Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

Nobody's saying a subway line is supposed to be full at Station 1, but a Queen subway line from Neville to Long Branch?

The whole concept of the DRL is flawed anyway. It would force most passengers to transfer twice from the B-D instead of once. A true DRL would parallel the Yonge line's stops south of Bloor, and not come into the core on an E-W alignment into Union. That would require backtracking for anyone wanting to get off at King, Queen, Dundas, etc.

Just read the 1966 study on integrated subway operation and you'll see that most passengers in those days did not backtrack, even with a transfer-free ride. And you expect them to backtrack with not one, but two transfers?
 
Some of the posts here about a full end-to-end Queen subway are really stupid. There is insufficient demand at the outer ends of Queen to justify a subway.
That may be true in the East End, but Sherway Gardens and the area around it is definitely a good terminus in the West End. I don't even think a Queen Subway should be built. The most that should happen (and it should happen) is to build ROWs on Queen and to have a line that runs to Sherway Gardens along The Queensway.

This is all moot anyway. A DRL or Queen line is not going to happen for at least 20 years. By then, things may shift again to who knows what.
Now that's just pessimism.

The original DRL was the <expletive-deleted> University subway, so just build another stub, under Church, from Bloor to Union to off-load Yonge and be done with it.
I could see a need for a Jarvis Subway, and maybe that could even be built before the true DRL. It would probably be not super-expensive (even by the TTC's subway costs,) and even cost-effective. But the truth is that a real DRL is needed, not just another Downtown subway.


EDIT:
LowerBay said:
The whole concept of the DRL is flawed anyway. It would force most passengers to transfer twice from the B-D instead of once. A true DRL would parallel the Yonge line's stops south of Bloor, and not come into the core on an E-W alignment into Union. That would require backtracking for anyone wanting to get off at King, Queen, Dundas, etc.
The point is that someone that works relatively far south (King or Front or wherever) would be able to use the DRL to get downtown, while someone working at like Yonge and Dundas or even Jarvis and Dundas could take Bloor to Yonge then go down. The point of a DRL isn't to eliminate all passengers at Yonge and Bloor, it's to give people more options so they're not all basically forced to go to a choke point. The DRL's job would be even better if there was faster streetcar service on Queen and King, which could easily be done with a King Transit Mall and ROWs along Queen. That way, someone could take the DRL to the streetcar to finish their journey.
 
Last edited:
Consider that the ridership of the GO trains is twice that of the TTC ridership at the Union subway station, meanign most GO train riders don't transfer to the subway. If Union is a good enough stop for the fat and lazy 905er, then surely it will be good enough for the average TTC rider, especially if it means a more direct and faster alternative to the Bloor-Danforth line.
 
"The point of a DRL isn't to eliminate all passengers at Yonge and Bloor, it's to give people more options so they're not all basically forced to go to a choke point".

They're not all forced to go through B-Y today. Why don't those passengers from the east transfer at St. George instead? Because it's out of their way ... and so would be the DRL.

As I said before, look at the subway O-D surveys from 1966 and 1969 with respect to around-the-horn movements at Union. Most passengers will not go out of their way, even if the longer trip is less congested. Most passengers boarding southbound Yonge trains at B-Y are not getting off at Union.

The only way you're going to get passengers out of B-Y, is either by a direct transfer-free ride (where the new DRL interlines with B-d), or with ONE, and ONLY ONE transfer with no backtracking, and maybe a little extra walk.
 
The only way you're going to get passengers out of B-Y, is either by a direct transfer-free ride (where the new DRL interlines with B-d), or with ONE, and ONLY ONE transfer with no backtracking, and maybe a little extra walk.

That's exactly what most downtown workers would have with the DRL. Coming from the east, they would transfer at Pape rather than Yonge, and then would ride the DRL to Union from where they would be a short walk through the PATH from all of the MINT office buildings. People in the Metro Hall/RBC/Simcoe Place area would be well-served by the Convention Centre stop. Another part of the DRL's appeal is that it's significantly faster than Bloor and Yonge. The originally designed line was only going to have one stop between Pape and Union. Even as we've proposed it, riders would save significant time over transferring at Yonge. By the latter route, Union is 11 stops from Pape while by DRL it would be only five stops.

The effectiveness of the DRL's relief function would increase enormously if it extended north along Don Mills as Steve Munro has endorsed. It would capture east-west bus route riders who are now traveling all the way to Yonge, both saving them time and taking them off the congested Yonge line so that it can be extended north and accommodate new development in its immediate environs.
 
That's exactly what most downtown workers would have with the DRL. Coming from the east, they would transfer at Pape rather than Yonge, and then would ride the DRL to Union from where they would be a short walk through the PATH from all of the MINT office buildings. People in the Metro Hall/RBC/Simcoe Place area would be well-served by the Convention Centre stop. Another part of the DRL's appeal is that it's significantly faster than Bloor and Yonge. The originally designed line was only going to have one stop between Pape and Union. Even as we've proposed it, riders would save significant time over transferring at Yonge. By the latter route, Union is 11 stops from Pape while by DRL it would be only five stops.
It's true, and the math doesn't lie. I'm pretty sure that even people that work at University and Queen would take the DRL and then the University subway to Osgoode (that is, if they wouldn't even walk from Union.) The YUS would be taken by those that work in the more northern portion of Downtown, and those that are already on the YUS before Bloor.

