This is a companion article to one of the same name on the Torontoist website in which I argue that Toronto should have a subway line from Front & Spadina to Eglinton & Don Mills. Formerly known as the “Downtown Relief Line”, this should be called the “Don Mills Subway” and there should be no pretensions about it stopping at Danforth.
Drawing subway lines on maps, especially for the DRL, has been a cottage industry among transit advocates and city watchers for several years, and everyone has their preferences. I have stayed away from that territory most of the time because the torrent of comments (including a long thread on this side) is more than I care to moderate.
However, the Don Mills line needs advocacy and a good indication of what it might look like to counter the “downtown has enough subways” drivel dished out by Mayor Ford.
My proposed alignment is not intended to be definitive although parts of it are locked down to make specific connections and to take into account physical constraints on the route’s placement. Other alignments are possible in places, but I don’t want to revisit that discussion in excruciating detail when the basic purpose is to show what a new line could achieve.
Spadina & Front Station: This station would be part of a proposed Metrolinx/GO western Union Station to be used by services originating in the northwest corridor so that capacity at Union can be released for remaining routes. An extension west from this location to serve new development at Exhibition Place, for example, would be possible.
Note that I, like Ed Levy in his own proposal, treat the Weston corridor as a separate “DRL West” service to be operated as part of the rail network, not as an extension of the subway which for technical and regulatory reasons is extremely unlikely. We are far more likely to see the Union Pearson Express trackage repurposed for this than we will see a subway line in the corridor.
Northeast from the intersection, there is an open patch of land between existing buildings that once was the freight lead from Spadina Yard into the freight terminal where Metro Hall and Roy Thomson Hall now stand. This alignment can provide a path for the subway to travel diagonally northeast to Wellington Street.
Front Street through downtown is no longer available for an east-west subway as was once proposed because of the expansion of Union Station. Wellington is far enough south to allow a connection to the proposed Union West station at Spadina without requiring (as a map in a Metrolinx report proposed) a diagonal alignment from Queen southwest to Front through the footings of several new towers.
Wellington makes comparatively easy connections with the existing subway at:
St. Andrew Station: The station is nominally at King, but the structure extends somewhat to the south. A parking garage sits on top of the subway structure, and a pathway through it could link a station at Wellington into the existing St. Andrew Station.
King Station: The box making up King Station extends well south of King Street and includes the Melinda Street exit on the west side of Yonge as a reference point. A station at Wellington would be only a short distance south of King Station.
Continuing east on Wellington, the street merges with Front at Church Street. This is the middle of a large and growing concentration of residential buildings. Stops could be placed at:
Jarvis Street (St. Lawrence Market): This location is a major centre for the community and far enough east of Yonge to serve a distinct set of demands.
Continuing east on Front the alignment from Parliament to the Don River could be via Eastern Avenue or Front, although the latter may be difficult given plans for the West Don Lands already under construction.
Distillery District: There are two possible locations for this station at either Parliament or Cherry Street. Cherry has the advantage that it would be a connection point for the north-south streetcar service that will eventually serve the eastern waterfront and port lands developments. The stumbling block for such a connection is expansion of the underpass at the rail corridor, but that is a question of will, money and the timing of future development.
Continuing east across the Don, the line would be close to the former Lever Brothers site now owned by Great Gulf. A major commercial development will be announced for this property. An important design issue for the subway would be flood control to prevent the tunnel from being an alternate path for river floods against which Waterfront Toronto has build substantial berms in the West Don Lands.
Broadview & Eastern: This station would serve the Great Gulf development and improve access to this corner of the waterfront in general.
At this point, older plans for the DRL varied with the first versions following the rail corridor and later ones going straight along Eastern to Pape. The reason for the Eastern Avenue route was to access property in what is now the Studio District for a yard that would house trains with the same technology as the Scarborough RT.
The rail corridor, formerly owned by CNR, is now GO Transit’s who, one would hope, will be more amenable to a subway tunneled beneath their tracks. The line would curve northeast with possible stations at Queen & Degrassi and at Gerrard & Carlaw (aka Gerrard Square). The real question here is whether the line should simply blitz up to the Danforth or provide connections in Riverdale and Leslieville.
Before writers in the east end descend on me as a destroyer of their neighbourhoods, please remember (a) that I am not saying a station must be at these locations and (b) I live not far away and know the potential effects of a subway here quite well. Indeed that is why I chose the rail corridor rather than a north-south street such as Pape. People will propose stations wherever the line crosses Queen and Gerrard Streets.
For many years, the TTC has shown the DRL as ending at Pape and Danforth. Recent reports on a DRL study mentioned the need for a wye junction with the Danforth subway so that trains could reach Greenwood Yard. Building such a structure would have severe effects on existing buildings at Pape and Danforth.
That is why my proposed alignment continues east (as some of the early TTC schemes did) to the west side of Greenwood Subway Yard. This would provide a link to the existing network without the need to build a new junction somewhere under the Danforth. At the yard, the route would turn north mainly under what is now parkland and cross Danforth at Donlands Station where it would connect to the Danforth subway.
Continuing north on Donlands, there could be stations at Mortimer and at O’Connor. North of O’Connor, the line would cross the Don Valley on a medium height bridge. The exact nature of the bridge would be a trade-off between cost, the depth of the subway at each portal, and the aesthetics of the valley crossing.
On the north side of the valley, the subway could travel under Thorncliffe Park. The alignment shown on the map is a placeholder and should not be read as definitive “dig here” instructions. It must dodge between apartment towers, a school and commercial buildings, but there is still considerable open space where construction would be comparatively easy.
Thorncliffe Park is a major concentration for housing with a lot of underutilized commercial space. The exact location of a station here would depend on the alignment that proves workable. In the map, it is at Overlea & Thorncliffe Park East as a placeholder.
It would not be possible for the line to run straight east to Don Mills and then turn north for various reasons including curve radius constraints, the location of a school on the north-west corner of the intersection, and potential conflict with the road bridge on Overlea west of Don Mills. Instead, the line could turn north through the park lands behind the school and enter Don Mills well north of Overlea.
Flemingdon Park is another major housing concentration, but it is fairly spread out and will require a bus feeder to connect most potential riders to the subway. In this proposal, I have sited the station at the north branch of Gateway Blvd. (the south branch is directly opposite Overlea at Don Mills) and near enough to the Science Centre that it could also serve as its local stop.
Finally, there would be a station at Don Mills & Eglinton where the line would connect with the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. Future extension could take the subway further north including a possible link to a future GO service on the CPR corridor south of Barber Greene Road. That is years from happening, but so is this plan.
Whether this is the point to end the subway line and switch simply to buses or a future LRT is beyond anyone’s ability to say this far in advance. However, models of the Don Mills line showed riding in the 16,000 per peak hour/direction range decades ago putting the line beyond LRT territory. Moreover, there is no surface right-of-way or arterial road wide enough to host such a line. With 100% grade separation and strong demand, subway is the appropriate choice.
