21 Comments

1. Thinking about an extension of the DRL to Eglinton East (per the 1985 routing and Steve Munro’s recent Damascene conversion), it seems to me that this opens the way for a Loop Line, with the existing plan to have Eglinton as an LRT from end to end replaced with subway.

   *Note – I have used Greenwood rather than Pape to provide an easier interface to Greenwood Yard.

   This line, similar to the Glasgow subway in that it would lack enforced turnback termini, would be extremely efficient operationally with all parts of the line having significant ridership potential – unlike the proposals to close the YUS through York Region.

   It would also help get backing for the scheme as a whole from the Eglinton community who think it should be subway but don’t get that a stubway, with a short distance between turnbacks, is highly inefficient operationally.

   Eglinton West would be served by the Airport/Scarborough LRTs as under the TC plan with Jane LRT also terminating there, and the 6km along Eglinton East from Don Mills to Kennedy could be an interlined service joining the Don Mills LRT to the Scarborough-Malvern LRT.

   The reverse could then be done on Sheppard, where the subway-LRT interface would be changed to all-LRT and continued to Downsview.

   With Spadina line essentially relieved from handling traffic from the west, it would then be feasible to look at forcing feeder services in the Yonge line to preferentially use Spadina line stations, shrinking the western catchment of the Yonge line stations.

   Comment by Mark Dowling — January 30, 2009 @ 2:47 pm

2. If the Downtown Relief Line terminates at Dundas West Station and Pape Station on the Bloor-Danforth Subway, then the Don Mills LRT should also terminate at Pape Station, and the Jane LRT should also terminate at Dundas West Station. Then Pape and Dundas West should become major transit hubs, especially if the Airport Rail Link and GO Transit has stations at Bloor (Dundas West Station).
   In the meantime, crossover tracks should be installed at the Pape and Dundas West Stations on the Bloor-Danforth subway to serve as short-turn terminals, in case of problems on the line itself. Then the Downtown Relief Line would really provide RELIEF.

   Comment by W. K. Lis — January 30, 2009 @ 4:24 pm

3. @Mark – I really like your idea of a “Loop Line”. I wonder if that will be considered as the DRL gains momentum, or if the Eglinton LRT folks will stick to their guns.

   @W.K. – Steve Munro calls such a hub at Pape station “unthinkable”, but he didn’t fully explain why. I agree that from the rider’s point of view, much better to be able to make one switch (say, from Don Mills LRT to Bloor subway line) rather than 2 (LRT to DRL to Bloor line). There might be logistics of which we’re not aware though. I’d like to hear some more comment on this issue from other folks!

   Comment by Adam King — January 30, 2009 @ 4:36 pm

4. Since we’re talking about visions, here’s mine:

   The eastern leg starts at Eglinton & Don Mills, with a major transfer point between the Don Mills LRT, the Eglinton-Crosstown Line and the Lawrence East bus. Diverting those bus riders alone will do wonders to relieve congestion on the Yonge subway. Roughly following the route of the 25 Don Mills bus to the subway, the line would continue south to Queen and follow a Queen/King street alignment across the core. I believe the railway corridors should provide the subway-style service anyway, so running along front street would be, in my opinion, a duplication of service. Out in the west side, I envision a route up Roncesvalles rather than the railway corridor for those same reasons. The Jane LRT could connect with the new subway at Dundas West, or it could be sent through Swansea and across the Queensway to connect at Sunnyside.

   Regardless of whatever route this takes, I think this move might restore faith in the many people who have come to think that the TTC has a hate-on for subways.

   Comment by Andrae Griffith — January 30, 2009 @ 4:42 pm

5. I see this article is also asking for a name… like I posted on Spacing’s Wire, my choice name for the eastern half of the line (whether it goes to Danforth or Eglinton) is the Don Line. With the western half, possibly call it the Don-Weston Line, but with so much GO traffic potentially materializing along the Weston sub, it’s up for debate how much the west half of the DRL would be needed… although I think it will be required upto Liberty Village or Parkdale areas (just before or rather, just as, it is turning north).

   I think the first half need not go north of B-D, and not west of University (tail tracks could go to John St. though, roughly). I think this is a necessary staging to maintain a cost-competitive argument for ensuring this gets built. I argue the capacity expansion of the Y-U-S alone (independent of the extension to Richmond Hill) has an end-cost of over $2 billion, meaning the DRL is about the same cost.

   Comment by Karl Junkin — January 30, 2009 @ 6:10 pm

6. If the DRL is extended north from Pape Station to Don Mill/Eglinton area a whole new bridge will have to be built near where the present Millwood Bridge is. A subway could travel below the traffic on the shared bridge like the BD Line does when it crosses the DVP. This engineering obstacle will add a lot to the cost of this line if it extended north to Don Mill/Eglinton area.