The effectiveness of the DRL's relief function would increase enormously if it extended north along Don Mills as Steve Munro has endorsed. It would capture east-west bus route riders who are now traveling all the way to Yonge, both saving them time and taking them off the congested Yonge line so that it can be extended north and accommodate new development in its immediate environs.
Not only would it's relief function increase enormously, but it would well-serve the many, many people that live around Don Mills. There's a lot of density all the way up to Finch, and it would help a lot to build a better network. If this was to happen though, I hope that it has a decent stop spacing, like a station every 600-800 m.

In the original Phase I DRL (Eglinton-Pape-Union,) I would definitely invest in a 3rd express track that would only stop at Eglinton, Pape, Queen and Union, and only run during rush-hour. This would maximize the effectiveness of the DRL by allowing it to be both a local line and a rush hour relief line at the same time, with an unsubstantial extra cost.
 
The only way to fully relieve the Yonge line is to run the DRL north of Danforth...it would dramatically change the ridership volumes on both Danforth and Yonge. Save people a 20 minute bus ride on one end of their trip and they'll be much more willing to add a 5 minute walk on the other end.

This is all moot anyway. A DRL or Queen line is not going to happen for at least 20 years. By then, things may shift again to who knows what.

The original DRL was the <expletive-deleted> University subway, so just build another stub, under Church, from Bloor to Union to off-load Yonge and be done with it.

Just read the 1966 study on integrated subway operation and you'll see that most passengers in those days did not backtrack, even with a transfer-free ride. And you expect them to backtrack with not one, but two transfers?

Since it's all moot because who knows what will happen to these lines or to downtown in general 20 years from now, we need to go back and base transit expansion on a 1966 study?

Nobody's saying a subway line is supposed to be full at Station 1, but a Queen subway line from Neville to Long Branch?

It doesn't matter where it goes...it cannot be full at the terminus station. Why on earth would you want it to be anywhere near full? There's far worse places to put a subway line than on Queen from Neville to Long Branch, but, once again, I'm saying we should not build a subway on Queen. Maybe in 100 years it'll happen, but we'll all be dead by then, so who cares.
 
Not only would it's relief function increase enormously, but it would well-serve the many, many people that live around Don Mills. There's a lot of density all the way up to Finch, and it would help a lot to build a better network. If this was to happen though, I hope that it has a decent stop spacing, like a station every 600-800 m.

In the original Phase I DRL (Eglinton-Pape-Union,) I would definitely invest in a 3rd express track that would only stop at Eglinton, Pape, Queen and Union, and only run during rush-hour. This would maximize the effectiveness of the DRL by allowing it to be both a local line and a rush hour relief line at the same time, with an unsubstantial extra cost.

No intention to single you out, but this post happens to be similar to many others pertaining to station spacing. I disagree with the idea of creating super express lines that only have local stops 600-800m apart. Under this model, too few people have access to express trains, while local stops in general are a little farther apart than they have to be.

The most ideal express stop spacing in Toronto is 2km apart in order to match concession roads. This is also far enough apart to allow the train to reach full speed and stay at full speed for minutes at a time. Local stops should be 500m apart like they are downtown to really open up access to all neighbourhoods along the line. The DRL needs express tracks because few areas are as ripe for subway development, but the line still has to be fast. I'd argue that if you're going to build 3 tracks, just make it 4 because it will probably be required by the time the line is finished anyway.
 
Last edited:
The fundamental disagreement here is the degree to which Y/Bloor needs relieving and to what extent that should be prioritized over promoting ridership growth. Alignments and station spacing can only be agreed upon if there is consensus over how relief of Y/Bloor should be prioritized. The status quo opinion seems to be that relief of Y/Bloor is the foremost concern. To that extent, I would agree that a rail corridor alignment with few intermediate stops would be the best option. Contrarily, ridership growth would best be served by dense station spacing through existing urban neighborhoods which lack quality transit.

Maybe I haven't been clear on this, but it is my opinion that relief should not be prioritized over transit expansion and improvement.

Financially, relief would not benefit the TTC. A line focused on relief would by design have few intermediate stations. The majority of such a line's ridership would be transfers to/from the Bloor line en route to downtown and the vast majority of these already exist. From the TTC's perspective, the system would carry roughly the same amount of people as the present over more subway and would have paid a few billion dollars to do so. It may sound wrong to prioritize the TTC's finances over the comfort of Y/Bloor users, but there is no free lunch. The capital costs would simply come out of other project and the deteriorating operating performance would suck money from, say, the streetcars or suburban feeder routes.

