The Downtown Relief Line has been in the news a lot lately, what with dreams of vast new revenues to pay for transit expansion and, at long last, a recognition that more people want to travel downtown than we have transit capacity to handle.
Back in the 1980s, the Network 2011 plan included a line from Union Station to Don Mills and Eglinton by way of the rail corridor, Eastern Avenue, Pape, a bridge across the Don Valley, and Don Mills Road. This scheme was turned down in favour of the Sheppard Subway as part of a misguided idea that if we simply stopped building new lines into downtown, growth would stop. In fact, GO Transit did a fine job of providing extra capacity, and more recently the new downtown condos have raised short commutes by streetcar, cycling and foot to levels nobody expected thirty years ago.
The Yonge subway filled up, for a time,but the pressure fell off thanks to the 1990s recession and the general drop in transit use. That’s no longer the case, and suddenly everyone wants to “do something” about transit capacity downtown. The TTC, shamefully, downplayed anything beyond its own mad scheme to stuff thousands more riders onto the Yonge line, a project requiring major changes in signalling, reconstruction of Bloor-Yonge station (and possibly others) for extra capacity, a much larger subway fleet (and yards to hold it) and possibly even the addition of platform doors at all stations.
Council asked the TTC to look at a DRL, and there is even supposed to be a study. However, its web page is the only sign that anything is going on.
Meanwhile, every would-be transit planner in town is busy drawing maps, to the point where a credible plan can be found simply by dropping a piece of spaghetti on a map of the city and declaring this a route. (Post-graduate degrees are available to those who can determine the ideal height from which to drop the pasta and cooking time needed to produce the best results.) What’s missing in a lot of this discussion is a view of how a DRL might fit into a wider network, not to mention a few basics about how a new rapid transit line will, or will not, fit in some of the proposed alignments.
One of the better proposals is on Phil Orr’s DRL Now site. It’s not perfect (no proposal is, including those I have floated from time to time), but at least this is a place to start with sufficient detail to understand what is going on. Drawing a swoosh across a map is easy (politicians do it all the time), but designing something that might actually work is a lot harder.
A major challenge with some versions of this line is that proponents try to do too much. Playing “connect the dots” with a transit route has its limitations, and trying to hit too many of them causes the line to wander out of its way. This ties back to a fundamental question: what is a DRL supposed to do?
If we believe some of the simpler plans (notably one in last week’s Star proposed by Councillor Pasternak), the DRL’s sole function is to get people from the Danforth subway to Union Station. This is far too simplistic and guarantees the line will not be well used except as a peak period relief valve.
Other schemes take the route south of the rail corridor to serve the Port Lands and eastern waterfront. Aside from the problems of building such a line in landfill beside Lake Ontario, the route would not provide the fine-grained transit access possible with a surface LRT, and would vastly overservice an area whose expected demand is lower than the existing Sheppard subway. Connection to Union Station from the south would also be a big challenge.
From time to time, I am asked “what would you do”, but to start that discussion, a few first principles:
- A”DRL” should not exist solely to relieve the Yonge line’s peak traffic problem, but should provide new links within the transit network giving rapid transit to areas of the city that do not have it today. Indeed, the regional function within the network may well be as important as the “relief” function at Bloor-Yonge.
- Any proposed route through downtown must respect the actual built form of the streets and buildings. Diagonal routes through built-up areas should be avoided as they are difficult if not impossible to build.
- Stations must be located where it is physically possible to build them. Some routes use rail corridors without considering how either a surface or underground station might fit or be built.
- A “DRL” is not the complete solution to capacity problems on the subway. These problems originate north of Steeles Avenue, and a major role in trimming peak demand falls to GO Transit which has several north-south routes that could drain traffic otherwise headed for the Yonge line.
The proposed route on DRL Now (click on “Interactive Map” under the “Station Information” pulldown) includes four phases:
- Don Mills and Eglinton to City Place
- City Place to Dundas West
- Don Mills from Eglinton to Sheppard
- Dundas West to Pearson Airport
I have concerns with a few details of this plan, but the basics are good. Another view of the route is available via Google Maps. This has the advantage of showing the detailed alignment rather than a “route map” graphic.
Eglinton to Railway Lands West
A route from Eglinton and Don Mills to downtown will intercept traffic that now flows via three separate bus routes (Don Mills, Thorncliffe Park and Flemingdon Park) to the Danforth subway, not to mention future traffic from the Eglinton LRT (which will have an underground station connection at Don Mills). Because the subway will not terminate at the Danforth, the volume of transfer traffic (as opposed to through rides on the new line) should be lower and the station less congested.
Some plans have aimed for different connection points on the Danforth line, although they have not necessarily considered the problems of continuing north from the connection point. These options are best viewed by zooming in on the Google Maps representation of the line.
- Donlands Station: Donlands is an alternative north-south route except for the fact that the street ends at Danforth and some neighbourhood upheaval will be required to reach the rail corridor. However, this route is closer to Greenwood Yard, and there is the general question of how a DRL might be connected into the existing subway system for maintenance purposes.
- Greenwood Station: Like Donlands, Greenwood is another alternative route, although it goes through a completely residential neighbourhood. A connection to Greenwood Yard should be possible on the east side.
- Coxwell Station:Â Coxwell is directly south of the line of Don Mills Road and is the easternmost point where a connection is even vaguely reasonable.
- Woodbine Station:Â Woodbine is well east of Don Mills Road, and a connection there more or less rules out extending the line north to Eglinton.
A related question for those who propose easterly locations for a connection is the function of a “DRL” in the Beach and whether its purpose is to somehow serve traffic from that region (which is not exactly overrun with high density development) to downtown. A westerly connection point like Pape has the advantage that the route cuts diagonally through Thorncliffe Park and across the valley and gets to downtown faster than a route further east. The Thorncliffe Park stop would not be included in any route crossing Danforth east of Greenwood because it would be out of the way for a Coxwell or Woodbine alignment.
South of Danforth, the next major segment takes the line to the Don River. Regardless of which crossing is chosen, the two options are either to go straight south to Eastern (or possibly Queen), then west into downtown, or to follow the rail corridor from (say) Pape southwest. Going under the rail corridor has its challenges, although from a jurisdictional viewpoint, the fact that Metrolinx now owns this line eliminates one possible source of opposition.
