Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[BurlOak]

So this subway would be about 1km away from the B-D subway (when it is extended to Honeydale/427). That's closer than SmartTrack and B-D subway at STC.

I could see a streetcar/LRT on Queensway and Lakeshore that merge to be grade-separated from Humber to a DRL connection. Where this connection would be was what should have been studied with the DRL since it is not possible to choose a route through downtown without knowing where it will end up. Possible points are:
Roncesvalles/Queen/King, The Ex, or Dufferin/Queen/GO.

 

[WislaHD]

So this subway would be about 1km away from the B-D subway (when it is extended to Honeydale/427). That's closer than SmartTrack and B-D subway at STC.

Yah, I am thinking that Sherway Gardens would be a good terminus/interchange point for both subways in this expansion scenario.

 

[crs1026]

Yah, I am thinking that Sherway Gardens would be a good terminus/interchange point for both subways in this expansion scenario.

What an interesting fantasy map it would be to take Line 2 to Sherway, loop it down to the Queensway, and send it back to Don Mills as the DRL !

Seriously, for the same money I would rather see LRT down the Queensway, and 501 upgraded to LRT on Lakeshore, and LRT or BRT on Kipling Lakeshore to Albion. And extend 512 to Kipling.

The concern about two parallel subways so close together is valid. Etobicoke needs faster trips, but we are short of needing subway capacity even with further densification.

Oh, and when Scarboro is done with it - anything that can be salvaged from SRT when it's finished can be used to connect The "Kip District" ( what a flaming disgrace that name is.... Scarboro must be rolling with laughter ) with Renforth Hub and the Airport.

- Paul

 

[A Torontonian Now]

There's no such thing as "direction" when you're talking about sidewalks or PATH. I don't see any lane markings on the ground. Talking about taking advantage of "capacity in both directions" 100% disingenuous. If that is how the department of planning is thinking then god help us all. Their batting average is low as it is.

Clearly there was some confusion about what taking advantage of capacity in both directions meant. I will try to explain, although this may be difficult without a diagram (I am neither good at photoshop nor do I have time to draw one at the moment).

Of course there are not lanes on a sidewalk or in the PATH. However, there is a limited width, and therefore a limited number of people who can traverse in that space. Right now, assume all of them are coming north from Union (not accurate, as many are coming from King or St. Andrew, but a two-point analysis will demonstrate the excess capacity better). Some people coming North along Bay get off at the RBC Centre, some at First Canadian, some at Bay Adelaide. Assuming that PATH/sidewalk capacity is fully used at Union, and an equal number work at each of those three areas, but the sidewalk/PATH capacity is the same in each location, you have 2/3 empty capacity at Bay Adelaide. Bay Adelaide is close to Queen Street. If there were a subway alignment at Queen, many people would get off there and head south, using the empty capacity between Queen and Adelaide. If the subway were put to the south, then the already crowded areas would become more crowded or overcapacity, creating a choke-point that would render that commute less efficient.

In the evening, when people are going home, the excess capacity is opposite, (i.e., heading north to Queen) and would be used again with a Queen Street alignment.

I didn't take the time to explain this so clearly earlier, because to those of us actually working downtown every day, it is intuitive. At 8:30 in the morning, it is obvious that one would rather walk southbound on Bay Street from Queen to Adelaide, than northbound from King to Adelaide.

 

[dunkalunk]

A west extension of the DRL, plus sensible enhancement of 501 into south Etobicoke, may actually be a better idea than the old WWLRT. The WWLRT route was a bit tortuous, has all those Queens Quay trackage complexities, and ends at Union hence adds congestion where we don't want it.

I'm having a hard time envisioning building heavy rail beyond Roncy, ridership isn't likely to reach that volume. IIRC the high ridership numbers for WWLRT reflected the Liberty area, which DRL can serve instead.

The only negative would be the need to transfer from 501 to DRL.A solution might be to have DRL terminate at Roncy, and bring the 501 east onto King, with an underground segment under the intersection, and traffic segregation from that point eastwards. That gives a fairly fast one-seat ride to King and Bay for those not transferring to DRL.

