The DRL: Why…and when?

Posted on September 17, 2008 at 5:46 pm by Jason Paris

Map by C. Livett and adapted from Network 2011 DRL plan.

The Downtown Relief Line (DRL) continually falls somewhere between long-term planning and long-term lore when it comes to heavy rail infrastructure ideas for Toronto. While the idea lay dormant for a generation, we now seem to be back in an era when it has come out of its fabled state and into some vision of long-term reality. While it might not be something on the average Torontonian’s radar yet, it is once again being seriously discussed, not only on transit blogs and forums, but also in some halls of power.

The DRL was first studied in the mid-1980s as part of the Network 2011 transit plan for what was then Metro Toronto. The line was envisioned to connect Union Station with Pape and Dundas West Stations by running large portions of the line at grade via mostly existing railway right-of-ways which would also help to significantly reduce the cost of such a major investment. The DRL would, in effect, have created a second, wider subway ‘U’ for Toronto, and thereby taken enormous pressure off the existing system. For instance, if one were coming from the east, one would have the option of switching lines at Pape instead of Yonge-Bloor Station for a quick ride downtown. The DRL could also be thought of as a heavy rail version of the King streetcar, but following a wider route and playing a more regional role.

In 1985 the first phase of the DRL — from Pape (on the Danforth line) to Spadina (near the coming domed stadium) — was budgeted at $565 million and was seen as requisite to relieving large portions of the Yonge and Bloor-Danforth lines, especially Yonge & Bloor Station which was becoming severely overcrowded in the run-up to the TTC’s all-time ridership record of 463 million riders in 1988. Despite all this though, the DRL never came to fruition. There are several reasons and speculations as to why, but basically the line had no champion and some of the more personality-driven politicians in Metro’s boroughs were against “another downtown subway” and favoured system expansions in their own fiefdoms instead. Another blow to the DRL was the fact that “intensification” was not the buzz word it is today and that “stable neighbourhoods” would have been the equivalent of the time. Basically, many residents — and their politicians — looked at the DRL sceptically as a developer-driven scheme to change their neighbourhoods. Also, post-1988, the TTC’s ridership began to drop for more than a decade and a modest extension to the Bloor platform at Yonge-Bloor Station relieved some of the crowding problems and cemented the DRL as something off the agenda.

Map by C. Livett.

Today we find ourselves in a strikingly similar position to the mid-1980s. Transit expansion is back on the agenda and a variety of proposals are being vetted, including the DRL. The Yonge line is once again nearing a breaking point — as is Yonge-Bloor Station — and the TTC is flirting with besting its all-time ridership numbers. Also, as downtown Toronto has grown as a multi-purpose destination, people have become increasingly frustrated with the unreliability of transit routes into and through the downtown as admitted by the TTC and as documented in various articles.

Twenty years later there are also some significant differences, but they only seem to add to the call for a DRL. Firstly, intensification is the order of the day and many of the previously industrial neighbourhoods that the DRL would run through are now some of the most significant and dynamic growth areas of Toronto. In fact, the original proposed alignment of the DRL appears more attractive than ever as it passes through emerging neighbourhoods such as Leslieville, The West Donlands, CityPlace, Liberty Village, Parkdale, Roncesvalles, etc. Toronto’s central business district is also once again attracting significant office development and there is increasingly not a quick and effective way of going cross-town through the city unless one is relatively close to the Bloor-Danforth line. As Toronto has matured and densified, transit has not kept pace with where this urbanization has been occurring. Therefore, the DRL could now provide double the bang for the same buck as it would both relieve existing subway services (and thereby help those coming in from the suburbs), but would also give those living closer to the core a better, more reliable and faster route cross-town while connecting some of the primary neighbourhoods where Torontonians increasingly live, work and play.

Despite all this, the DRL has a curious spot in the minds of our current civic administration. While there is recognition that some form of a DRL needs to be part of the long-term planning for downtown Toronto, it does not appear to be a high priority for the current administration. Mayor David Miller and TTC Chair Adam Giambrone seem preoccupied with selling their Transit City light rail plan that envisions modern streetcars in their own rights-of-way pushing out into Toronto’s suburbs. While the merits of Transit City are generally good, it does not offer much to the downtowner wondering why it is taking 45 minutes to get from Parkdale to Parliament. Also, while Transit City’s noble goal of getting higher priority transit into more parts of Toronto is sound, it could run the risk of overwhelming part of the existing subway system as these new, faster and more attractive tram lines will be feeding into the same subway system that is also being expanded northerly in Vaughan. In a way it seems a case of putting the cart before the horse which is perhaps why Metrolinx is viewing a version of the Downtown Relief Line as imperative to reliable transit across the region.

Metrolinx will be presenting its Draft Regional Transportation Plan and Investment Strategy at their next board meeting, now scheduled for September 26. However, elements of the plan have already been leaked to the media and it is widely expected that they will be calling for a Downtown Core Line that mostly mimics the DRL, but could have a much more expensive southerly alignment on King or Queen Streets instead. The province had always intended for Metrolinx to examine their MoveOntario 2020 plan and to allocate provincial funding based on their sober second look. However, while even Metrolinx’s more pro-subway stance on GTA transit issues recognizes the need for a DRL/DCL, they too are arguing that it is not likely to start anytime before 2020.

Backers of the Downtown Relief Line — myself included — have waited a long time for the DRL to find a place on the agenda again. While there is certainly some satisfaction with seeing it return to the books in some form, it also comes with the frustration that it will have to wait on a shelf as our next generation of subway expansion will not be following typical urban growth patterns, but will instead plough expensively north to what is now a power centre in Vaughan. Interestingly, the DRL never seems to be considered in current infrastructure projects either, such as eliminating the Dufferin jog or in the designs for the CityPlace complex on the former railway lands. In a city that prides itself for having had the foresight to build the Bloor Viaduct with a second tier for a future subway, it is curious at best, prohibitively expensive at worst to be ignoring the fact that a subway line is needed here at some point in the not-too-distant future. While construction may not be imminent, planning for the DRL should be. The DRL would also be easily expandable north of Bloor-Danforth (particularly on the western leg), yet it strangely holds no place in current discussions for finally connecting Pearson Airport and Union Station via a heavy rail link.

All said, the relatively cheaper cost of the DRL (using the originally proposed alignment) compared to other subway plans and the larger place it would hold in turning our subway system into a proper network should not be ignored. Couple this with how the DRL would strengthen and connect growing neighbourhoods while providing relief to existing overburdened lines can really make one wonder if this is one of those cases where those ideas that are so damn obvious are also the ones that get ignored.

What will the excuse be in 2020? Can we even wait until 2020?

Tags: Downtown Relief Line, DRL, expansion, metrolinx, subway, Toronto

83 Comments

We absolutely cannot wait until 2020. The TTC has said capacity expansion projects on Yonge are required before Yonge is extended to Richmond Hill, they missed a golden opportunity to force the province to invest in the DRL if they want to take Yonge north of Steeles.

The DRL is, let’s face it, more important than Transit City. If Yonge fails, the system fails (including Transit City), and as you correctly point out, the biggest problem with Transit City is that it will increase the pressure on Yonge, which is already over-capacity right now. What I find very hard to reason is the reality that the TTC did not bother to study this direly critical factor, it was never mentioned in the Transit City studies.

Eglinton will become the next Bloor on the Yonge line, only worse since Eglinton is an island platform – the TTC should be thinking about adding flanking platforms to Eglinton immediately as part of the Eglinton LRT project, or they will be regretting it when safety at Eglinton’s platform level becomes a problem due to crowding. Yonge on the Bloor line has a similar dilemma, surely we don’t want a repeat of that mistake. It’s ironic how they have the kind of design needed at Sheppard, but Sheppard will never reach that level of demand.

If they are going to ignore the need for a DRL, the TTC could at least add dedicated streetcar ROW routes to relieve some of the pressure, like using the existing tracks along Church and possibly Parliament. Church could become a Transit Mall south of Wellesley (although the tracks currently only go upto Carlton).

These can provide some bandaid relief until the DRL is ready. The amount of new construction is quite small, and the provision for a crossing beneath Bloor St. E. between Parliament St. and Castle Frank station is already built there sitting and waiting as it was never used by the Bloor-Danforth subway like originally intended.

Any transit plan needs to see the current system capable of handling the demand placed upon the network today first, then expand it. We definately seem to have this completely backwards as we extend the Yonge subway north of Finch and building a subway along central Eglinton before building the DRL.

That said, the 1985 alignment above is no longer possible, primarily due to the changes happening at Union subway station, but a route along Richmond (westbound) and Adelaide (eastbound) is possible, with fabulous potential.

