Ontario Line (formerly Downtown Relief Line)

[smallspy]

The Millwood bridge (the one coming from Pape/Donlands) cannot support either LRT or subway on the surface (for LRT only) or underneath without major upgrades apparently. Whatever the TTC does to cross the Don Valley will need to be in its own bridge.

From people who've read them, the early engineering progress reports say that the bridge can handle a surface LRT with minimal issue.

A subway, however, is a completely different story. The structure was never designed for it.

Dan

[Orion VIII]

Who said the subway had to cross the bridge as a subway? It could "emerge" to the surface and travel accross the bridge in the space of 2 (or more?) traffic lanes.

[SMS]

Isn't weight an issue?

[smallspy]

Isn't weight an issue?

For a subway, yes.

Not only that, but how the hell do you get it onto the surface in the first place? There is not adequate space at either end of the structure to allow a subway to rise to the level of the bridge.

Dan

[new.flyer.408]

I'm glad that the DRL is gaining steam again...(sort of)

http://metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_age...INAL%20(DS).pdf

I disapprove of the preliminary concept's (4B, specifically) termination at Bloor though. This doesn't really help the Yonge line.

[Shaun]

Creating a "New" station is nothing new, In fact in Japan many major metropolitan cities have built new stations to accommodate more passengers.

But is the current bottle neck due to track capacity? I thought the new switches and Signal system was supposed to increase that capacity?

[Articulated]

Creating a "New" station is nothing new, In fact in Japan many major metropolitan cities have built new stations to accommodate more passengers.

But is the current bottle neck due to track capacity? I thought the new switches and Signal system was supposed to increase that capacity?

Are you confusing the TTC's subway system and GO's commuter rail system?

The study new.flyer.408 linked to was commissioned by Metrolinx, and investigates the possibility of moving some of the GO services currently terminating at Union Station to a new station, to be built in the existing location of North Bathurst Yard (on the south side of Front Street between Spadina and Bathurst). If there is to be a new GO terminus at this location, Metrolinx wants a rapid transit line constructed between the new station through downtown to bring people from this station on the periphery of downtown into the central business district. The Downtown Relief Line comes out of this because the new rapid transit line could be extended east and north along the alignment of the Downtown Relief Line (after all if the western segment will be built by Metrolinx why not the eastern section?)

Having the North Bathurst Station serve as the terminus to some GO lines would be a similar concept to Montreal's AMT, which has both Gare Centrale and Lucien-L'Allier stations in the downtown core serving different lines.

[new.flyer.408]

Having the North Bathurst Station serve as the terminus to some GO lines would be a similar concept to Montreal's AMT, which has both Gare Centrale and Lucien-L'Allier stations in the downtown core serving different lines.

I thought so too, but the entire concept revolves around relieving Union Station - which is a very, very narrow scope. They should've looked at relieving much of the transit in and around downtown with that line. The new DRL will just move people back into the downtown core, but they'll still have to take the Yonge/University lines to get back up or down.

In that respect, I actually preferred the GO tunnel under Queen - but it doesn't relieve much other than Union.

[BBfellow]

With space constraints and all that, why not just expand into the harbour or make some islands like what Hong Kong did for its airport.

[Neoupa2002]

With space constraints and all that, why not just expand into the harbour or make some islands like what Hong Kong did for its airport.

What mountain in the vicinity of Toronto do you wish to propose to level then?

[Articulated]

With space constraints and all that, why not just expand into the harbour or make some islands like what Hong Kong did for its airport.

Toronto is not Hong Kong.

North Bathurst Yard is in many ways closer to the downtown core than the middle of Toronto Harbour. It is also along existing rail tracks meaning minimal construction of new rail right-of-ways is necessary.

I hope you aren't talking about extending the station tracks south into the harbour, because Union Station already has 13 tracks (plus one or two bypass tracks) and there's a practical limit to the width of the station... I'd argue that Union is already much too wide to function properly. Try navigating the station hallways for the first time and you'll quickly see what I mean.