Steve Munro 
I think the Downtown Relief line should extend further west and east along Queen or King Streets before turning northward. The King and Queen streetcar lines are packed with people and the service delays and bunching of streetcars on them are legendary and are always discussed. New development is already occurring all along those roads. Getting to the Beaches in the east end during the summer is huge task as you have to drive or take slow streetcars to get there. The TTC is talking about having dedicated streetcar lanes on one of these streets. Steve, you even talk about how the Bloor-Yonge station lower platform (Bloor-Danforth line) cannot handle any more people. Have the subway along King in the core, then go up on Queen near the Don River and go eastward as far as Coxwell – then go north up Coxsell and straight up Don Mills. Why should all the people in the downtown who live 1 km and more south of Bloor-Danforth be relegated to slow streetcars. Some people, including the author of this article, say the water line is too close to the surface in the east end to build a subway but subways are built in low-lying lands all over the place and that should be able to be overcome no problem.
LikeLike
I’m a big supporter of the BD line extension to STC and and LRT network feeding in. But also understand the importance of the DRL which should be built ASAP along with the Scarborough Sheppard LRT & Subway extension.
Looking at the news today. I don’t believe we are going to be worrying about any further transit building stoppages (at least from the City) for the next 4 years.
LikeLike
Great Plan.
There’s great symmetry on having Yonge, Spadina and Don Mills as the three north-ward corridors. In terms of demand, I agree here as well. There’s a lot of TTC traffic going east all the way to the Yonge subway by bus and streetcar that you can strip off and take directly downtown. This applies all the way to Don Mills station. The long trip across (choose yours: Sheppard, York Mills/Ellesmere, Lawrence, Eglinton, Danforth, Gerrard, Queen) is one that riders won’t miss.
LikeLike
I agree! The big problem with how the DRL is portrayed by the TTC is that it is all about solving rush hour problems at one station. If we are going to spend billions on a subway, it should provide a *lot* more in benefits than that. (If the DRL was just about solving Bloor-Yonge, then a good option would be to split the B-D line in two at (say) Pape, and have the DRL be an an extension of the eastern potion…)
The comments about the need for an eastern DRL all revolve around how long it takes to get downtown; the western DRL is all about extra capacity. Two different problems (probably) require two different solutions. An UPExpress 2.0 could help with the speed from the west, while a Don Mills subway would help with capacity from the east. People should [not be] feeling we must solve all our problems with just one transit line.
My main comment on the stations is that it would be good to have an interchnage with the Richmond Hill line at the West Don lands. It would provide access to the points east of the Don River served by the new subway line, and increase the number of passengers switching from the Yonge line. Or would this be covered by the Cherry St or Broadview stations?
Steve: The Richmond Hill line is somewhat east of Cherry, certainly not a convenient walk, but also at the point where the subway would be going under the Don River, not a good place for a station. I don’t agree with a connection point here given that the Richmond Hill trains would almost be at Union Station anyhow, and do not see this as a reason for shifting the subway station further east away from Cherry which is the “main street” of the West Donlands.
If the station box for the Yonge station had its east end at Yonge, then its western end up would be at Bay (roughly). The result would be a (potential) short walk to either King or Union. (Although the only benefit would be to those using VIA or GO services. You’d only do it if it was the easiest thing to build for some reason.)
LikeLike
Couple of comments & thoughts and questions. First of all, the area to the south in between Donlands & Pape is my ‘hood, and is quite “hipster”. A lot of anti-any development practices so I hope extreme local NIMBYism that I see constantly, doesn’t interfere with something that is badly needed.
1) The idea of using the Greenwood yard is great way of saving some dough. Do we know that it has enough excess capacity to handle the repairs for the subway you propose?
Steve: It is already full, and the TTC needs a new yard somewhere no matter what route the Don Mills line takes. The big issue is avoiding the need for a separate junction with the BD subway at Pape that would result in demolition of two of the four corners of the intersection.
2) I am curious about doing construction that includes both cut & cover and deep bore and what sort of lengths/alignments/angles would make sense to consider both. I use Donlands Ave regularly, and N-S traffic in this part of Old TO & East York is not much of an issue… so I’m curious how much money we could save by using cut & cover for the stretch north of Donlands station up to the bridge to Leaside? when does it make sense to do a hybrid? How deep does C&C make sense for?
Steve: There’s a good argument to be made for cut-and-cover in sections of this route that are simply too short to be worth doing deep bore tunneling. Also, by staying closer to the surface, the cost of stations (and the effort needed to access them) is reduced.
3) I’m not sure I understand why people think that the eastern corridor is not slated for development. The official city plan cites all the major E-W avenues as potential for development, and Leslieville & Riverdale are seeing lots of infills and mid-rise. My understanding is that Danforth declined after switch from streetcar to subway as it’s very complicated & overpriced for developers to buy up adjacent lots which would be required for putting in a mid-rise. So is that what the comments are referring to?
Steve: Probably. Danforth & Donlands is an obvious development node as is Gerrard Square.
4) How much do you think it would cost to end the line at Liberty Village? I.e. extend it a bit farther west. If I use my back of envelope math, it looks to be about 2km straight line from Spad & front, which means $600M to add this? Wouldn’t it make sense for the subway to go along the rail corridor for some of that, then curve slightly north and put itself underneath the core or are the angles and curves too steep/extreme?
Steve: The first part of the route is easy — just follow Front Street west to Bathurst, but then you have to get past the rail corridor and decide which route to take into Liberty Village itself. I remain concerned that with the “Village” spreading north to Queen, a subway down near the rail corridor won’t be very attractive to many residents. In any event, there is a lot the TTC should be doing to improve service on both Queen and King, and we shouldn’t have to wait a decade or more for people in that area to get better transit.
5) So I understand the “demands & desires” for the west-end, besides the 504 streetcar, how does the incoming traffic compare on the west end (within Toronto) vs. the east end for the 501, 504, 505, 506, Exhibition/Dundas&Bloor west GO vs. Main/Scarborough GO stations?
Hypothetically what sort of ridership would the West DRL expect? Enough for subway? Isn’t the planned additions to the UPEx including Weston & Dundas/Bloor TTC connectivity, and the fact that trains will leave every 15 mins from either end meaning a fairly reliable (albeit expensive) rapid line to the core?
Steve: It is important to recognize that the streetcar lines serve local demand originating mainly along the routes, while the rapid transit lines are feed by connecting surface routes. There are more of these to the east than to the west and the alignment of Don Mills is quite different from that of the Weston corridor (i.e. they are not reflections of each other on either side of Yonge). There is also the question of access to the GO stations which is difficult for would-be riders at some locations. The services are not interchangeable even though they may appear to be in the same general location on a map.
As for the UPX, that corridor needs better than a 15-minute service and a reasonable fare to be credible as a commuter line.
6) What are approximate “bridge” costs for subway runs? The Don Valley is 1+km wide at sections and would need quite a structure.
Steve: This depends on how one builds the bridge. It does not have to be at the same elevation as a road bridge because it will be connecting two underground sections of the route. The tradeoff is between tunnel depth and bridge height. We seem to be perfectly happy to pay $300m/km for a tunnel, and I doubt a bridge would cost that much.
By the way, a crossing from Pape would probably be longer than from Donlands given that the bridge would start further west. The line cannot follow the street pattern of Pape and the Leaside bridge because of curve radius constraints at both ends of that bridge, and the bridge itself cannot support the extra weight of a subway. (Structural provision for streetcars in the 20s was used up on the bridge widening in the 60s, and you can see a good view of the current structure on Wikipedia. Until the bridge was widened, the street lights were mounted on TTC-style overhead poles for the planned route into the industrial district further north.)
7) I believe Broadview is soon to be connected to Lake Shore, but this is pending the Gardiner East developments too.
