innsertnamehere
Superstar
I always saw the east and west DRL being one line, but with different stop spacing on the two sides of yonge. around 1km spacing on the east side, with 6-700m spacing on the other.
|
|
|
Transit City Plan
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
It's true that the two need different stop spacings, but I would argue that the two areas that they need to serve on either side of Yonge don't really coincide well in terms of alignments. I think the DRL on the east side needs to serve the area between Queen and the rail corridor, while the DRL on the west side needs to serve the area south of rail corridor.
When you try and map this out in terms of alignments using a single thru-line, it becomes pretty convoluted. What you end up with is a massive swing south just west of University, cutting through some pretty dense development. That's why with the two branches being extensions of existing lines, you get a lot more freedom in terms of where they go from downtown, including more options for following existing roadways.
Also, I like the idea of having redundancy in terms of lines heading north out of downtown. If the Yonge and University-Spadina lines are separate lines as opposed to branches of the same line, a problem on 1 side won't affect the other. If the DRL is being as a completely separate line, it would likely only go up to Danforth or Eglinton in the east, with the west side not being built for a long time. While this offers an alternative route out of downtown, it doesn't really create complete redundancy, because the line doesn't go north of Eglinton. With the overlapping J's (I think that's the most accurate way of describing what I've proposed), at least 1 part of each J goes into the far northern reaches of the city, which creates a far greater level of redundancy in the event of something happening on 1 of those 2 lines.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
If the BRT are built like Vancouver's BLines then they will be very successful and very fast but only if the Miller types don't do what they have done to Sheppard & Finch LRT and put stops every 2 blocks. Vancouver's BLine has stops only at bus intersections.
nfitz
Superstar
No it doesn't. There are stops at locations where there are no bus intersections, such as Sasamat and Arbutus.
Nice try though ...
Also, the B-Line always runs along a route where there's still frequent local service. That isn't the intention for the Transit City lines we are currently building.
44 North
Senior Member
Though this is unrelated to the thread, I thought I'd post a DRL idea anyway. Gweed's map piqued my interest, and today's accident got me thinking about the ability to move trains to different lines. Also, I've always been interested in Chicago's downtown "Loop".
So basically the DRL East and West would be interlined with Y/US. Both would have uni-directional, counter-clockwise sections that would use the current tracks on the Y/US. Yonge south of Bloor would have a clockwise loop.
Westbound trains on DRL East would travel north on Yonge, then north on University-Spadina. Concurrently, southbound trains on University-Spadina would travel south below Bloor, head east along Queen, and meet-up with the DRL East proper. The DRL West would use the southern section of Y/US. Eastbound trains travel north on Yonge, west on Queen, and south on University-Spadina; meeting up with DRL West proper.
The total new tracks would be somewhere above 15km. Y/US would remain intact, except with the additions of a connection along Queen, and a portion of Yonge's loop from Lower Bay to Yonge northbound.
No, the Transit City lines we're building now are a compromise between local service and long haul service, so as a result they'll do neither particularly well (I'm talking about the in-median sections specifically, the underground portion of Eglinton will be fine). Too slow to be an effective long-haul service, too far apart in a lot of places to be an effective local service.
I think the B-Line model is the way to go for a lot of Toronto's suburban arterials (particularly the ones I pointed out in my map). A BRT service that only stops at major intersections, and a parallel local service that fills in the gaps.
Though this is unrelated to the thread, I thought I'd post a DRL idea anyway. Gweed's map piqued my interest, and today's accident got me thinking about the ability to move trains to different lines. Also, I've always been interested in Chicago's downtown "Loop".
So basically the DRL East and West would be interlined with Y/US. Both would have uni-directional, counter-clockwise sections that would use the current tracks on the Y/US. Yonge south of Bloor would have a clockwise loop.
Westbound trains on DRL East would travel north on Yonge, then north on University-Spadina. Concurrently, southbound trains on University-Spadina would travel south below Bloor, head east along Queen, and meet-up with the DRL East proper. The DRL West would use the southern section of Y/US. Eastbound trains travel north on Yonge, west on Queen, and south on University-Spadina; meeting up with DRL West proper.
The total new tracks would be somewhere above 15km. Y/US would remain intact, except with the additions of a connection along Queen, and a portion of Yonge's loop from Lower Bay to Yonge northbound.
Interesting concept. It would certainly provide access to almost anywhere in the city directly from downtown. I foresee a couple of issues though:
1) Turning radiuses and track modifications: A lot of the turns that you propose to make, and a lot of the extra trackage that would be required in order to make those turns work would be extremely difficult to build in some cases. For example, neither the Orange line or the Red line would actually be able to stop at Osgoode, and the wye that would need to be created would need to tunnel directly under the foundations of some pretty big buildings, not to mention a historical site (Osgoode Hall). Ditto for the Queen wye (although not as bad because the Red line goes straight through).