   Comment by George S — January 31, 2009 @ 4:43 am

7. Not really, it is looking like the Don Mills LRT probably can’t use the existing bridge anyway, meaning that it oils need a new bridge, too (i.e. it’s not a subway-specific cost) . This new bridge need not accomodate any traffic. Like the Humber bridge by Old Mill or the Rosedale Valley bridge between Castle Frank and Sherbourne, this bridge would need to be transit only.

   Comment by Karl Junkin — January 31, 2009 @ 8:30 am

8. Damascene conversion, eh?

   I have been advocating for a DRL for a very long time, although originally as an LRT rather than subway. Now with the projected demand, the importance of relieving congestion at Bloor Yonge, and the likelihood of needing dedicated structures for most of the way to Eglinton, I have moved over to favouring a subway.

   Yes, it needs to connect to Greenwood yard, and coming down Pape creates problems in that regard. The comments about Pape Station as an interchange related to two points: if there were a surface LRT (the TTC actually is seriously looking at this), there would be huge pedestrian volumes, not to mention LRT traffic to be accommodated at some sort of interchange. I have no idea of where to put all of this. If it’s underground, and a continuous line up to Eglinton, then the traffic that is not transferring doesn’t have to use the station platforms, passageways, etc at all, just sit on the trains.

   As for a “double transfer” (LRT to subway at Eglinton to subway at Danforth), the question is one of providing capacity and convenience for most, not for every rider. It is impossible to give a one-seat ride for every trip — the challenge is to minimize transfers and to make them as painless as possible where they occur through station design and through frequent, reliable services.

   Don’t forget that a Don Mills line to Eglinton from downtown will give many riders a one-transfer trip from further north on Don Mills, or further east on Eglinton to a service doing straight downtown. People who now ride the Don Mills bus have to transfer twice today — once at Pape and once at Bloor-Yonge to make the same trip. Some trips will gain a transfer, some will be more direct, some will change the route they take. It’s a balancing act, and I think that Eglinton is a better place for the subway/LRT (or whatever goes north from there) changeover.

   Comment by Steve Munro — January 31, 2009 @ 12:22 pm

9. re Damascene conversions: are we going to have to call you Pteve from now on?

   Comment by Andrew E — January 31, 2009 @ 4:10 pm

10. It’s time to take the TTC away it’s a plague and its destroying the GTA’s vision of a modern transit system. I hope it this happens and soon!

    Comment by Shawn — February 1, 2009 @ 1:02 am

11. This project is long overdue. The DRL should of been ahead of the spadina extension proposal, but a least its becoming a vital piece of discussion to improve the network.
    I like the “loop” idea with connections to the eglinton LRT both east and west. I think the route should travel along Wellington st.(west) and Front st. to the (east) on the south end. You would have less disruption when boring the tunnel and you could still have access to King st. by having station access angling towards King st. at the desired stops. This would add relief to the bursting King Streetcar line without interfering with scheduled runs.
    Due to the activity on King St. you would want to gear the line’s name and purpose this main road…….This subway is the only one that that makes sense to me because of the densification of the core which means instant soothing in the cities pocketbook!!

    Comment by Jeff — February 1, 2009 @ 10:54 am

12. If the DRL gets the go-ahead (dare I say ‘when’?), it will only be the eastern leg at this time. Eventually, it will be extended west, but that will be a lower priority than the eastern portion. I would take Karl Junkin’s suggestion of building it from downtown east to the B-D line as a first stage, but not simply say build tail tracks. There is a train of thought (pardon the pun) that we could be saving millions of dollars if subway construction were continuous – shut-dwon and start-up costs would be reduced or eliminated. As the first phase is nearing completion, the extensions on each end could be approved so construction continues. I would prioritize the Don Mills/Eglinton extension, so its schedule would be faster than the western extension.

    I strongly suspect that the line will not be going to Union. Union has several disadvantages, primarily the lack of space for it there (both underground and above ground). More importantly, Union will be a huge bottleneck for passenger flow. With a Union connection, EVERYONE using the line to get to a location near University or Yonge must funnel through the Union connection. With a connection somewhere else, the Yonge-bound and University-bound passengers will have separate connection points, so the load is split in half because of that. Furthermore, some will be going north and some south, so there is a further distribution of people onto the Yonge and University subways (and with a Queen or King connection, the loads from the north are no longer a problem).