Steve: Yes, this has been mentioned as a possible link for the Queens Quay East LRT line north to Broadview Station so that there would be service near the proposed Great Gulf development (Lever site) and other planned buildings in the area. The Gardiner project doesn’t really affect this piece because it is on the west side of the river.
8) Would some of the hills in Old TO East and East York cause problems for subway inclines/declines and the depth?
Steve: There is a hill to climb north from Queen to Danforth, although this would be done in two stages given the need to get under the Gerrard/Carlaw intersection. At Danforth, the line would be deep because it has to get under the Danforth subway. From there to O’Connor, the design would depend in part on planned station locations. There would be a tradeoff between the depth of O’Connor station and the elevation of the bridge to Thorncliffe Park. Note that this issue affects any north-south alignment.
I know you were trying to avoid specifics Steve, but I want to clarify my understanding and the FACTS around design decisions and everyone’s POV.
LikeLike
Have pigs taken flight!? Are we really seeing lines on a map here?! It’s about time. This route makes perfect sense. Such a line should be the next priority now. Now now that the popo has the RoFo video the political climate could change.
Given that we wouldn’t see it come about before 10 years time, can we look at options for the interim? Not to go off on a tangent, but the potentials and permutations of a DRL-ish transit mall have intrigued me of late.
Options such as one-waying Queen & King in opposite directions, say between the Don and Spadina, to form a downtown loop. And/or having exclusive ROW for streetcars on those stretches of those streets (during rush hours only?) on one or both sets of track (one for express {if on a one-way})? Maybe Broadview and Spadina stations could be the ends of the “U” with their turnarounds.
Steve: Pigs do become airborne now and then. The trick is keeping them up there.
LikeLike
Incidentally, that’s Metrolinx’s favoured option.
Yeah, I’m pretty interested to hear more interim plans too.
The TTC is floating the idea of restricting King to streetcars during rush-hour. Although, it seems silly to me to only do it during peak hours. If you can get by without car capacity during rush hour, surely you can get by without the car capacity during off-peak hours? Making it a full transit mall could also have the benefit of giving more patio space to the restaurants on King.
Lately I’ve been baking this hairbrained temporary-relief plan. Yonge passengers take the clockwise trains downtown, while Bloor and Danforth passengers mostly take the counter-clockwise trains, ameliorating some of the congestion between Bloor and King.
Unfortunately, that alignment pretty clearly screws over passengers on the Spadina line. Creating a loop between the east sides of Upper-Bay and Upper-St. George (or maybe a series of pocket tracks up Bay St.?) would solve that fairly nicely, but I’m really getting to la-la-land now.
Steve: Not just la-la-land, but you violate your own desire for “interim” plans. Why would we restructure the junction between the BD and YUS lines all for an “interim” arrangement particularly considering that the volume of transfer traffic between the Spadina line and the rest of the system would overwhelm the transfer stations?
Regional travel on the subway is a different issue from local travel on the streetcar lines. The AM peak only proposal for transit exclusivity on King is poorly thought out, but a classic case of aiming low. Congestion is not a problem, relatively speaking, on King until the parking restrictions come off at 9am. The much bigger problems are through the day and the pm peak which is also too short with snarls developing at 6:00 pm.
Then there is the small matter of the capacity of the service itself. The TTC has refused to add service on King or Queen because it has no spare cars and, on King, claims that they would not fit anyhow. That may be a credible statement in the AM peak where there is now a wave of 2′ headway eastbound that lasts roughly an hour, but it is not true for the line overall and certainly not for the pm peak. With the advent of the new LFLRVs, the TTC needs to beef up am peak capacity with a 1:1 car replacement, and add to pm capacity. This is in the plans, to some extent, but still some years away.
LikeLike
Hi Steve,
I’m curious how one might justify this line, from the Danforth to Eglinton, from a ridership perspective. After the recent Scarborough subway debate, during which many of the commentators on this site were indignant about its insufficient ridership for a full subway extension, it seems highly ironic for people to be chiming in here in support of this idea.
The latest downtown relief line study put forward by the TTC gives us an early indication of how many riders might use this line during the peak morning period: it suggests a mere 1800 boardings at Eg and Don Mills, 1800 at Thorncliffe/Flemingon Park and 1400 more at Cosburn. And this line would, according to their metrics, siphon off less than 1000 riders per hour from the Yonge line, a rather paltry number given that this line’s primary rational is to provide relief to the Yonge line.
I certainly don’t hate this idea, but it seems expensive given it serves relatively few people, more so than the Scarborough extension. And the mantra of supporting ‘under-served communities’ sounds more like the subways for Scarborough rhetoric than sound, empirically guided transit planning.
Thanks,
Kent
Steve: It is worth noting that the total boardings for the Eglinton option is 5,000 north of Danforth (summing the numbers you cite which for those who are looking this up are on page 63 of the study). This is greater than the difference between the boardings at the DRL/BD junction of 6,200 with the Eglinton leg and 9,400 without it (page 53). What does happen, however, is that the volume of pedestrian traffic through the junction is reduced by 1/3. Extension further north on Don Mills may prove beneficial, but I would not use that as an initial claim for a new line. To put this in context, the demand north of Danforth is not unlike what is projected at York University on the Spadina extension.
As for relief of the Yonge subway, I have a few problems with the projections. The west to south numbers at Bloor Yonge are as follows (page 64):
The total westbound approach is predicted to rise from 22,630 to 30,650 or about 1/3 despite the fact that there is little or no reserve capacity on the BD line. TTC talks about adding capacity through ATO, but as I have discussed here before, I believe that this is oversold due to track time constraints at terminals and pedestrian capacity constraints at major line stations, notably Bloor-Yonge. In the same diagram, the total southbound demand to Bloor is projected to almost double from 19,660 to 34,000. The total modelled demand south of Bloor is over 40K. This is not physically possible.
What we are seeing is the work of a model that is not capacity constrained and therefore does not show the effects of travel choices based on congestion points in the network.
By comparison with Scarborough, it is important to remember that a substantial chunk of the claimed demand for that subway extension comes from Markham commuters who the model assigned to the subway because there is no increase in GO service for them to use as an alternative. This has been an ongoing problem in subway network modelling in Toronto — overselling a subway by poaching riders who would be on GO if only the service existed. (The original Sheppard subway modelling decades ago presumed no changes in the GO network for a period of over two decades.) Moreover, Scarborough can be served by the proposed LRT in a better way for the trips that will actually originate along the line. The point in Scarborough is not to deprive riders of service, but to provide it less expensively.
If we build a line to be full all the way to the terminal, we have the same situation as now exists on Yonge north of Eglinton, and that’s not where we want to end up. The modeled 5K/hour southbound to Danforth is the equivalent of considerably more bus service than now operates into Pape Station (the service to Donlands is trivial in this discussion) and is well into LRT territory. However, such an LRT would have to be grade separated (much like Eglinton’s central section) and with the demand into the core pushing LRT limits (considerably higher projections have appeared in the past), subway technology is the appropriate choice for this line.
The Transit City plan included a Don Mills LRT but presumed that it could operate on the surface from Danforth to Eglinton. This is not physically possible, although TTC and consultant planners wasted a lot of everyone’s time trying to come up with a scheme for this, and in the process damaged the line’s credibility. I didn’t agree with this, but despite what some people think, I was not the controlling hand behind the plan responsible for its every detail. Believe me, if I had been, that proposal would have been strangled at birth. If there is eventually an LRT on Don Mills, it would start farther north, maybe from Eglinton. That is years in the future and not worth detailed discussion in the context of the “DRL East”.