The challenge will be to tunnel under a busy rail corridor and to include stations at a few intermediate points. A surface alignment is not practical given the constraints of what is there today and planned for GO’s future expansion. Stations will be tricky unless the tunnel veers away from the rail corridor to adjacent lands. Orr’s proposal sites both the Gerrard and Queen Stations on the south-east side of the corridor where land is available.
Orr’s proposed path through the core is, for me, unattractive because it wanders in attempting to pick up many sites and ignores potential problems with building foundations.
A simpler route into downtown would be to follow Front and Wellington Streets to Peter where (at least today) there is vacant land for a diagonal crossing to Spadina and Front, the site of the proposed Metrolinx “Union Station West” for services in the Weston corridor. Connections at Yonge (to King Station) and University (to St. Andrew Station) would be fairly easy to build given the physical locations of existing stations. This route will not be a simple project, but at least it stays under one street for the distance across downtown.
Any route west of the Don River will have to deal with the built form of the West Don Lands project now under construction.
Eglinton to Sheppard
A few schemes have been proposed for a “Don Mills” line north of Eglinton including:
- The Don Mills LRT to Steeles (Transit City)
- A line running north to the CPR rail corridor just north of Eglinton and thence northeast through Agincourt
- Continuation of the “DRL” north to Sheppard (Orr’s Plan)
I have never been happy with the TTC’s proposals for a Don Mills LRT running on the surface through East York. This always had the feel of a project jammed into the available space with no regard for the effect on the community, and this approach was one of many ways the Transit City team alienated people from their plan. It was always clear that the line would require a lot of infrastructure (bridge, tunnel) south of Flemingdon/Thorncliffe and given the projected demand for a DRL, putting a subway in such infrastructure makes a lot more sense than an LRT line.
The problem arises of where the subway should end and something else should take over. Should this be at Eglinton or at Sheppard? I’m not convinced either way, and would like to see better info on travel patterns and population in the Don Mills corridor. Orr proposes stations only at the concession roads: Lawrence, York Mills and Sheppard. Like other “express” subway lines, this leaves many sites and potential riders at the mercy of local bus service, should the TTC deign to operate it. Is this the appropriate way to serve Don Mills Road, or would a surface route with more stops be better?
The Weston Rail Corridor
This corridor is a monument to the blinkered view Metrolinx has of planning for transportation within the City of Toronto. Although massive capacity expansion is underway, it is intended almost exclusively to provide room for many more trains on the Brampton/Kitchener, Milton and Airport lines.
The “Air Rail Link”, a doomed project inherited from the Federal Government and SNC Lavalin, sits in Metrolinx’ lap as a business-class express service from Pearson Airport to Union. One or two stops enroute will connect to the Bloor and (future) Eglinton rapid transit lines. The real need in this corridor is for local service — “local” not in the sense of stopping at every lamp post, but of service that addresses day-to-day demand between many points on the route as part of the regular transit system.
The rail corridor has been proposed as a “DRL West” and appears as such in Orr’s proposal. The real problem here is how we would build it given that the corridor has already been (or soon will be) reconfigured for expanded GO services.
A vital question for any proposal is “what is it supposed to do”. This will affect many aspects of route design including station location and size, fleet requirements, interoperation with other rail services, and the capacity of interchange points such as Dundas West Station on the Bloor Subway.
If we were starting from a blank slate about 30 years ago, the situation could have been very different, and the Weston corridor might have been configured with a rapid transit line on or under it. Doing this today is not as simple.
At this point, I have to declare my preference that a northwest line not automatically be an extension of the DRL subway. We have yet to see that there would actually be sufficient demand for full subway trains (there is no question of this on the eastern leg), and the use of subway technology imposes constraints on right-of-way and stations. At the very least, we should know what the alternative — an electrified frequent service on GO’s ARL trackage — would require and what it could do.
The Downtown Streetcar Lines
The DRL is cited by some as a way of solving the problem with the Queen and King streetcars. I do not agree. This is an unfortunate example of trying to make the DRL do more than it reasonably can.
Condo developments are thick on King Street, and the new buildings are moving north to Queen both west and east of downtown. These cannot be served by a single route, especially one with the wider station spacing typical of subway lines.
These are two separate networks — a rapid transit line coming into downtown, and a streetcar network serving not just Queen or King, but Dundas and College as well. The problem we have with the streetcars is that there is not enough service, and what we do have is not well-managed. Some of this is traffic congestion which, in turn, begs questions of enforcement. Spend billions on a subway, or much much less on better service and a fleet of tow trucks? That’s an oversimplification, but it’s a debate we avoid.
GO North
In every discussion of Yonge subway capacity, the potential for additional service on GO tends to be ignored even though it is part of the Metrolinx “Big Move”. GO management seems content to run a few new trains here and there, but their comments about major service increases and electrification are tempered by years of underfunding. The word “if” is more common than “when” in remarks about GO expansion.
There are big challenges, not the least of which are track and station capacities downtown. Electrification is essential for frequent service, but funding is a mystery and has not been integrated in the Metrolinx long-term plans.
GO could be handling more riders into downtown Toronto and, thereby, shaving the peak off of demand on the subway system on several existing and future routes. What is needed is the will to fund and operate these services.
Fares and subsidies will be a big issue as GO grows. More service, especially in the counterpeak and offpeak, will drag down the farebox recovery for GO.
Similarly, the fare structure’s penalties against short-haul riding discourage travellers who should be on GO but chooses instead to put up with the TTC (or drive).
What do we want? A profitable system, or one that provides service? Discussions of new funding schemes must address fare levels, not just the cost of building new infrastructure.
Conclusion
Expansion of Toronto’s rapid transit system involves more than “just one more” subway line and must be done with a view to how the network will carry riders, not just that one line.
Toronto and the regions beyond need to understand how that network might work, how the contribution of many routes will make something valuable for everyone even though they will not ride every route or visit every station.
Metrolinx and the TTC owe us a much more public, informed debate about the options and how we might spend the billions new taxes or tolls will bring.
The “Downtown Relief Line” is important, but it is only part of a much larger regional plan, and we must not try to make it solve every problem of our overburdened transit system.
Steve Munro 
Here is my proposal.
I just call it Pearson-Weston-Don Mills. I took the Downtown part out and used the end terminals as names. Also it absorbs the ARL and it ends at Viscount station (that people mover/link station) instead of the actual YYZ terminal.
I am taking into consideration that the Finch LRT and Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown will eventually be extended to Pearson (ESC being extended to Malvern).
