Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[MisterF]

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.

Not that I disagree with your overall point, but travel times on new lines don't have to be any faster than existing lines to provide relief. There are plenty of reasons for people to take the DRL instead of the 1 & 2 lines - avoiding Bloor/Yonge Station, more direct ride, etc. The DRL would be more direct than Yonge for huge numbers of people, especially those going east/west through downtown. Riders won't need to be enticed off the Yonge line, they'll simply take the line that makes sense to get them where they're going.

 

[sixrings]

I too don't believe that the line needs to be faster to get people to transfer to it. People will transfer simply because they know that the Yonge bloor transfer is over crowded. If you are heading west on the danforth line and get off at Yonge to transfer but then have to wait for the next train because the first train that stops is so full you can't get on then you will think twice about transferring at Yonge bloor in the future. For years my father made this same trip but he would get off at st George to transfer. It was out of the way but it guaranteed he would get on.

 

[crs1026]

The trickiest part of the DRL will likely be where it enters and how it crosses the downtown area....so that the greatest number of riders coming downtown get to their destination without having to change lines or take a connecting surface route. That aspect could add more minutes to overall travel time than anything else. Convenience too....having to wait for a crowded streetcar stuck in traffic to get to the Relief line could be the dealbreaker for potential riders.

This argues for the line to go all the way across the downtown, so people heading for Spadina or Bathurst areas (or beyond) get right across before having to transfer. However, one should resist the temptation to try and ride two horses and make the DRL the new east-west subway. There needs to be a whole design discussion on that theme, since it determines what transit looks like on King, Queen, etc. e.g. how people get into downtown from the southwest.

Whatever the routing, the plan should look at how to make the connecting surface transit work better to bring people to and from the downtown subway stations. Ironically, the success of this subway may depend on giving surface routes better traffic priority and/or dedicated lanes....in fact, given just how costly it will be to tunnel in the downtown, one has to ask if the line could work on a surface routing downtown...as an LRT?

- Paul

 

[WislaHD]

Well that isn't exactly a foreign concept, many European cities have surface LRTs routed through their downtown, look at Zurich, it essentially consists of mainly them. And it has been discussed before quite regularly about closing down one of King/Queen to traffic and converting it to a pedestrian street and converting the other for car traffic.

 

[Tuscani01]

Well that isn't exactly a foreign concept, many European cities have surface LRTs routed through their downtown, look at Zurich, it essentially consists of mainly them. And it has been discussed before quite regularly about closing down one of King/Queen to traffic and converting it to a pedestrian street and converting the other for car traffic.

I wish we had a mayor and council with enough balls to actually try this out for a month or two, to show how much more efficient it would be at moving people. (Or show how much of a disaster it could be, which I doubt would be the case)

 

[gweed123]

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).

Yup, this is definitely my preferred option. The Stouffville line can also have a branch off of it along the SRT ROW that serves as the SRT replacement, instead of an LRT or subway option. The one change that I would make is that I would run the Richmond Hill GO RER through the DRL tunnel as well. It would boost frequencies on the line to almost subway levels. At or around Gerrard Square, the line would split, with the Blue service going downtown via a central subway, and the Red service going to Union via the USRC.

 

[44 North]

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.

Oh come off it. I think it’s a pretty good proposal. You’re probably still miffed that it doesn’t include a station at Brickworks. And costly transit infrastructure is more about creating new development/neighbourhoods than catering to older, stable neighbourhoods.

The idea I’d offer to the Pape/Cosburn area in exchange for bypassing them with this DRL is an extension of the 504 and 505 streetcars north up Broadview. This streetcar/LRT can travel E/W along Cosburn / Mortimer / O’Connor, and loop back south to, say, Coxwell. This will serve the population, drive development, and help people reach the DRL station at Broadview.

__

And thanks WislaHD for bringing my map back. I don’t want to sound like I’m shilling my own proposal, but I believe the idea does have legs. Yes, it misses the Pape/Cosburn area, but it also saves $Billions in the process - while also creating a very direct SW-NE route. Unlike what Netflitz says, the short viaduct section through Riverdale E + W and E.T Seton isn’t too crazy. It wouldn’t be any louder/obtrusive than the DVP, current RH line, current subway across the viaduct, streetcars on Gerrard and Broadview...etc. Worst comes to worst, that section can be a covered bridge. And the route can be designed to use as little park space as possible. And I believe BurlOak’s alignment change was meant as a joke.

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.

I think you’re underestimating the surface topography/elevation, and what this line would have to do in order to go under Rosedale Valley at Castle Frank, then up and over Bayview and the entire Don Valley...only to cross the Don Valley a second time just 50m north of the first crossing. The steep gradients and flyovers required would be significant.

As for the other idea of keeping RH intact for GO RER... it does make sense. But I believe RH needs significant work to bring it above the floodplain before anything can be built down there – particularly anything requiring electrification and substations. Metrolinx has been very busy doing embankment stabilization work along RH and the Don, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. I feel like such a costly investment could be better put towards rerouting the Richmond Hill line altogether.