And so to conclude, I believe that the numbers in the TTC study understate potential demand on a Don Mills line and in particular overstate the capacity (and attractiveness) of the system to continue handling trips flowing through Bloor-Yonge and on the BD line generally.
LikeLike
The Don Mills heavy rail subway should start, not at Front & Spadina, but at minimum at Front & Bathurst. The contaminated soil just west of that corner has to be removed always, so having the tunneling starting there makes good sense to me, and provides transfer feeds from the Bathurst streetcar. Having a station west of there, at Exhibition Place/Liberty Village, would be better, but having to cross those railway tracks (over or under) maybe a problem.
Continuing east and north, the tunneling should not stop at Danforth/Donlands, but continue on north to the Don River Valley. However, like Keele or Woodbine of the original Bloor-Danforth subwy, the Danforth station would only be a temporary terminal. Work would continue north of Danforth until Eglinton/Don Mills, so that portion can open at some later date, to spread out the cost.
However, that should not be the end of it. The Don Mills heavy rail subway should continue on north on Don Mills to Sheppard & Don Mills. North of Sheppard, the LRT should continue rapid transit until Steeles. In addition, the Finch West LRT could be extended east to Don Mills and south to terminate at Sheppard & Don Mills. East of Sheppard & Don Mills, rapid transit service would be served by the Sheppard East LRT to the Toronto Zoo.
West of Sheppard & Don Mills, the Sheppard Subway Shuttle would provide heavy rail service between the Yonge Subway and the Don Mills Subway and the Finch LRT and the Don Mills LRT and the Sheppard East LRT. Alternatively, the Sheppard Subway and the Don Mills Subway could be joined to provide continuous heavy rail service. Maybe the Willowdale Station could be added, if the NIMBYs ask for it.
Steve: I’m with you up to the point where you link the Sheppard and Don Mills lines. This would require a major restructuring of the Sheppard line whose Don Mills station is mainly east of the intersection, and would make it almost impossible to have a station actually at that “junction” because of the need for the curve from one line to the other.
LikeLike
Steve: What “factual errors”?
You wrote:
“I am not going to comment in detail on this beyond saying that I think you are hugely off-base and your comment is filled with factual errors. You have completely missed the point that the goal of the line is not to serve Riverdale (although two possible development sites at Broadview and at Gerrard are self-evident), but to continue north.”
And the route I proposed does the same thing. Part of the justification for the Sheppard subway was the large number of people using buses on Sheppard. But the official policy is that transit and density should go together… this is why we are getting inappropriate midrise condos in The Beach because we supposed have excellent transit (ya, the 501 streetcar = more density despite poor service!) Riverdale will have to accept highrise is the line goes up Pape.
The route I propose would be only 3.5km to castle frank from Queen and Yonge, versus 5.5km from King and Yonge to Pape and Danforth, with the extra cost of tunneling under the Don River and the former marshlands that made building the west Donlands berm etc. so expensive.
Don Mils and Eglinton is in decline – office towers have been demolished or converted to condos… it is quite unlike the masses of people coming in from Scarborough on Danforth, a level reached after 50 years (since the Danforth line was built)… it takes time to build ridership.
The route I propose can easily be extended north to Thorncliffe Park by going at grade (or elevated above ground) from Castle Frank, past the Brickworks, past the Loblaws to Millwood and Overlea, instead of using the Overlea Bridge to get to the same place (which can only accommodate LRTs on the deck as opposed to being under it, and I do not know if the bridge is strong enough without needing reinforcing to carry the LRTs).
Steve: I was originally going to delete this comment, but then decided to make a few replies. First off, Castle Frank Station is far too close to Yonge street as a relief point. Second, the projected demand south of Danforth is over 10K/hour. I am not sure how you would organize the transfer movements between the side-by-side stations.
Don Mills and Eglinton in decline? Well, there is a new development already posted for the southeast corner. On the northeast, the land is owned by the City and will be used for the Don Mills Station bus terminal with provision for development above. To the southwest is the Science Centre which has a lot of vacant land that one day may be used for development. Finally, on the northwest is the former IBM, now Celestica plant which, I suspect, will be a tempting development site by 2031. Too valuable for a sprawling manufacturing site.
Your route also completely misses the West Don Lands which is a major development node, all so that you can make use of a vestigial station at Queen and Yonge.
LikeLike
@toronto Streetcar
Why do I get the impression I have not suggested, in any way, shape or form, that people in the west end of Toronto should get nothing? Could it be because of the fact I have not suggested such a thing? What I have said, and will keep saying, is that looks to me that the best choice to link the core to Dundas West station (and beyond) is regular GO train service (something you conveniently forgot when copying a truncated part of my comments). Feel free at anytime to argue that Roncesvalles is a better route. Or that extended train service using the existing tracks is not a solution. But you want a real discussion, do YOURSELF a favour and don’t misrepresent my opinions.
Now, as to why either a subway or extended train service using the train corridor between Dundas West and the core is better than Roncesvalles — responding to your arguments:
1) Subway from Dundas West down Roncesvalles then east to the core would provide an alternative to the Bloor-Danforth line. Indeed. So would rapid transit (subway or improved train service) using the rail corridor. And that would be a shorter, faster and less expensive way to provide service from Dundas West to the core. I would also be curious to see a comparison between the population numbers near both routes.
2) Metrolinx has already suggested building a satellite train station at Bathurst and have the Georgetown and Barrie trains stop there, with connection to the TTC network (methinks that the Don Mills would be such connexion). Whether it’s train or subway, a rapid transit line going down from Dundas West does not have to go all the way to Union Station.
Speaking of Union Station. Yes, it is a madhouse, and yes the more transit we can divert from it the better — there is only so many subway lines and train lines that can be handled through that space. But, as I have already pointed out, rapid transit coming from Dundas West does not need to go to or through Union.
3B) The 501 line offers lousy service. The main problem (besides poor frequency) is that it is used both as a local line on Queen (the purpose of a streetcar) and as a transit corridor from Mimico and Long Branch to downtown. That role would be more properly served by improved GO train service and rapid transit linking Mimico to the core. In and by itself, a connection between the 501 and rapid transit, either at Roncesvalles or where the train corridor intersects with Queen, is not the solution to the western Lakeshore area transit problems. And no, I am not arguing that there should be no connection.
3A) We do not have to have a stop on Roncesvalles. So, let’s have a subway passing underneath the whole length of that street, but not stopping anywhere on that street? How is that gonna provide people living close to Roncesvalles (including myself, btw) better connection to downtown than a route down the rail corridor?
Steve: A general comment here. If this thread gets into a slagging match between proponents of alternate routes (something that has happened before), I will simply delete the comments. I have said before that my opinion is that the Roncesvalles alignment is really, really dumb. It makes the Scarborough subway look like inspired planning by comparison. We’re talking about a line from Don Mills into downtown from the east. Please stay on topic.
LikeLike
@ Sam
Thinking of the Don Mills line (or the Downtown Relief Line, if you prefer to call it that way) only as a relief line is limiting its purpose. The proposed route would pass through or near two areas with huge transit demand poorly served currently, Thorncliffe and Flemingdon. A large proportion of the ridership on that line would come from those two areas, so it does not make sense to not have stops there just so people at Eglinton can have express service.