Toronto Harbour is also actively used for shipping (both passenger ferries to the Island and commercial shipping) and doesn't have the benefit of the entire ocean surrounding it to reroute ships.

[Gil]

What mountain in the vicinity of Toronto do you wish to propose to level then?

What about the dirt from the Eglinton line? If they're going to tunnel through downtown you could use that as well. Although if you're considering rerouting the line into the harbour that'd be more than a hike from Union Station.

Is Metrolinx trying to jumpstart the whole DRL for the TTC? It's kinda been put on the back burner. They know they need to take another look at it, but have decided now's not the time. If the TTC doesn't get into the game, Metrolinx could wind up dictating how the DRL develops.

[TomW]

What about the dirt from the Eglinton line? If they're going to tunnel through downtown you could use that as well. Although if you're considering rerouting the line into the harbour that'd be more than a hike from Union Station.

If all the Eglinton LRT is underground, that would be two tunnels 20km long and 6m diameter (5.75m internally, but round up for lining etc.)... which works out as 1.13 million cubic meters. Toronto harbour is roughly 2km by 3km, which means you'd have enough spoil to raise the bottom by... 18cm.

Alternatively, if you assume an average depth of 10m, you'd have enough spoil to rise about 10 hectares to 1m above the surface of the water, which is roughly the area bound by Yonge, Adelaide, University and Richmond.

[mode_m]

I'm glad that the DRL is gaining steam again...(sort of)

http://metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_age...INAL%20(DS).pdf

I disapprove of the preliminary concept's (4B, specifically) termination at Bloor though. This doesn't really help the Yonge line.

I agree, while I think it is important to send the line to Exhibition (it's really needed) it would be nice for it to extend up from there north on Dufferin and terminating at Bloor. Having said that its not too bad of a walk down to the Ex from Queen and Dufferin as they have it in 4A. I can grab a Roti from Island Foods on my way to the TFC game.

[skyfirenet]

I disapprove of the preliminary concept's (4B, specifically) termination at Bloor though. This doesn't really help the Yonge line.

I'm more concerned about the Queen street alignment with 4B. I mean, a lot of the people commuting in by GO just walk from union. So I doubt terminating trains at Bathurst North Yard will be very popular if you also impose a second transfer at Queen/Osgoode rather than running the line down King

[Articulated]

I'm more concerned about the Queen street alignment with 4B. I mean, a lot of the people commuting in by GO just walk from union. So I doubt terminating trains at Bathurst North Yard will be very popular if you also impose a second transfer at Queen/Osgoode rather than running the line down King

Queen and Front are about the same distances from King. There's also a lot of people who walk from further uptown (for example the Eaton's Centre, Ryerson University, Hospital Row, Queen's Park and University of Toronto) to the current Union Station that can hop on the DRL to North Bathurst.

There's also a very distinct possibility that with North Bathurst converted into a train station that the downtown core could start shifting westward, or the area north of Front from Spadina to Bathurst becomes more office-oriented to take advantage of the short distance to the GO station. 'Reverse' commuting on the DRL would also be attractive to people arriving on GO trains at Union, just as the YUS is currently used from Union in the AM rush.

[Gil]

Seeing as this topic is coming back to the forefront, I thought I'd give it a bump rather than someone starting a new thread.

[Mike]

Rather than spending billions on DRL we should be running all day service on GO lines in both directions. Also align the fare structure such that you pay the equivalent of the fare used in the city (i.e. you ride GO within Toronto you pay TTC fare, ride it to Highway 7 you pay the sum of TTC/YRT fare) and have free transferability between GO and TTC.

Dependable service and cheaper fares would encourage people to use GO within Toronto limits. Right now it is too expensive and inconvenient for most people to use GO rather than TTC for trips within Toronto.

[cbrown2009]

I agree. And would add the point that Langstaff Station on the Richmond Hill Go line is at the same location that the proposed Yonge extension would end (Yonge & Hwy 7). All day two way Go service may decrease the need for the subway extension to the point where it's not even needed.

