanade/Front Street through downtown).

So here would be my proposed alignment for a Parliament DRL:

I figured since it would have to dig deep to go under the Bloor-Danforth line at Castle Frank, it could just continue tunneled deep under the Don River and emerge on the alignment of the old and empty Belt Line rail. It would be bridged over the Bayview Extension and elevated/surface to Millwood where it becomes tunnel again under Thorncliffe and Flemingdon Park and onto Don Mills. In downtown it would follow a Parliament alignment before turning west on King (or whatever) giving us our downtown tunnel.

Yes, this is not as glamorous as the traditional DRL alignment through East York, but the traditional DRL alignment is prohibitively expensive, crosses the Don River twice, has no answer for how it would align from valley to cliffside at Thorncliffe, and earliest estimates have it ready for 2035 - too far off for relief needed yesterday.

This alignment is cheaper, easier to construct and has less engineering challenges and is therefore a more realistic DRL option. Yes, it misses out on East York and the density near Pape, but I'd wager that the east end of the downtown core, Cabbagetown, Regent Park and Corktown, are even bigger fish with greater employment and development potential while simultaneously relieving our downtown streetcars. HOWEVER, with a smart SmartTrack alignment&configuration, we can still yet provide rapid transit to East York. (I am interesting in ideas of incorporating the downtown tunnel with SmartTrack/GORER)

One problem with the Parliament alignment however is I am not certain how much relief it provides for the Yonge subway as unless your destination is south of Queen station, it is probably not much quicker for westbound travelers to transfer on Parliament. Perhaps it being less congested is incentive enough? Perhaps it doesn't even matter? I always felt the benefits of the 'relief' aspect of a new downtown line to be oversold compared to all the other benefits anyway as not much could actually relieve the Yonge line besides a new express subway on Yonge or a GO RER alignment that absorbs all the York Region commuters from the Yonge line.

 

[nfitz]

So here would be my proposed alignment for a Parliament DRL:

Doesn't work. This version of the Downtown Relief line would provide little relief of Bloor-Yonge station. Travel times from Castle Frank to King wouldn't be significantly faster than the existing lines. Worst of all, it picks the lowest usage north-south corridor east of Yonge. The Parliament bus in AM peak only need to run once every 18 minutes, providing a capacity of 170 riders. Sherbourne, Broadview, and Pape all are much busier!

 

[WislaHD]

Short of 44North's original Broadview alignment, I don't see much options available for a DRL subway.

There is one other option I know you won't like either nfits, that is embracing SmartTrack/GO RER hybrid as a Downtown Relief option.

(Blue is SmartTrack, Red is GO RER)

Create two "SmartTrack" lines on Richmond Hill and Stouffville lines, with using the traditional DRL alignment for the Richmond Hill line before merging back with the the Richmond corridor north of Lawrence on Don Mills.

Both spurs of SmartTrack would be running on 15 minute minimum frequency, meaning that the frequency within the downtown tunnel will be at subway levels (7 minutes minimum).