 

[MisterF]

However, one should resist the temptation to try and ride two horses and make the DRL the new east-west subway.

The DRL is the east-west subway through the core. Unless of course stations are so far apart that it's not useful to anyone downtown, but that would be a foolish decision and would deprive the line of much of its potential ridership. The King and Queen streetcars need relief just as much as Yonge-Bloor, and both can be accomplished with the new line. We'll have plenty of express, limited stop service with GO RER.

Whatever the routing, the plan should look at how to make the connecting surface transit work better to bring people to and from the downtown subway stations. Ironically, the success of this subway may depend on giving surface routes better traffic priority and/or dedicated lanes....in fact, given just how costly it will be to tunnel in the downtown, one has to ask if the line could work on a surface routing downtown...as an LRT?

- Paul

Demand is way too high for a surface LRT. If there's anywhere in the city where a costly rapid transit tunnel is justified, it's east-west through downtown. A surface LRT along King could be an interim measure, but it's no replacement for proper grade separated rapid transit. Especially with all the growth in the last decade, downtown Toronto is too big and dense to get by with the barebones subway system it has.

 

[GenerationW]

This is all really interesting for a line no one really wants to build or fund.

Carry on.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

The DRL is the east-west subway through the core. Unless of course stations are so far apart that it's not useful to anyone downtown, but that would be a foolish decision and would deprive the line of much of its potential ridership. The King and Queen streetcars need relief just as much as Yonge-Bloor, and both can be accomplished with the new line. We'll have plenty of express, limited stop service with GO RER.


Demand is way too high for a surface LRT. If there's anywhere in the city where a costly rapid transit tunnel is justified, it's east-west through downtown. A surface LRT along King could be an interim measure, but it's no replacement for proper grade separated rapid transit. Especially with all the growth in the last decade, downtown Toronto is too big and dense to get by with the barebones subway system it has.

Parliament could use an LRT seperately, imo

This is all really interesting for a line no one really wants to build or fund.

Carry on.

Please tell us what we don't know.

 

[nfitz]

Not that I disagree with your overall point, but travel times on new lines don't have to be any faster than existing lines to provide relief. There are plenty of reasons for people to take the DRL instead of the 1 & 2 lines - avoiding Bloor/Yonge Station, more direct ride, etc. The DRL would be more direct than Yonge for huge numbers of people, especially those going east/west through downtown. Riders won't need to be enticed off the Yonge line, they'll simply take the line that makes sense to get them where they're going.

All true. But you need to get a lot of people to switch, or else there simply isn't capacity on the Yonge line. So you do need something faster. So Castle Frank/King or Broadview/King won't work.

For similar reasons SmartTrack doesn't function as a DRL. Moving people faster from Kennedy to Union does little to relieve Bloor-Yonge ... because relatively few of those currently changing there started their trips at Kennedy and are ending them at Union or King.

 

[nfitz]

Oh come off it. I think it’s a pretty good proposal. You’re probably still miffed that it doesn’t include a station at Brickworks. And costly transit infrastructure is more about creating new development/neighbourhoods than catering to older, stable neighbourhoods.

I'm miffed, because it's simply a horrid idea for a DRL, that does little to relieve Bloor-Yonge, or provide service to the dense areas that have been identified as needing service.

Adding a station at Brickworks wouldn't do anything to make this function as a DRL!

 

[MisterF]

All true. But you need to get a lot of people to switch, or else there simply isn't capacity on the Yonge line. So you do need something faster. So Castle Frank/King or Broadview/King won't work.

For similar reasons SmartTrack doesn't function as a DRL. Moving people faster from Kennedy to Union does little to relieve Bloor-Yonge ... because relatively few of those currently changing there started their trips at Kennedy and are ending them at Union or King.

A lot of people would switch even if it's the same speed. The fact that the transfer would be farther out and less crowded alone would entice people to switch. Plus lots of people would stop using the 2 line altogether, especially as the line goes north of the Danforth. In any case, any DRL proposal I've ever seen has fewer stations and would be faster than the equivalent ride on the 1 and 2 lines, so speed really is a non-issue IMO.

Agreed about Smarttrack/GO REX though. Even if it has a Sydney style tunnel through the heart of downtown, it won't relieve Bloor-Yonge very well since it won't have a good connection with the Danforth or serve areas like Pape Village and Don Mills very well.

 

[nfitz]

A lot of people would switch even if it's the same speed.

If there was a convenient transer a lot would. But I don't think enough. But how long would it take someone to get from Castle Frank, down the escarpment to this proposed station in the Don Valley?

 

[BurlOak]

And I believe BurlOak’s alignment change was meant as a joke.

It wasn't a joke, it was just getting someone else's ideas and mapping it. I did not actually think through to determine how much extra it would cost to better serve Thorncliffe and serve Flemingdon and how much longer the total trip time will be. I do recall being a bit confuses about which portion of the line would be built at-grade and which would be tunnelled.