Updated December 4, 2013 at 7:00 pm:
Toronto’s Planning & Growth Management Committee considered the proposed consultation process from City staff regarding the Downtown Relief Line and approved it with only one minor amendment, that a contest be set up to name the new line.
Those of us who remember the last such contest will know that it produced, as a moniker for the line now serving Scarborough Town Centre, that heartwarming name, “RT”.
Two presentations were made by Metrolinx and by City staff.
The Metrolinx presentation gives an overview of the Yonge Relief Network Study which will consider capacity problems and approaches to relief from a network point of view including the possibility that some of the modeled demand can be shifted from the subway to GO Transit. Included in this is a map (page 4) showing the projected locations and degrees of capacity shortfall on the 2031 network.
What is quite striking about this map is that while there may be a severe problem south of Bloor Station, the situation north to Sheppard is not exactly rosy with demands ranging up to 100% of capacity. The need to divert demand north of Bloor is quite evident, although it is rarely mentioned in discussions of “downtown relief”.
The City presentation gives a précis of the report, but shows more clearly (page 10) that at this stage all that is happening is consultation on the Terms of Reference and the Public Consultation that would occur in a future study. This will come back to Council in the spring of 2014 for approval of the full study.
This is a hybrid version of the Environmental Assessment process. A Transit Project Assessment is intended to be fairly brief (120 days) based on a predetermined project. However, the DRL is so far-reaching and expensive a proposal that the City wants to ensure a valid review of all options has taken place before locking in to the formal TPAP review which offers little opportunity for amendment.
An important factor will be the co-ordination and integration of the network-wide study by Metrolinx and the local route and station planning by the City and TTC. Metrolinx will have a good sense of the network options by mid-2014 just at the point the City process enters its “alternatives” phase and the creation of a “long list” of options.
The greatest challenge in the short term will be to ensure that the Terms of Reference do not preclude options that should be considered. In this regard, limiting the study area to the initial phase of a DRL from downtown to Danforth may be valid for detailed planning of alignments and stations, but not from the larger view of how a second phase north to Eglinton or other extension options might affect the route selection on the first phase.
The City plans extensive consultation on the ToR including public input from community and advocacy groups.
Another challenge will be the credibility of demand and capacity figures used to model the future network. For reasons that I will discuss in a separate article, some of the modeling numbers cited by the TTC’s Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study are suspect on two counts:
- The projected service levels and demands on the northern GO lines (a) do not necessarily match with Metrolinx’ plans as stated in The Big Move, and in particular demand assigned to the Richmond Hill GO line is trivial.
- The projected increase in total demand flowing into the core from the north with the Richmond Hill subway is only 1,000 per peak hour. Much of the extra subway demand comes from trips reassigned from the GO rail lines.
If the numbers for the Yonge subway and the GO network are dubious, then what of the potential demand from a DRL, especially the component north of Danforth to which the TTC assigns a low demand and priority? Earlier at the same P&GM meeting, City staff presented information about the “Feeling Congested” consultations that have been underway. This included a preliminary evaluation of various additions to the transit network in which the Don Mills corridor, including the proposed LRT to Steeles, ranked highly (see map, page 19).
A future line cannot both be highly ranked and of little value, and this suggests at a minimum that the criteria by which it was evaluated are not the same in each case. The challenge for the DRL’s Terms of Reference process is to determine which evaluation is correct.
The original text of this article from December 2, 2013, follows the break.
At the November 2013 meeting of Toronto City Council, Councillor Josh Matlow proposed a motion seeking to accelerate the process of studying and approving a “Relief Line” (aka the “Downtown Relief Line” or DRL) by pressing forward with an Environmental Assessment for this project. Moreover, the motion asked that
City Council affirm the Relief Subway Line as Toronto’s next subway expansion priority.
Matlow withdrew his motion in anticipation of a more substantial report to appear in December. The new report will be considered by the Planning & Growth Management Committee on December 4, and by Council later in the month.
The only recommendation in the report is that Council authorize staff to conduct public consultations:
The Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division, be directed to undertake public consultation on the Relief Line proposed Terms of Reference and Public Consultation framework, with technical support provided by TTC staff, and report back to City Council seeking approval of these documents in early 2014.
This process follows the authorization given in February 2013 to report on a process for alignment selection and station locations for a first phase of the Relief Line.
In other words, it is a study to validate the approach to a larger study that might begin sometime in 2014, presuming that Council gives the go-ahead.
The report traces the history of recent Relief Line proposals, including a TTC study considered at the February P&GM meeting. (An accompanying presentation gives the major points of the study.) Even with planned capacity improvements, the growing demand for travel into the core area will overwhelm the network by 2031. Moreover, despite better GO Transit service, many trips from outside of Toronto will use TTC rapid transit lines to reach downtown. Additional capacity on the network is essential.
Depending on the extent of the Relief Line that was modelled, the 2031 peak demand lies anywhere from 11,700 to 14,900. The report’s focus is travel to downtown, and other benefits such as counterpeak traffic and alternate routes for travel that do not co-incide with the peak are not mentioned.
The TTC is already doing preliminary work on alignments and station locations, and this will be rolled into a Phase 2 Relief Line study. Meanwhile, City Planning is digesting public feedback from its “Feeling Congested” consultations that will form part of the Official Plan review now underway. The Relief Line scores well for its potential benefits, and Council would do well to include it in the updated OP.