LikeLike
Steve, this discussion model of a Don Mills subway line (DML) is great! I have just a few comments, and then a question for you.
1. Agree that we should be discussing the east side of a DRL, as it has a greater urgency than the west side.
2. Agree very strongly that Don Mills line should basically run from downtown up to meet the Eglinton Crosstown LRT.
3. Agree very strongly on using Wellington instead of Front, King, or Queen for the various reasons already mentioned (I suggested the same last summer).
4. I like how you propose both a Mortimer and an O’Connor station north of the Danforth. The subway line should meet the needs of both long-distance commuters AND local transit (since it is passing through their neighbourhood).
5. I like that, for discussion purposes for now, the DML’s western terminus is at Spadina & Front at the “Western Union Station”. Although, one more stop can put it into Liberty Village.
6. Furthermore, this past summer on this blog I already wrote very strongly against a Roncesvalles subway alignment, that the rail corridor is way better, but how about a Dufferin route?
However, a block-by-block discussion might be necessary!
Steve, my question relates to the pros and cons of a Pape alignment vs a Donlands alignment. Part of this consideration is storage of the trains. Greenwood Subway Yard would be much better accessed if a Donlands alignment was used. I am reading your brief description of the routing in this area, as well as referring to the map. If I understand you, the DML would get onto the CNR right-of-way, maybe at Eastern Ave., and at the subway yard veer north. So, I presume that the DML would not wye at the BD line, rather, enter Greenwood Yard from the west side. Is this correct? My map shows a small park to the northwest of the subway yard, is this the parkland that you were talking about? Then about 2 blocks to Danforth and onwards up Donlands. There would be some property acquisition just south of Danforth, and the crossing to Thorncliffe Park is direct. I will agree that this sounds like a plausible route.
But, the discussion also mentions that Greenwood Yard cannot handle any additional trains.
If access to Greenwood Yard was irrelevant, then would not Pape be a much better alignment? A busier street, a straighter route.
But, a new subway line will necessitate a new train yard somewhere. Just a couple of quick ideas: (1) just beyond the western terminus in the railways lands; or (2) a connection to YUS for storage in Downsview? (One idea that got dismissed already was a new train yard at Six Points, so that DML could use Greenwood.) Perhaps there is room for storage in the McCowan Yard after SRT is closed down? .. Steve, your comments, please?
Steve: As I have mentioned in some other replies, the reason for going via Greenwood is to get a connection to the existing system without having to build a wye at Pape and Danforth as the TTC has proposed. This would not be possible without very substantial demolition in a popular and well-established business district.
Some BD train storage may be shifted elsewhere to free up room at Greenwood, but there would have to be a detailed service plan (YUS has its own problems if the TTC reduces headways as they claim to under future ATO) and site evaluation. This will be an issue regardless of where the Don Mills line actually runs.
LikeLike
I won’t say anything like that until Ford actually loses the next election and/or is literally dragged out of his office by the police. One thing that has concerned me is whether a Ford reelection would result in him spending four years committing revenge on the things that he believes “crossed” him and transit would most likely be a target of that.
Steve: That’s why we must all work to ensure his well-deserved defeat.
LikeLike
@M. Briganti,
Church Relief Concept…
While congestion is mostly a rush hour phenomenon, it is hardly limited to the area from Union to Bloor. It starts right at Finch. A subway line starting at just north of Yonge will do nothing for the congestion further north. Improved Go Transit train service from Richmond Hill and the Don Mills line will do more to reduce congestion along the whole line than a Church Street subway.
Also, where would that line start from. You start it from Union, you need additional platforms at a station that is already bursting at the seems. You start it at let’s Church and Front, and how will people arriving at Union by train and heading north of Yonge (yes, there are some) do the connection.
Will there be a connection between that line and the Bloor-Danforth line? If there’s none, what will people going on that line who want to go north on Yonge (or from Yonge to BD) do?
So we have a line that only solves a small part of the problem, with problems of its own, and that on top of everything would be closed most of the time. No matter the cost. a Don Mills line looks better and better by the minute.
Steve: A Church Street subway would be the ultimate irony — a subway to replace a bus line that was abandoned decades ago.
LikeLike
It is about time that extending this line to Eglinton is being discussed. Both from a transit point of view and politically, this is a necessity. I too have struggled with a West portion because it depends greatly on what becomes of the ARL and the Ex.
For the East alignment, I do not think the number of stations would prevent its use. Nobody from Scarborough will transfer to the DRL portion of the Don Mills line if they have to transfer again at Yonge. An extra station or two would not be as big of an influence as choosing the correct east-west route to hit the most destinations.
I do see a few problems at Eglinton. Firstly, the Eglinton LRT does not connect grade-separated to Don Mills.
Steve: Says who? The Eglinton LRT is underground at Don Mills. It is at grade climbing east out of the valley where the Celestica interchange is, but goes underground west of Don Mills. It then emerges east of Don Mills in time for the surface stop at Ferrand Drive.
Eastbound trains would short turn at Laird and this would reduce the possibility of Eglinton riders heading east to use the Don Mills Subway.
Steve: Why are we worrying about people going east on Eglinton to Don Mills when the primary market is those coming west?
Secondly, I believe that a grade-separated (i.e. elevated) Eglinton East line, connected to the SRT would work much better with this proposal than the current B-D Subway extension. Scarborough riders could take Eglinton westbound to join the Don Mills line instead of taking Danforth. It would also be easier to make the new Don Mills/Eglinton station a major interchange than to make the Danforth line / Don Mills line one. I do worry that the decisions made on Eglinton today may reduce the chances of the Don Mills line being supported in the future – it may be viewed as only supporting a few neighbourhoods rather than supporting a whole network.
Steve: Ah yes, the Eglinton Avenue elevated. Your argument hinges on the claim of a poor connection at Don Mills with surface LRT operation, but that’s not what is planned.
LikeLike
This routing bothers me for two reasons:
1) Lack of a connection to Union Station. By connecting at St Andrew and King, you are forcing commuters to take a transfer in order to reach Union.
2) The routing on Donlands. Donlands Street itself is very sparsely populated whereas Pape towards the west has more higher density development. I have always thought Pape Station as a new hub for the subway and not Donlands.
My thoughts about this DRL line are that it should go down to Union, and meet up with the University portion of the YUS line and run to its new terminus in Vaughan. Meanwhile, an extension could be built from Union that would see the Yonge portion of the line going west and terminating at Exhibition. Such a connection would not only provide for an interchange with the GO Station presently there (GO could make the Lakeshore line stop there at all times for a convenient transfer), but both the 63 Ossington, 29 Dufferin, and maybe the 47 Lansdowne could be rerouted to serve this station, providing direct access to the subway. And let us not forget about Waterfront West LRT which could connect there.
Why do I think the YUS should be split in two? I’ve always seen University as more of a support line and not the main trunk line. Given the popularity of the Yonge Line, the option to connect to such high traffic areas as the Ex, Rogers Center (yes I know that is more seasonal than anything) and others is far better suited to a transit corridor like Yonge. Also, for people using the DRL from the east, this gives them an option for a single seat right to stations downtown, albeit on the Western side of the U in downtown Toronto.