Also worth considering very seriously is the potential to interline routes. A wye at Greenwood (to the yard), while not ideal due to a lack of grade-separation on the upper junction where opposing directions cross one-another, is functional, workable, existing, and available. It is also possible to construct a new wye between Dundas West and High Park (with a substantial renovation/expansion at Keele station) to interline existing Bloor and Danforth services into the core directly, while also maintaining the same service levels in the central section of the Bloor-Danforth line. This would make travel very easy for the downtown-bound from Etobicoke and Scarborough, as well as the far-east and far-west parts of the old city… and of course, core-dwellers, although reverse-commutes aren’t part of the problem right now.

The best solution to alleviating Yonge is to offer a transfer-free alternate route, as the transfer is one of transit’s biggest deterrents. The strategy of replacing one transfer with another transfer is deeply flawed as the transfer would have to be unrealistically convenient for it to be successful at truly alleviating Yonge in any manner that would result in a long-term solution. It is important to avoid “band-aids” in the Yonge-Bloor and St.George challenges we face, because we will regret it later.

Comment by Karl Junkin — September 17, 2008 @ 6:35 pm
Adam Giambrone, David Miller, and Steve Munro all fear that a relief subway on Queen (with connections to B-D) will destroy the downtown streetcar network south of Bloor — and that’s why they keep pushing it off into the distant future.

Think about it — streetcars would be eliminated on Queen, King, and Dundas. And, Metrolinx is adamant that the line go under Queen, not the alignment near the railway corridor.

As for congestion at Bloor-Yonge, this was created by the TTC when it opposed Norman Wilson’s Integrated Bloor-University system — which was specifically designed to minimize transfer moves at Bloor-Yonge station.

Comment by Mimmo Briganti — September 17, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
The original DRL line had two connections with the Bloor-Danforth subway and one connection with the Yonge-University-Spadina subway, period.

The new suggestions should have Transit City connections, with the Waterfront West, Jane, and Don Mills LRTs. These LRTs will add more requirements to have a DRL, if they connect directly with the DRL and don’t require transferring from the subway. Still have subway connections, but the addition of the LRT should boost an earlier requirement of the line.

Comment by W. K. Lis — September 17, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
That said, the 1985 alignment above is no longer possible, primarily due to the changes happening at Union subway station, but a route along Richmond (westbound) and Adelaide (eastbound) is possible, with fabulous potential.

I don’t see how anything happening at Union prevents the DRL as not that much has actually happened at Union yet anyway. Still, it’s amazing that the TTC in a non-Viaduct move is once again missing an opportunity to make a future provision for the DRL at Union.

Think about it — streetcars would be eliminated on Queen, King, and Dundas. And, Metrolinx is adamant that the line go under Queen, not the alignment near the railway corridor.

I don’t know anyone who supports the DRL and doesn’t support our legacy streetcar network. They do two very different things. One provides relief to existing subway lines and higher order transit to growing neighbourhoods, while the other provides a local street-level transit service for people travelling relatively smaller distances. If anything, a DRL helps the streetcar service provide the service it is supposed to and better. Moreover, the DRL provides for many possible transfer opportunities onto the streetcar system (ie. Leslieville). As for Metrolinx preferring a Queen or King routing, I don’t really understand their reasoning when the rail corridor is a better bang for a lesser buck, but perhaps they’ll explain that on the 26th.

Comment by Jason Paris — September 17, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
I do fully support the DRL. The streetcar routes which extend far out east and west would be safe. But what will it do to the King, Dundas, and Harbourfront Streetcars, since their routes fall directly under, or very near, the DRL route?

Comment by Jacob L — September 17, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
No streetcar route falls under the DRL (under the original alignment).

Comment by Jason Paris — September 17, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
Jason, the new DRL proposal is basically a 504, but under Queen. With that alignment, you can kiss the 504, 505, and 501 (central portion) bye bye.

I floated an idea a while back about disconnecting the Spadina subway from the University line and extending it down Spadina Av. and into the core, replacing the 510.

Then, the original Y system could be re-activated to alleviate Bloor-Yonge. This is a much cheaper solution than building an entirely new DRL.

Comment by Mimmo Briganti — September 17, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
I don’t really see how a DRL would mandate the end of downtown streetcar lines – you will still need transit on those routes. College Street, for instance, is about as far from Bloor as Dundas from a DRL. I think there’s clearly room for both – people will take the routes most convenient to them, and the operative word here is “relief”, not “replacement”.

Comment by Andrew Wencer — September 17, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
I agree that streetcars would remain with a DRL – that’s why I think it should go down Richmond and Adelaide, so as not to damage the streetcar corridor environments. The alignment selection protects the existing network from harm that might occur due to construction. The comparison of the DRL to the 504 is quite weak though, since the DRL doesn’t provide any service on Roncesvalles proper, and it would only be able to provide service at the southern tip of Broadview proper (at best).

However, the plan to alleviate crowding at Union’s subway platform by adding a second subway platform, in combination with the rest of the proposed Union Station renovations, make the 1985 DRL alignment impractical if not impossible (unless you want to risk disturbing the foundation of the historic structure). Since there is a lot more going on along King and Queen, running through between these two streets makes the most sense.

Comment by Karl Junkin — September 17, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
Karl, how do you propose they go under the PATH on King? That’s why Metrolinx’s routing is on Queen. And, one proposed DRL alignment actually does go under Roncesvalles.

It’s ironic to hear people say, “we want a new downtown subway, but we want to protect our streetcars” — that’s railfanism. The new route should have closely spaced stops to serve local demand as well, and if it doesn’t eliminate at least one surface route, it’s not doing its job.

Comment by Mimmo Briganti — September 17, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
The preferred route is the rail corridor, not Roncesvalles. The TTC recognized that the Roncesvalles option would have encountered fierce opposition. The rail corridor was their preference, and I agree with it, but I don’t think they can do it at-grade.

The point of this subway is to alleviate both Yonge and to a lesser extent St. George, not replace the streetcars on King and Queen, although alleviation on these routes to reduce crowding will of course be one of the expected benefits. Lakeshore/Queensway and Queen E. from Leslieville eastward will also still require their streetcar services, as will Broadview and Roncesvalles, as these would connect the people that live along these corridors to the new subway. King St. and Queen St. streetcars should remain anyway though in order to provide the one-seat that is attractive to many riders.

The attitude that a subway MUST replace a surface route is very misguided, buses still run on Yonge north (and south on the 97B) and along Sheppard because the subway provides a different type of service.

We’ve already learned that ditching the tracks on Bay St. has been a mistake, only the part between Dundas and College remains today. We should show that we’re a city that learns from the mistakes made in our history and not ditch the streetcars when the DRL is built. Even with closely spaced stops, the streetcars should still roll through the core, although frequencies need not be every 2 minutes like it is today, 3-5 minutes will do.

As for the PATH beneath Richmond and Adelaide (since I don’t support an alignment directly beneath King out of respect for maintaining streetcar service during construction), there’s 2 points it crosses, and these should be incorporated into the station structure itself as there are no shops in the part beneath the street itself – I have studied this part personally. And since there’s two crossing points, if construction is staged so that it’s done one at a time to maintain pedestrian circulation in the network, it’s manageable. It’s not quite the dilemma you make it out to be, although it is still admittedly a challenging area, of course.

How do you propose Metrolinx construct a subway on Queen while maintaining the streetcar service throughout the construction period? Same way as Yonge St.? I don’t think so, the CRLVs and ALRVs are heavy tanks compared to the PCCs and Witts. Avoiding going directly beneath King or Queen is the only way to avoid major disruptions to some of our most vibrant corridors, and in the respect of the drastic disruptions subway construction would unleash upon King or Queen, the Mayor, the Chair, and Steve Munro are right, Queen or King would suffer immensely from the long period of heavy construction. Run it along Richmond and Adelaide and not only do the existing corridors’ vibrancy remain, but new vibrancy can be added to corridors that are a bit dull at most (but not all) points.

Comment by Karl Junkin — September 17, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
Great article – it sums up the case for the DRL well.

It doesn’t make sense to me to run the DRL under Queen, which is already served by transit at about the right capacity for a streetcar line. Instead, the DRL should intersect with all the different streetcar routes downtown, as in the original proposal, which would improve the service options provided by each of those routes and create an even more dense and integrated transit network. To me, the intersection with most of the streetcar routes was another of the strong arguments for the original proposal. More people would take the streetcar on the outer ends of the routes to reach the new line, and then get rapidly downtown. Transit travel options and speed would be increased, which would get more people out of cars.

Whatever the extra work that needs to be done under Union station, I imagine it would be way less than what would be required to dig a tunnel under Queen across the entire central part of the city.

Comment by Dylan — September 17, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
The rail corridor alignment would serve less people than a route under Queen. Can you say “Spadina Subway”? The DRL could only attract all-day ridership by sucking passengers away from the Dundas, Queen, and King routes. If you put it in the rail corridor, it’s a rush-hour only route.

Comment by Mimmo Briganti — September 17, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
Not for the whole route, only for the west portion, as an alternate to Roncesvalles Ave. Same goes for Pape Ave. to allow for an interline via Greenwood Yard, use the railway instead to reach Richmond/Adelaide.

