Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[MisterF]

The point is:


GO inside the 416 will not be twice the price of TTC forever.
The solution is not to run a TTC surface subway next to GO in the rail corridor (duplicating service, splitting ridership), the solution is to run GO frequently, with frequent stops, and fare-integrated with the TTC.

Agreed. If a mass transit line isn't attracting riders because it's too expensive the solution isn't to build another mass transit line right next to it with a cheaper price. The solution is to design a fare system that makes sense.

 

[gweed123]

Well I would emphasize that previous studies have put the western DRL along Roncy fron Queen to Dundas West, and I'm not sure many of us are debating that. I think where we would have debate is north of Bloor, since that is probably a fantasy discussion that hasn't officially been put on the table by the City or the Province.

This is true, but my point still holds true for north of Bloor, just as it does south of Bloor: put it where the people are. My preference is to run it up Dufferin to Eglinton, or at least to St Clair. That's where the existing ridership is, and that corridor has no realistic option to expand capacity except for tunnelling, as a dedicated ROW would be difficult on a 4 lane arterial with minimal ROW width.

As for UPX, fully agree with your statement with GO being the main rail service and UPX filling its intended role as express. What I do take issue with is suggesting GO is sufficient and running a DRL in parallel to it is an 'establishment of fiefdoms.' Remember that GO is still relatively more expensive to the TTC, and while some of us are fortunate enough to perhaps afford the GO, some are not. I used to live in Weston, and there are a lot of people there, as well as to the north in general (Humberlea, The Elms, Rexdale, Humbermede, Jane Heights, etc) that cannot even afford to buy monthly TTC passes on top of rent and food. They would still use tickets and tokens, rationing their trips until its necessary. Try to tell them that a relatively easy extension of subway along a rail corridor isn't worthy because of existing GO/UPX service, especially as the Jane LRT has fallen off the radar.

GO isn't sufficient now, but with RER it will be. You're trying to solve a problem with the DRL that's already much further along towards being solved via RER + fare integration. Make the pass to where the player is going to be, not where the player is.

Agreed. If a mass transit line isn't attracting riders because it's too expensive the solution isn't to build another mass transit line right next to it with a cheaper price. The solution is to design a fare system that makes sense.

Exactly. And I can almost guarantee that implementing a new fare system will be less expensive than rebuilding a corridor that was just rebuilt, in order to accommodate yet another parallel service in the corridor.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The solution is not to run a TTC surface subway next to GO in the rail corridor (duplicating service, splitting ridership), the solution is to run GO frequently, with frequent stops, and fare-integrated with the TTC.

So... SmartTrack? The plan that has largely been discredited and is impossible to build without untold billions of investments in corridor upgrades?

For the price of those GO corridor upgrades we can build a separate rapid transit line delivering RT to new parts of the city that can actually provide subway frequencies and capacity, while still providing RER-level service on those GO corridors.

 

[gweed123]

So... SmartTrack? The plan that has largely been discredited and is impossible to build without untold billions of investments in corridor upgrades?

For the price of those GO corridor upgrades we can build a separate rapid transit line delivering RT to new parts of the city that can actually provide subway frequencies and capacity, while still providing RER-level service on those GO corridors.

But the majority of the "price" you're talking about has already been spent. It was called the Georgetown South project. Adding extra tracks would mean ripping out work that was literally just finished (some of which still isn't totally finished). Most of the capacity constraints for the corridor now are beyond where a DRL would likely serve anyway (the 401 underpass, through Brampton, etc).

And it should be noted that while the initial SmartTrack plan has been discredited, what it morphed into (adding new stations along future GO RER lines) has a tonne of merit.

 

[ssiguy2]

One of the many advantages of having the DRL as part of RER is that it could be easily extended basically creating a Richmond Hill to Burlington line via Queen and anything west of Liberty Village will have already been built and the RH/northern sections would be vastly cheaper and very easy to build.

This not only makes the line seamless but very importantly makes it far more politically palatable and hence more likely to get both federal and provincial financial support. A little DRL from University to Bloor will be a hard sell because it serves primarily downtown Toronto. Toronto is not a political battleground area and the Tories haven't a hope in hell of ever getting any seats there and they will want any transit expansion to pay political dividends. Lousy way to create transit infrastructure but it's a sad reality and Toronto will have to work within that reality. A RER DRL can also be toted as a way for the 905 to receive better service and the 905 is where the election win will be determined, not downtown Toronto and this goes both provincially and federally.

Also by promising RER, the construction on the western section can begin very soon and that also will be imperative as any party will want to show shovels in the ground to sap as many political points before the next election as possible.

 

[WislaHD]

Just as an aside, where is the ridership in western Toronto that the DRL is supposed to intercept? What destinations do we want the western leg to reach?

The obvious answer is Jane Street. Between the 35 Jane and 195 Jane Rocket buses, there is combined ridership of 43,500. However, the Jane corridor is about to be intercepted in two locations, at Finch and at Eglinton with the FWLRT and the ECLRT respectively. We will have to wait and see how commuters adjust to these services, but my presumption will be that while overall ridership remains high, peak point ridership will remain below bus capacity. Further, there are not too many destinations on Jane Street itself, aside from the obvious Jane&Finch community which is getting the FWLRT.