Meanwhile, Metrolinx is leading a study of relief for the Yonge Corridor including upgraded service on the three northern lines: Barrie, Richmond Hill and Stouffville. The Chief Planner observes:
The findings of the Yonge Relief Network Study could have implications for the need and timing of the Relief Line.
This directly contradicts statements in the TTC’s study claiming that even with improvements, GO would be over capacity by 2031. One can certainly argue that fast work to improve GO would absorb growing demand from the 905 region, the demand model cited by the TTC shows that this only affects the timing, not the need, for a Relief Line. We can, literally, “buy time”, but we cannot avoid the need for this route.
Moreover, the demands addressed by GO are fundamentally different from those the TTC network would handle, and most of the benefits to central 416 riders of an additional subway route through downtown would not be provided by GO Transit.
“Central” is an important term here because too often the debate turns on a narrowly defined “downtown”, the rest of Toronto, and the 905 beyond. These are artificial distinctions. The outer parts of the 416 are as far from downtown as many areas now served by GO, but they are left with very long TTC rides on surface routes feeding distant rapid transit lines. The “old city” has the streetcar network which, for all its capacity and service problems, does provide an alternative to subway travel. Stuck in between is a swath of Toronto that needs the subway, but faces overcrowding that will only worsen as more riders pile into the outer parts of the network.
The Chief Planner continues:
As noted in the initial TTC study, GO Transit service improvements could potentially address the issue of forecast overcrowding on the Yonge line but a detailed analysis of these options was determined to be beyond the scope of the initial TTC study. This gap in the analysis is now being filled by Metrolinx, whose study results are expected to be known in mid/late 2014.
Phasing of regional transit improvements will be an important output from this work. The Metrolinx study will also consider regional solutions within the City boundaries (e.g. service improvements, potential introduction of new GO stations within the City, etc.). The Metrolinx Yonge Relief Network study may identify interim improvements that can be applied prior to implementation of the Relief Line.
Next we hear about capacity improvements that may provide relief to the Yonge line:
- Toronto Rocket trains will increase capacity by 10%. (At least half of this benefit has already taken place as the TRs replaced older equipment on “Line 1”.)
- Reduced dwell times at Bloor Station will allow more trains to pass through this congested point per hour (this work is substantially complete barring major reconstruction of the station).
- The Spadina extension opening in fall 2016 will divert five-to-ten percent of the Yonge demand who will shift to the western leg for their journeys downtown.
- Signalling changes will allow up to 25% more trains/hour to operate on the line bringing headways down from 140 seconds to about 115. (Whether some stations can actually handle the higher passenger volumes this will produce is a problem flagged elsewhere in the report.)
Local service for the streetcar network may improve in coming years with larger cars and better transit priority, but this will benefit mainly trips that do not now use the subway or contribute to its peak demand.
All of this leads to the point where a proper Environmental Assessment must be conducted and that brings us to the Terms of Reference. Unlike some studies where the outcome is a foregone conclusion, this one will require evaluation of many alternatives. Council has not drawn one line on a map and said “build here”, but instead we have a broad area of study for a potential new route. There are three such areas of which only the first will be under study in the proposed EA.
- East of downtown to Danforth
- Danforth to Eglinton
- West of downtown to Bloor
Before the EA can begin, there will be public consultation to discuss the project in general, and this will consume much of the next year taking us beyond the fall 2014 election. Although regular readers here may know every permutation for a Relief Line alignment and many will have authored their own fantasy maps, there are many residents in Toronto who know little of the project. Moreover, many have been convinced that spending anything on subways “downtown” is the worst possible example of misguided planning and civic finance. Turning attitudes around will require some work.
This process will have four phases:
- Review the Terms of Reference, introduce the project history and technical background, and come up with a new name for the Relief Line. To be completed early spring 2014. [Note to readers: don’t even think about turning the comment thread into another battleground over line naming.]
- Develop the “long list” of options for terminal locations, stations and alignments, as well as the evaluation framework for making selections. To be undertaken mid 2014.
- Short list the options by eliminating those that perform poorly against the criteria, and especially those that have “fatal flaws” such as conflicts with existing structures or difficult geotechnology. This process will also include consideration of how each option would contribute to the wider network and fit into future plans. Consultation in early 2015.
- Detailed evaluation of the short list leading to a recommended option and a draft Environmental Project Report. Consultation in late spring 2015.
Once this is out of the way, the formal Transit Project Assessment Process can begin. This is a time-limited 120-day undertaking, and from past experience these can be extremely frustrating without adequate preparation through the steps described above. A TPAP does not involve further analysis of alternatives, only the fine tuning of what has already been selected. Amendments galore may follow, but by then the basic project has been approved.
We will be lucky to reach the end of this process by late 2015. Meanwhile, Metrolinx will beaver away at its own studies including a major update to the Big Move plan. This review is mandated by provincial legislation, and the new plan must be ready for 2016. A related problem will be the financing of the network’s expansion (including new provincial revenue tools) and the competition between downtown-centric transit proposals and those addressing other demands in the GTHA.