Comment by Karl Junkin — September 17, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
I see this as the number one priority for Toronto. The core of the city is our golden goose. The downtown offices pay the taxes that are keeping this city viable. This is the only location where large scale commercial development can be attracted with the tax and expense structure we’re stuck with. If we let the goose keep choking – our goose is cooked – I mean the whole city will decay. (Pls excuse the mixed metaphor.)

This isn’t about ‘relief’. This is normal growth.

I’m not sure of the best location to run the line through downtown. It doesn’t have to go under an existing surface route. Let’s look at a combination of Richmond and Adelaide – as an example. The East end is still not too built up – let’s starting reserving the land before the parking lots get turned into condos.

Comment by N Clawson — September 17, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
Karl, you really should think your arguments through. If you send interlined Bloor trains down a DRL, that means the E-W Bloor service west of Pape and east of Dundas West must be cut in half!

This is not the Bloor-University system — where is the corresponding service to fill the E-W gap? Are you going to route trains in an endless loop on the DRL using Bloor trackage to fill in the service hole?

Comment by Mimmo Briganti — September 17, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
No, it doesn’t, read up to my first comment. Because the Greenwood wye allows trains to head either east or west at Danforth Ave. (or Strathmore Blvd. if you want to get technical), a Keele-Keele loop via Donlands and downtown fills both the central Bloor-Danforth service and also the DRL service itself, which would have recieved half the service going east of Greenwood and west of Keele. Both central Bloor-Danforth and the DRL need a “belt-line subway” to keep their service levels equal to the Kipling-Keele and Greenwood-Kennedy service levels.

You should have thought about whether the DRL would have been providing half the service as the western third and eastern third of Bloor-Danforth before declaring others haven’t thought their arguments through

Comment by Karl Junkin — September 17, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
PS – The article is very well written.

Comment by N Clawson — September 17, 2008 @ 10:56 pm
Very good article, and interesting discussion.

There is one more aspect for debate though. Assuming that DRL Phase I is the eastern wing from downtown to Danforth/Pape, what should Phase II deal with? Westward extension from downtown to Dundas West, or the extension of the eastern wing north to Eglinton/Don Mills?

The latter option might be more efficient in relieving Yonge line.

Comment by Michael Forest — September 17, 2008 @ 11:32 pm
I’m not quite sold on the “union station can’t handle it anymore. The subway station can be anywhere, there are thousands of options still available.

Let’s not forget that our downtown has been gradually moving south over the years and continues to do so.

Comment by Triceratops — September 18, 2008 @ 2:10 am
Karl, come on, you didn’t explain a looped service in your original post with two double-tracked wyes. That was my assumption.

This is all moot anyway. Because of Steve Munro’s “lobbying” at City Hall, the people south of Bloor have been condemned to suffer the torture of the 501 and 504 for the next 25 years, and guess what? … we, the downtowners, deserve it. Otherwise, we’d learn to lobby the way Vaughan and York U did to secure the Spadina subway extension.

Adam Giambrone and the TTC went from being pro-subway to anti-, ALMOST OVERNIGHT, both on Sheppard and Spadina — and don’t get me started on how they’ve influenced Rob McIsaac at Metrolinx (through media channels) to back away from the Eglinton subway/ART proposal.

In closing, I would like to say … “downtowners must unite in the fight against LRT fundamentalism, before it spreads darkness all over the world”

Comment by Mimmo Briganti — September 18, 2008 @ 2:13 am
Mimmo Briganti: sticking to LRT on Eglinton might actually help the DRL subway cause. All projects currently on the table depend primarily, if not exclusively, on the same funding source, the provincial government.

Comment by Michael Forest — September 18, 2008 @ 9:11 am
Since it appears I have to defend myself against slurs on this board, I will jump in here.

Firstly, the debate should be about the merits of any particular proposal, not about whether I or anyone else convinced people to build / not to build it.

The reason the DRL fell off the map had nothing to do with me. Back in the days when the suburbs wanted more transit, and the old Toronto Council wanted to constrain downtown development, the DRL was seen as the most evil thing imaginable — a line that would aid in the intensification of downtown. Jack Layton and the left wing on Council made a deal with the burbs, and the Sheppard Subway was the result. As we all know, downtown continued to develop with much growth coming from the GO service.

The torture of the 501 and 504 is a direct result of budget and service cuts by the TTC that have yet to be restored because the fleet is no longer big enough to provide proper service on all of the streetcar lines. We got the cars for the Spadina and Harbourfront routes effectively “free” rather than by expanding the fleet, and the combined effect of service cuts and the PCC retirements brought us below the level needed to handle current demand.

We have similar problems on the bus network which is still not at 1990 levels, although slowly catching up thanks to new vehicle purchases.

My “power” at city hall is not so great that I can single handedly convince the TTC what it should be doing. If you want to look for meddlers, look no further than the antics of Bombardier whose open contempt for TTC staff and Commissioners at the August meeting showed they assume they can dictate what Toronto will buy in the transit market. The Eglinton ART scheme is supported by their lobbying, and I am sure they are salivating at a PPP contract to build and operate the line whether we actually need it or not.

I would have more faith in Metrolinx if we had a situation like Vancouver where there would be an open tender with the possibility of other ART vendors participating. The existing SRT shouldn’t be used as a determinant of future ART technology. Moreover, the demand projections for Eglinton by Metrolinx are vastly higher than those from the TTC and City Planning because of gerrymandering of the demand model.

Returning to the DRL, it’s in the 25-year plan in the most recent version of the draft RTP I saw, but not in the 15-year plan. This effectively relegates it to never-never land, and I agree that this is unwise. However, we have to talk about this in the larger context that includes the Richmond Hill subway, a scheme guaranteed to overload the existing system, as well as the TTC’s overly optimistic estimates of the additional capacity available on the Yonge line through new trains and resignalling.

As for alignment and operations, I do not agree with interlined routings with the BD line as this creates linkages between headways on routes and taxes, putting it mildly, the ability of the TTC to provide reliable service. The DRL may also logically be extended north considering that the south end of the Don Mills Transit City route has to be underground anyhow. Such an extension would be more difficult with interlined operations.

Downtown, there are real problems coming along the rail corridor just for physical space, let alone capacity at Union. Plans for that station are designed to accommodate a doubling of GO Transit ridership, and a new subway would chew up a lot of that reserve capacity with in-town riders. Yes, some would be diverted from existing trips on the Yonge-University line, but we need to avoid concentrating too much service and pedestrian activity in one location. The Richmond-Adelaide alignment has possibilities although it gets tricky west of Bathurst where the street grid changes.

Finally, I do not oppose the DRL as a means of saving the streetcar network. I have always been rather annoyed that the DRL was put on the back burner for political considerations and this has triggered a lot of work to expand capacity on YUS that might otherwise not be needed.

If people on this board, or on my own site, or in other public venues, want to debate the merits of various transit schemes, be my guest. If you want to imply that I am a dark force condemning transit riders to unacceptably poor service, that has no place in the debate. The real villains are the generations of pols of all stripes for whom transit funding meant “spend as little as possible”.

Comment by Steve Munro — September 18, 2008 @ 9:17 am
Jason, the new DRL proposal is basically a 504, but under Queen. With that alignment, you can kiss the 504, 505, and 501 (central portion) bye bye.

There is no new proposal (yet at least). While that will likely be Metrolinx’s proposal, it is a proposal for 2020 and hardly in stone.

The rail corridor alignment would serve less people than a route under Queen. Can you say “Spadina Subway”? The DRL could only attract all-day ridership by sucking passengers away from the Dundas, Queen, and King routes. If you put it in the rail corridor, it’s a rush-hour only route.

Did you not see the major downtown development sites map I posted with this article? Are you not aware of what is already along the DRL’s original route (including Union Station)?

P.S. Thanks for chiming in Steve Munro!

Comment by Jason Paris — September 18, 2008 @ 9:22 am
If anything, Downtowners should unite against the devastation, and destruction that subway construction will bring to thier neighbourhood. You should look at the Second Ave. Subway currently under construction in Manhattan as a case.

The subway is going to cost roughly US $17 Billion for 8 miles of subway. I would expect the same, or higher cost for a downtown line in Toronto.

Why does this keep on turning into Subway vs. LRT debate?

Comment by Justin Bernard — September 18, 2008 @ 9:49 am
Yes, subways are the scourge of downtwowns everwhere. Get real.

While the TTC doesn’t have the best track record — or even knowledge — of how to build subways cheaply, there’s no way any alignment of the DRL should ever EVER cost anything even close to $17 billion.

Comment by Jason Paris — September 18, 2008 @ 10:11 am
@ Steve Munro

In terms of “gerrymandering” expected demand on Eglinton, I’d suggest that it’s as or more likely the TTC numbers are suspect. I’ve been to a number of the open houses. I still haven’t been able to get a straight explanation of how the Transit City numbers were arrived at. The numbers all too conveniently seem to fall into a certain range – the LRT range.