Finch line = Northern Crosstown
ESC line = Midtown Crosstown
PWDM = Downtown Crosstown.
I was planning to have all three Crosstowns and YUS/BD/SRT/SHE all in one map — it’s coming.
Couple of the stops downtown were suggested by Jason Paris (giving credit, where credit is due). If you click on each symbol, it will give out the connections.
I was debating on the stations between Parliament and Pape, Queen East and Gerrard.
Current option: Queen East/Gerrard
Alternative option: Dundas
Also Parliament I wanted to put it on Cherry Street at first.
Between my Liberty Village and Dundas West stations, there is a big gap. Liberty Village station was originally at Queen/Dufferin (not being named Liberty Village). Do you think that would be better?
I am tempted to put one on Lansdowne but it seems too close to Dundas West. There is such thing as too many stations/stops on a route, it defeats the purpose of rapid transit.
Steve: What this plan does not address is the issue of building subway technology in the rail corridor. There is no room for it on the surface, and an underground alignment will be very tricky for station construction (not to mention going under all of the cross streets enroute). I agree that too many stations are a bad thing. For example, presuming that Metrolinx is going to build a Union West station in Bathurst yard, then you have two stations on either side of it, but both of them won’t have an ideal connection. Liberty Village station looks attractive on the map, but you really need to get a feel for how people will reach this station on foot and how much of “Liberty Village” is actually served by it. The streetcar stops on King (and Queen) will be closer for most people, I think, and this brings me back to the issue of simply running better streetcar service. Don’t forget that a lot of demand on King boards east of the rail corridor and would not be served by a station at the underpass.
LikeLike
Here’s my take:
1. DRL *must not* serve Union. The Yonge line already satisfies this market, it fails to distribute PATH load and does nothing for the catchment most affected by undercapacity of Yonge (Wellesley-Dundas). The question then becomes how far north is reasonable to bring it. In the event that subway does run under Queen or King I don’t see the DRL replacing 501 or 504 simply because the cost of stations will be staggering considering the land costs required for entrances etc. and will thus be widely spaced, and a passenger from Cherry or Humber Loop may not save much time in a transfer to an already crowded DRL train at Roncesvalles or Parliament.
2. Coxwell has that massive sewer under it, as we discussed back when I thought a streetcar tunnel could run from Coxwell-Gerrard past East General Hospital. Given that it’s already been bypassed once at the north end due to imminent failure I’m not sure I’d want to run a TBM anywhere near it.
3. I’ve always been a DRL through the rail corridor sceptic. Like routing via Union it screams single point of failure and trying to do too much with one corridor, and leaves a massive rapid transit gap between Weston Road and the Mississauga border. I’d look at a diagonal route through High Park, getting it to Jane might be difficult though (but if it could be done a St Clair extension from Gunns to Jane would become a slamdunk surely). Surface LRT was always a long shot for Jane south of Lawrence so the DRL would make it work as well as empty some Jane BD train capacity earlier than a Dundas West station would. The question would then be whether the Eglinton LRT or the DRL would head toward the airport.
4. I’m pretty unconcerned about the ARL, in fact I want to see it go into service ASAP because I think that’s the only way that we can see what impact it has and in the event it is a disaster financially and/or operationally repurpose it as soon as possible. It’s a pretty backwards way to do it but that’s what was in the bag GTAA, Lavalin and the Feds left Metrolinx holding.
LikeLike
The DRL should not be a replacement for the King and/or Queen streetcar lines. Instead the DRL should be an express service or serve stations in various high density neighbourhoods or attractions but not as replacements for local service. All the streetcar lines should be kept for local service. Passengers should be able to transfer to or from the DRL or streetcars easily.
Union station should not be a station for the DRL. It may have a connection, but should truly serve the financial district, the main destination currently for passengers to Union, King, Queen, Osgoode and St. Andrew.
LikeLike
Steve, I notice that you don’t mention Pasternak’s proposal for a further “relief” line, the Sheppard extension. Any thoughts on this, other than it being pure politics? As I see it, providing a northern connection to the Yonge and Spadina legs might actually make things worse on the Yonge portion.
Steve: I didn’t mention it because it doesn’t relate to the topic of relieving demand on the north-south subway line into downtown and the options for an alignment of the DRL. I regard the idea of a Sheppard “relief” line at best as an example of how a politician can attempt to turn a pet project for his own ward into something “valuable” by piggybacking on the name of a real, viable proposal elsewhere. Pure bunkum.
We should not be trying for vote trading using routes of dubious merit. If this is what we need for Pasternak’s support of other transit projects, then we are paying extra billions (for a Sheppard line we don’t need) that could be better spent elsewhere. That’s a very expensive way to buy votes. Whatever happened to respect for taxpayers? Do we now start to create a kilometres per vote metric?
LikeLike
A very good post, and a subject I hope becomes even more prominent in council and the news. I like Phil Orr’s model, although agree it should not use the rail corridor in the west. I think going underground to Dundas West via Queen/Roncesvalles would be better. The TTC already owns a large property (the carhouse) which needs to be updated for the new LRVs anyway. If they built the DRL, this large property could become a new major transfer station for the DRL (hopefully they would find another suitable location for a new carhouse). This new station could be the western end of a shortened Queen car, and the eastern end of a new WWLRT. Plus it has connections with the King car, and possibly even GO.
In looking at Phil Orr’s full model (with the Roncesvalles alignment instead), and the currently funded LRT expansion, I think a very good case for network connectivity can be made. The route would intercept the airport, northern Etobicoke, both ends of the grade-seperated Eglinton line, the west end of St Clair streetcar, Dundas West subway and GO, 501/504/WWLRT, Downtown, the eastern end of the Sheppard subway and western end of Sheppard LRT. The amount of connections, especially to existing (or soon to be constructed) terminals and and transfer stations is excellent. It also reduces a lot of transfers, keeps travel distances on the LRTs lower, and takes over some of the LRT expansions originally proposed (no need for Don Mills LRT, less need for Jane or Eglinton west), as existing buses won’t have to take people as far to hit rapid transit.
I think if we can get a new constant cashflow for expansion (using tolls, sales tax, whatever), and the network connectivity and benefits of a new “Etobicoke-Toronto-North York” line are really emphasized, Toronto could get the DRL started, and keep it growing over a few decades of constant subway construction (with many phased openings).