    Comment by Calvin Henry-Cotnam — February 2, 2009 @ 12:07 pm

13. I would agree with Calvin that the eastern leg should be first because the Don Valley severely limits alternates at present that exist on the west side such as the Spadina and Bathurst streetcars. The challenge would be to find a convenient path over or under the valley since Queen/King is significantly hampered by the DVP-Gardiner ramp footings. Taking it on/south of Eastern avoids this but increases the amount of catchment that is Lake Ontario.

    Anyone who doesn’t work downtown who thinks DRL should go into or adjacent to Union should come visit the PATH or Bay Street south of Queen at 8.30am or 5pm – the one-way tidal wave of people from Union as it is is very challenging if walking against it. There is a North West Link being worked on but realistically that will keep up with foreseen demand (12 Car GO/more VIA/Queens Quay East) whereas DRL would dump significantly more in.

    Comment by Mark Dowling — February 2, 2009 @ 1:27 pm

14. Good point on PATH capacity, Mark.

    I think getting over the Don River can be done through a south “hook” swing from Eastern and Broadview (coming in from the railway) and then over the Don and ducking back down just under the Bala sub (Richmond Hill GO line) to get up towards King (around Cherry). Some re-grading might be needed on the Bala sub to accomodate a portal, but it is surely feasable. I am willing to bet that if it can be avoided, the TTC wants to AVOID going UNDER the river… York Mills was a royal pain that they don’t want to repeat, and to a lesser extent so was Kennedy. It’s much easier to go over waterways than under.

    Comment by Karl Junkin — February 2, 2009 @ 5:11 pm

15. What about the abandoned Eastern Avenue bridge over the Don River? Could that be recycled, either at the same location or moved, as rapid transit bridge over the Don?

    Comment by W. K. Lis — February 2, 2009 @ 7:30 pm

16. Let’s all just take a deep breath before we continue this fun game of drawing imaginary lines on imaginary maps and coming up with names for a subway whose imaginary route could, frankly, end up being anywhere.

    The problem is, Pape Avenue south of Danforth Avenue and particularly south of the railway tracks, is an unlikely street to host a subway line, so a lot — a lot! — of study has to proceed for many years before we even get to this stage.

    Subway stations at Pape and Gerrard, Pape and Queen and Broadview and Eastern? All three are quite odd locations for rapid transit stops. Pape is an extremely narrow street south of the railway tracks and its intersections with Gerrard and Queen are hardly major regional destinations. Currently very little development appears on the horizon for Broadview and Eastern — although Broadview at least offers possible connections with north-south streetcar service to the waterfront…

    Look, City Council only asked Metrolinx to make the relief line a higher priority… frankly there are a lot of routes that that subway could take that are probably a lot better than using Pape!

    Comment by Robert Mackenzie — February 3, 2009 @ 2:14 pm

17. I support this initiative. Not only will it provide for capacity relief, but it can also be the basis for a reivigoration of commercial construction downtown. I agree that there should be strong consideration given to running the line from Eglinton down Don Mills.

    I can’t fault York region for pushing for and getting approval for the two Y-U-S extentions. The TTC and Toronto could have been pushing the ‘DRL’ for the last decade – but they didn’t.

    Comment by J Albert — February 6, 2009 @ 12:52 pm

18. It should be remembered that a subway (either HRT or LRT) does not have be under and follow street space. It could be tunneled deep like Montréal’s Metro. Only the station entrances need to be at the main street crossroads.

    Comment by W. K. Lis — February 6, 2009 @ 1:14 pm

19. Except deeper metros are very expensive to place stations in, and escalators would be virtually mandatory rather than stairs (although I think large lifts should be the way to go as escalators seem prone to fail in the TTC system)

    Comment by Mark Dowling — February 6, 2009 @ 4:26 pm

20. To save costs, I say make it a shallow subway as much as possible, but with parts being deeper.

    For example, deep from the danforth connection station until hitting the part where it will switch to east-west. Then I’d say go under Adelaide as it runs the length of downtown and could be closed off without affecting the King/Queen streetcar (and richmond could be made a temporary two way street during construction). Then, before bathurst (where adelaide ends) deep tunnel until hitting dufferin roughly, then run on surface up the rail corridor to Dundas West.

    Oh and where possible make 2 exits/entrances from the stations (ie Yonge station on this line should have entrance/exist to yonge street but also bay, Sherbourne station have exits to sherbourne and parliament)

    Comment by Stephen De Medicis — February 6, 2009 @ 5:50 pm

21. Run it down Don Mills, then along King street… it can be called the ‘Don King’ line.

    Comment by RyanM — October 26, 2009 @ 8:42 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.