I walked away from the sessions with the realization that the process is run on the pretext that ‘the answer is LRT, but what is the question’. (Like the old joke about the unscrupulous manager who is hiring accountants – ‘What is 2+2?’ – Answer -”How much do you want it to be?”.)

A couple of posters are suggesting the Adelaide-Richmond alignnment – I’ll have to look at the map, but this seems to make sense. I think a study of alternatives should be initiated immediately to determine alignment and aquire land.

In terms of 501 and 504 services – the excuses are wearing a bit thin. The TTC has been ploughing money into operating thess services. The cost per service hour is at a 30% premium over bus service – and boardings per hour are only marginally higher.

Comment by J Albert — September 18, 2008 @ 10:23 am
@ Justin Bernard

New Yorker’s are used to subway construction going back 100 years or so. This is part of city builing – same as in London with the Jubillee line, the Eurostar tunnel into St. Pancras, and the planned Crossrail line.

For Toronto, let’s cost out the alternatives.

Comment by J Albert — September 18, 2008 @ 10:37 am
My comment about “gerrymandering” comes from two observations of publicly available information:

First: The original Metrolinx IBI study contained demand estimates showing Eglinton at about 11K peak, but this assumed a technology that operated at a higher speed than even the BD subway across the middle of Toronto. Higher speeds tend to attract riding in the model (as in real life), but that speed can only be achieved with wider station spacings. This is a question of physics, not of competing transit technologies — acceleration and braking are constrained by what the human rider can tolerate safely, and high running speeds cannot be achieved with closely spaced stops.

Second: The original Metrolinx schemes included a “Regional Express” route across the 401 that would have handled the long-haul demand across the city leaving local routes like Eglinton to carry the shorter trips. This line has completely vanished in later plans, and the only remaining frequent commuter rail services are in existing rail corridors. Elimination of the 401 line leaves a high-speed Eglinton line as the only alternative, and the model would assign all of the trips to it.

However, in the process we lose the ability to interline other LRT routes (like Jane as discussed elsewhere), the lower construction cost possible for surface operation and the support for planning goals related to closely-spaced stops.

If someone is really hot to trot to build a regional ART line, why isn’t this technology proposed for the 401 corridor rather than high-speed commuter rail?

Comment by Steve Munro — September 18, 2008 @ 11:35 am
Mimmo, I did explain the central portion of the Bloor-Danforth service levels, I will quote myself from the first comment since you dispute this:

It is also possible to construct a new wye between Dundas West and High Park (with a substantial renovation/expansion at Keele station) to interline existing Bloor and Danforth services into the core directly, while also maintaining the same service levels in the central section of the Bloor-Danforth line.

You’ve got a bad attitude trying to use terms like “LRT fundamentalists” and “railfan(ism)” as slurs against those who disagree with your “streetcars bad, subways good” mentality. I don’t care if you have a PCC model, your posts speak for themselves.

Comment by Karl Junkin — September 18, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
Isn’t Yonge’s overloading due above all to the huge load that boards in the north part of the city? In the mornings it is standing-room only by Sheppard.

I think the DRL is needed. But I doubt the best argument for it is to relieve pressure on the Yonge line. To do that, they will need to extend the Sheppard line west to Downsview. And, well, Transfer City looks to Giambrone the Sheppard line for years to come.

Comment by Disparishun — September 18, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
Sheppard is part of the problem, but not as bad as the Bloor-Yonge problem. “Standing room only” is not a valid complaint really, because your fare does not guarantee you a seat anyway. I’ve heard that by the time you reach St.Clair, nevermind standing room, you can’t get on, period. Transit City’s Eglinton LRT-Subway will surely see that it becomes a challenge to get on at Eglinton, and if you’re trying to get on at Davisville, sorry, no dice. This is why the DRL is so important, because the Don Mills line could take people directly to a DRL connection at Pape and Gerrard.

Comment by Karl Junkin — September 18, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
“New Yorker’s are used to subway construction going back 100 years or so. This is part of city builing – same as in London with the Jubillee line, the Eurostar tunnel into St. Pancras, and the planned Crossrail line.

For Toronto, let’s cost out the alternatives.”

Much of the New York’s System was built within a fairly short time through the Dual Contracts, and Contracts 3, and 4. The Subways were built during a time when there was not much concern for neighbourhoods, and where population was relatively light.
You try to do what New York did back then. The Queen neighborhood is built up. It is going to cost money to tunnel through there. A subway is not the solution to everything. I am all for a DRL. But not through that area.

Comment by Justin Bernard — September 18, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
I don’t think it’s “railfanism” to expect transit supply to exceed transit demand. In fact, I think that should be a requirement. Of course, to replace streetcars with a subway is ludicrous – there will always be a need for street – level service with closer stations. (If for no other reason than to keep traffic tied up and push people on to transit – ) The objection to DRL by many people is the knowledge that no one in government wants to pay for it without forcing taxpayers to cough it up. I feel the more transit alternative we have the better – it just saddens me that by the time anything gets built I’ll be like 80 years old.

Comment by Andrew Wencer — September 18, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
“I don’t think it’s “railfanism” to expect transit supply to exceed transit demand. In fact, I think that should be a requirement.” I would couch that more in terms of increasing modal share to a specified target. As it is, Toronto has a high transit modal share compared to most north American cities and thus people tend to pat themselves on the back, when this share pales in comparison to some European and Asian cities. We should aim for their level and encourage other Canadian cities to follow.

The DRL should NOT go anywhere near Union. For one thing, there’s a pedestrian flow issue. With a second subway platform, Western Waterfront LRT, 12 car GO trains on Milton and now Lakeshore, increased services on other GO lines, Blue 22 and hopefully increased VIA and other regional rail services – there is going to be an even more staggering number of people flooding out of and into Union at peak than is currently the case – even with the new PATH entrance to the northwest.

Also, when that nut with a gun took a hostage, it not only provided the basis for a CTV cop show but it halted all service in all modes – heavy, metro and light rail. It wouldn’t have to be a similar incident – a fire alert could cause the same shutdown.

Comment by Mark Dowling — September 18, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
Steve, you vehemently opposed a Queen Street/DRL heavy-rail line on your site about a year ago (citing insufficient all-day ridership, nobody lives in Lake Ontario), and now you’re OK with it?

No one is saying you’re a dark force, but your advocacy/influence/lobbying has caused a policy shift at the TTC and City Hall — and that has resulted in the DRL being pushed down the priority list — to make way for the suburban streetcar network (now known as Transit City) that you’ve been pushing for since the 70s.

You have no influence? How is it then that you convinced the TTC to keep the streetcar network in ’72? And the official moniker “Transit City” — that was your idea, remember?

Comment by Mimmo Briganti — September 18, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
As I remember that discussion, Steve Munro never “vehemently opposed” a DRL heavy-rail line. Rather, his stance was:

1) Preference of a light-rail solution for DRL over heavy-rail solution, which is a long stretch from “vehement opposition”.

2) Opposition to the Queen / Kingston Rd. subway (on the ground that it would parallel the Lakeshore E line), or to relocating Queen streetcar tracks underground (on the ground that it would be expensive, and disruptive to the neighbourhood).

Transit City did not undermine DRL in any way, as DRL was not in the agenda even remotely at the time Transit City was conceieved. When TTC complained about the provincial funding for VIVA around 2003 or 2004, TTC stressed its interest in extending the Sheppard subway to STC and the Spadina subway to York U. Not a word about DRL.

Comment by Michael Forest — September 18, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
@Justin Bernard

You portray NYC at the time its decided to build underground rapid tranit having ‘relatively light’ population. In fact, New York – which had recently incorporated Brokklyn – had a population of roughly 3 million.

The impetus for building underground was to improve the lives of citizens onthe surface. Surface and elevated transit/rapid transit lines had already been in place for a number of decades – to ferry workers to the downtown skyscrapers.

Contrary to the assertion that there was no concern for neighbourhoods, New York had gone through a phase of ‘cleaning up’ on many fronts.

[I recommend the book 'Gotham: A Historyy of New York to 1898' - a Pulitzer Prize winner.]

It’s interesting – New York had just gone through a monumental battle over amalgamation (with Brooklyn in this case) when it embarked on a major building campaign. What will happen in Toronto?

If your looking for cities with high modal share for transit – you’ll generally find that these are well-served by rapid transit.

Comment by J Albert — September 18, 2008 @ 7:09 pm
Michael — refresh your memory … http://stevemunro.ca/?p=324

Comment by Mimmo Briganti — September 18, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
The other thread Mimmo Briganti has linked to makes interesting reading.

At one point Mr. Munro writes:

“Transit service downtown, and more generally in neighbourhoods that do not have large, point developments, must not be buried underground. There is some sort of myth about subways that assumes they are good for neighbourhoods. In fact, unless you put the stops very close together, the opposite is true. Indeed, even on Bloor-Danforth, it took some neighbourhoods decades to recover from the loss of the surface, pedestrian oriented transit system.”

