Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[sixrings]

Could we not have above ground subway like Chicago or NYC does, on Adelaide or Richmond?

Above ground if it saved money would not bother me aesthetically on either of those streets. However the sticking point is that above ground would make transfers much more difficult then if it was underground. I would think a transfer at St George and at King make sense but I have no idea how it would work if it was above ground. Generally speaking in Toronto (other then the RT)we have done transfers very well. In NYC often times it feels like I could walk a solid KM underground to another transfer. Everytime I do these types of transfers I think about how at least I am young and this is not at all friendly to seniors or those with disabilities. And this is coming from someone who thinks that the argument for more stops on LRT or Streetcar lines doesn't make sense since we should be able to walk a little farther for rapid transit.

 

[WislaHD]

There seems to be a belief on sites like this that subways aren't for local service. Where did this belief come from? A DRL can replace at least one streetcar line just as the subways on Yonge and Bloor did. That's what subways are supposed to do - provide local and medium distance service in highly dense urban environments that surface rail lines don't reach. There's no reason for downtown DRL stations to be any farther apart than on the Bloor line.

Exactly, the DRL is going to replace a streetcar line.

And paired with SmartTrack, which would offer medium to long distance traveling and less stations along the route through downtown, we can use Bloor line station gaps on the DRL.

 

[jcam]

Interesting idea, but the line misses Riverdale, Pape Village, and Thorncliffe Park. And the transfer at Danforth is awkward at best. That transfer needs to be made as convenient as possible.

My main point for this routing was cost...using as much of the surface track currently owned by GO as possible. And Thorncliffe Park is serviced by a station near the old Leaside Station...essentially behind the new Costco/Coke plant at the north-western edge of Thorncliffe.

As for Pape Village and Riverdale, I'm assuming that RER service will come into being on the Lakeshore East line independently of an RER/DRL. That said, you can also have stops at Dundas and Queen for streetcar interchanges.

A DRL through Pape would ideally go up to Don Mills, but that would require either a) switching to LRT north of Danforth and going over the Millwood bridge or b) building an entirely new bridge over the Don. This alignment still hits all of the major population nodes (Thorncliffe, Flemingdon), creates a more direct routing for the Richmond Hill line to downtown that also gets it out of the flood plain (north of Queen at least), and requires only adding to the existing Leaside spur bridge over Brickworks...similar to how they've expanded the UPX bridge over the Humber.

Whereas a DRL would require tunnels all the way to Eglinton, this requires only one under the core, and another from roughly Eglinton to Lawrence under Don Mills.

As for the walk to Broadview...you're absolutely right, at perhaps 300m it seems like it'd be about twice the walk as that between the platforms at Spadina....but the question is whether that tradeoff is worth saving billions on not having to tunnel as much. I love tunnels (I used to design TBMs), but you still need a solid cost-benefit analysis. Remember with Lakeshore East/Stouffville RER, you could still get interchanges at Kennedy and Main/Danforth to ease transfers at Bloor/Yonge.

 

[P23]

I'm a fan of elevated transit but I doubt it would work on the arterial streets like King or Queen. I do think it would work well in the part of the city south of the rail corridor however as the streets are wider and the neighbourhood is still developing. I'd love to see an elevated line on Bremner that snakes around the Skydome/CN tower/ACC, that would be a spectacular ride.

 

[ehlow]

I'm a fan of elevated transit but I doubt it would work on the arterial streets like King or Queen. I do think it would work well in the part of the city south of the rail corridor however as the streets are wider and the neighbourhood is still developing. I'd love to see an elevated line on Bremner that snakes around the Skydome/CN tower/ACC, that would be a spectacular ride.

I've thought about that before on maybe like Adedlaide/Richmond or something, it would be Chicago like in a way and be a really cool ride.

However, there would be huge pressure to "go underground", in my opinion.

 

[nfitz]

As for the walk to Broadview...you're absolutely right, at perhaps 300m it seems like it'd be about twice the walk as that between the platforms at Spadina....but the question is whether that tradeoff is worth saving billions on not having to tunnel as much.

Ignoring the issues with running the DRL north of Bloor in a way to miss where all the people live.

How does the relief line achieve it's primary goal of relieving Bloor-Yonge station if you design it in such a way that few would have any encouragement for not instead making the much more convenient change at Bloor-Yonge!

 

[44 North]

Re the discussions about elevated rail through downtown Toronto or Chicago:

I don’t think any city (“world-class†or otherwise) would build anything like Chicago’s EL through their downtown or inner city. Maybe if it were in a greenspace or median of a large roadway/highway – particularly when the line uses a sleek concrete design for a narrow-bodied train; but not directly overtop narrow streets in such high-density areas. Gardiner/Lake Shore corridor would be a good location, but Richmond/Adelaide seems to be pushing the envelope a bit. Frankly, those hulking steel and wood masses in Chicago and NYC only sully people’s image of elevated rail, and do little in the way of promoting the benefits of such a system

There's no reason for downtown DRL stations to be any farther apart than on the Bloor line.