2) Redundancy: A single delay on any part of the central loop would cripple nearly the entire system. I don't have much experience with the Chicago Loop, but I'd imagine that any type of delay originating on the loop has a domino effect affecting almost every line that uses the loop.
I do definitely commend you for the outside the box thinking though. I've done a similar exercises. With one in particular I made the backbone of an LRT system an interlined 4-tracked LRT tunnel under Queen, which included interlining portions of Queen, Eglinton, Jane, and Don Mills. Nothing practical really came out of it, but it did give me the idea for the the WWLRT and QWLRT configuration in the west end that's in my most recent map. Sometimes just looking at it from a different angle opens up workable possibilities that weren't seen based on the standard set of assumptions you were using before.
44 North
Senior Member
Yeah, it was a late night idea. There are some major problems with it, which is funny because the original idea stemmed from wanting to eliminate having the system crippled in case of incident. Part of the original plan had the section of Y/US south of Bloor as being quad-tracked/stacked. And since DRL E/W would be express with stations on Y/US being skipped, the large turning radii could be met (e.g Osgoode and Queen on DRL E/W wouldn't exist, but a City Hall Station would have moving walkway connections to each).
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Sasamat is the only BLine station that does not interconnect with a bus due to being a km from Alma stop but it is a medium density neighbourhood with many UBC students and UBC is the next BLine stop and the Arbutus bus intersects with the BLine.
The station spacing is excellent which is why it is the busiest bus route in N.A..
The station spacing is excellent which is why it is the busiest bus route in N.A..
nfitz
Superstar
The 16 run parallel to the B-Line from Arbutus to Granville. I suppose if you use that criteria, any stop on West Broadway or West 10th is a transfer point, as the B-Line always parallels local buses.
BurlOak
Senior Member
This is a great explanation...but does it mean that the addition of a second platform at Union was a waste of money?
Thank you, and not necessarily. The existing Union platform is one of the smallest on the system, and it serves both directions. Adding the 2nd one was a worthwhile expense. But I think that redoing the concourse was an even bigger step forward, so that the flow is drastically improved. The concourse level as it is right now is a convoluted mess, the result of piecemeal expansions since the line opened.
The way I see it, the new Yonge line platform would be built on a NE-SW orientation underneath the GO bus terminal and the rail corridor. It would be connected to the current Union Station via the Harbourfront Streetcar loop, hence minimizing the changes in flow in the station. I would expect that transfers from 1 line to the other wouldn't be that significant, because very few people right now ride around the loop. Union for many is the destination, very much unlike Bloor-Yonge.
In the PM peak, if people from the CBD were going either NW (Spadina) or NE (Don Mills), they would board via the existing Union platforms. If they were going due north (Yonge), or West (Dufferin), they can either enter through the existing Union concourse and through the Streetcar Loop, or walk down Bay or Yonge to the entrance at the GO Bus Terminal.
This doesn't really solve the PM and AM stampedes into the CBD from Union, but I think it will go a long way to splitting up traffic after sporting events at the ACC and the Rogers Centre. The Rogers Centre especially, because the terminus of the Yonge line would be Southcore, much closer to the Rogers Centre. Again, Yonge traffic goes there, GO and Spadina-Don Mills traffic goes to either Union or St. Andrew (but mostly Union).
To further what I described above, I'll post a couple quick graphics that I did earlier that illustrate the downtown section, and more specifically the Union section, because from the system map it can be a bit confusing.
There are a couple minor inconsistencies between these maps and the system map I posted earlier, specifically relating to the alignment of the DRL East after it exits the CBD, but it's relatively minor.
There are a couple minor inconsistencies between these maps and the system map I posted earlier, specifically relating to the alignment of the DRL East after it exits the CBD, but it's relatively minor.
Attachments
BurlOak
Senior Member
I am not sure if you are going under the ACC, under the Gardiner, or weaving between the foundations of the Gardiner - I do not think there is enough room between the ACC and the Gardiner. The Gardiners foundations are prestressed concrete piles that go down about 6.5m below grade. A tunnel would have to go well below the bottom of these foundations, which may not be realistic.
It's mainly under the Gardiner, but only for a short stretch. The Big Dig managed to dig a highway tunnel underneath an existing elevated expressway while still keeping the expressway open. I'm sure something can be worked out for that block or so. Option B of course is to use the WWLRT alignment under the concourse area between the ACC and Union, coming out under Bremner.
But good point to raise though, and definitely something to consider going forward. Whenever a downtown underground infrastructure project like this is considered, there's a whole laundry list of potential issues that need to be examined, because there's so much underground and above ground already to take into account.