Steve: I do not agree with the Roncesvalles alignment because it takes the line considerably out of its way in order to serve a relatively low density area. I think this is another example of trying to make the DRL do too much.
LikeLike
The crucial portion of the Downtown Relief Line is going from Union to Eglinton/Don Mills, following the route of bus #25. This would not only relieve the Yonge subway, but serve the heavily populated and employment-rich Don Mills corridor and relieve traffic congestion on DVP/404. Future extensions could go to Sheppard, Finch or even Highway 7. The Richmond Hill GO line is not really suitable for this corridor because it avoids almost all the major trip generators (e.g. Ontario Science Centre, Flemingdon/Thorncliffe Park, the Wynford Dr employment cluster, Lawrence/Don Mills, Fairview Mall, Seneca College) so I think the high cost of a Don Mills subway can be justified. One important concern is that traffic transferring from Eglinton and Sheppard to the downtown relief line may overload LRT lines on these corridors, which would make it easier to justify subway on both.
Service west of Union Station should be provided by GO train service on the rail corridor. The alignment to the airport shown on this website via the rail corridor and Dixon Road makes no sense.
LikeLike
I realize that the more pressing need for a DRL is east of Yonge St. but as I have lived in Brampton since 1975 and am more familiar with the Weston Sub and since Metrolinx is spending a small fortune to build an almost totally useless ARL I shall start with a few modestly priced suggestion that would greatly improve the usefulness of the line. (To paraphrase C D Howe what is an extra billion amongst friends?)
Metrolinx is providing a corridor that will be at least 4 tracks wide along the Weston Sub from the USRC to the branch to the airport. Unfortunately it will only have 3 tracks installed and 2 of those will be used by the 15 minute service for the ARL. Using railway operating rules this will leave only one track for GO and VIA service. This will make it difficult to run bi-directional traffic though they might be able to sneak an express or 2 onto the ARL tracks. According to a Metrolinx spokes man there is no provision for freight on these tracks east of the Humber River.
My proposal would be to build the ARL line as a high speed heavy rail rapid with a branch to Bramalea GO station. Metrolinx owns the entire right of way except for maybe the tracks at Bramalea but there is enough room south or the Halton Sub to have their own tracks. They could run a 15 minute headway to Pearson and a 15 minute headway to Bramalea for a combined 7.5 minutes east of the split. I would add stations at Weston Road near the 401, Eglinton, St. Clair, Parkdale, and a couple downtown from Bathurst, Spadina, St. Andrews and King. The line would not use Union Station so it would reduce crowding there.
The vehicles would be high platform DC EMU’s as the last bit would be tunnelled and clearances are a lot less for DC than for 25 kV AC. I am partial to pantograph but am open to third rail. The cars would not be compatible with the existing subway fleet so a connection at Greenwood would not be necessary. Since the station spacing would be between 2 and 6 km for all but the downtown portion, the cars would need to have a much higher speed and acceleration rate than the existing subway fleet. A higher seated to standing ratio would also be nice.
There should be 2 other tracks in the corridor for GO and VIA to use as this would allow for bi-directional traffic. As the largest passenger load on the Georgetown Kitchener line is at Bramalea this would reduce demand or allow for expansion at the outer stations. Since the GO trains would run express from Bramalea to Union their running time would be reduced greatly.
I would not use a station spacing of every 400 – 500 m as on Yonge south of Bloor as this would slow the line down too much, and as Steve said it can’t be a DRL and replacement for the King and Queen Cars. As these cars would probably be longer than the subway cars and operate in longer trains I am not sure what the station spacing and location would be in the downtown.
As I have not lived in the east end since 1975 I will leave the throwing of spaghetti to those more familiar with the area, but as a former resident of Scarborough who used to walk the CP Belleville sub (once from Ellesmere to Union) I would be partial to trying to talk CP out of a 30 foot strip of the line to run the service out to Agincourt. It could even follow the Uxbridge sub and become part of I-METRO-E.
The Weston Corridor exists; it is owned by Metrolinx, it has the room and it goes through an area that would benefit by improved transit service. It would provide a good connection with existing transit line and with the planned LRT lines. It would replace any existing service but would supplement them. The main problems are:
1) Metrolinx didn’t think of it so it won’t work.
2) Ii would slow down the service on the ARL line but who are we spending all that money for, a few business men who work want a quick ride between the Airport and Union Station or for the people who work at the airport and those who live along the right of way and would benefit from improved service.
3) Metrolinx, like the TTC, has not demonstrated the ability to think outside of the box. This is a cross between GO train and TTC subway. The closest example I can think of is City Rail in Sydney Australia. Too bad there isn’t someone at TTC or Metrolinx who is familiar with City Rail.
I don’t hold much hope for this but most of the money on the right of way is already being spent. The extra cost, and it is not trivial, would be for stations, equipment, power distribution and the downtown tunnelled section. The tunnel will be built for the DRL eventually, the Weston Sub is being upgraded for ARL and GO(?); therefore the extra cost is small compared to the potential benefit. And as a last thought, at least in the west end the spaghetti has been flung at the map. The only thing to be determined is its colour, red, green or some mix.
LikeLike
If the DRL was meant to get rid of the streetcar routes (or the 501 at least), it would go down Coxwell, across Queen, then finally up Roncesvalles. Obviously though, this is a ridiculous alignment, because Queen does not hold as much demand as King, the proposed route would fail to intercept Thorncliffe park, and it would also fail to connect to a “union west” station. The only upsides to this route would be a new connection across the Don Valley, and to the East York Civic Centre which currently (unlike the STC) does not have a rapid transit connection.
A better route is probably Pape, Eastern, Front, Wellington, Union West. The biggest thing the DRL has to do (besides establishing a network) is connecting Eglinton-Don Mills, to a new Union West Station. This is what was established in the Metrolinx report on the capacity at Union Station. The other thing established was that a new underground “Union East” station could be built around Yonge Street. In this sense, if the western leg of the DRL is ever to be built, it should probably intersect with the east half of union, just like the eastern leg will do with the west. The biggest mistake that can be made is intercepting the line with union itself. That would spell we would go from being a “transit city” to a “capa city.” (Sorry, that was bad.)
-Nikolas
Steve: Yes, I groaned appropriately.
LikeLike
Also, just another comment that might interest you Steve:
http://www.yorkregion.com/news/article/1335881–electric-rail-line-forward-thinking-stouffville-mayor
A Stuffville Councillor, Jim Jones, proposes turning the Markham GO line into a magnet train, serving as a rapid transit line going all the way to Markham and beyond. Weird proposal, but fun to look at nonetheless.