LikeLike
My only major thought on this is whether we should really be terminating at Spadina. My thoughts recently have been a line very much like this, but that continuing to Exhibition (East) loop would be easily worth the cost. Without even getting into the benefit if combined with parts of the Waterfront West LRT it creates a much better integration with the western and waterfront streetcar lines, does a real service to the ex itself, supports whatever we do in terms of redeveloping Ontario Place and expanding the CNE grounds and above all (at least in terms of ridership) opens up Liberty Village in a big way. Beyond the benefity it shouldn’t be terribly hard to do at least most of this line at grade with the right of way for the Front Street Extension still mostly existing, and it strikes me that the triangle of land between the Lakeshore and Georgetown corridors east of Strachan could be a good site for a yard big enough to handle just about any version of the DRL if heavy work is left at Greenwood.
LikeLike
Eric,
Having the Don Mills line go through King-St. Andrews instead of Union would be an inconvenience to people going through Union, either because their final destination/point of departure is south of it (ACC, waterfront) or because they are transiting to/from another mode of transportation (GO train or bus, Waterfront LRT, VIA train, airport train in the future). As many people, and possibly even more at times, would be likely to go north from King station or have their final destination on or near King Street. These are people whou would have to navigate through an overcrowded Union station to reach their final destination. Looks to me than the inconvenience of a Union route are a little bigger than those of a King-St. Andrew route.
As for your idea for a splitting of the Yonge-University-Spadina Line, I don’t see how the possible advantages of it outweight the inconvenience or confusion for people now used to 35 years of that line configuration.
LikeLike
Slightly unrelated to the Don Mills line but very important to the future of the Greater Toronto Area rail network:
If the FRA is changing regulations regarding buff strength and allowing lighter ‘European’ trains to share track with oversized, overweight North American trains…and these regulatory changes are matched by Transport Canada, this is a huge opportunity to build better railway based transit.
For Ottawa’s O-Train this could mean that they don’t need to recertify every morning … for Toronto this could mean DMUs running on the Stouffville line, or a better UPEx service, or more affordable electrified regional express trains that don’t have to weigh as much as an Acela(phant).
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: This is an important development, certainly in the time scale of things like GO electrification. The one caveat, noted by the article, is that the requirement for Positive Train Control will come into effect in the same timeframe south of the border. The Canadian roads have been resisting this and if PTC is a pre-requisite for the new standard, we could be in for a long wait.
LikeLike
Why not build the train yard for the DML underneath the Ontario Science Centre parking lot? If there isn’t enough length, you might be able to extend it down into the Seton Park Archery Range. That however will necessitate the removal of a lot of trees which many will not be pleased.
As for the Science Centre, it would cause considerable disruption while the yard is under construction. But, on the positive you might be able to have a “window” to how the trains are maintained.
Steve: The parking lot on the SW corner of Don Mills and Eglinton is not long enough to hold two trains per track and so the capacity here is limited. However, nothing prevents the construction of a multi-track section north of the intersection similar to what has been proposed between Finch and Cummer Stations on the Yonge extension, or a similar arrangement at Richmond Hill Station. This would also “prebuild” a chunk of the line for a future northern extension making it cheaper, for example, to reach a station at the CPR line south of Barber Greene if GO ever operates service there.
Storage facilities could also be provided west of the Spadina/Front Station in a similar manner on an alignment that would be common to any future extension to the west.
LikeLike
The Union Pearson Express will fail, as is. It will probably evolve into a more urban express rapid transit line from Union Station. There will be more stations, but they’ll be express feeder stations and not local stations. That evolved UPEx will become the western arm of former dreams of a downtown relief line.
What would feed this evolved UPEx? The rapid transit lines definitely will feed it. Bloor-Danforth, Eglinton Crosstown, and at some future date, the Jane LRT and an extended Finch West LRT (wherever that would be) are all possible rapid transit feeders.
LikeLike
If you use LRTs (instead of subway cars) and use Front Street, is it possible to link into the Harbourfront LRT underground line and loop at Union?
Steve: No. The projected level of demand on the Don Mills line is way above that of a street-running LRT. The loop at Union is too tight for the Metrolinx LRVs and not big enough to hold a train, and there would be severe problems trying to handle the pedestrian traffic a Don Mills line would bring on top of all of the other demands. Also, there is no real estate left under Front Street for an eastern connection as the space is all occupied by the subway.
LikeLike
Who are all these people coming from the eastern suburbs that are heading all the way down to Union?!?
Sure, there are some. But I suspect there are far more people trying to get to either Dundas or Queen than are trying to get to Union. They will need to transfer as well, but doing so with the absence of the hordes people coming and going at the Bloor-Yonge interchange will be a great improvement.
Union is busy enough without bringing in a Don Mills train full of people to add to it. The Wellington alignment puts at least one station close enough to Union that the walking distance is trivial. Perhaps, that walking distance could even be within the fare-paid area, similar to the walk in Paris between the Châtelet-Les Halles RER station with both the Châtelet and the Les Halles stations on Metro line 11. Paris has a few other fare-paid connections that include more than one station on a single line.
Steve: With the advent of Presto (or contactless payment technology in general), the concept of the “paid area” should be a thing of the past beyond a sign saying “if you’re here, you need to have a valid fare on your card”.
LikeLike
Steve,
Love the alignment you propose… makes sense in every way.
I have a few comments on other comments:
To those questioning the lack of a GO interface at Gerrard, I wonder if re-building the former Riverdale station at Queen/Degrassi would be a better option? I believe the platform structure still partially exists at this site, though may not be usable. This would seem a better site as it is straight and in a fairly level spot in the grade up from the Don crossing.
Steve: The point of the Gerrard Station is to sit beside Gerrard Square which is a large piece of property ripe for redevelopment. I already have a station in the plan at Queen on the proposed subway. I do not think either of them should make a connection with GO, something that would require considerable additional space for platforms and vertical circulation between the railway and the subway a few levels down (with street level in between).
For Greenwood, the obvious alignment would seem to be to follow Condor Ave or slightly east of it? This would solve the problem “easily” by acquiring the land between the new alignment and Greenwood yard between the rail corridor and the parkette. The interchange tracks and more storage tracks could then be added above grade (the line itself could be above or below grade here, there is sufficient space for either arrangement of portals). The only issue I see in this area is the Collegiate Institute sitting in line with the logical alignment under Donlands.
Steve: The alignment along the west side of Greenwood is taken from a TTC plan that is 50 years old, and I have to assume they thought this was a good way to connect the two lines. From the yard, it is easy to swing through the park to the northwest and then head north, missing Eastern Commerce, to the Danforth where the line would jog slightly east to get under Donlands.
And lastly IF extending the line another stop west to serve Liberty village, the station itself need not be south of the rail corridor, it could follow the north side of it with the station near King/Douro. This site is straight and free of obvious impediments to a subway station partially under the northern part of the rail corridor and partially under Douro St. Pedestrian tunnels under the rail corridor at the north west end of the station to access Liberty in the area of the current Metro store or Western Battery Rd. The only difficulties I see with such an alignment are the abattoir, and the new Strachan rail trench/overpass… neither of which should be very difficult to overcome.
LikeLike
How many people really want to reach Union? Most of GO’s passengers head north to the business district while a few go south the Harbour area.
Neither street has high density but granted Pape’s may be higher, not high. There are not a lot of stations where the walk ins outnumber the transfers from other lines and in those that do the number is small.
A couple of minor problems with this idea:
A) You would need to totally tear up Union station again for a couple years, probably 3.
B) There would be no through service around the bottom of the line for the duration of construction. Everything would terminate at St. Andrew’s or King street. Talk about inconveniencing riders to or from Union Station.