I worry about bringing DRL up Roncy, because it would trigger development that would kill the character of that neighbourhood. Maybe that's inevitable.

For constructability, development, and network connectivity reasons, terminating the line at Sunnyside makes sense as part of second phase extensions. It may be a while before it's possible to relocate the Roncesvalles Carhouse (maybe in the Hydro ROW near the Ontario Food Terminal?)

If the DRL were extended up to Dundas West and if no stations are built between Sunnyside and Dundas West, there won't be much in the way of development pressure on Roncesvalles except for at those two nodes. I can't imagine the the subway being able to make the turn from Queen to Roncesvalles while still being able to serve Roncesvalles at the same time anyways. Perhaps the line could eventually be tunnelled under Sunnyside Ave and then curve back to serve Dundas West/Bloor Station.

I also really do like the idea of Bringing the WWRLT (or Queensway Streetcar) into an underground station at Queen/Roncesvalles to both improve the line's speed and to facilitate transfers with the Relief Line and the GO Lakeshore line.

If the DRL's alignment is along Queen instead of King, I don't see it serving Liberty Village as well as well as the WWLRT alignment along the Gardiner/Lakeshore Rail Corridor. The central section of the WWLRT also has the potential to be built far sooner than a western extension of the Relief Line because it is largely at-grade. Also, from my recollection, the most recent plans for the WWLRT also had the line running underneath the Gardiner and along Bremner (directly serving CityPlace) to connect to Union rather than follow Queen's Quay.

 

[Hopkins123]

For constructability, development, and network connectivity reasons, terminating the line at Sunnyside makes sense as part of second phase extensions. It may be a while before it's possible to relocate the Roncesvalles Carhouse (maybe in the Hydro ROW near the Ontario Food Terminal?)

If the DRL were extended up to Dundas West and if no stations are built between Sunnyside and Dundas West, there won't be much in the way of development pressure on Roncesvalles except for at those two nodes. I can't imagine the the subway being able to make the turn from Queen to Roncesvalles while still being able to serve Roncesvalles at the same time anyways. Perhaps the line could eventually be tunnelled under Sunnyside Ave and then curve back to serve Dundas West/Bloor Station.

I also really do like the idea of Bringing the WWRLT (or Queensway Streetcar) into and underground station at Queen/Roncesvalles to both improve the line's speed and to facilitate transfers with the Relief Line and the GO Lakeshore line.

If the DRL's alignment is along Queen instead of King, I don't see it serving Liberty Village as well as well as the WWLRT alignment along the Gardiner/Lakeshore Rail Corridor. The central section of the WWLRT also has the potential to be built far sooner than a western extension of the Relief Line because it is largely at-grade. Also, from my recollection, the most recent plans for the WWLRT also had the line running underneath the Gardiner and along Bremner (directly serving CityPlace) to connect to Union rather than follow Queen's Quay.

The Dundas West connection and tunneling underneath Roncesvalles is overrated, IMO. The Dufferin-Queen station would already provide a direct connection to Kitchener, Milton and Barrie GO services, UPX and SmartTrack. With SmartTrack to Bloor GO/Dundas West, the Queen Line could be redirected westward, instead of northward, to Mimico.

 

[gweed123]

I'm curious as to the aversion to extend a subway to Queensway. Certainly, it has much greater redevelopment and densification potential than Vaughan and Scarborough Town Centre. Humber Bay Shores already shows this area is viable for development, and within the next decade the Six Points Interchange will do too. Pretty much the entire area between the 427 and Islington along Dundas is set for development. It's foolish to think that The Queensway, with it's proximity to downtown commerce and employment (i.e. the main driver of growth in this Global City Region, that will doubtfully ever be shared with Vaughan or Scarborough) will not share a similar fate in the long-term.

Personally, I'd rather see an in-median LRT along the Queensway instead of a subway. It would connect quite nicely to a hub at Roncesvalles, where the DRL, Southern Etobicoke LRTs (Queensway & Lake Shore), and RER could all meet. It would also be much less expensive, and could be built all the way to Sherway. It could even be extended to the Hurontario LRT, forming a supplemental RT link to Square One.