Steve: This is an example of combining a technology project of dubious merit with the very worthwhile issue of using the GO network as a regional rapid transit system. Something I find quite odious in Jones’ proposal is that he shows “TIF Zones” all along the route including the entire Port Lands. He really astounds in the idea that all new real estate development within a wide radius of his corridor should contribute funding to his project. Rather the same way that Rob Ford presumes that the Scarborough and Eglinton corridor developments would pay for his Sheppard subway. Jones ruins a good idea by piggy backing so much unrelated stuff onto the proposal. He should concentrate on the general issue of major GO improvements and electrification, not a pet project of his own invention (or possibly from someone doing some good marketing).
LikeLike
I find the idea of a DRL appealing if it goes under Queen or King Street. These streetcars are very well loaded, and while it may not provide a perfect local service, it will allow some load relief regardless. One can’t argue that it is duplicate service if one also wants to argue that stop spacing can’t be close enough to replace the streetcar.
Cut and cover tunnel can be employed here to speed things up, and yes there will be an impact on the retailers there, but any project short of doing nothing is going to have an impact. Further out, stop spacing needs to be wider to gain speed, and aligned with the North-South Streets so that buses can feed the system easily.
I don’t think it really needs to go to Union Station – interchange at St Andrews and King could be used instead. Just follow the road, and keep it simple.
For local service after subway commissioning, a bus could be used on the surface or perhaps the tunnel could be a double-stack tunnel – one with a subway underneath, and another tunnel immediately above it for a ‘local’ underground busway or LRT.
LikeLike
I don’t think it really matters where we put a DRL, because it won’t get built in our lifetimes anyway. The most logical route, for those of us who will still be alive 40 years from now, would be Pape-Queen-Parkside, with local BD-like spacing along Queen. It’s important that the line serve the local needs of downtown residents as well. If, on the other hand, relief to Union is its only function, then why bother? You could simply extend the Spadina subway down Spadina Av. to Union Stn., and then terminate the Yonge-University line at St. George. Danforth passengers could then board empty trains at St. George, just like they used to until 1978. I don’t see how creating a limited stop express subway between Pape and Union is any better than this.
Steve: Why Parkside in the west? Nothing like going up the middle of a street that’s low rise residential on one side, and populated mainly by waterfoul (even a few swans) on the other. Parkside lines up with Keele and therefore does not offer a chance to continue northwest in the rail corridor.
The relief is not intended for Union, but for the Yonge line mainly south from Bloor. Extending the Spadina subway won’t make any difference on that score even assuming it were physically possible.
LikeLike
The Toronto Star Downtown Relief Line (DRL) proposal that only has 5 stations and connects Pape and Union stations is very weak. The original Network 2011 proposal or even the DRLNow.com proposal is much stronger. Unfortunately, this line won’t help those out in Scarborough stuck with 1.5 to 2 hour commutes (one-way by TTC).
LikeLike
I don’t understand the TTC’s fetish of meandering everyone to the Yonge line. Higher-order transit needs to be built on other corridors. The city cannot rely on the Yonge line forever to carry commuters downtown. Other north-south lines will need to be built to deal with overcrowding.
LikeLike
I’d like to take issue with your last principle. I think the DRL should strive to do more than just “relieve” the Yonge line but it should also serve as an alternate to Yonge for the full height of the city and thus go a long way to being a complete solution. In the east, consider if the DRL continues north on Don Mills until it intersects the Richmond Hill GO line north of Lawrence. At this point it would transition to surface/pantograph operation on the Metolinx owned rail route and assume the role of the RH GO. Stations north of Lawrence would be Sheppard, Finch, Steeles, Langstaff and Richmond Hill. This would accomplish a few things:
– It would neuter the desire to extend the Yonge line north of Steeles
– It would solve where to put the carhouse
– It would remove RH GO from Union station congestion equation
As to the loss of the current RH GO configuration, in the north of the city, it is only 7km away from the Barrie line.
Steve: And if only we can figure out how to integrate GO’s and TTC’s fare structures, you might have an idea. Note, however, that Metrolinx does not own this corridor (the Bala subdivision) north of the York subdivision (roughly highway 7).
LikeLike
Dear Steve,
Your post makes for an interesting read. Personally, I have taken transit since 1988 and I am giving up in favor of the automobile. It would take decades to fix our transit problems. Toronto has the potential for great transit, but sometimes the most common sense solutions are missing. Dundas West subway station is an example. There is a Go station near there, but the Go station and the subway station are not connected. If the subway station and Go station were one building, Dundas West could be a major hub. Add in the College streetcar and the relief line, change the zoning to allow commercial and office towers and you would have a well connected transit hub.
Instead, when I lived there and my wife had to commute to Oakville, she ended up taking the subway to Union to catch the Go westbound for an almost two hour commute. Now we live in Swansea and it takes an hour to get to Bay on the Queen line. Cars it is. It is what the Feds want. It is what the CAW and the car industry wants. There is no money for transit. All the discussions about transit create jobs for planners, not solutions. Transit is dead.
Steve: That’s an odd sentiment considering that transit use in Toronto is up about 4% over last year.
LikeLike
” I don’t think it matters where we put a DRL because , it won’t be built in our lifetimes, anyway.”
Basically true.
No one ,absolutely no one can, forecast ten years in the future.
Subways are 100 years plus investments.
please note .
There are major problems with the London Subway system which cannot be corrected.
A DRL from Dundas West to the Airport will never happen.
Maybe in 100 years ,by some other route , so do not waste time on this one.
A DRL West vs. East.
At first glance it seems be East,but the over load seems be coming from West and North.
A DRL to Pape .
What will that do.
As public transit is highly politicized , some others have to benefit .
No DRL will go from City Place to Pape without some other areas , in the city , getting a subway line , even a short one.
Do not waste time bringing in all sorts of alternates.
There are still potentially serious problems with the Eglinton Cross town.
Pasternak`s proposal may be the way to go.
`Step by step we travel a long way`.
LikeLike
The one bit of transit I’ve never watched and looked at is western side travel downtown from north of Bloor. So bear with my probable ignorance here.