Appendix B (starting on page 16 of the Chief Planner’s report) provides draft Terms of Reference. This recounts much of the same information in the main report, but additional details of note are in Section 3, the scope of work.
The Evaluation Framework and the Long List of options will determine what is, and what is not, considered in later stages. Getting this part right is very important lest the choices be skewed by political imperatives or inter-agency rivalry. The Framework will consider a variety of goals including:
- Capacity relief for the subway and the streetcar network
- Policy frameworks that could bear on choices and the future city they would support
- Future land use and the evolution of neighbourhoods through which the line would pass
- The City’s factors for evaluating transportation policies in the Official Plan
Although the Terms of Reference are fairly thorough, they do not make explicit mention of the need to consider expansion possibilities for the various options. This might be subsumed in the need to consider the wider role within the network, but we need a better sense of which “futures” a line might serve. This will be particularly important if future conditions accelerate demand for later phases of the Relief Line.
- To the north: If we are really serious about going to Eglinton and possibly beyond, then this will bear on both the choice of north-south alignment heading toward the Danforth and on the design (and longevity) of any “terminal” at which the Relief Line would end.
- To the west: Various proposals see the line heading southwest to serve a new station in the Spadina/Front area for GO Transit, west through Liberty Village, and then north by various possible routes to Bloor.
It will not be sufficient to draw a line linking University to Danforth, but to consider how this line relates to the next phases in the network’s evolution.
An intriguing side node to this exercise is the support by the Toronto Financial District BIA (Business Improvement Area) for prioritization of a Relief Line in the transit plans. Getting more people to work easily is an essential requirement for developers and owners of commercial office buildings. Without good transportation, people will choose to work elsewhere and further growth downtown may strangle on congestion. It is refreshing that the emphasis is on transit as a solution for this problem.
The City promises an open consultation process with wide access to information and genuine concern for issues and alternatives that will emerge along the way. Given some recent history with both the TTC and with Metrolinx, that will be a major challenge.
Tedious though this process appears, this will lead the City and the TTC through a formal evaluation of Relief Line options and the development of an actual plan. We have had plans before, but not with the possibility of widespread public and political support.
Steve Munro 
Steve is there any sense on timing for GO to build a “Union West”? I would hope that coordination between the DRL’s first phase and it would be given a high priority.
Steve: Metrolinx has been quiet on this as it is one of two options they are looking at for increased capacity on their downtown segment. The other is a separate tunnel for the Lake Shore service that would go under (!!) Union Station. A related problem is that the growth rate for their riding is pushing the date they will be out of capacity closer and closer, and they can’t afford to fart around on a decision much longer.
Additionally I’m somewhat confused with the phasing in the report. Are they only studying going to Danforth, but making a “long” list of terminals? Which would presumably include Eglinton?
Steve: I believe that this means Donlands or Pape in the east, with possibly some others that will not survive short-listing. To the west, there is the question of whether to stop at University or go further, and if so, to where.
I’m also wondering if you could speak to another issue that confuses me. If I recall correctly the TTC DRL report from last fall stated that going north of Danforth to Eglinton, provided only marginal additional relief to the Yonge line. Presuming they modelled demand from the Eglinton Crosstown I don’t see how that is a valid result. Of course I’m going by my fordian “gut” feeling.
Steve: I have a problem with that model number too. The TTC study looked only at downtown relief, not at the wider benefit to the network as a whole of having a line that ran up through Thorncliffe to Eglinton and improved access to that whole northeast “midtown” area.
Thanks for another great analysis.
LikeLike
Thank you, Steve. My Corktown neighbourhood association is eagerly awaiting more details on the Relief Line route possibilities and study timelines, and to me a lot of the discussion could hinge on the note above about weeding out various alignment possibilities:
I suspect the hardest of all to overcome may be how & where the line crosses the Don River and DVP — would you concur? Corktown will be watching that crossing debate very closely (for obvious reasons); Steve, do you foresee a possibility of the line being above-ground / elevated if they stick to Queen, or is Queen’s crossing of the Don in fact likely going to be the real stickler why nearer to Eastern could become the more viable crossing spot … or is underground anywhere there the only geotechnical possibility given the Flood Protection Landform stretching that whole length? That could mean a mined route there, I’m guessing, which is leading me to suspect somebody on the Engineering side might propose something elaborate at surface or higher instead.
Regardless of what’s proposed for there, it’ll be exciting! Really hoping your expedited timeline suggestions become reality — would love to know by the end of next year/early 2015.
LikeLike
In all seriousness, maybe Toronto will have to wait till 2040 for a relief line. Why? Because after it is approved in 2022, there will be those politicians that insist that we cannot afford this. And there will be lots of nimbys complaining of construction noise. And lastly, transit projects have many times faced cost overruns or cost delays (Union stn renovation, tysse, etc).
Just like how Rob Ford cancelled Sheppard East LRT in 2010, now it is delayed till 2017. Toronto deserves to suffer. Now don’t hold your breath thinking that the Eglinton lrt will be on budget and on time!
When new revenue tools are approved, I bet the people living along Lakeshore GO line will complain that electrification is no good because overhead wires are hideous.
LikeLike
Can the terminal stations handle this frequency without short turns? Should the ATC be able clear to and reset the crossovers fast enough to allow for 115 s headway?