Performance wise, a relief line is suboptimal. Crowding at Y/Bloor is very time sensitive and concentrated in the peak hours. The issue isn't crowding, but time specific crowding. If we build an express bypass the tunnels and stations will exist every hour of the day in every direction. You are paying for 168 hours a week of relief when you really only need maybe 20, and more to the point would only need it in the prevailing direction (a DRL in the AM would relieve westbound Bloor passengers headed to Union, 1/8 of the total trip combos possible that would interchange at Y/Bloor, not including through trips). So it is a very inefficient proposal because it doesn't consider the timing of crowding nor orientation. The solution? Subsidized express buses to parallel Yonge (Avenue, Bayview, Mt. Pleasant), taking out subway seats for rush hour, hire people to literally push people to the ends of the platforms, create boarding cues (like at wonderland) and get downtown governments to try to schedule around rush hour. If all else fails, charge a rush hour premium. The key is creating solutions that can be scaled to demand.

Meanwhile it is no secret that transport downtown is not what it could be. Without trying to go out of my way to bash streetcars, it is self evident they are not reliable means of rapid transit for reasons that are implicit to their design. So, it is my view, that the priority has to be improved transit downtown as opposed to relief schemes. I don't feel confident asserting definitely which route would best improve transit. Front or King could well provide this better than Adelaide or Richmond, I care more about the goal than the means. The rail corridor option seems misleading. Though its premise is lower costs by using existing ROWs, this has probably been overstated. We are only talking about mile and change where the rail corridor would be available (Don River to St. Lawrence Market), all of which will be only ~250m north of the WELRT and 500m south of King.
 
I agree that providing service to new neighbourhoods should be prioritized over relief. That's why I support the DRL along the Front/Railway/Pape/Don Mills alignment. The Don Mills area is very poorly served by transit considering its high density development. The area along Pape is also rapidly developing and would benefit from improved service, while riders from further east could benefit from transferring to the subway for a quick and reliable ride home. Closer to downtown, the route would directly serve the West Don Lands, St. Lawrence, East Bayfront, Liberty Village and the northern Port Lands--together the largest areas of growth in the downtown core.

I do not support the initial DRL plan for only one station (with two optional stations) from Pape to Union. I support intermediate stations at Gerrard, Queen/Pape, Cherry, and Sherbourne/Jarvis. That would put all of those neighbourhoods within 500m of a subway station.

Another thought I've had is that depending on how the Portlands/Filmport area is to be developed, it might make sense to swing down to Lakeshore and build some stations along there. It should be very easy to fit in an elevated line along the Lakeshore east of the Don.
 
If Queen is ever replaced by a subway, it should be in full. Either do it all, or leave it alone. A DRL along Queen would do neither. No place needs a subway, but maybe we want a line that runs to Long Branch.

I honestly think the best solution for Queen (separate from the DRL) is pretty much exactly what's being proposed along Eglinton now. Heck, it makes more sense along Queen than it does along Eglinton.

The best part about doing it that way is the ROW in the West is already built, just begin the tunnel where the dedicated lane ROW ends. The eastern part would be a bit more complex, seeing as how the ROW doesn't exist yet.

But overall, I think LRT tunnel is the best way to go along Queen. Closer stations, more local service, increased frequencies. This needs to be built AFTER the DRL though, as they serve two fundamentally different purposes.
 
If the Don Mills LRT tunnel was extended south to Queen, Jane LRT was extended south to the Queensway, and the SRT replacement was extended south to Kingston Road... would curving the Queen subway up to the Bloor-Danforth line as a DRL really make sense? I would think it would make more sense to keep it as a east-west route eventually running from Kipling and Queensway to Kingston Road and Midland.
 
My solution for Queen and King, at least in the medium term, is converting them to a one-way pair with two traffic lanes (one for parking off-peak) and two dedicated to the streetcar. Then hire somebody who knows how to run streetcars on a regular headway and install real signal priority equipment so that they don't have to stop at red lights. For the kind of local trips that predominate along King and Queen, it would work well.

If the Don Mills LRT tunnel was extended south to Queen, Jane LRT was extended south to the Queensway, and the SRT replacement was extended south to Kingston Road... would curving the Queen subway up to the Bloor-Danforth line as a DRL really make sense? I would think it would make more sense to keep it as a east-west route eventually running from Kipling and Queensway to Kingston Road and Midland.

It would not make sense for two reasons. First of all, it wouldn't divert a significant number of people going downtown away from Yonge-Bloor station, which is a serious issue right now. Secondly, even Steve Munro recognizes that demand on the DRL route is too high for LRT.
 
The only way to fully relieve the Yonge line is to run the DRL north of Danforth...

Surely that would fully relieve only the southernmost part of the Yonge line. Overcrowding north of Eglinton (as alleged) wouldn't be much affected, unless you ran it really, really far north of Danforth.
 
Of course it would only relieve the area south of its northern terminus, but I'd prefer that the DRL extend all the way to Finch. The whole corridor is intensely developed, Finch and Don Mills has a very large college campus, and all of those east west bus routes would provide a lot of transfer passengers.
 

Back
Top