Although I concur with the idea of creating a network as a positive goal, I’m asking if the demand on the west side warrants a subway? As Steve suggested, the streetcar lines south of Bloor are under utilised. How much demand is there coming in from the west and taking the Bloor line going to Bloor/Yonge to go south? And is there a need to relieve the University line?
i.e. Is the western half of the U we are considering drawing a line for the sake of drawing a line because it seems like a good idea? Would it be better to build up the current east/west network to the Spadina/University line, possibly with LRT out Dixon?
Steve: A related issue is the TTC’s insistence that the Eglinton-Airport route go west of the 427 then north, rather than swinging north to Dixon Road. The design seems to have more to do with a connection to the Mississauga busway than it does with where the employment centre lies and a future shared airport access with the Finch LRT.
LikeLike
I, and I’m sure others like Mr. Junkin, am going to have to disagree with your contention that a DRL cannot replace at least one of the downtown streetcar lines. The logical place is under King with stop spacing similar to Bloor for the east-west section at least. It would be a fine substitute for the 504 and leaves the possibility of intercepting every single GO line before it reaches Union Station.
Hell it might even force the TTC’s hand in reviving a 507 to Dundas West. Together with a Broadview-Cherry St streetcar, there might be a chance for improved service reliability to Lake Shore West and Broadview Avenue… something that you have complained about loudly for much time.
The only thing that would stand in the way is money and how much we are willing to spend and how much disruption we are willing to endure during construction.
LikeLike
I thought of sharing a proposal for the DRL too, but I realized that my proposal (I called it GO Toronto) is just an inadequate expansion of GO service to offer high-frequency, 2-way service along the rail corridors within the 416 area code.
In any case, there is an interesting proposal on skyscrapercity.com that starts the DRL at Keele, then uses the Vincent Yard to access a tunnel under the railway corridor, with stacked tunnels under Richmond St. In the east end, it would follow the railway corridor up to the Greenwood Yard, then return back to the Bloor Danforth Line and head west to Keele.
There would also be access to a future Subway along Don Mills up to Eglinton, with a transfer along the railway corridor.
Not endorsing it in any way, but I thought it was interesting.
Perhaps what should really be done is have a spaghetti throwing contest … invite anyone who has a proposal to throw their spaghetti on a map of Toronto, and we can judge which one is best. Alternatively, maybe someone can do the spaghetti throwing for the next LuminaTO or Nuit Blanche.
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: Vincent Yard won’t get you to a tunnel under the rail corridor because the basement of the Crossways building is in the way, not to mention the block of land on the northwest corner of Dundas and Bloor which will eventually have some sort of development on it. As for looping into the Bloor/Danforth subway, the proposal ignores the question of how we fit all those trains on the line running an interlined service. Yet another piece of spaghetti.
LikeLike
Having read the article and all the associated comments I would like to explicitly put forward a few concepts that I believe would be useful to help define and develop the discussion. Whatever the alignment will be it should accomplish several things:
1) Provide lasting economic and productivity growth
2) Provide a noteworthy sustained improvement in the quality of life that will be felt across the city
3) Provide low risk cost effective opportunities for development to maximize land utilization
4) Provide equality of opportunity to all corners of the city
The way I see it, much of our current debate and political reality in Toronto is being shaped by one very simple concept: It is very effective economically to cluster businesses in a downtown core. Bringing people together in a downtown core is great for business, society and all communities when people are effectively brought together in a common location. This general strategy was put forward by Mayor Miller’s administration with a good deal of success. The problem with this strategy is that given our existing transportation infrastructure a significant portion of the city was effectively cut of from the economic and social opportunities provided by a growing downtown. The Rod Ford phenomenon was a backlash caused by growing socio-economic polarization within the city, any transit development that does not effectively deal with polarization and the concepts listed above will with have a very hard time building political consensus, no matter how good its fundamentals are.
Steve: I hate to point out your error, but Mayor Miller did NOT operate from a viewpoint that everything should be concentrated downtown. The whole idea of Transit City was to spread transit improvements around the suburbs, especially those in need of better service. The Official Plan foresees a lot of suburban development on major streets (the Avenues plan). No, the network wasn’t subways, subways, subways, but to say that Miller was focussed on downtown is simply not true.
LikeLike
As much as it may be thought of as a bad idea, putting a DRL in diagonal across East York and Lower Etobicoke (I.E. below bloor) may not be a bad thing if dug deep enough and enough consideration took. It would cut through dense pockets of residences thereby picking up people who would normally walk to Bloor, Yonge or a streetcar and truly relieving the line. Make it easier for people to get where they want to go and they will use the DRL. Make them walk or travel and they will start to think about which way they want to go. Sure it may seem to be a logistical nightmare in terms of construction but in the long run it does what a DRL is supposed to do and relieve the existing lines by stopping in people’s neighborhoods. If we created more stations like Chester where people can walk to the station, its close to them they will take it.. if you make it like north yonge where you have to walk 1 KM (in some cases up hill) to get to the subway.. they might not take it.
LikeLike
Great analysis Steve
Steve: Thanks
LikeLike
@ W. K. Lis (streetcars)
In my experience, King streetcar works reasonably well, and I would keep it running even when DRL is built. However, Queen streetcar is quite unreliable, perhaps due to the route length. If DRL West has a station at Queen / Dufferin, I would use it to split 501 in two parts that are more manageable. The western (Long Branch) route would feed into DRL West; it can loop on Queen, Dufferin, King, and go back to Etobicoke. The eastern route would serve Queen from the Beaches to the Roncesvalles yard.
Steve: Well, actually, the Queen West car cannot loop via Dufferin because of the compound grade at the Queen/Dufferin intersection. That’s why the curves there today only lead to the east. The TTC considered and rejected the idea of curves to the west.
As for forcing a transfer between streetcar lines and the DRL, I am amused that we have not heard from the “no transfers” brigade who are so apoplectic about a one-seat ride on Sheppard. Maybe folks in the city are so used to being thrown off cars and forced to stand around in the snow making connections at on-street stops that they are hardened for the experience.
LikeLike
@ Robert Wightman (re: ARL)
That’s an interesting proposal. But I can think of a few issues with it:
1) Capacity of the eastern leg. If the single train capacity is similar to that of a Yonge subway, than the proposed 7.5 min headways (8 trains per hour) will give about 10,000 pphpd of capacity. That may be enough for the west, but not for the east (the projected demand for DRL East is about 17,000 pphpd).
So, either the trains must be much larger than the TTC’s subway trains, or the eastern section must run at a higher frequency.