I seem to remember on Yonge when it only ran from Eglinton to Union and operators where still allowed to key by reds that one train would be entering the station as another was leaving, especially at Bloor and St. Clair. What was the shortest headway ever operated on the subway and when was it? I have trouble believing that ATC will result in a 25% increase in capacity by itself. I am sure that the TTC is assigning some of the other factor’s benefits, such as multiple turn back terminals, to ATC when they would result in a capacity increase without ATC. Granted ATC should result in better line management and train spacing but not a 25% increase.
Steve: I have written several times that I believe the TTC is overstating the potential benefits of ATC, and did so both to drum up funding for the re-signalling program and to downplay the apparent need for the DRL. (Remember that the project dates back to a period before the TTC had embraced the benefit of a relief line and was claiming that they could handle all increased demand with the Yonge line.) At least the claims for ATC have been scaled back from some earlier schemes.
A headway of 2 minutes or less will be difficult to achieve at the existing terminals from a combination of factors including train and crossover lengths, and turnbacks will be required to overcome this. Most likely these would be at Wilson or Downsview on the west (already planned as part of the Spadina extension) and at Finch or Steeles on the east.
Other limitations exist at stations where the shorter headway plus larger trains will deliver passengers to platforms at a rate faster than stations can handle. Stations with limited capacity to handle departing passengers will be affected during the AM peak, and capacity lost through maintenance shutdowns will be keenly felt without additional exit paths. More trains will improve capacity southbound at Bloor, but the reverse situation will see transfer riders delivered to the BD line from YUS at a higher rate than today triggering platform capacity problems “downstairs” on the BD platforms.
LikeLike
To say nothing of King station – that southbound platform gets awfully full awfully fast during the morning rush.
Steve, regarding Union West: A GO train delivers just shy of 2,000 people at a full load, right? Exhibition station isn’t near any employment areas either, so those passengers would all be transferring to local service into the core. What form is that service going to take? Seems to me that even a fully built Don Mills line would have trouble absorbing that, even if it was only at a twice-daily peak.
Steve: Yes, that’s a major problem for GO, and “Union West” would probably be the peak point on the line. The peak would only be in the AM because outbound traffic in the PM would arrive as a constant trickle rather than a flood as a trainload disembarked.
LikeLike
It’s unfortunate that the report missed the biggest “fatal flaws” involving the DRL, which are Toronto City Council and Queen’s Park.
Assuming that Rob Ford gets booted out and the Liberals stay in power for the next couple of years, at best we might have a study to recommend a study that approves of a study to look at the feasibility of a study to maybe building the line. Then of course, we’ll need a meeting to determine the agenda of a pre-meeting to discuss whether or not to have a meeting about a consultation to the public about a meeting to determine the next meeting’s preliminary options.
It goes without saying that if Tim Hudak gets elected and/or Rob Ford gets re-elected (his chances are higher than a lot of people think!) we can kiss the DRL goodbye.
LikeLike
On the west side from Union to Dundas West, could we not use existing infrastructure and Presto? With the new Transit Hub for Dundas West, the Union Pearson Express would already work as a relief line in the west, or Go, or use TTC trains (needs a possible retrofit for the rail lines, but that is cheaper than digging a tunnel).
It could run as a rush hour service only (something similar to the S Line in NYC that shuttles between the 1/2/3 and the 4/5/6) If some sort of scheme could be worked out with Presto where it would only charge $2.65 (or whatever Presto TTC fare) to get downtown with a free transfer to TTC, and vice versa when you beep on and off to get home. Same with using Go from Union to Dundas West, then free transfer to TTC from the Go.
The DRL is great 15 years from now when it MIGHT possibly be built, but in the mean time why aren’t we looking at available options?
Steve: More generally, I feel that the UPX corridor should provide the equivalent of a DRL West service, and it does not need to be through routed with a DRL East line to do this. Metrolinx will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to embrace this position. Of course they built a limitation into the route with the small terminal at Pearson that prevents long trains from serving that location. This is called “planning” when vanity projects like UPX are involved.
McGuinty had a chance to kill off the idea of a premium service corridor when Ontario took over the proposal from SNC Lavalin, but instead opted to build a showpiece, and now we’re stuck with it.
LikeLike
Can we please include the northern end of the DRL (the Eglinton to Finch section) in this environmental assessment? I understand that this is expensive and a later phase of the project that won’t be built for quite some time, but we can at least get some idea of what effect it would have on the network if built. For instance, what do the ridership projection models claim the ridership would be for this section? Would the projected ridership for an eastern extension of the Sheppard subway, if built, go way up if the northern end of the DRL is built?
LikeLike
Steve wrote:
How is the UPX a ‘vanity project’? The whole idea is to provide a direct link from the airport to downtown, while the DRL is supposed to move people around the city. A link between the UPX with the B-D line and DRL at Dundas West would, in my opinion, be better then running the UPX as the western leg of the DRL.
Also, the DRL can provide service to other areas in the west end (like Liberty Village, and the Exhibition grounds), plus a direct link between east and west would also help to enable people to stay away from Bloor-Yonge station – i.e. people in the west going to Yonge Street, or people in the east going to the Exhibition grounds.)
Actually, there are people who use Exhibition to get to and from work. There just is not as much demand as there is downtown.