C) Where would you store and do routine maintenance on the Yonge trains with no connection to Wilson and how would you get trains to Greenwood for major service?
LikeLike
Agreed. Maybe we can make the relief line half LRT and half Subway. Seems to be an acceptable idea around here.
Steve: No it’s not. First off, there is no space physically under Front Street for the Don Mills line and, second, this would only further concentrate pedestrian activity rather than spread it out downtown. The level of service needed to handle the projected demand cannot possibly be handled with a surface LRT running on streets, if that’s what you are thinking of.
This whole discussion is getting badly distorted by the idea that every single line has to physically touch Union Station.
LikeLike
When I stated that the Eglinton line would not be grade-separated “to” Don Mills and you replied that is would be grade-separated “at” Don Mills, I think we were speaking a different language from each other. Unless you have some inside information that they are planning on using a south side alingment through Leslie, or they are reverting back to the tunnel all the way to Don Mills, I think there will be median operation between Laird and Don Mills. It would be desirable to have more of the passengers from Leaside travel east to the Don Mills line, instead of going west to Yonge – the median operation discourages this. Yonge is so overcrowded that these other transit lines should also consider what their effect will be in adding to or relieving Yonge.
Steve: You have not been reading the EA very well. Metrolinx reverted to the “original” plan which has the line in a tunnel going under Don Mills Road. This shows up most recently on the City of Toronto’s map of Eglinton Avenue. Scroll down to “Maps” and select the Leslie to Ferrand section, or any other that takes your fancy.
As for the median operation, I fail to understand why the median operation from east of Brentcliffe to Don Mills is such a discouragement, especially with an underground station at Don Mills. There is only one traffic signal (at Leslie) in this segment.
LikeLike
Well thought idea, Steve. It’s good that you’re keeping it conceptual (not planning block-by-block) while also considering realistic constraints.
No doubt that this will cost a lot of money. Before funding is available for this project, I think it’s urgent for the city to establish a preferred alignment, and to enact zoning by-laws to preserve the corridors of this line. Developments are going up very quickly, and the city needs to have some rules so a building doesn’t go up in the same location as a proposed future tunnel.
LikeLike
I like the plan. My question is about the number of stops. I know you want to address the development along the corridor but are there too many stations that it no longer becomes enticing for people to use it?
I wonder how tricky is it to convince people to use that line to relieve the Yonge Line unless it’s very beneficial. Commuters might find it a hassle to transfer once onto the DRL then transfer again north bound if they were to lets say work around Dundas or Queen area.
Steve: The purpose of this line is to serve not just as a Yonge-Bloor bypass but to benefit areas between the Danforth subway and downtown. Only if we generate traffic along the line, not just at a few points, will the line be a true success on an all-day basis. As for transfer traffic, much will depend on where people are going. The focus of downtown is shifting south, and “Southcore” is now an important part of the office market too.
No line, no matter where you put it, will capture all of the existing transfer traffic at Bloor-Yonge. Indeed, the Queen Street alignment advocated by some is too far north. The vestigial station at Queen and Yonge is not worth recycling because it is far too small and it is too far away from the centre of development.
LikeLike
@SoWhat
The line that Steve envisions will never get built, and it would have to go further north than Eglinton to alleviate Yonge sufficiently. The best we can hope for is a bypass to divert Bloor-Danforth passengers from Yonge, which may still be very inconvenient. In the 70s, we had stubborn passengers cramming on to a packed Yonge line when the University line was much less crowded and ended at St. George. You could walk into an empty train back then. It had mirror stops just three blocks away, yet people didn’t use it. You need to study passenger travel habits. Passengers don’t like to transfer, walk, or go out of their way. A DRL imposes double-transfers for over half of those coming from BD.
As well, Steve underestimates the cost by about half. Do you have any idea of the cost and complexity in going under Wellington and connecting to King and St. Andrew? These connection configurations would be worse than Bloor-Yonge. If a 3-station Scarborough subway is costing $3B, how can this line, with 14 stations, and 4 complex interchanges and a wye, cost anything less than $9B?
Steve: The major factor in cost is the length of a route, with stations coming second, and complexity of construction third. The Scarborough Subway involves a lot of tunneling while chunks of a Don Mills line would be in the open on bridges or in fairly shallow cut-and-cover areas. The Scarborough line is 10km long while the Don Mills line is about 14km.
Yes, going through downtown under Wellington won’t be cheap, but that is a comparatively short section of the route. The volume of traffic at the connection points will be lower than at Bloor-Yonge because much of the traffic on the Don Mills line will be destined for those stations, not simply transferring there.
You have not been paying attention to the design. There is NO wye because the line would connect at Greenwood Yard. Four complex interchanges? I count three: University, Yonge and Danforth.
As I already stated, there is an existing space under University south of St. Andrew Station occupied by the parking garage which could be, in part, repurposed to link with a station at Wellington. The connection at Donlands will not, as the TTC’s plan does, require a wye interchange that would destroy half of the Pape/Danforth intersection.
With some foresight, provision can be included in the Crosstown’s Don Mills Station for a future north-south line if only we have the will to do so in advance rather than as a retrofit.
LikeLike
SoWhat: I actually agree with Eric Chow on this one. Your concerns about overcrowding are valid, but with the reconstruction of Union, it should be able to mitigate the capacity issues that you are mentioning about. You do bring up a point about people wanting to transfer to the YUS to reach points north of King which is why I suspect Eric recommended splitting the line so that people CAN at least reach the stops north of St Andrew. Consider that the University-Spadina side of the YUS has traditionally seen lesser traffic than the Yonge side, and that traditionally, longer lines are harder to manage (I was in New York for a few months and found that the A line, which is the longest in the system, was prone to delays mostly due to its length).
As for your concern that people would be confused by the change if such a switch were to happen, consider the rerouting of the New York M line away from Downtown Manhattan to replace the V line. It was proven to be a success as it allowed people on the M to reach uptown Manhattan whereas prior to that, they needed to transfer to a different line to reach points in uptown (Even better was that this was actually a cost cutting measure!!!). All I’m saying is that I don’t necessarily disagree or agree, but perhaps such a switch could be studied to see if it makes things more convenient for riders. What this switch does is impact riders who traditionally take the U around to reach points on the other side, but how many riders actually do this? My experience is that almost everyone gets off when the train reaches Union, with only a few staying on board to reach the other side. What would be the benefits of switching the lines? It does seem to be an idea that could be considered.
As an aside to Steve, what are the plans for the 504 if the Downtown Relief line becomes a reality? I would expect King service on the eastern portion of the route to be cancelled due to the route’s proximity to the DRL.
Steve: Nobody has really talked about the 504 in detail although there are references to the surface network in the TTC’s 2012 study in which substantial capacity increases are foreseen. Even if the DRL draws some traffic, this will be offset by increased riding through modal shifts and through increased density along the Avenues. The TTC’s study presumes a King Street alignment for the DRL, and of course this completely replaces the streetcar. That will not be the case if the line is running further south, and I would argue that little traffic would “bleed” from the streetcar over to the subway. (The TTC made this sort of mistake 50 years ago when they slashed service on the King car presuming that everyone would use the brand-new BD subway. What they forgot was that people actually lived along the route and preferred to take it as a direct ride to downtown.) What would affect the 504 as we know it would be a direct service on Broadview south to the proposed Broadview Station at Eastern.
