GenerationW
Senior Member
The current EA is for downtown to the Danforth.
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
rbt
Senior Member
Right, with good reason. EA's are approved in whole; it's all or nothing.
If they did an EA to Sheppard, and someone took issue with their house being torn down near Sheppard and Don Mills, and appealed the result then the entire project would be delayed as none of it could be approved.
What Ottawa is doing with their LRT (the second the EA for the central chunk was approved, they began looking at extensions) is how the DRL ought to be treated. Get the central portion approved and funded, then immediately look at extensions to allow for continuous construction.
CityPlaceN1
Senior Member
It certainly makes sense to get the first part approved and funded while working on phase 2 and so forth.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
They should definitely plan for the western leg simultaneously, in a separate EA - better to sync it with the Core area review as well.
AoD
AoD
aquateam
Active Member
So, a few things about this new study, which is completely bizarre to me:
-Why did they only compare the Relief line stub to an extension all the way to Sheppard? In none of the compared options does it include the usual option of going north to Eglinton (e.g. the "full' DRL from the metrolinx study). This feels like a political sop to make it seem less like the DRL is a line for "downtowners" than a legitimate study on the best options for transit in the area.
-Why are the terms of reference so completely different than in the city's downtown rapid transit study? I don't see anything about supporting growth in shoulder areas, relieving streetcar lines, encouraging TOD, supporting network redundancy. Of course if your only criteria is "how does this relieve the yonge line" then a line running exactly parallel to the Yonge line for 90% of its length is going to score well.
He has written before that once you draw a line on a map it acquires a mental permanency that makes it seem writ in stone. I think that statement also applies to his own pet DRL alignment.
I used to work in that area, and could have used the DRL-LONG. It would take me 1h20 min by public transit, or 20 minutes by car...
My thoughts exactly. Why did they choose LRT all the way from Sheppard to Downtown as an option when it is not technically feasible to have an LRT through downtown unless it's buried for almost the entire length south of Eglinton?
I think that it's kind of unfair to compare between different studies with different demand models. I have some other issues with their estimate: How is it that adding the western DRL only adds 300 pphpd? Going through the densest residential part of Toronto and intercepting everyone heading downtown coming from the west end of the BD line only adds 300?
-Why did they only compare the Relief line stub to an extension all the way to Sheppard? In none of the compared options does it include the usual option of going north to Eglinton (e.g. the "full' DRL from the metrolinx study). This feels like a political sop to make it seem less like the DRL is a line for "downtowners" than a legitimate study on the best options for transit in the area.
-Why are the terms of reference so completely different than in the city's downtown rapid transit study? I don't see anything about supporting growth in shoulder areas, relieving streetcar lines, encouraging TOD, supporting network redundancy. Of course if your only criteria is "how does this relieve the yonge line" then a line running exactly parallel to the Yonge line for 90% of its length is going to score well.
He has written before that once you draw a line on a map it acquires a mental permanency that makes it seem writ in stone. I think that statement also applies to his own pet DRL alignment.
I used to work in that area, and could have used the DRL-LONG. It would take me 1h20 min by public transit, or 20 minutes by car...
My thoughts exactly. Why did they choose LRT all the way from Sheppard to Downtown as an option when it is not technically feasible to have an LRT through downtown unless it's buried for almost the entire length south of Eglinton?
I think that it's kind of unfair to compare between different studies with different demand models. I have some other issues with their estimate: How is it that adding the western DRL only adds 300 pphpd? Going through the densest residential part of Toronto and intercepting everyone heading downtown coming from the west end of the BD line only adds 300?
animatronic
Senior Member
I'd say you're fine on the surface until you get to the Danforth. There is lots of room to run an LRT from Fairview Mall down Don Mills, across Overlea, over the DVP on Millwood and down to Pape or Donlands Station (ok - the last bit would be pretty tight, but that could be cut & covered). After that agreed that the only real option is a deep bury unless you expropriate a strip of land next to the CN ROW.
BurlOak
Senior Member
But the distance from Science Centre to downtown is about the same as the burried portion of the Eglinton LRT. If Eglinton is burried for well over half its length and still uses LRT, then why not for this Don Mills line.
MisterF
Senior Member
^Because the line is estimated to have almost 20,000 PPHPD. That's subway territory.
I'm not sure why some are skeptical of going north of Eglinton. We have four rapid transit lines going north of Eglinton already (counting Line 1 twice); having another one go that far doesn't seem farfetched.