Steve: The UPX was conceived as one of those marvellous private-public partnerships back in the days of the Chretien government with the idea that it would cost the public nothing for a private company to implement and run the UPX shuttle. In the process we would have a prestige link to the airport to prove to the world that we were a real city. The Feds in time walked away from the project, and Queen’s Park inherited it. At that point, there was still a claim that this was a viable business proposition. In time, it turned out that hundreds of millions of provincial money would be needed to make the line work, and at that point Queen’s Park said, right, enough with this “partnership”, we’ll do it as our own project. The myth that it was a viable business remained.
However, this myth has been challenged by the provincial auditor, and it is likely that the line will lose a ton of money, especially when the value of the capital investment is included (as it should be for any so-called private business). We are stuck with this bauble because we promised it as part of the Pan Am Games package even though neither the athletes nor the officials will actually use it. It is probably the only transportation improvement planned for the games that will actually be ready on time.
Instead of building this monument to a failed business plan and the former premier’s ego, we could have built a “local” line that served stops along the way, not just the airport. Many cities have such lines, and it doesn’t seem to undercut their credibility in the world. There is no point in dedicating a pair of tracks just to run trains to the airport when we could do so much more with them on exactly the alignment that a DRL west needs. Meanwhile, Metrolinx is silent on the planned extension of LRT service to the airport from Eglinton and from Finch, and we may see a BRT link out into Mississauga in due course. People want to get to the airport from all over the place, and they want to do this not just for business flights, but for leisure trips and for work. The airport needs a network serving it, not a single overpriced service to downtown.
Re Exhibition Station: The talk of using this as a link to the core has been in the context of peak period, peak direction travel from Liberty Village to downtown, but there is substantial counterpeak travel outward to this area. I have seen King cars pass up riders westbound at University in the AM peak. The big problem for me with Exhibition is that a lot of development is now all the way north to Queen Street, and it’s a long hike down to the GO station just to get a faster ride into downtown on an infrequent service at the peak point of the line. It has its uses, but I think it is oversold. It is not a panacea for all of the new development between Bathurst, the rail corridor and Queen.
LikeLike
Can we call the relief line “Ralph”?!?!? But seriously, I was thinking since even now passengers at the Eglinton Station on the Yonge line have to wait for 2 or 3 trains to pass before getting on, shouldn’t the line start up around Sheppard or maybe even Finch for it to really bring relief to the Yonge line? Ideally if it started at Don Mills & Finch, it would not only pick up a lot of passengers from the Finch East bus that would normally head to the Yonge line but perhaps many from Vaughan and Markham that currently go to Finch Station.
Another question just to play Devil’s advocate, could the Richmond Hill GO train line be expanded to run both ways and carry as many passengers as a subway? There is a GO train station near the Leslie subway station on the Sheppard Line so there is potential for transfers between systems.
Finally, wouldn’t the ideal solution be electric commuter trains that run on elevated rail lines (like the Scarborough RT as it goes by the Scarborough Town Centre) and that stop every 3 km or so, that could run along the 401, the DVP, and the Gardiner? These could take care of the transit trips that are 10km or more. The shorter trips (less than 10km) or the feeder lines for these commuter trains could be a large network of LRT lines across the city?
Steve: The Big Move talks about making the Richmond Hill line a frequent, bidirectional service, but this idea seems to be fading, at least on the scale originally proposed. There are hints of a shift of focus further east to the Stouffville corridor to serve population and businesses in Markham and environs despite the fact that there will still be substantial and growing demand further west. Also, as you point out, the capacity problem on Yonge does not stop at Bloor-Danforth but goes much further north.
Probably the biggest difficulty with the coming studies is the fact that the GO improvements are part of a Metrolinx study while the subway improvements are a City/TTC study. I see all sorts of options falling through the cracks despite the best intentions to look at things from a combined perspective.
LikeLike
Well, yes there can be more than a couple of stops. Actually, that would only help with my proposed DRL in the westend as I have always thought that the DRL in the west should not follow the rail line at least south of Dundas West station.
The LRT to the airport, in addition to the UPC, plus the BRT, all help give routes for people going east, south, and west.
As for Exhibition station, yes it is not going to be practical for all commuters. My point was that people do use it at the moment (and GO has increased the number of rush hour trains that stop there over the years), so we cannot ignore the stop for commuters. Although a dedicated TTC connection there (on the north side of the station) might help in the future (and not just for commuters.) But that is another story.
LikeLike
To make matters worse, no effort was made to create a connection with GO/VIA rail service for destinations west of the airport. Ideally you would have relocated Malton GO to where the UPX spur branches off to the airport to achieve this.
LikeLike
The problem with using highway corridors is they do not duplicate transit demand corridors. If you wanted to get from Finch and Victoria Park to Finch and Bathurst you would need to go south to the 401 and then north to Finch. The time doing this on buses would more than eat up any time saving from the 401 EL. The Don Valley route would even have more problems. The expressways do not for the most part serve routes that would generate high demand as a transit corridor. Just because someone drives a car along it does not mean they would ride transit along it.
With the current Transport Canada rules it is virtually impossible to tun with headways less than 8 minutes and even 10 minutes is pushing it. At an 8 minute headway you would have 7.5 trains per hour at a seated capacity of 2000 passengers per train you have 15,000 pphpd max. This is about 1/2 of the subway’s peak capacity. Plus Union cannot handle the passengers.