[smallspy]

Rather than spending billions on DRL we should be running all day service on GO lines in both directions. Also align the fare structure such that you pay the equivalent of the fare used in the city (i.e. you ride GO within Toronto you pay TTC fare, ride it to Highway 7 you pay the sum of TTC/YRT fare) and have free transferability between GO and TTC.

I don't think it's a matter of either-or, frankly. The DRL will serve neighbourhoods that aren't currently served by either the current subway system or GO Transit as well as helping relieve the pressure on the lower end of the Yonge Line. Yes, there need to be improvements to the way that GO operates and the way that connections are made with the TTC, but making those improvements shouldn't preclude enhancements to TTC service.

Dependable service and cheaper fares would encourage people to use GO within Toronto limits. Right now it is too expensive and inconvenient for most people to use GO rather than TTC for trips within Toronto.

Agreed.

I agree. And would add the point that Langstaff Station on the Richmond Hill Go line is at the same location that the proposed Yonge extension would end (Yonge & Hwy 7). All day two way Go service may decrease the need for the subway extension to the point where it's not even needed.

The subway and the GO train serve for the most part two completely different markets. People taking the train in are heading right downtown - that is not the case (for the most part) with the subway, although it will certainly eat into that market.

Dan

[skyfirenet]

The DRL will serve neighbourhoods that aren't currently served by either the current subway system or GO Transit as well as helping relieve the pressure on the lower end of the Yonge Line.

Not to mention helping to relieve the pressure on the streetcar lines; especially the 501 and the 506.

[Gil]

From the Toronto Star: 'Downtown' relief line could be the subway suburbanites crave

In a related story Spacing Toronto is also having a discussion on the subject. Routing, naming (does having "downtown" in the name bring less acceptance from suburbanites?) and minutiae like colour assignment. Graphics in both the Star and Spacing posts use red. Aren't surface lines assigned red in the TTC's grand scheme of things? Orange would do since it did appear at one time when the Harbourfront LRT first opened. (Segue here, the station names there and on the SRT at the time were reversed: black text in a white box. Perhaps that's how they should identify future LRT stations.)

There has been a push for the line to cross downtown along Queen or King to better serve the area. However, with the push further south along Bremner and with all of the condos in place, perhaps routing through (or in this case, probably beneath) Union Station to further disperse the crowds from GO Transit. Metrolinx was looking at the option of running the line to a satellite Union station at Bathurst as a means of dispersing passengers.

[new.flyer.408]

Surprised no one has posted about the I-METRO-E proposal by a Markham city councillor, which I personally think is a much better option over building the DRL (at least for commuters that currently travel using an east-end feeder bus service, east of Kennedy).

http://www2.markham....m#_Toc320775952

http://www.insidetor...m/print/1335146 Article including map.

[smallspy]

Surprised no one has posted about the I-METRO-E proposal by a Markham city councillor, which I personally think is a much better option over building the DRL (at least for commuters that currently travel using an east-end feeder bus service, east of Kennedy).

http://www2.markham....m#_Toc320775952

http://www.insidetor...m/print/1335146 Article including map.

I know about it, but am waiting to get my hands on a copy of the full report before properly commenting on it. There seems to be some serious potential in the idea, but an awful lot of it also seems a bit pie-in-the-sky.

Dan

[Gil]

Surprised no one has posted about the I-METRO-E proposal by a Markham city councillor, which I personally think is a much better option over building the DRL (at least for commuters that currently travel using an east-end feeder bus service, east of Kennedy).

http://www2.markham....m#_Toc320775952

http://www.insidetor...m/print/1335146 Article including map.

I know GO owns the Stouffville line and this idea intends of beefing up service along that corridor. However running it along the Lakeshore corridor is where I see the first major snag. As far as I know I don't think there's a dedicated track into Union. Meaning it would have to be negotiated or built outright, which could drive up the cost. Otherwise you wind up building another feeder line into the Danforth line which will do nothing for the situation at Yonge station.