In thinking of Montreal – where a major N-S rapid transit line runs along St. Denis – you have a case where the subway/metro has had no such negative consequences. East-end Montrealers are not known to complain about Metro lines.

Montrealers see the Metro as distinct from the surface. Most don’t know off the top of their heads which streets the Metro runs under – but they know how to use it to get around the city.

In Toronto, we’re continually misled into thinking that rapid transit lines serve just one street.

Comment by J Albert — September 18, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
An expanded Union subway station to handle the DRL is entirely technically possible. The 80s feasibility study showed the station with three platforms for the four tracks, meaning a Yonge platform, University platform, and DRL platform comfortably fitting into the existing Union Station moat.

Comment by Jonathan English — September 18, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
I would also add that I’m baffled at the claims that subway lines are somehow not “pedestrian oriented”. Do people drive to stations like Pape or St. Andrew? Of course not. They walk or take connecting surface transit. In many ways, subways are much more pedestrian-oriented than surface transit that drops you off right in front of one’s destination because one walks a few blocks to the subway station. Nobody can argue that Danforth, Bloor or Yonge are not successful pedestrian streets. The DRL will further enhance the pedestrian activity and environment in the neighbourhoods that it serves.

Comment by Jonathan English — September 18, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
No jokes please guys, but the best pedestrian streets are those with good shopping. Queen St E in the Beach is great – but between Woodbine and most of the way downtown – forget it! (other than a few short pockets.) Yonge has pretty good shopping all the way up and down below Bloor – and then in stretches.

When I’ve visited Montreal, St. Catherine(s?) St. is definitely the best pedestrian street anywhere.

Where there are shops, people are walking – no shops, not many pedestrians.

Comment by N Clawson — September 18, 2008 @ 10:06 pm
Mimmo Briganti said “Michael — refresh your memory … http://stevemunro.ca/?p=324”

Well, I searched through all of that archive. It is all about “Queen subway”, not DRL. There is only one post about DRL there, and Steve Munro did not even comment it.

Steve Munro made a number of comments regarding the advantages of surface transit over underground transit in dense downtown areas. You can stipulate that such comments could apply to DRL as well as Queen subway. But it is a big stretch to say that they represent a “vehement opposition” to DRL, when DRL was not the topic of debate.

Comment by Michael Forest — September 18, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
@Jonathan English: Like I have said stated in an earlier comment, the 1980s plan is no longer an available option, and that includes the studies that date back to the 80s being void, as new plans for Union have been prepared over the course of this past decade (over 15 years after the earlier studies and plans never happened). There are plans for the moat and second Union subway platform that will go directly into a new lower level inside Union below the GO Concourse, and provide a level walking connection to the expanded LRT. Actually, the Union LRT loop itself is in the way of any additional subway tunnels trying to get into the moat space at Union, which I forgot to mention earlier.

Comment by Karl Junkin — September 18, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
Michael — the DRL and the Queen St. Subway are the same thing!

Comment by Mimmo Briganti — September 18, 2008 @ 11:09 pm
“Michael — the DRL and the Queen St. Subway are the same thing!”

Are they? DRL, by definition, is a route designed to take pressure off other downtown subways (southern portions of Yonge and Spadina, and central portion of Bloor). DRL must connect to Bloor/Danforth, but does not even have to run along Queen (in fact, the railway corridor / Union proposal is just as popular).

In contrast, the topic you referenced was about the poor performance of downtown streetcar routes, and whether Queen subway is the answer. Nothing about connecting to Bloor, or relieving Yonge’s and Spadina’s southern sections.

Comment by Michael Forest — September 18, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
Queen Subway and DRL are completely different. A Queen Subway would run from somewhere around Queen and Coxwell to Queen and Roncesvalles. The DRL is a U-Liner that doesn’t even have to run along Queen at all. Completely different lines, completely different purposes, and a Queen Subway would not serve a useful purpose. A DRL serves not only a useful purpose, but an urgent purpose.

Comment by Karl Junkin — September 18, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
Karl & Michael, check with James Bow’s site (Transit Toronto) — the Queen subway proposal from the 1960s connected with the Bloor-Danforth subway, just as the DRL would.

From James’ site:

“Maps in the late 1960s show a proposed line running south from Greenwood or Donlands station to Queen Street and west along Queen to Roncesvalles.”

It is essentially the same thing as a DRL, with a more northerly routing.

Comment by Mimmo Briganti — September 19, 2008 @ 12:41 am
Oh, for crying out loud. Quit with the semantics already. I side with Steve, as he puts a wealth of well thought through information into his arguments. Although when this became the “trash Steve Munro” blog, I failed to notice. He’s got his own – maybe criticize him there if you must.

Comment by Andrew Wencer — September 19, 2008 @ 1:41 am
Andrew — so tell us why you side with him and oppose a DRL alignment under Queen.

Comment by Mimmo Briganti — September 19, 2008 @ 2:48 am
You should go a little further back in history, Mimmo. The Queen Subway dates back to about 1910, which did run from Coxwell to Ronces as I recall. There was a Richmond-Adelaide route proposed in 1942 by the TTC but rejected by the City, it ran between Logan and Niagara. In the subsequent proposal (which included the Yonge Subway we have today), there was a Queen Subway packaged with it that predated the Bloor subway which I beleive did run to Coxwell as well, this route was eventually put off in the late 50s in favour of Bloor. In 1968, yes, the Queen Subway proposal was to connect it to the Greenwood Yard since Bloor-Danforth was existing at this time, but that’s one of the most recent developments in the Queen Subway saga when you date its history back to 1910. The Queen Subway never went up to Bloor-Danforth on the west side, the DRL does. Coming in along Queen, it would be physically impossible for a Queen Subway to swing up Roncesvalles Ave. so if it were to be amended to connect to Bloor West, it would have to go up Parkside, I imagine, but that’s never been part of the Queen Subway plan. The DRL has always had a U-Liner quality, so you can’t compare them.

Comment by Karl Junkin — September 19, 2008 @ 8:49 am
I’d call the Downtown Relief Line “son of Queen”. The Queen subway’s most recent alignments have a lot in common with the DRL proposed alignment. Both curved north in the east end, which makes sense, because that’s what the Lake Ontario shoreline does as well. It’s the reason why the Bloor-Danforth subway came to make more sense to build than the Queen line: as growth in the eastern suburbs occurred, it occurred well north to what Queen would serve.

At the west end of the Queen line, the line would likely have continued west if it had been built before 1970. The Lake Ontario shoreline curves down, which gives the line more of Etobicoke to serve, and certainly the villages of Long Branch, Mimico and New Toronto supported the construction of the Queen subway, in the expectation that it would come to serve then.

I’m not opposed to a Queen alignment for the DRL per se, but again I’m forced to say “show me the money”! If the province is willing to commit the billions of taxpayers dollars to build the tunnels and the stations required, let’s do it. The downtown core can certainly support and benefit from the infrastructure. But if tax dollars are at a premium, then we should look at what is feasible. And it strikes me that we might have better luck in producing a less expensive DRL if we use the TTC’s property at Greenwood for the right-of-way, followed by space on the Lakeshore sub, taking it through the Portlands and then beneath Front and Wellington Streets to access Union (or King & St. Andrew)

I prefer a southern alignment also because it serves the rapidly developing Port Lands and the old railway lands. It also lines up with a possible westward extension up the Weston sub. If we can get the Jane LRT down to Bloor via the Weston sub, then I can envision the DRL as a high-speed, grade separated LRT line interlining the Don Mills and Jane LRTs, with dedicated 90 metre trains serving stops between Jane/Eglinton and Don Mills/Eglinton — a mini-subway that could handle the loads, and possibly connect with the Eglinton LRT mini-subway for a southern circle line.

Comment by James Bow — September 19, 2008 @ 10:46 am
And it’s interesting to note that, when the DRL was first included as part of the Network 2011 plan, the proposal for where it accessed downtown shifted around a bit. The final proposal called for an alignment beneath Front Street, serving the Skydome and terminating at Spadina Avenue. However, thanks to concerns over conflict with the railway services on the Lakeshore sub, and concerns over the single connection with the Yonge University subway, there was talk about taking this thing beneath Queen Street.

What’s interesting is that planners backed off of that proposal for some reason, citing the high cost of construction of going beneath Queen Street. What came up next was *King* Street. I don’t know why it was seen as better, since there are more underground passageways to navigate around, but it was seen as an interesting compromise. Perhaps the angles into the downtown from points north were more favourable.

Comment by James Bow — September 19, 2008 @ 11:09 am
James — thanks for the info! I’m glad someone here can back me up. Even Metrolinx is now calling the DRL the “Queen” line, and maybe a routing under King would be better because it would serve King and St. Andrew stations and allow more people to get downtown on the DRL without a 3rd transfer — but I don’t know how they could get under the PATH though. Karl’s idea about interlining would be cool, as it could encourage some passengers to loop around in the opposite direction before heading downtown. This would free up YUS to serve the north.