Why would you move Malton GO station? It is in an established community and it will serve the International Centre if they ever get all day service. A station just east of the UPX split would be south of Woodbine Race Track. Why would you force the passengers who get on at Malton to travel to Woodbine? VIA’s passenger count is a joke and would contribute nothing to the line.
VIA does not have a clue how to operate efficient inter-city, especially in Southern Ontario. GO knows how to operate the type of service needed in Southern Ontario efficiently, unfortunately they are not operating the type of commuter service needed. But they are still better than most of the other commuter rail service in North America. The Ontario Government should take over VIA’s rail service in South Western Ontario and run it like they do GO. For the same subsidy they would carry a lot more passengers and build a decent rail network. Going to Ottawa and Montreal would be problematic because it involve trains that go into Quebec.
Steve: The preceding paragraph triggered a separate discussion of VIA operations which has been moved to its own thread.
So where would you run it, down Roncesvalles and along Queen or King? A line that provides good timely service from the north west corridor cannot also provide local service along the King Queen west corridor. Where would you go north of Bloor? Weston is a long established transportation corridor that could benefit from improved service.
LikeLike
There was an article in the Tuesday December 3 Toronto Star on the Relief Line.
The article has a good map of the study area. If I may, here is a section of the article which I find most pertinent to the discussion:
Personally, I am happy to see that the DRL has been bumped up to #1 on the TTC’s priority list.
However, I am disappointed that the terms of reference for the DRL are so narrow. In the previous thread on this subject, it was generally agreed that the DRL ought to extend at least to Eglinton on the east branch. The map shows the study area as between Danforth and the Lakeshore and between Coxwell and University.
Steve: I agree. The TTC has long ignored the benefits of going north of Danforth even though there was to be a Don Mills LRT line in the Transit City plan, and the City’s “Feeling Congested” study has marked the entire corridor north to Steeles as scoring well for inclusion in the updated Official Plan. The Terms of Reference still reflect the TTC’s blinkered view.
I can understand why the TTC is so narrowly focused. Obviously, funding the project is the biggest hurdle; the lower the cost, the more palatable it is. As well, selling the project to public and politicians. Ford Nation cries “subways, subways, subways”, but when you propose a subway, they cry “not THAT one!”. This project is definitely in need of good PR.
Still, the project needs to be integrated, not building block by building block. You cannot just build up to Danforth and say, we’ll figure out the rest later. That is why I agree with the comments from Jamie, Steve, and Andrew, above. The EA must involve a route beyond Danforth, whether or not the route is included in the first phase of construction. Similarly, some idea of where the line goes west of University.
Furthurmore, talk of GO line enhancements and UPX are major distractions. I say, let them finish the UPX, and see how it works out. And, the GO system is so disconnected from the TTC system, I see little benefit in discussing any of it on this particular thread.
LikeLike
Don’t hold your breath because the Scarborough subway is the next expansion priority as it is the only subway that all 3 levels of government have approved (not counting anything already built or currently under construction). In contrast, the Downtown Relief Line (DRL) has not been approved by even a single level of government.
LikeLike
More on the idea of running the DRL north of Eglinton:
Metrolinx put a projection of how overcrowded the YUS line will be in 2031 on its website. With the extension to Yonge/Highway 7 it claims that the Yonge side of the line will be overcrowded as far north as Steeles, but still predicts minimal overcrowding on the western side of the line which I find surprising.
This clearly shows that extending the DRL north only as far as Eglinton is inadequate. Already we see bad overcrowding between Eglinton and Sheppard on the Yonge line and some overcrowding between Sheppard and Finch. As for the old Don Mills LRT proposal, that proposal did not go south of Danforth, and so my guess is a Don Mills subway that goes to Union Station would see far higher ridership than a Don Mills LRT that doesn’t go downtown.
LikeLike
Robert, my proposal is found on my blog – which you can see if you click on my name. However, it would essentially use King via the Exhibition grounds and Liberty Village.
As for north of Dundas West, if that were ever considered could go through Weston. And Weston Road can be a nightmare during the day. I used to have relatives in the area and the transportation system there could be improved (of course I always laugh at people who complain about more, but fast, diesel powered passenger trains running through Weston is worse than all the cars and trucks that slowly moving through Weston. The occasional train is not going to produce more pollution than all those cars.)
Steve: Any talk of new service, be it operated by GO or TTC, in the Weston corridor would be with electrified service.
LikeLike
I will support a Downtown Relief Line ONLY IF either the Bloor Danforth Scarborough subway happens FIRST or the Scarborough portion of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT is also buried. If neither of those happens FIRST, then there is no way that I can support any more subways in East York or in Downtown Toronto. Since the Scarborough portion of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT is running in the middle of the street, at the very least we should get a Bloor Danforth subway extension or just bury the Eglinton Line or both and then I will be happy to help pay for the Downtown Relief Line.
Steve: You have of course completely missed the point that the projected demand on the DRL is much, much higher than on the Eglinton LRT. As for what you may or may not support, well that sounds good, and you have your chance to vote for the candidate that will bribe you with the most subways in the next election. Ooops. The most subway promises – I suspect that your neighbours may balk at the taxes needed to give you everything you want.