Proximity? A good deal of the 504’s traffic comes from locations that are not in walking distance of DRL/Don Mills stations. It would lose some transfer traffic at Broadview Station, but generally the cars fill up further south. By the time they reach Queen, they can be full if there is even a short delay (or a short turn leaving a gap). Inward along King there is strong demand which will grow as new buildings close to King are occupied. Again, depending on where the new subway goes, its attractiveness to these riders may be minimal. With a Front Street alignment, the subway will pick up traffic from the West Don Lands and Distillery areas, provided that a station is included, something that the “I want an express train all for myself” crowd seem to ignore. But this is net new demand in many cases.
I find it quite annoying that many DRL advocates want to cancel one or two streetcar lines to justify the cost of their proposals. The surface and subway networks serve different types of travel.
LikeLike
Or commuters could just use the PATH network since it would be faster to walk than to transfer to the YUS to reach Union.
LikeLike
I would think that between the massive planned increases in GO traffic and streetcar traffic from the eastern waterfront that a lot of the new pedestrian capacity at Union will be spoken for.
LikeLike
Very true … I’m hoping Transport Canada and Metrolinx will at least push that forward. Ideally if “European” trains would be allowed to operate on Metrolinx-owned sections of rail in the Toronto area that would make a big difference to the cost structures and frequencies for GO Transit or a GO Urban/TO/Rex (Regional Express) service … in other words it could be possible in the next 15-25 years.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Not to spout heresy. But after the DML is moving forward, what would be the next opportunity to increase the speed and capacity of cross-town traffic along streets such as Queen.
Steve, you’ve always been a champion of better line management – which I agree with.
At the same time, aren’t there significant economic benefits to improve the speed of transit across a street such as Queen – by subway or underground LRT? Long term, is the capacity justified for a second line?
Steve: Parking and traffic controls are badly needed. Everyone complains about congestion, but everyone screams if they cannot park and restrict a street to one lane each way. We are nowhere near needing a second line.
LikeLike
One has to seriously wonder why the city hasn’t looked at the idea of building regularly spaced off street parking along major routes, either in the form of public parking or private operated public parking that is a part of redevelopment projects, followed by eliminating on street parking on those routes.
Steve: One big problem with this is the cost of land acquisition and the effect that a significant amount of parking would have as a “hole” in the fabric of a neighbourhood.
LikeLike
Steve, what about moving the western end of your line to the CNE grounds then? Your map already has three destination points: The St. Lawrence Market, the Distillery District, and the Ontario Science Centre. Extending it west would to the CNE would create yet another destination point along the line.
And by destination point I mean a place that people will want to travel to for one reason or another.
Steve: The CNE lands as they now exist have very seasonal demands and I am not sure that such an extension would be worthwhile compared to other things we might build. If there were a major restructuring of the use of those lands, things might be different, but I don’t see that happening in the near future. Don’t forget that the only reason this line even gets to Spadina is to serve the proposed GO terminal. There is a stronger argument for spending money on the “DRL West” if we are looking at that part of town.
I am an advocate of the DRL and do not want to see any streetcar route cancelled. I see the streetcar routes as a potential feeder into the DRL.
LikeLike
Steve, what is your opinion on extending your proposed Don Mills Subway north to Sheppard or Finch at a later date? If you look at the Relief Line Network Study, the Yonge Subway between Bloor and Finch will be at capacity in 2013. I feel that extending the subway north along Don Mills could help to relive the Yonge Subway by diverting riders coming from the east and from Richmond Hill away from Yonge.
Steve: I agree that something going further up Don Mills is definitely in the future, but there is a point where “phase one” of a proposal has to stop. Eglinton seemed the appropriate location given the connection with the Crosstown, the link to Thorncliffe/Flemingdon and the development potential at the junction between the two new lines. As for the option of more subway, an LRT or BRT, I would like to see more details about demand projections and future growth before deciding which technology(ies) would be appropriate and when.
LikeLike
There is another idea that has been rolling around in my head … if it is possible.
There has been forum talk about separating the Yonge and University lines by building a St. George-styled stacked interchange … not necessarily possible given the tight constraints of the current Union subway station … but if it was possible to continue the University subway down York St. to the South Core (even just York and Harbour St.) instead of turning on to Front St. then the Yonge line could continue westwards along Front to terminate at Bathurst, with stations at John and Spadina.
The Bathurst North Yard could then become a stacked yard, with GO at the bottom and TTC on top, with two subway lines and the GORex (replacement of UPEx) serving this station.
How crazy is this idea? Very … but is it technically possible?
On the realignment of the subway, Front & York has an underground parking garage I’d be happy to lose in favour of a Union (Front St) station. I expect there would be a necessary regrading of the tunnel from St.Andrew to travel under Front St. but this could make construction easier for the Don Mills and City Line under Wellington…and the York-Bay-Yonge off-ramp will be taken down in the future, replaced by a ramp at Simcoe so there would be room for a station.
As for a stacked train yard…the Kuala Lumpur Sentral commercial complex (hotels, office towers, shopping mall and yes, a railway station) was built on pillars over a 16 track train yard. Melbourne has Federation Square built over the tracks east of the Flinders St. station. Singapore has underground train yards for the City Circle Line and Downtown Line.
If we cannot have a 2-level train yard at Bathurst & Front what about covering the Greenwood and Davisville yards?
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: The idea of splitting the University and Yonge lines surfaces (so to speak) from time to time, but it would be extraordinarily complex to build and I doubt it is physically possible. First off, the University line must descend one level from its current location to get under the new Front Street subway. This would require a drop from the south end of St. Andrew Station to just north of Front Street of at least 4m in a space of about 300m, or 1.3%, in addition to the slight downgrade that already exists between St. Andrew and Union.
This is not impossible, but you could not leave the existing three track structure south of St. Andrew in operation while building this. Even with it, you could not maintain the needed headway on University Avenue while this was under construction.
I am not quite sure where you would put the “Front Street” station on the realigned University subway because of the S-curve from University into York Street and the need to transition out of the grade down from St. Andrew. Don’t forget that the west end of the existing Union platform is roughly at the east side of the Royal York Hotel (the three track section continues straight for a distance before turning north into University Avenue). A physical connection would be needed between the two stations, and this runs smack into the Northwest Path tunnel now under construction.
Having done all of this, you have still not fitted in a “DRL”. There is no way for that York Street subway to turn east because of all of the buildings now standing along that street.
I deliberately stay out of conversations like this on the other forums because it is tedious to point out basic issues of geometry, soil conditions, utility conflicts and existing structures to people whose level of “planning” requires only a small box of crayons. Yes, this sounds incredibly dismissive, and I’m not an engineer, only someone who takes the trouble to actually know the areas under discussion and consider the basic constraints on how something can be built.
The whole “split the subways” idea is a huge distraction.
As for covering the yards: There have been discussions of doing this at Davisville for decades. The problem has always been that if pillars are added to support buildings above, the capacity of the yard will be reduced and the TTC needs everything it has. Conceivably with the conversion of Davisville to 100% works equipment, and with the provision of storage elsewhere for the trains now using the yard, the idea of restructuring it to accommodate pillars could be revisited. The TTC has mentioned that it is looking for new office space because 1900 Yonge street is an old building that needs expensive upgrades, and they have a lot of leased space nearby that could be consolidated. Once 1900 is sold, the options for redevelopment at Davisville change because the prime corner becomes available. However, that’s a long way off.
LikeLike