Agreed on your stance on why it’s okay to remove a streetcar line. And that subways by their very nature are a local and medium service. But I think significant costs and sizeable depth are a reason why we won’t be seeing a high number of DRL stations. Definitely not like the amount on the Bloor line.

Interesting idea, but the line misses Riverdale, Pape Village, and Thorncliffe Park. And the transfer at Danforth is awkward at best. That transfer needs to be made as convenient as possible.

Thorncliffe is partially served, and the catchment for the station at Don Mills/Eglinton would address half of Flemingdon by default. Obviously this is a low-cost surface proposal using an existing corridor. Sure, it could make an underground beeline to bring a station closer to Thorncliffe’s current density. Or the south end of a neighbourhood that’s boxed in by the valley and therefore can’t experience outward growth to its west, south, and east (i.e Flemingdon). But that’s another ~1km, another added station, and a longer commute time for RH riders north of Eglinton. If the DRL won’t be built on account of its costs, I’d prefer at least something over nothing.

As well, the location of stations along downtown’s east shoulder - west of the Don - would provide a catchment that could draw in walk-in traffic from parts of Leslieville and south Riverdale. Ditto for Broadview Stn’s serving of Riverdale. Surface connections would provide the rest.

I think a more important issue with jcam’s line would be that the southernmost sections of the Richmond Hill line through the valley are in a high-risk floodplain, and that there’s very little space along RH to slot in stations at Dundas or Queen. As well the connection at Broadview into the valley would require quite a lengthy pedestrian tunnel/bridge (~250m + ~20m vertical). Properly connecting to B/D is partially how my map came about:

I know it was reposted not too long ago. But there were a couple things I wanted to fix, mostly aesthetic. Last night I made a secondary map to more clearly show its alignment through Riverdale Park. The S-shaped viaduct would essentially hug the park’s periphery along Bayview and the DVP, and wouldn’t result in any major loss of park land. At most a baseball diamond or two would have to be shifted; as well the eastern ramp for the pedestrian bridge would require rebuilding. And because it’s a low bridge with simple concrete piers, the parkland below would still be 100% usable and accessible.

 

[dunkalunk]

DRL sections under Leaside and Flemingdon Park could easily be constructed as cut and cover instead of with TBM. Would there be any merit in doing so (would it save any money)?

 

[arcum]

Hopefully that isn't a big subway viaduct-bridge blocking the great view from Riverdale Park.

The alignment needs to intersect with the high density/lower income areas at Cosburn/Pave and Thorncliffe Village. Not servicing those areas to save money would be irresponsible, IMO.

 

[jcam]

DRL sections under Leaside and Flemingdon Park could easily be constructed as cut and cover instead of with TBM. Would there be any merit in doing so (would it save any money)?

TBMs cost money, but the savings are usually seen in a number of ways:
- you can go under private property (or at least its borders) without having to take the land - you wouldn't go under housing but the Spadina extension goes under warehouse properties north of downsview and then under buildings at York.
- you avoid any impact on utilities when digging up streets, except at station boxes. This has impact to traffic, businesses, etc. Also, if you have a large trunk sewer for example, going under a main road, you'd have to dig around and temporarily support it the whole cut length. This is why for most of the Bloor-Danforth line, they expropriated property north or south of the road to trench, as opposed to dealing with what's under it, like they did on Yonge.

In the feasibility plans for LRT on Pape north of Danforth, they recommended cut-and-cover as an option because the tunnels are much narrower than would be required for a streetcar, and (perhaps) because there aren't any major sewer trunks running underneath.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

TBMs aren't very expensive. I recall that the TTC purchased Yorkie and Torkie for about $50 Million each. To put that in perspective, that amount of money will build you about 200 metres of subway, assuming that subways cost approximately $250 million/km to built.

 

[jcam]

I think a more important issue with jcam’s line would be that the southernmost sections of the Richmond Hill line through the valley are in a high-risk floodplain, and that there’s very little space along RH to slot in stations at Dundas or Queen.

That's very true. After the DVP flooding this summer, this Toronto Star article from the summer (here) noted that "GO has also hired an engineering firm to look at a longer-term solution that transit chief Greg Percy calls “the big fix” — basically raising the stretch of track that runs beside the river."

As for the stations, looking at Google Earth, there should be enough space for some center platforms by the bridges.

 

[crs1026]

It's not very likely that any DRL will track west of downtown except in a remote "Phase III", and won't eliminate the need for local transit on major streets like King.