LikeLike
@James: Danforth Scarborough subway is happening before DRL. The former is fully funded, while the latter is still debated and has no funding.
LikeLike
Peter Strazdins wrote about the DRL/Don Mills Subway:
I disagree. An EA for the route up to Danforth can merely provide “protection for further extension north.”
I would argue that trying to bite off more than we can chew will choke us and we will get nothing. Starting with a first phase from downtown to the Danforth, with protection for extensions at both ends, makes it easier to get something underway sooner. Limiting the scope of the EA such as this simplifies the task of obtaining more consensus and makes the ability to obtain funding easier.
An EA for the next phase, from the Danforth to Eglinton, should be underway on the coat tails of the EA for the first phase. In fact, dealing with that EA and then getting funding should be underway even before actual construction on the first phase has begun.
LikeLike
Do you not understand that an LRT works well above ground. They do this all over Europe, and it works very well. I guess you would rather have lousy transit service instead of an LRT, or don’t use public transit.
LikeLike
My own personal preference for the DRL is “Don Mills & City Line” … it’s vaguely English-sounding, it connects Canada’s first suburb (Don Milks) with “downtown” (the City), it is directional, and it keeps a bit of the “street-naming tradition” for subway lines & streetcars.
But on the topic of the PGM and the different data and modelling from TTC, Toronto Planning, and Metrolinx/GO (assuming they are on the same page) … it is really long past time for these organizations to lock themselves into a hotel meeting room (or even better, corral themselves in Union Station’s Great Hall where the public can watch) and negotiate and discuss until the commuters come … er, go … home.
In the case of TTC and City Planning having different data (presumably from different approaches in the modeling) what is the procedure for moving forward. Who is the “senior service” (to borrow a phrase” for Toronto?
GO may have clued in to the fact that the Richmond Hill corridor requires a lot of work to be done to allow bi-directional, all-day frequent GO Service … certainly a lot more than the Stouffville corridor.
The nice things about the Stouffville corridor are that:
* it parallels (though it is somewhat east of) Kennedy Road, a major commercial street in Scarborough;
* it is in Scarborough … which has great optics;
* it crosses 2 TTC lines (SeLRT, BD) and presumably would have some connection to the DRL;
* it is fully owned by Metrolinx;
* Construction of the BDS extension would allow the removal of the SRT and double/multi-tracking if the corridor;
* there is no significant flooding risk (although as we learned today, you never can predict what trucks will do)
I would have been happy if they had extended the EA study area slightly further … certainly to Bathurst Street in the ‘SW’ of the “Old Core” … that would have indicated a measure of protection and allowed for both the TTC & Metrolinx options to be moved forward.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Damn right, it is and it better. The Scarborough subway better be up and running all the way to Sheppard and McCowan before the construction even begins on the Downtown Relief Line / DRL. If not, then Scarborough should dump Toronto and either join York Region, Durham Region, or go solo. I am tired of Scarborough being treated as 3rd tier by the rest of Toronto.
Steve: Well, you may have noticed that York and Durham are not building subways. If Scarborough wants to take on all of the tax increase itself to pay for the new subway, be my guest. That’s what “going it alone” would mean.
LikeLike
Let’s cancel the Sheppard and Finch LRTs and pour the money into the DRL. Scarborough has said they don’t want LRT anyway.
Steve: Some people in Scarborough have said they don’t want LRT, but it is far from unanimous.
LikeLike
I’m curious as to what part of Scarborough would be served by the Finch LRT.
LikeLike
One problem with having a phase one of the DRL to Dantforth is credibility. Lets assume that the first phase is to Danforth, and the second phase is promised shortly thereafter to Eglinton. Will anyone actually believe this and would it get any support from those living north of Danforth?
The last thing TTC did in phases was the Sheppard subway. Phase 1 is to Don Mills, but it was to be followed shortly by the extension to STC – the next priority subway construction. Based on this broken promise, they will probably have to build the entire thing in one shot – which may be harder to acquire the necessary funding.
LikeLike
Maybe I’m mis-remembering but … wasn’t the first phase of Sheppard supposed to go to Victoria Park but ended up being cut back to Don Mills because of the Harris funding cuts and the cost of the wye at Yonge?
Steve: Yes.
Even if we look at ‘priorities’, the extension of Sheppard east to STC would be well down the list, both before and after the Harris cutbacks. Before, Sheppard was one of four lines to be built, and after, people were just relieved that it had been built … with stations. Beyond that we get to the Spadina line extension to York region.
Steve: And it is vital to remember that Harris wanted to kill that line just like Eglinton, but relented to get Lastman onside with the megacity. As chief Poo-Bah of North York, Lastman had opposed amalgamation. The Sheppard line exists as a Tory political expedient, rather like the planned Scarborough Subway which will be a Liberal monument (aided and abetted by others).
Sort of like the way they are doing the Eglinton Crosstown? I wouldn’t expect the ‘DRL’ to be built up to Eglinton but I wouldn’t be terribly disappointed if they built the first phase of the DRL with some very long tail tracks, a station at Mortimer, maybe even run the line up to O’Connor.