2) Will the mainline collision-strength requirements make the construction of the downtown tunnel and the eastern leg more expensive?
3) Will this proposal address the Union Station capacity issue? The Airport and Bramalea trains will be diverted to the downtown tunnel, but all remaining service (Lakeshore, Milton, Georgetown long-range) will have to keep using the existing Union station, as the downtown tunnel will have incompatible voltage and clearance.
Steve: To be clear, I am not endorsing the DRL Now proposal. Among the reasons why I believe the east and west parts should be independent are the points you raise — use of mainline compliant equipment in the rail corridor on the west side, and the almost certain need for more intensive service on the east. As for the “downtown tunnel” for GO, I think that’s a non-starter. The new station in Bathurst Yard is the most likely to be built. My version of the DRL addresses this configuration.
LikeLike
Why Parkside? — possible cost savings via cut-and-cover through the eastern edge of High Park. As for using a rail corridor to save money … never. That would be like putting it in the middle of an expressway (like Spadina) and then wondering why the line is underused. The stations have to be easily accessible.
Steve: There is no way you will get cut and cover in High Park. Normally I would agree with you about a rail corridor, but it runs right through the middle of well-populated areas, and has a few built-in (or soon to be) connections with the transit system.
LikeLike
I strongly agree what W.K. Lis said. The DRLNow proposal has three stops between Bay and the valley. When people were talking about Sheppard, there was a question of whether 800 m was too close for LRT stops – but apparently 600 m is right for subway [eyeroll]. If anyone ever wonders why the “Scarborough get shafted” narrative plays so well, this is part of the reason.
Run it along Front – Eastern, with one stop in the empty lot between Trinity and Cherry. Pick up the CN Rail corridor with a stop at Jimmie Simpson Rec Centre and Gerrard Square. Back below grade to continue north to Pape Subway.
Steve: Yes, I am constantly amazed at the difference in specs applied to, say, the Sheppard subway or LRT proposals, versus what people want to see from a Front or King or Queen street subway.
LikeLike
Michael Forest says:
May 1, 2012 at 12:54 am
You missed a couple of key ideas:
1) The line would NOT be mainline rail but rapid transit. It would have its own dedicated set of 2 tracks and GO VIA would have their own. Their would be no mainline freights running on it.
2) The reason I wanted DC rather than 25 kV AC was to reduce tunnel dimensions.
3) The 2 lines at 15 minute headways was a starting point because of the ARL proposed 15 minute headway. There is this thing called “short turns”. Extra trains could be run on the east end if the 2 lines were through routed. The advantage of doing as much through routing as possible is to eliminate the delays caused by turning everything.
I don’t know the east end as well as I use to but if this line were built to eventually follow one or more of the wholly owned GO lines it would remove all those passengers from Union and put them on a line that was its own core distributor.
The point of this was to get people to look at the rail corridors and realize that the paradigm Metrolinx is using will never allow for a decent headway on them.. The future proposal show 5 tracks going up the Kingston Sub. If 2 or 3 of these were isolated for rapid transit type operation there would be enough capacity for the DRL and GO service. This is not a final design but an idea to get people thinking about the possibilities that the rail corridors present if the are only used in an imaginative way. It at least got you thinking and asking questions. I hope it will have the same effect on others. Keep asking questions and don’t accept my or anyone’s answer as the holy grail.
LikeLike
To clarify, I agree that connecting at Union is a bad idea, and a stop on Wellington makes sense. I’d pick up Front the same point that Orr does.
I also agree that running north of B-D is important. Minimum a stop at Thorncliffe – if you’re looking for density, there it is. A Science Centre/Eglinton Crosstown stop also makes a lot of sense.
For the Beachers, my vision would be a below grade “Express” LRT south from Jimmie Simpson to Lake Shore where it comes to the surface and becomes side of road ROW with a first stop at Carlaw, then Leslie, Coxwell, DD Sommerville Pool – north on Woodbine to stop at Queen Street. Phases II through IV (or so) would be a traffic light sequence to switch to centre of road, stopping where it turns onto Kingston Road and continuing on to Birchmount. Another traffic light sequence to go back to side of road ROW and then further out into wilds of Scarborough. Phase Ten has a stop in Montreal.
LikeLike
As far as coming up with a new name, to make it seem less “downtown” focused, I would suggest building a name that suggests the subway will relieve traffic from the DVP. Something like the Don Line, Donlands Line, Don Mills Line, or Don Valley Line.
I think this will emphasize for people that it is helping people in Scarborough, East York and eastern North York.
Of course, this is assuming a line that begins at Don Mills & Eglinton (or further north) and ends at a new Union Station West. That name wouldn’t work if the line was looping north to Dundas West and the airport.
LikeLike
Great analysis Steve and I note that your (and Phil Orr’s) suggested route east of Yonge is under The Esplanade rather than under Front Street. This may make sense as more and more people are living/working south of the rail corridor and it also takes into account that there is a (fairly new, 2008?) Hydro One deep tunnel under Front that runs from Sherbourne (and the Lower Sherbourne transformer station) to the John Street transformer station. I am not sure how deep it is but it may preclude putting another tunnel on top of it.
Steve: I am not wedded to a specific route in from the east, but somehow we have to dodge north to Wellington to go through the core. I am not sure that this is still possible from The Esplanade.
LikeLike
MAIN TTC/DANFORTH GO combo stations should terminate the relief line in the east, and DUNDAS WEST/BLOOR GO/AIRPORT combo stations should terminate the line in the west.
Steve: The purpose of a new line isn’t just to connect with the BD subway, but to continue north to provide alternate routes into downtown and to fill out the rapid transit grid. Dundas West to Main does not provide this function, especially in the east end.
LikeLike
My version would be similar in the East: Down Don Mills from Lawrence, through Flemingdon, Thorncliffe and then down Pape to Queen.
Steve: A bad link here has has been removed. Maybe the author will submit another comment with a valid one.
Then westwards to Downtown. With demand heaviest in East, it’s an opportunity to split the line in the West. I’d have a short branch go to the Bathurst yards, on the assumption that is how GO will deal with increased service, the line could be extended to Exhibition/East Island in future phases. The other leg would go up Dufferin as fast demand justified it. So at least to Bloor, preferably St. Clair. In future phases it could be extended a short way to Eglinton West joining up with the Spadina line and the Eglinton line.