 

[Euphoria]

When you talk about extending LRT's endlessly out to the burbs, it reminds me of the old radial streetcars that extended into areas like Port Credit a century ago. Unless these can reach high speeds, there will always be an aspect of the horse and carriage about them. Don't get me wrong, I love streetcars, which is the main reason I'd rather see the RL built under Richmond with entrances on Queen, so the streetcar tracks can remain in place. My question is, why would you sit for 90 minutes on an ultra long streetcar trip from Hurontario to the core when you could do it in 30 minutes by GO train? Would we be better served to extend Bloor Danforth subway west along Dundas? A Queensway route sounds like another Mississauga Busway, the one along the 403. No one really lives along it. The population densities are tiny. To my mind an RL should be an inner loop that hits key destinations in the old City of Toronto. ST is more of an outer loop, though there's no reason that the east-west leg of an RL couldn't be extended over time. Just please don't tear up streetcar tracks downtown. They're an added commuting choice that will be needed to capture overflow in peak periods and part of the city's character.

 

[WislaHD]

When you talk about extending LRT's endlessly out to the burbs, it reminds me of the old radial streetcars that extended into areas like Port Credit a century ago. Unless these can reach high speeds, there will always be an aspect of the horse and carriage about them. Don't get me wrong, I love streetcars, which is the main reason I'd rather see the RL built under Richmond with entrances on Queen, so the streetcar tracks can remain in place. My question is, why would you sit for 90 minutes on an ultra long streetcar trip from Hurontario to the core when you could do it in 30 minutes by GO train? Would we be better served to extend Bloor Danforth subway west along Dundas? A Queensway route sounds like another Mississauga Busway, the one along the 403. No one really lives along it. The population densities are tiny. To my mind an RL should be an inner loop that hits key destinations in the old City of Toronto. ST is more of an outer loop, though there's no reason that the east-west leg of an RL couldn't be extended over time. Just please don't tear up streetcar tracks downtown. They're an added commuting choice that will be needed to capture overflow in peak periods and part of the city's character.

This is legitimately a problem in Melbourne, who unlike Toronto, never stopped building out their streetcar network into the burbs. We are entering this issue here too with our subway network, proposing subway extensions to Vaughan and Scarborough Town Centre when the latter is as far away from the core as Square One in Mississauga. At this distance, subway travel is both costly and inefficient.

As for LRTs, the Eglinton Crosstown is faster than all of our subways in the tunneled portion (34km/h average speed), and sits at 25km/h in the one-street in-median portion. So, LRT's range for efficient travel is roughly equivalent to our subway network. I don't think a Queensway LRT (or the WWLRT for that matter) would be any less inefficient than the Bloor Line for commuter travel.

But once you go outside the travel range for efficient travel by intermediate rapid transit, LRTs become as impractical as subways for serving the suburbs directly. Which is my main criticism for LRT plans in Scarborough, and is I believe one of the failures of the SRT. Fortunately, LRT's can be utilized very efficiently as connector routes (direct replacement for bus routes) to other forms of rapid transit, and should be built in this manner in the suburbs.

Ultimately, technology choice is irrelevant and is trumped by good transit planning practices. LRT or Subway makes no difference if the route is poorly planned out (e.g. to STC, or the Sheppard corridor), and it doesn't matter how many times you try to convince the public that LRTs are amazing when you force an unnecessary transfer on them.

 

[Euphoria]

Good points all, and does raise the question of whether we should just run the streetcars underground through the core like we do for the trek from Union to Harbourfront, especially since Queen and Osgoode stations are already roughed in for streetcars. I know the new cars would require platform adjustments. If these cars can reach up to 70 kph and our new subways are maxing out at around 65 kph (I know they could reach up to 88 if they could accelerate long enough, which they can't in our network), why don't we take our cues from the infrastructure in place and save a billion or more by sticking to streetcars? It also makes the transfers between the on-street and underground stretches of the route seamless as the cars simply sink below or rise above street grade.