Beyond Jane, these are the other options and their current bus routes:

Dufferin - 44,000
Landsdowne/Caledonia - 15,400
Dundas West/Junction - 4,900
Keele - 24,100
Weston - 15,200
Scarlett/Runnymede - 12,300 combined
Royal York - 8,900

There is an obvious front-runner here with Dufferin. Even more so the case when the highest ridership routes besides Dufferin (Landsdowne/Caledonia, Keele and Weston) will have the northern halves of their ridership intercepted at Eglinton, and others (Scarlett and Runnymede) being more of 'coverage' services that will probably be feeding into Mt. Dennis too.

Dufferin meanwhile, has the majority of its ridership generated south of Eglinton, and has multiple major destinations (Little Portugal, Dufferin Mall, Galleria Mall Redevelopment, Corso Italia and Fairbank (as well as Yorkdale Mall, if extended that far north)).

I believe that if not Dufferin, then the Relief Line should go to South Etobicoke instead. Creating a multi-modal hub at Sunnyside/Roncesvalles Carhouse would be very practical for the overall network, and the density at Humber Bay Shores is more than enough to support higher order transit.

 

[44 North]

Exactly. And I can almost guarantee that implementing a new fare system will be less expensive than rebuilding a corridor that was just rebuilt, in order to accommodate yet another parallel service in the corridor.

I'm an advocate for studying using parts of Georgetown South north of Bloor, but I think it's safe to say at this point that it wouldn't be on the corridor. So by "parts" myself (and possibly others) are more referring to the subsurface right-of-way. And one of the reasons I think the ROW is optimal is its bearing (NW-SE), that it intercepts some key locales along the way, and possibly cost-cutting reasons like less utility relocation. But a better alternative in place of GTS would probably be Dundas W/Weston Rd.

 

[BurlOak]

Looking at the population density in Toronto, going up Dufferin makes sense.

Maybe the Sheppard line could go under the Downsview airport and connect with the Dufferin line at the west edge of Yorkdale. This opposed to the option of connecting Sheppard to the Spaina line and interlining.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Another consider is giving the DRL two branches in the west. One to follow the UPX/GO/RER corridor, the other to serve the Exhibition Place and Roncesvalles. Other cities have subways/metros with branch operations. If each west-side branch has 10 minute service in the non-rush hours, there would still be 5 minute service in the east side.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

The advantages of a Queen-Parkside-Keele-Weston-Galt alignment are too much to ignore, just to list a couple:

- Non-stop express service from Queen-Roncy to Bloor-Keele (roughly 3 minutes)
- Doesn't disrupt built-up area of Roncesvalles nor streetcar service during construction
- Cut-and-cover method could be used along the edge of High Park
- At Bloor, the DRL tunnel could be shallow, close to the surface as there's no existing tunnel to navigate under as the BD Line is elevated through this section
- Apartment cluster between Keele and High Park gets access to another station
- Density at Keele/Dundas greater than at Dupont/Dundas
- Stockyards redevelopment gets direct access to subway

I have mixed feelings about using Jane over going over to and up Hwy 27 though. 35/195 Jane may see a decline in ridership post-Crosstown and post-FWLRT as most customers opt to transfer at Eglinton and Finch rather than travel southwards to Bloor.

If the DRL went to Humber College, I think most students would opt to take a line that heads directly downtown over the FWLRT which requires a transfer at Keele. But that's just my two cents.

I honestly don't see why people advocate for spending billions on shoe-horning a subway into a rail corridor that is already going to be featuring subway-level service. It's a complete waste. Just because there's no fare integration now doesn't justify spending billions running parallel services so each agency can keep their fiefdoms.

The DRL alignment shouldn't be a "path of least resistance" alignment. It should be put where the people are. For the N-S western leg, that means using either Dufferin, Lansdowne, Roncesvalles, or Parkside/Keele.

And re UPX: Just because there's insufficient service on the GTS corridor now doesn't mean that UPX should be modified in order to provide that service. The best option is to "fill out" the GO service that's supposed to be there, so that UPX can perform the function it was intended to: a downtown-to-airport express train.

Okay Gweed, i got you. You thought I was going for the rail corridor, I like Parkside, and I like it even more now with Hopkins reasoning.

Just as an aside, where is the ridership in western Toronto that the DRL is supposed to intercept? What destinations do we want the western leg to reach?

The obvious answer is Jane Street. Between the 35 Jane and 195 Jane Rocket buses, there is combined ridership of 43,500. However, the Jane corridor is about to be intercepted in two locations, at Finch and at Eglinton with the FWLRT and the ECLRT respectively. We will have to wait and see how commuters adjust to these services, but my presumption will be that while overall ridership remains high, peak point ridership will remain below bus capacity. Further, there are not too many destinations on Jane Street itself, aside from the obvious Jane&Finch community which is getting the FWLRT.