OK I’m stretching and discussing station locations is premature when we don’t even have a route let alone funding … but still, it would be nice to see this line go “beyond” Danforth (and University) by 1 station at each end.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
While tunnels made by TBM’s starting and finishing safe distances from the core might have little impact, construction of cut and cover station boxes will be highly disruptive. Or, if the bored tunnels are done first, can the critical downtown stations be built by digging out station caverns from below, disposing of spoil and bringing in materials via the tunnels as do the TBM’s?
Although I am not overly familiar with how EA’s work, I would suggest that this one study not only proposals for the route and stations, but also study the years long construction phase. Core congestion is already serious and in the absence of bold initiatives it will only be that much worse when construction starts in 5 years, and lasts for 5 years. Each route option then requires a detailed study of construction impacts which might well influence route choices.
A major part of the study must focus on the two existing streetcar routes: what is to be the role of each, if any, once the new line is running, and what is their role during construction. The two routes, if boldly prioritized with their own lane, and accompanied by some auto and other restrictions downtown, could provide significant relief to the existing traffic situation as well as that during DRL construction. In fact the construction impact may well justify a London style congestion zone, not to raise money, but to restrict traffic. On the other hand, construction of a DRL route on King or Queen will inevitably quickly kill the respective streetcar service for good. Consideration however of the futures of the two routes would be hamstrung somewhat if there Is no notion of where an westward extended DRL would go in relation to where the two streetcar routes now go.
It is perhaps a kudo to Steve’s efforts that his proposed Front/Wellington alignment looks like the top of the list.
LikeLike
Your description of Union West as one of two options (a tunnel and station under the existing station, the other) to mitigate capacity limitations of the existing station, all it seems based on a non published determination of capacity limitations. In trying to piece together the bits of information we do have, it seems train routes in USRC criss-cross each other inherently limiting train capacity. Has Metrolinx considered breaking down the layout to individual though routes, (joining Richmond Hill and Newmarket for instance), each free of conflict with any other route. Or if Union passenger capacity is the issue, have they exhausted all possibilities – maximizing number of escalators or building passenger access decks above the tracks, for instance. Union West or a tunnel will have both enormous disruption and price tags, plus the huge cost of the DRL to ferry passengers one stop to downtown. Again I wonder to what extent the UPX is the cause of all this, for it might better fit, and be less disruptive if it used the stub end of track 3 otherwise closed to facilitate wider platforms.
Steve: Please refer to an article I wrote a few years ago which includes links to studies related to Union Station including a capacity, track layout and platform assignment analysis.
UPX certainly does cause problems, at least for the routes using the Weston corridor. The UPX will run on the west/south side of the corridor, but its platform is on the north side of Union Station. This cannot be changed because of the way the station has been constructed and because the airport is on the south side of the rail corridor. If there is a “Union West” station, then this could serve the Barrie and Kitchener lines (and a future Bolton service) thereby eliminating the need for the UPX to cross over the other northwestern services to reach its platform at Union.
LikeLike
My “DRL all the way to Sheppard” idea doesn’t sound so overbuilt now, does it, eh? Awful name, though. Call it the “Bayview Avenue Subway”.
Different option for dealing with Bloor-to-Sheppard demand, still very expensive, and probably very hard to convince anyone to do: reroute the Richmond Hill line out of most of the flood zone. Reclaim the Leaside Spur Trail, fly over the CP mainline, run parallel to the CP mainline, and use the CP Belleville Sub (the connecting line in the Don Valley with the very high bridge) to get to Union Station. Add lots of intermediate stations — it could probably do with 6 or 7 on *that* route, as opposed to the existing route which follows the bends of the river.
Steve: The rail route you propose has been suggested before. GO/Metrolinx are looking at regrading the existing route in the flood area, but I have not seen any details yet.
LikeLike
Where are the 501 and 504 streetcars the busiest? And the 505 for that matter? By my observation the sections of those routes from Dufferin to Yonge are near or at full capacity during most times of the day. Trinity-Spadina is the most densely populated area of the City and Parkdale-High Park isn’t that far behind. I don’t think the City can afford to wait another 30 years to build a DRL in phases. DRL West would seriously alleviate the aforementioned streetcar routes and bring mass transit to a rapidly developing part of the City. I mean, why ought we booster the East Bayfront yet neglect King West and Queen West?
The DRL should follow Wellington or King as far as Bathurst or Strachan then transition up and across Queen to Roncesvalles then connect up to Bloor Street, Parkside being the less disruptive alignment with no pre-existing subway tunnel to weave through at Bloor.
I don’t understand the preference for a single station at Cosburn to serve all of East York, when two stations at Mortimer and O’Connor would offer better coverage. Even choosing to locate the “northern” station at the midblock (Torrens) with underground walkways south to Cosburn and north to O’Connor (not unlike Montreal’s Plamondon Stn which stretches over four city blocks from Van Horne to Barclay) would be a superior idea.
LikeLike
I have the same skepticism regarding doing phases in a serial fashion. However, my suggestion of doing a phase one EA separate from a phase two was intended to only break up the approval process, and I explicitly said that the second phase should be underway on the tail of the first.
The Sheppard subway was not done this way. The Bloor-Danforth extensions to Warden and Islington, as well as the Yonge north extension to Finch are examples of planning and approval of the next phase while the construction of an earlier phase is underway.
LikeLike