Comment by Mimmo Briganti — September 19, 2008 @ 11:22 am
It’s more hair splitting to make a distinction between ‘DRL’ and ‘Queen Subway’. Obviously, the purposes are to supplement overall E-W rapid transit capacity and serve the southern part of downtown – i.e. the main part of the financial district.

In terms of the money, plans have to come before the money. Transit City was initially $6.1 billion. Now it’s $10.8 billion – and I don’t think the tunnels at the south end of Don Mills or Jane are yet included. So, if the TC as-proposed network ends up at say $12 billion – I would propose that scrapping some of the lines and putting $3 billion towards the new line would provide the city more of a benefit.

Comment by J Albert — September 19, 2008 @ 11:32 am
It is abundantly clear that TC won’t be built as originally planned both because of changes that the EA’s have shown are necessary and to resolve conflicts between Metrolinx’ RTP and the TC plan.

The south end of Jane is unlikely to be built, and the south end of Don Mills could well be part of a “DRL east”. You can’t talk about a cost overrun in TC for components that legitimately might be dropped.

It’s amusing to see how some writers here give Metrolinx a free ride here while trashing TC when, in fact, Metrolinx plans have as many if not more problems than TC. Metrolinx was charged with figuring out staging for the $17-billion Move Ontario projects, and by the time their White Paper was published, the total cost of their bundle was around $90-billion just for capital. It has been wrestled back down but to nowhere near $17-billion.

We also need to discuss TC and any other plans in the context of the plans themself, not whether they are “Miller’s plan”, or “Giambrone’s plan” or “MacIsaac’s plan” or (perish the thought) “Steve Munro’s plan”.

Nobody has a monopoly on brilliant insights or on incompetence.

Comment by Steve Munro — September 19, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
@ Mimmo – When I said I side with him, I rather meant that if I was to pick sides in the schoolyard, I would pick his. I am intrigued by the idea of Queen, however I would, Like James Bow said, like to see them use the portlands and rail corridors. As J Albert put it, in his comparison to Montreal, there’s no law that says a transit line must follow a particular street exclusively. It seems to me that the neighborhood disruptions and expenses would be lessened using land that allows for some surface construction, and also less commercial damage. And as I said earlier, I think there is room for streetcars and subways through the downtown. We still, for some reason, run a bus up Yonge Street after all.

I’m not going to take the time to parse through years of blog posts to find a potential variance in a stance – that was more what my point was.

Comment by Andrew Wencer — September 19, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
Andrew, let’s say we put the DRL that far south — do you think that people from the Danforth subway are going to trade one transfer at B-Y for two (Pape and then Union) to get to King, Queen, or St. Andrew stations?

History has shown that riders from the east DID NOT use the University subway (Y interlined or not) even though it was less crowded than Yonge — because it meant a longer trip to their final destinations on the Yonge line.

If you put the DRL at Union, my bet is people won’t go out of their way to use it, unless we interline as Karl has suggested. It has to connect with the busiest stations in the core financial district — preferably King & St. Andrew.

I also think that the opposition to putting it under King or Queen is the subconcious fear of what it might do to the streetcar network. The Bloor-Danforth subway killed a significant portion of the streetcar network back in ’66, and a DRL might have the same effect.

Comment by Mimmo Briganti — September 19, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
To use that example, Mimmo, presupposes that people who could potentially use it are originating near Danforth and east of Pape. What about the people living near Gerrard, or out in the Beaches? And similarly, those folks out in the west end? The Sunnyside area is getting inundated with Condos, and for many who live out there, it is impractical to take a bus up to Bloor to catch the subway, and takes too long if they just take the 501. Again – not speaking of replacing streetcars here. Alternatives are the key. We’re not there yet, not by a long shot, but eventually the need will be there, and it should be done right. And you really think people wouldn’t use a connection at Union? That’s specious, to me. What could potentially keep people away from Union would be if the reno does not come off properly, and it becomes a bigger maze than it already is. I’ve often avoided Yonge and Bloor because the Yonge platform on the Bloor line is a nightmare in rush hour – but it is the quickest connection.

Comment by Andrew Wencer — September 19, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
It is extremely significant to note though, that Bloor-Danforth was never built directly under Bloor St./Danforth Ave. (except between Sherbourne St. and Church St., which was bored, and there is no station directly under Bloor except a small portion of Sherbourne’s platform in the Rosedale Valley (east of the Glen exit)), while we are discussing a subway directly beneath Queen St.

This is critical to the construction period, as Bloor-Danforth had its streetcar service running during construction because, similar to Yonge north of Carlton/College, the subway does not run directly beneath the street, allowing streetcar services to run during the entire Bloor-Danforth subway construction period.

Queen wouldn’t have that luxury, temporary decking for ALRVs wouldn’t be accepted in this day and age of labour laws, nevermind the huge amount of time it would take to setup such decking, and it is important that we recognize the significance of disruptions to service due to construction. We cannot assume that the neighbourhood will just grin and bear it… those can move, probably would, defeating the purpose of putting in higher order transit.

This is one of the reasons I propose the Richmond-Adelaide alignment. Another key reason is that by having only one direction per 4-lane street (although they become narrower west of Bathurst, but it is light local residential traffic only by that point), there is less disruption on the street, allowing not only pedestrians to continue using the street easily, but also allowing auto traffic (but in narrower lanes) most of the time, as construction, except at bends and stations, can be kept in the middle two lanes. This can help the area survive the construction process, although it doesn’t guarantee it. Richmond and Adelaide aren’t the most popular streets for walking, except around John St., and as such don’t have much retail along them, it is mostly office use.

Comment by Karl Junkin — September 19, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
“History has shown that riders from the east DID NOT use the University subway (Y interlined or not) even though it was less crowded than Yonge — because it meant a longer trip to their final destinations on the Yonge line.”

Not quite. Back in 1984, it was noted, in the defence of the Downtown Relief Line, that the University subway was already acting in this capacity.

The Downtown Relief Line, as envisioned in 1984, would also have cut the stops between Pape and Union in half, which theoretically would save time, making a further trip up the Y-U-S to, say, Queen or Osgoode, feasible. If the Y-U-S continued to operate at near two-minute frequencies, and given that I’d likely be going against the flow, yeah, I think I’d make that trip.

But here’s something to consider: does a stop at, say, Bay and Wellington, preclude a connection to King, Union AND St. Andrew? Or stops at Wellington/Yonge and Wellington/York? It would be a walk, but I suspect it would be a shorter one between the Bloor-Danforth and Spadina platforms of Spadina station.

Comment by James Bow — September 19, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
P.S. I find a Richmond/Adelaide alignment an interesting idea.

Comment by James Bow — September 19, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
James, there was this great Toronto Star article the day after integrated service ended that would contradict your claim. The headline read “PASSENGERS WOULD RATHER SIT THAN SWITCH”.

I’ll have to dig it up and send you a scan for your site — but people are fundamentally lazy and they won’t want to transfer twice, even if it saves them time.

The separation of the Bloor and Yonge subways actually saved the average person 7 minutes (it was documented by the TTC at the time), because the holding patterns at Bay and St. George were eliminated. But the survey showed passengers would rather not switch and take the extra 7 minutes on a direct ride.

Karl has a point — if it’s not interlined, it better take you to King and St. Andrew. Karl — a Queen line would be tunnelled — the only disruption would be at stations.

Comment by Mimmo Briganti — September 19, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
The argument of “disruptions would only be at stations” is a hard sell because a)stations would be relatively closely spaced along the central part of the DRL, and b)all it takes is one small disruption to let chaos ensue along the corridor (noise and traffic), so whether it is at only one location in the corridor or twenty, it really doesn’t matter, disruption is disruption, and people will complain regardless since any disruption causes a chain reaction. The most important part is how long the disruption will last… as is evident from St.Clair. Less duration of disruption is what people want to hear, and it’s quicker, as well as cheaper, to go shallow, so I’d actually recommend going cut-and-cover since the only transit services that use Richmond and Adelaide are the extra fare express buses; these streets aren’t dependent on local transit service in their current forms, which is a very significant advantage for construction purposes.

Comment by Karl Junkin — September 19, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
And what about all the truck deliveries that use Richmond and Adelaide? St. Patrick and Queen’s Park stations are actually tunnels (this was done to avoid disturbing the hospital area during construction), so why could this not be done on Queen? … or King?

And you don’t think Transit City is going to cause massive disruption with the road widening? — look at St. Clair … and there’s no road widening there!!

The TC supporters are going to be in for a rude awakening when they see the massive revolt that’s going to result from widening roads, chopping down trees, and turning streets upside down — that’s far worse than just tunnelling underground and screwing up the intersections.