Further the idea that one must come up with a political "compromise" that screws over people living in King as a sop to Fordian drivers is ludicrous.

Agreed. In many of my maps, I have the GO REX DRL under King, with an at-grade streetcar ROW along Queen. King would either become a 4 lane road or a 3 lane road (centre turning lane), and Queen would either become a 2 lane road + ROW or a completely car-free space.

Neither Yonge nor Bloor/Danforth suffered for lack of "local" service when the subways opened. The case for retaining street car service is the fact that there will still be key streetcar routes at either end (to Neville, and to Long Branch) and there may be value in letting people carry on on the surface rather than transfer to the underground. Perhaps these routes would get new routings...eg west end of Queen car connects with the western stub of the DRL (wherever that is), then turns south to the Exhibition and east to Union as a 509/510...or north to Bloor. Or something.

It makes sense to improve automobile circulation - removing streetcars will make better turn lanes possible. Nobody said "fop for Ford". One big opportunity is to enlarge the bike lanes on these streets. Right now, I cringe when I see cyclists, cars, and streetcars try to coexist on Queen. It is just plain dangerous for the cyclists at the moment.

- Paul

 

[44 North]

Hopefully that isn't a big subway viaduct-bridge blocking the great view from Riverdale Park.

Riverdale East and West is a park I know and love. I wouldn’t have presented this idea if it detracted from the park in any way. One of the reasons I’m so confident in the feasibility is that I know the park and valley very well. The viaduct would be low, out of the way, and wouldn’t interfere with the park’s eastern or western sightlines. I’ve been debating whether I should tackle sketching out a rendering to show how it would look from a human or ground-level POV. But this Streetview from Humber Valley gives a rough idea:

There’s no denying that bridges are pretty cool, and that they can incorporate neat designs that provide a local benefit. This point from the study of Yonge North extension’s crossing of the East Don is similar to my line of thinking:

While a bridge alternative is highly visual and provides an opportunity to create a gateway structure / feature for the community, it also increases the potential for a change in character of the heritage district. One way to mitigate the visual effects of the bridge alternative is to incorporate heritage features in the design of the bridge.​

The alignment needs to intersect with the high density/lower income areas at Cosburn/Pave and Thorncliffe Village. Not servicing those areas to save money would be irresponsible, IMO.

Yeah, well. This is just an idea. This isn’t supposed to be an insult to East York. I respect the area and have watched it improve over the years. And Pape Village is an excellent example of older, “human scale” high-density development. Not to mention that it proves that modern day Jane Jacobs-esque urban theories aren’t anything new. To be quite honest, I find those low, mid, and highrise buildings around Cosburn to be a helluva lot more “human scale” and pedestrian-friendly than the majority of condos going up downtown.

As well, for a partial component of this alternative DRL I’ve been mulling the idea of mapping out an extension of the streetcar system in this area. Basically it would be a branch of the 504 and 505 northward from Broadview, using one or two E/W streets to reach Coxwell and loop around. Or travel across the Leaside Bridge into Thorncliffe.

In a previous post I mentioned how the DRL downtown can allow for the shuttering of one E/W downtown streetcar line. Well, alternately this could also allow for ongoing extensions of the system into the inner suburbs. Not as some Transit City-lite, but rather a gradual expansion of the local-service legacy streetcar system. Many neighbourhoods would be receptive to this investment.

***
What I find interesting about transit lines and infrastructure investment is the psychology at play. There are lot of parallels between posters’ reaction to this altered DRL and realworld examples like Sheppard. People want it one way, and can’t comprehend anything different. If Metrolinx ends up using the abandoned Don Branch as a psuedo-DRL (which I wouldn’t rule out as a possibility), there are going to be some mighty angry people. Just like Save Our Sheppard, protestors can form a group like Save Our Pape and elect a crazy guy who promises to ‘git r done’

 

[nfitz]

Riverdale East and West is a park I know and love. I wouldn’t have presented this idea if it detracted from the park in any way. One of the reasons I’m so confident in the feasibility is that I know the park and valley very well. The viaduct would be low, out of the way, and wouldn’t interfere with the park’s eastern or western sightlines. I’ve been debating whether I should tackle sketching out a rendering to show how it would look from a human or ground-level POV. But this Streetview from Humber Valley gives a rough idea:

So basically it destroys the park ...

Doesn't matter though. It won't happen. Obviously they aren't going to connect a DRL to Broadview station, missing all the stuff on the east side of the Don south of Broadview. Miss all the stuff on the east side of the Don north of Broadview, miss Thorncliff (no, your proposed station doesn't serve Thorncliff), miss Flemingdon Park, and build a second bridge back across the Don just north of the first bridge!