Beyond Jane, these are the other options and their current bus routes:

Dufferin - 44,000
Landsdowne/Caledonia - 15,400
Dundas West/Junction - 4,900
Keele - 24,100
Weston - 15,200
Scarlett/Runnymede - 12,300 combined
Royal York - 8,900

There is an obvious front-runner here with Dufferin. Even more so the case when the highest ridership routes besides Dufferin (Landsdowne/Caledonia, Keele and Weston) will have the northern halves of their ridership intercepted at Eglinton, and others (Scarlett and Runnymede) being more of 'coverage' services that will probably be feeding into Mt. Dennis too.

Dufferin meanwhile, has the majority of its ridership generated south of Eglinton, and has multiple major destinations (Little Portugal, Dufferin Mall, Galleria Mall Redevelopment, Corso Italia and Fairbank (as well as Yorkdale Mall, if extended that far north)).

I believe that if not Dufferin, then the Relief Line should go to South Etobicoke instead. Creating a multi-modal hub at Sunnyside/Roncesvalles Carhouse would be very practical for the overall network, and the density at Humber Bay Shores is more than enough to support higher order transit.

Thing is, the farther west, the more catchment we get. Dufferin kind of separates the west end from downtown.

 

[Palma]

The 29 Dufferin bus doesn't just go to Yorkdale. It continues north and turns on Wilson and ends at Wilson Station.

Yes I know. I never implied it did not. All I said was it stops in front of Yorkdale (does not go near to the subway to stop)

 

[Euphoria]

There are already city plans for a future Jane St. LRT and ST/GO RER will provide ample service in the rail corridor between Dundas West Station and Union just north of Parkdale, especially if the fare structure more closely resembles a TTC regular fare. A route for the western leg of the DRL that meets multiple infrastructure needs in a cost effective way is to run a subway line connecting Eglinton West Station to a new intermodal station (subway and GO RER/ST) at Bathurst and Front (under the proposed Rail Deck Park). Exits to and from the existing Western Gardiner Expressway would be included in this project (just west of Bathurst) and the new subway line would be constructed as part of an Allen Expressway Toll Tunnel, basically a continuation of the Allen underground south of Eglinton. Some of the subway construction would be financed by the tolls. This infrastructure makes either future burial or simple removal of the existing elevated Gardiner Expressway easier, as there would finally be a viable offloading of traffic from the (free)western Gardiner to the surface street grid (onto a Front St. extension and onto Adelaide and Richmond Streets).

This project allows for a European-style park and transfer (to transit) for drivers entering the core. The route I've proposed for this leg of the DRL follows an alignment just east of Dufferin in the north and beneath Ossington in the south. There are no buildings more than a few storeys tall along this route, meaning there are no major obstacles to tunneling. Excuse my lousy maps, but hopefully they convey the route. Union Station is in dire need of relief, which this intermodal station would provide, mirroring in the west the proposed intermodal station at Unilever in the east. Since this is a new highway, tolling it wouldn't offend drivers on existing routes. It's a partial funding solution to the DRL that would ease congestion for all commuters. The red line represents the current city-planned alignment for the DRL. The black line represents the my proposed north south expressway tunnel and subway line. Red stars are subway stations. Blue stars are ST stations. Green stars are GO stations. The intermodal station combines all three. The black stars are highway on/off ramps, discrete one lane exits that rise to street level. Note that the DRL along Queen (in red) could still be extended farther west along Queen. The highway toll tunnel(s) could also be extended east under Adelaide and Richmond Streets to the DVP, replacing the existing elevated Gardiner.

Then to the south...

And farther south to the intermodal station (where the proposed subway line terminates) and to the western Gardiner (where the proposed expressway ends)...

 

[W. K. Lis]

... the new subway line would be constructed as part of an Allen Expressway Toll Tunnel, basically a continuation of the Allen underground south of Eglinton. Some of the subway construction would be financed by the tolls. This infrastructure makes either future burial or simple removal of the existing elevated Gardiner Expressway easier, as there would finally be a viable offloading of traffic from the (free)western Gardiner to the surface street grid (onto a Front St. extension and onto Adelaide and Richmond Streets).

...

No more expressways will be built for the downtown. Period.

 

[Euphoria]

My plan reduces the impact of highways at the surface, where they count for pedestrians and cyclists. It reduces congestion, solves the Gardiner problem and the funding and routing challenges for a long section of the DRL, the crowding at Union Station, and the poor experience at street level in a city that needs to be reconnected to the lake. It also has minimal financial impact on users of existing highways and enhances transit connections. It's a no-lose because it can be constructed through user fees while most existing infrastructure remains intact. It's a careful plan.

 

[BurlOak]

I still say extending the 401 is a better plan than the Allen.

Any proposed route for the Allen extension goes under streets with residences. It would be very difficult to expropriate the homes in order for interchanges to be built.

400 extension would require a interchange at Lawrence, Then go under the railway tracks all the way downtown. This is mostly industrial land adjacent, so at least its possible to build the underground interchanges. There are also no utilities under the track so tunneling is easier.