If you are going to build this line, you might as well make it big enough to take a 1,000 passengers and make sure it runs fully automated with platform screen doors. It should be easy to get 32 trains an hour on the eastern leg. As long as the split in the line is a flying junction, then there should be no problem with a max of 16 trains an hour for both of those, or have 20 from Bathurst and 12 from the Dufferin.
Steve: We don’t need anywhere near this sort of capacity, and I am really not convinced we need a Dufferin subway.
LikeLike
Mark Dowling said it first, but others have said similar, “DRL *must not* serve Union.”
This has always been my opinion from the point of view of pedestrian flow in stations. Taking all the downtown-core-destined riders to Union and having them all unload at one point can be very problematic, likely from day one, and definitely later on.
Bringing them to some pair of points (one at Yonge, one at University) north of there distributes that flow nicely. Even those needing to use another subway to get to their destination are further distributed (some northbound and some southbound at each point) compared to all of them needing to file into Union with some heading up Yonge and some up University.
Each connection point is probably best at King/St. Andrew or Queen/Osgoode, though that does not mean the line has to be under King or Queen. Interchange stations can be built with the line under Richmond or Adelaide (for King or Queen) or under Wellington (for King). I am wondering, if there are space constraints due to building foundations, what is the possibility of the westbound tunnel under Richmond and the eastbound tunnel under Adelaide?
Steve: The constraints will be more at stations than for the tunnels between them. There is also the possibility of stacked tunnels under one street. This approach has the advantage of only screwing up one street from the point of view of utility relocations and other construction effects, rather than two. At some point, the two lines must rejoin, and getting them back together may not be easy west of downtown.
LikeLike
Given the limited space in that corridor, would it not be a better idea to preserve it for HSR than to save a few bucks on a local train line?
LikeLike
The article in last week’s Star makes two suppositions. That there would be high demand and good benefit from the so-called Northern relief line’ would fill a gap which could create a rapid transit corridor across the top of the city. Although not seamless, you could travel from near the Zoo to Humber College on rapid transit. Has this demand and potential ridership been studied?
Secondly, that even if the Sheppard Line could be extended cheaply and easily westbound from Yonge that money from the DRL would be diverted due to the necessity to create some kind of suburb-downtown compromise over subway funding.
So many of the same issues are being brought up it is nice to be having the discussion with the new optimism that the money might actually be raised.
Steve: The demand for travel across the breadth of the city is not very high, and a great deal of the travel for people living in Scarborough is local to Scarborough or north-south to Markham. Without question there are many who drive across the 401, but that is not the same as saying there is a big transit demand to make the same trip. A big problem converting auto trips to transit is that a car provides its own “collector/distributor” function that on transit is the role of local buses, or walks from stations.
LikeLike
@ Andrew: If the line is looping north to Dundas West and the airport, then we can call it “Don Valley – Weston line” 🙂
LikeLike
@ Steve
I’ll be surprised if the majority of 501 West streetcar riders do not want to transfer to the subway at Queen / Dufferin. The stop-and-go streetcar trip from Dufferin to Yonge via the congested Queen West can take 15 or 20 min, whereas the subway could make it in 5-7 min and the ride will be smoother.
When (and if) DRL West receives funding, the TTC should poll the 501 West users, and find out whether they prefer a slower one-seat ride, or a transfer to subway that cuts the total trip time. I personally would prefer the second option, but maybe that’s just me …
And yes, the loop arrangement is a challenge. If a right turn from eastbound Queen to Dufferin is impossible, then perhaps Shaw can be used. Riders from Etobicoke would transfer to DRL at Queen / Dufferin, whereas riders from downtown would board the streetcar at another station in the King / Atlantic Ave area.
LikeLike
I believe that extending the Sheppard subway westwards from Yonge to Downsview station is a horrible idea. The ridership on the western leg of the line is projected to be lower than on the eastern section between Don Mills and Scarborough Town Centre (STC).
Scarborough residents were told they won’t be getting a Sheppard subway extension to STC because the population density, peak point ridership and travel patterns along the corridor don’t justify a subway. Imagine how shafted Scarborough residents will feel if a subway line is built in North York where the population density and peak point ridership is even lower. You might as well hand Rob Ford the mayoralty in 2014.
I find the discussion on renaming the DRL so people in Scarborough will support it amusing. The Toronto Star’s proposed DRL, which runs from Pape to Union station, and doesn’t come close to reaching Scarborough. It provides little if any benefit to Scarborough commuters. The only benefit would be avoiding the Bloor-Yonge transfer and that only affects commuters heading downtown.
Having the DRL run from Don Mills and Eglinton to Union station won’t do much if anything to cut down on commute times of 1.5 to 2 hours from Scarborough to downtown Toronto (one-way). Renaming the line the ‘Don Valley’ line or the ‘We Love Scarborough’ line won’t generate any support in the eastern suburb since residents will still remember not getting a Sheppard east subway extension.
Besides, if the goal is to build a transit network and not deny some parts of the city rapid transit so we can build it in other parts of the city then why all the effort in getting Scarborough on board with the DRL? The pitch should be simple. We’re building a transit network where higher-order transit is needed. We intend to use the appropriate technology on the appropriate corridor. High density corridors get subways, medium density corridors get LRT’s or streetcars and low density corridors get buses.
LikeLike
@ Robert Wightman
If you assume that “ARL/DRL West” will operate in the Weston rail corridor but be completely separate from the mainline railway traffic, then I don’t see a reason not to use the standard TTC subway rolling stock. The existing subway cars rarely run at their full speed because of the relatively close station spacing. If the DRL station spacing is wider, then the same type of subway cars will run faster.
Secondly, your proposal is challenging from the timing and funding perspective. It means that the airport trains will not run until the downtown tunnel is built, which requires quite a bit of extra funding and will take more time.
I realize that the investment will pay off when the line continues east of downtown as DRL East (which will require a tunnel anyway). But Metrolinx is under pressure to deliver something sooner rather than later, and within the already allocated funding.
LikeLike
“South of Danforth, the next major segment takes the line to the Don River. Regardless of which crossing is chosen, the two options are either to go straight south to Eastern (or possibly Queen), then west into downtown, or to follow the rail corridor from (say) Pape southwest.”
Assuming the subway was to follow Pape all the way south, how difficult would it be to get it to make that 90 degree turn from Pape to Eastern? Would anything have to be demolished to make way for the track?
Steve: Yes, but nothing too substantial.
LikeLike