Comment by Mimmo Briganti — September 19, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
@Carl Junkin

I remember reading that cut and cover with a temporary steel platform is one of the options for building the Eglinton LRT line.

Disruption is palatable if people but into the vision of what is being built. [We lived through the dust and disruption of a bathroon reno - and, boy, was it worth it.]

Comment by N Clawson — September 19, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
@Mimmo Briganti

Yes – it will be bye-bye to those nicely maturing trees on the north part of Don Mills.

Comment by N Clawson — September 19, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
The only part of Don Mills that will require any significant widening is between Finch & Steeles, and that zone was set for widening years ago, even without Transit City.

Comment by Triceratops — September 19, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
Mimmo, I said above that only the middle two lanes would be consumed apart from stations and curves. That means trucks would still have access.

As for St.Patrick and Queen’s Park, while the platforms were tunneled, the mezzanine area, access stairs to the platform, and exits from the mezzanine area still needed to be cut and cover. This method makes it a much smaller hole than it would have been otherwise, but it doesn’t eliminate the cut-and-cover component altogether. The disruptions would happen regardless, tweaking the scale doesn’t solve the problem with putting a subway directly beneath Queen. It should also be noted that University is also exceptionally wide, which is part of what made the island platforms of the University line stations a good fit. The same applies to Front St. at Union subway station. Islands are not practically possible (albeit technically possible, still a stretch) along Yonge south of College/Carlton, and for the same reason would not be possible along Queen, which effectively rules out the St.Patrick and Queen’s Park station models for Queen, except maybe around the Spadina-Soho stretch.

The road widenings on TC aren’t going to be nearly as contentious as St.Clair, except maybe Jane (which I’ve said before should be scrapped and an alternative route be found to replace it… I propose Keele-Gunns-Dundas). The TC routes have lots of green space along sidewalk areas both between it and the road and between it and properties along the street, leaving generous space for most parts of the route. St.Clair’s buildings go right up to the sidewalk, with the sidewalk right beside the street, and that’s what makes it so messy.

Comment by Karl Junkin — September 20, 2008 @ 1:26 am
I’m not sure criticizing Steve Munro and definitely overestimating his pull among politicos is needed. Seems to me his hesitance for subway construction is due to the following reasons:

1) Politicians in the past have preferred the grand subway project for their own political gains, and have ignored the cost and especially the correct place (i.e. ignoring densities where the farebox would help cover a greater share of the operating costs if not the capital costs)

2) As Toronto spread to the inner suburbs, politicians have held on to service on low performing routes (‘There’s a nursing home on that street in my ward’) which has negatively affected service levels on high performing and overcrowded routes

3) With capital dollars in short supply and no guaranteed funding flow from senior governments, a transit advocate has to realize that with short dollars, every new capital project has to improve what already exists immediately and cannot be another white elephant.

4) Spreading those dollars around to improve service and comfort on high performing routes like Transit City is a more cost-effective and politically feasible proposal than a subway project that might eat up all those dollars and attract derision from politicians not directly served (i.e. tracks on my turf) by the proposal

I personally have long desired and saw a need for the DRL as I think the densities are there to ensure its success. However, I’ve also thought electrifying the existing CN/CP trackage and making GO more accessible to Torontonians, similar to Paris’ RER, would be beneficial as well. But I’ve come to realize that our current system of politicians involvement in approval, if not planning, of large capital projects means we cannot simply see transit planning in our region from an organizational science perspective, a micropolitical perspective is also necessary. Wishing for subways, and the great benefits they bring, is one thing; but too much fanhood of these great beasts ends up making these type of people, and I include myself, satisfied with perhaps ill conceived projects like Sheppard or the Vaughan extension or a future Sherway Gardens extension, etc., projects that are overpriced and probably not necessary in our specific situation. Anyways, just my long two cents.

Comment by Tim — September 20, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
Here’s an analogy — in Africa, in the past, many charities would spread scarce dollars across an entire region to deal with child poverty — which would help those starving children, but just a little, and never enough to end their poverty and dramatically change their lives.

Now, charities have “sponsor a child” programs — which make a dramatic difference in the life of one specific child.

So, subways = “sponsor a child”, and Transit City LRT = slightly reduced poverty. Which would you rather have?

Transit City will only result in a very minor reduction in trip times, and headways will widen. By diluting that $11 billion, we won’t really see a substantial improvement in the transit fabric of this city in any one area. Whereas if you take that money and concentrate it in one or two corrdiors, say the DRL and an Eglinton subway, then you make a significant transit improvement in those two areas.

Comment by Mimmo Briganti — September 20, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
Mimmo, you are completely missing the fundamentals, and your analogy is extremely out-of-place/non-sensical for the context.

Comment by Karl Junkin — September 20, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
Thank you.

Comment by Mimmo Briganti — September 20, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
@ Tim

I would hope that Mr. Munro – or any other poster for that matter – can distinguish disagreement with stated positions and personal criticism. Mr. Munro has a long history of putting forth his opinions – and I’m sure he isn’t put off when people express disagreement. Conjecturing why he is opposed to subways as a rapid transit solution is speculation.

This having been said, he has published a large body of opinion-inufsed work (i.e. on his blog) and it’s fair game to evaluate the consistency and accuracy of its content. The fact that many are quoting his opinion indicates that it has influence. Is this influence leading in the direction this city needs to be going – or are other paths going to lead to better places? This is the question that we all need to answer for ourselves.

It is not without merit to consider the type of investment and ultimately, transit service, being proposed in Transit City. Mr. Munro is now suggesting that where the EA analyses uncover real cost and operational issues, that these will really be taken into account. Based on the experience over the last four or five years – especially with St. Clair West – the powers that be tend not to like to ‘lose face’.

Howard Moscoe’s ‘done deal’ statement before that EA still resonates. Thankfully for everyone, Moscoe is gone from the TTC. Although I’m more favourable to the new chair (who I currently see as an honest broker) the streamlined EA process we now have seems to leave little wiggle room to change course.

In terms of Metrolinx’s plans, there no reason to give them a free ride. Up until now, they have been working on creating the RTP. It’s inappropriate and unfair to comment on snippets of plans that have been leaked or released. In terms of overall approach, I’m more impressed with Metrolinx than with Transit City. Metrolinx seems to be looking at the overall network – where Transit City is more appropriate as a springboard for discussions only.

My big problems with Transit City are:

1. COST

From the outset, the the costs were clearly understated from the get go:

Back in March 2007, (in my blog) I calculated the number of LRVs that Transit City would need when operate at the puported ridership. Based on the statistics from other light rail systems and some other assumptions (e.g. spare capacity and hours per week an LRV) I calculated the number of LRVs would be about 380. (The initial Transit City estimates this at 240.) The latest official estimate is somewhere at about 350.( I still expect that between 380-400 vehicles would be needed. )

I also conjectured that the average stop spacing would be 400 metres – and overall cost would be $10 billion plus. In terms of stop spacing prediction – this if pretty close to what the EAs for the surface sections are now suggestions.Cost-wise, we’re at $10.1 billion per the 2009 Capital Budget. I think the EA studies will bump this up another $1 billion. [Add the Kingston Rd. East Waterfront lines and CLRV replacement - and the overall costs approach $13.25 billion.] $13.25 billion would almost double our subway nextwork.

2. PERFORMANCE

The idea that we can achieve subway performance at ’20 % of the cost’ of a subway is exciting but misleading. The surface LRT routes with 400 m stop spacing will give a speed of about 21 km / hour. Our subway has an average speed of 31 km/hour – which is my view is a poor performer. (The Montreal Metro – with a comparable average stop spacing has an average surface speed of 38 km/hour. My theory is that the Metro system does a much better job at managing dwell times. Montreal also has slightly raised track sections at stations – that help acceleration and decelleration without causing rider discomfort.)

The 21 km/hour would be an improvement compared to the 19-20 average bus speed. On the Eglinton core section of the Transit City proposal, the service would be a dramatic improvement. [It’s no surprise that on the Transit City website, this is by far the most popular line being proposed. Seeing that central Eglinton is gridlocked most of the day, I’d expect this line to be extremely popular.

3. ALTERNATIVES

The Transit City proposal came out of nowhere. As such, it was as a point of discussion – but to proceed directly to EAs for all routes was premature.

In terms of alternatives, I’d like to see how service could be improve with strategic jump lanes and tunnels for our bus system. A number of key bus services are bottlenecked as they cross the 400/404/401. We could build extra bridges and lanes at these bottlenecks that would vault buses past the mess.

I believe many of our surface streets could benefit more from a blended express and local offering – similar to what YRT is providing now with VIVA.

As Mr. Munro wrote when Transit City was accounced: (http://stevemunro.ca/?p=357)

“Yes, $6.1-billion is a lot of money, but it will buy us a lot of transit service.