 

[gweed123]

When you talk about extending LRT's endlessly out to the burbs, it reminds me of the old radial streetcars that extended into areas like Port Credit a century ago. Unless these can reach high speeds, there will always be an aspect of the horse and carriage about them. Don't get me wrong, I love streetcars, which is the main reason I'd rather see the RL built under Richmond with entrances on Queen, so the streetcar tracks can remain in place. My question is, why would you sit for 90 minutes on an ultra long streetcar trip from Hurontario to the core when you could do it in 30 minutes by GO train? Would we be better served to extend Bloor Danforth subway west along Dundas? A Queensway route sounds like another Mississauga Busway, the one along the 403. No one really lives along it. The population densities are tiny. To my mind an RL should be an inner loop that hits key destinations in the old City of Toronto. ST is more of an outer loop, though there's no reason that the east-west leg of an RL couldn't be extended over time. Just please don't tear up streetcar tracks downtown. They're an added commuting choice that will be needed to capture overflow in peak periods and part of the city's character.

The key is to provide connections to higher order transit lines (Subway and/or RER) at strategic locations along the line, so that the LRT performs a dual function as both a high capacity feeder route, and as a long haul route for those who actually want to use it as such. An LRT along the Queensway would feed into a Roncesvalles hub, where a connection to either the DRL or RER could be made.

Hurontario was a great example of this (I say was because it lost its northern connection). It used to have 3 transfers to E-W GO routes, and a connection to an E-W Transitway.

 

[jcam]

My personal opinion, I think that it is more likely that the line will stop at Roncesvalles. It will have a terminus for the Queensway (not Queen) streetcar, for the King streetcar, and for 40 Junction bus. The 40 will be extended southward from Bloor Street to Queen Street and will provide local service on Roncesvalles in place of the 504. The 504's tracks won't be ripped up though due to the need to maintain access to the car barn. The 506 Carlton will be routed to Dundas West Station for most of its operating hours, certainly during the morning and afternoon rushes. Maybe an "A" branch will exist in the summer and on weekends to take it into High Park Loop. A new, rush hour only, local bus will operate between Keele Station and Dundas West Stations via Parkside Drive, Howard Park Avenue, and Dundas Street West. It may be cancelled very quickly due to low ridership.

Would all of the streetcars likely converge in a loop-level of the station that's built out over the GO corridor? So from street you walk into the streetcar loop, down a level to the RER platforms, and down another the the subway platforms.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I'm wondering if the streetcar tunnels leading to the Union Station loop, used by 510 and 509, should also be extended up Bay Street to loop at the City Hall Station of the DRL. The loop needs upgrading anyways, and rather looping at Union Station, just continue it up to Queen Street. Maybe looping underground along Richmond, York, and Queen? Maybe an additional station at King Street as well.

 

[gweed123]

Would all of the streetcars likely converge in a loop-level of the station that's built out over the GO corridor? So from street you walk into the streetcar loop, down a level to the RER platforms, and down another the the subway platforms.

The way I see it being configured is that the King streetcar is maintained, still connecting to Dundas West. The first level below ground would be the mezzanine level, which would be more or less under the current Roncesvalles barn. It would feature a central walking area, with a clockwise streetcar/LRT loop around the entire perimeter. There would be 3 portals to enter the loop (Roncesvalles from the north, King from the south/east, and Queensway from the west). There would also be a set of stairs down a level, connecting to a walkway that would connect to above the RER station in the rail corridor. This link would be above the subway platform level, but under the mezzanine level. The subway platform would be directly below the mezzanine level.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

I'm wondering if the streetcar tunnels leading to the Union Station loop, used by 510 and 509, should also be extended up Bay Street to loop at the City Hall Station of the DRL. The loop needs upgrading anyways, and rather looping at Union Station, just continue it up to Queen Street. Maybe looping underground along Richmond, York, and Queen? Maybe an additional station at King Street as well.

Interesting idea, I like it, but I believe it would be too costly to overcome the technical challenges. The Union loop would need to be reconfigured to allow the streetcar to pass over or under Line 1, and then you have the PATH and utilities to City Hall. Lots of construction and money for a third N-S tunnel downtown. I don't think it would fly.