It's been mentioned that the options shown have been whittled down from many more. It could be that stopping the DRL at Eglinton was looked at and extending it to Sheppard added enough value to make that the option to get shortlisted. It could also be that they looked at extending even farther and the benefits weren't worth the cost. From a network connectivity perspective, going to Sheppard makes sense because it would connect to another subway line. And the farther north you go, the more you relieve Yonge.
I'm not sure why some are skeptical of going north of Eglinton. We have four rapid transit lines going north of Eglinton already (counting Line 1 twice); having another one go that far doesn't seem farfetched.
I agree completely and I've long thought that focusing entirely on Yonge relief is shortsighted. And it's probably true that if Metrolinx looked at streetcar relief and network redundancy the DRL would be even more urgent. Hopefully what they're saying is true that the studies are all being coordinated so the goals between the different agencies don't keep conflicting. It seems, based on what I've seen so far, that the DRL will achieve the other goals even if Metrolinx considers them secondary.
That's the thing though, it wouldn't intercept everyone heading downtown from the west end. Unlike in the east end, that can be achieved with RER in the west end. I do agree that the DRL should go west through the highly dense west end that's away from the RER tracks. That doesn't seem to get recognized when they're only looking at Yonge relief.
WislaHD
Superstar
Plus the study looked at how much the DRL-West would relief Yonge-Bloor station. Answer is not much, because DRL-West would relieve St. George if anything.
Y-B is the problem when it comes to capacity concerns, and is what Metrolinx is looking at in the report. DRL-West isn't being considered atm likely because it is not a priority for relieving the Yonge line.
A Torontonian Now
Senior Member
The study doesn't actually say this. It doesn't mention anywhere any number of people the DRL West would pull into downtown because it only looked at people heading in the peak direction, which is west (ie towards Dundas West) rather than looking at the number of people heading into downtown from either direction.
Basically, those additional 300 pphpd cited, are 300 more who would be heading south at Pape because of the western extension. We have no idea whatsoever from this study how many people would head south/east towards downtown from Dundas West.
To me, this omission is purposeful to make DRL Long look better than DRL U, without presenting the actual comparable of which one brings more people to downtown (rather than which brings more down from the east).
Personally, the study has made a convincing enough case for DRL Long that I am now convinced the DRL should go up to Sheppard, where I previously thought north of Eglinton was a waste. But that doesn't mean the western stretch is not necessary, and possibly more urgent than north of Pape or Eglinton (albeit for reasons other than relieving Yonge).
Personally, I think we need a DRL COMPLETE option, involving both Long and U. The phasing is the only question.
macookie
Active Member
By the time the DRL eastern portion is built... the Yonge Line will need relief from all the passengers getting on north of Eglinton coming downtown.
It's possible that a Bay Street Rapid Line (western portion) commencing at Eglinton & Yonge, stopping in Lower Bay, (continuing southward on Bay to) Queen-King, and Union maybe the solution... and/or possibly becoming the western portion of the DRL.
It's possible that a Bay Street Rapid Line (western portion) commencing at Eglinton & Yonge, stopping in Lower Bay, (continuing southward on Bay to) Queen-King, and Union maybe the solution... and/or possibly becoming the western portion of the DRL.
44 North
Senior Member
This is why I try to get people to realize that the Prov/Metrolinx doesn't care all the much about a DRL. If they did, they would've joined the City of Toronto/TTC and adopted our Relief Line criteria. Even prior to this recent YRNS report, Metrolinx made their stance pretty clear. In my opinion, unless they and York Region 100% commit to Toronto's plans, I don't have full trust in them.
I believe their LRT idea is technically feasible south of Eglinton. Metrolinx says it will use "existing corridors". I'm almost certain they're referring to their Don Branch line when they say this. It'd also explain the low ~$200M/km costs of this LRT line. The glaring issue is obviously getting across downtown "on street in traffic". I don't think there's any way to logically do it - and if there was, it wouldn't be worth it. The only logical answer in my mind is a tunnel somewhere south of Danforth. This is why they need to adopt the City and TTC's Relief Line criteria.
Adjei
Senior Member
And Toronto cares about the DRL? The number one project at city hall is Smart Track and not the DRL.
WislaHD
Superstar
I think so too. The purpose of this study was to study 'Yonge Line Relief' not to study the DRL. The Yonge Line Relief study unsurprisingly found that the DRL East/Long was the best option for relieving Yonge.
Maybe it is a mistake on our parts to be trying to make conclusions on DRL West from the study when that wasn't the purpose of the study. I guess it is up to the City of Toronto to study the benefits of the DRL West.
And this is a Metrolinx study. Metrolinx can build this line without City Hall. And by the way City Hall is more than John Tory.