To those who weep and wail wondering where the money will come from, I ask only that they be as critical of transit schemes when they involve multi-billion-dollar subway lines. We’ve already built Sheppard and Spadina is on the way. Somehow we found the money for those lines.
We will have to find the money because not finding it, not funding massive improvements in transit, will strangle the city in traffic. That will have a huge cost of its own both in congestion for the trucking industry, time wasted by commuters, pollution from exhaust fumes and the gradual loss of a healthy city environment.”

Now we know that Transit City’s $6.1 billion will be much more, and the benefit provided is less. Mr. Munro’s fine words apply whether we are considering a subway to re-invigograte the core or for other alternatives.

Comment by J Albert — September 21, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
Expect him to come out swinging against the new Richmond Hill Subway, with its six stops — Cummer, Steeles, Clark, Royal Orchard, Longbridge, and Richmond Hill Centre.

You can read more about it here:

http://www.vaughantoday.ca/story.php?id=1060

It will be in the Metrolinx RTP on Tuesday. The 905 is getting subways and we’re getting streetcars? What’s wrong with this picture? We 416ers are getting shafted.

Comment by Mimmo Briganti — September 21, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
The 905 is getting its precious subway to VCC only because of good political connections at York University and in York Region. The Richmond Hill folks are counting on a repeat performance.

I object to these lines because they continue the focus on core-oriented service and drain a lot of money away from what might otherwise have been the start of an LRT network in York Region.

And, for the umpteenth time, the demand isn’t there for subway lines in the Transit City (or several other) corridors. Even Metrolinx won’t be proposing that, and you will likely see some technology-agnostic references to LRT/BRT and maybe even some flavour of the SRT technology.

The Richmond Hill subway is a decade or more in the future because the YUS line simply doesn’t have the capacity today to handle the additional demand. Resignalling, new trains, some station modifications and a revised approach to operations are all prerequisites. This concern would exist even if the extension were built as LRT. We keep putting more demand on the 416 subway network, but relief is a long way off.

Comment by Steve Munro — September 21, 2008 @ 10:59 pm
With these two YUS subway extensions, the Bloor subway will become absolutely useless for travel into the core during rush hours.

If Bloor didn’t exist, YUS would have the capacity and they’d be able to extend it to kingdom-come.

This is the fundamental flaw in having two major subway lines cross each other just north of downtown. Big design mistake by the TTC in 1958.

Now, the 905ers will get all the seats; everyone north of Eglinton will get to stand; and us Bloorites (myself included) will have to ride hanging on to the gangway chains of the last car … cowboy style.

Comment by Mimmo Briganti — September 21, 2008 @ 11:55 pm
Mimmo: There’ll be no gangway chains when the new subway cars are in service on the YUS by the time the subway extensions are built and in service. All the T1s will be on Bloor-Danforth by then.

So we’re worse off than you think thanks to the 905 subways.

Comment by Karl Junkin — September 22, 2008 @ 1:49 am
It is a major concern that the two downtown subway lines will be overwhelmed by passengers coming from the new feeder routes.

One possible remedy is to swap the Downtown Relief line and the Yonge North subway. Build DRL (at least the section between downtown and Danforth) first, and then proceed to Yonge North. Since both projects are in the plan anyway, no additional funds will be required for that swap.

Comment by Michael Forest — September 22, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
I think that’s a very sensible swap.

However, subways are horribly political and putting a line through downtown “Liberal” Toronto doesn’t score the same points as putting one through the spine of Thornhill/Richmond Hill where both the Liberals and the Conservatives are competitive. So I’d be shocked, but pleasantly surprised to see such a swap even though it could be argued that there’s no point in building Yonge North without first building “relief” into the system.

I do however feel that having Eglinton Crosstown remain an LRT (as per the Transit City plans) increases the chances of a heavy-rail sunbway for the DRL/DCL. I couldn’t foresee both a subway-technolgogy Eglinton and DRL.

Comment by Jason Paris — September 26, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
To Metronauts members,

Previously, I had suggested that a Downtown Relief Line be built according to an alignment that runs in a straight line from Donlands Station to Dufferin Station via Union Station. I realise that some of you favour the alignment as suggested in Network 2011. I also acknowledge that , according to Mr Bow it would be a good idea to carve into the line between Donlands and Dufferin 4 intermediate stations, such as where the line intersects with Broadview/Dundas (Riverdale) and Bathurst/Dundas (Toronto Western Hospital) , and Parliament/Queen (Cabbagetown) and Spadina/Queen (Queen West district).

So my proposal alters somewhat the spirit of the DRL by having run in a straight line from Donlands to Dufferin via Union. Why? Well, what about the Waterfront transit plans? Are they not designed to serve the same Harbourfront destinations as the original DRL as envisaged in Network 2011? So the debate can also be framed as follows: to serve the entire Harbourfront from east of the mouth of the Don River to the Exhibition, should we use the DRL or the LRT extension from the current route of the Harbourfront LRT? Should both be built?

Now, north of Bloor-Danforth…

But I now want to push this idea much, much further. Now that Transit City plans are moving ahead, it is time to see into the future and plan the next steps in the evolution of Toronto’s rapid transit development. I propose extending my version of the Downtown Relief line diagonally from both ends. Not according to the alignment of Network 2011, which would go north. But straight-line diagonal, northeastwards and northwestwards. In the eastern half, the line would run through the intersections of Woodbine-O’Connor, and Warden-Eglinton in the first phase. In the western half, the line would run through the intersections of Keele-St Clair and Jane-Eglinton. Eventually, by 2020, this diagonal line should run from Morningside-Finch in West Hill to Highway 27-Finch in Rexdale, passing through in the east, Kennedy-Lawrence, McGowan-Ellesmere, and Markham-Sheppard, and in the west, Royal York-Lawrence, Islington-Rexdale Boulevard and Kipling-Westhumber. Right now, how long does it take to go downtown from either Morningside-Finch or Westhumber-Finch by car or by public transit?

Let me continue. As some of you are fond of observing, not everybody needs to go downtown. Rightly so. So there should be another diagonal line, perhaps by 2040, from Kipling GO and subway Station through Finch Station to Scarborough GO Station near St Clair and Kennedy. This line would pass through the intersections of, in the east, Warden-Eglinton, DVP-Lawrence, Leslie-York Mills and Bayview-Sheppard and in the west, Bathurst-Sheppard, Wilson Station, Keele-Lawrence, Jane-Eglinton, and Royal York- Anglesey.
What is the advantage of these diagonal straight lines? For the outlying areas, they enable travellers to by-pass the restrictions imposed by the Toronto street grid. Right now, apart from the eastern end of the Bloor-Danforth line, most people have to travel at right angles which increase commuting time and distance (Pythagorus’ theorem). The addition of a diagonal straight line with a Union Station apex would represent a durable and sustainable competitive advantage of subway service relative to all other modes of travel, including driving (nothing else in existence, no vehicle, no expressway I know can go faster through these points with the notable exception of helicopters). Secondly, by serving the intersections of Toronto’s main corridors, the diagonal lines as proposed will capture users from both corridors at each and every station.

Another key question is whether these diagonal lines should be using existing rail corridors (therefore GO train service) or new subway lines? For sure, a case may be made for northeast-to-northwest diagonal line via Union Station using the Georgetown line in the western half and the CP Peterborough line in the eastern half. These 2 rail alignments roughly match the West Hill-Rexdale diagonal line that I proposed. But is there rail capacity on both lines for such a service? Would speed of service suffer using commuter rail equipment with such frequent stops (less than 3 km between each diagonal station)?

As for the Kipling to Scarborough via Finch diagonal alignment, it is an entirely new tracing. One can see the advantage of that line. Let me describe some of the advantages of that line with examples of points of interests. Presently, a traveller from Mississauga or Oakville wanting to go to York University via 1) bus to Kipling subway station, subway to St George and transfer to go to Wilson (eventually to York University Station), or 2) by GO train to Union, 2a) transfer onto GO Bradford or 2b) subway northbound. With the proposed Kipling to Scarborough diagonal straight line via Finch, the traveller would take the diagonal line to Wilson directly instead of via downtown, and then transfer to the Spadina line to York University. Or if the trip is to Richmond Hill, the transfer would be at the apex of the line at Finch Station. From the east, someone from Whitby can go to York University via GO train to Scarborough GO station at St Clair and Kennedy, take the diagonal line to Bayview-Sheppard Station, transfer, subway to Downsview (if Sheppard subway extend westwards to at least Downsview Station) or round over Finch and transfer at Wilson to the Spadina line.

Would the Kipling-Finch-Scarborough diagonal line be mostly for travellers from outside either side of Toronto (Durham, Peel, Halton) to reach northern Toronto and beyond without going through downtown? It looks that way, but this diagonal line is conceived to serve Toronto users first, allowing southern Etobicoke and southern Scarborough residents to make these diagonal moves on public transit without going through downtown.

Best regards,

David

Comment by davidsca — December 23, 2008 @ 12:18 am
Stop the bitching ladies!!

Comment by Peter Malinski — January 6, 2009 @ 3:08 pm