The meetings originally announced for the week of March 1st in Toronto and Richmond Hill have been postponed by joint agreement of the parties involved. New dates later in March will be announced.
Metrolinx will hold three public meetings to discuss the Regional Relief Strategy on March 1st and 3rd in Toronto, and on March 5th in Richmond Hill.
Steve Munro 
First Gulf, owner of the Unilever lands, have called for the Gardiner East to be torn down. They have also indicated their wish to see Broadview extended to the Lakeshore (and will apparently donate land to the city to facilitate this).
They have also proposed Queen’s Quay East and Broadview LRT lines that would meet at Broadview and Lakeshore.
See: National Post
There is also talk that a GO station (and probably a DRL station be added. The article describes something like “Penn Station.”
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
I think that the TTC could relieve the Yonge line somewhat as an interim measure by creating a number of frequent bus services that parallel the Yonge line. There seem to be quite a few busy bus routes that parallel the Spadina subway (Bathurst, Ossington, Dufferin) which have or will get the new articulated buses; it’s surprising how busy these routes are even though the Spadina subway isn’t. The TTC could add more buses on 141 (Mount Pleasant) and 142 (Avenue) and get rid of the extra fare; increase the number of buses on the 97 south of Davisville; extend the 33 south to Spadina station so that it is useful and add more buses (or even run it down St George/Beverly to Queen); and maybe create another bus along Bayview running e.g. from Sunnybrook Hospital, south on Bayview, south on River and west on Gerrard to University.
If the TTC runs buses every few minutes on the busier of these routes, and maybe adds articulated buses if needed, each of these routes could carry up to a few thousand people an hour. This sort of service is common in places like Manhattan, where for instance a heavily used bus route along First/Second Avenue is used to relieve the overcrowded 4/5/6 trains while the Second Avenue Subway is built. I certainly don’t think this is a permanent solution, but the sort of capacity that several parallel bus routes would provide is probably roughly comparable to building one new LRT line into downtown.
Steve: The basic problem is those “few thousand people” for each route have to come from somewhere. A major problem for the YUS is the riding that originates well to the north, and these people won’t be riding the Ossington, Mt. Pleasant or Avenue Road buses, and certainly not the Forest Hill route. It’s not enough to have parallel routes, they have to connect with the origins of the riders who are now on the subway.
LikeLike
Further to the concept of LRT before subway. I would also like to note, that we need to look at doing something in terms of light priority. This should be done as a “quick win” fix. Somebody mentioned the idea of having the streetcars control the lights on their routes in the core entirely so that the light was red while loading. If this type of idea was adopted, in conjunction with no parking or left turns along streetcar routes, in addition to with proper headway management I suspect the perception that the shoulder areas needed a subway would decline dramatically.
That would simply leave making sure frequency was high enough to serve. So basically 1-fix basic service, then 2 -look at LRT if required and then 3-only if previous 2 do not meet requirement start to look at subway. Subways require massive money, provide huge capacity, and capacity costs. Do not build infrastructure to serve 30K trips per hour when you have a reasonable projection of 10. The East DMRL meeting the Crosstown provides connectivity. It would also give a spot for a GO Midtown service from the east, should it be considered, to connect, other than Yonge. Provides future linkage also for potential Don Mills LRT (Transitcity and OneCity proposals) which also seems logical should the North end of Yonge start to get close to load (as projected).
LikeLike
There is a ravine and a golf course around Victoria Park plus the apartments at Crescent Town. Aside from these there is not much density where by people could walk in. What is the nearby shopping that people would walk to and from, Shopper’s World Danforth? Like most subway stations it ridership comes from connecting surface lines. Running the DRL to Victoria Park it would not be smart. The purpose of a subway is not to provide mass transit for walk in but for people to arrive on a surface line. Agreed that stopping at Danforth is dumb, the farther east it goes the fewer riders it will divert from Bloor Yonge station which is its raison d’etre.
LikeLike
The purpose of these routes is for people living in the many apartment buildings near or south of Eglinton near Yonge to get downtown without using the subway. I was just thinking about this because I noticed how bus route 7 Bathurst, which is within walking distance of the Spadina subway for most of its length, was the first route to get articulated buses. If the TTC would at least start a pilot project to add more buses on Avenue, Yonge and Mt Pleasant and get rid of the premium fare then we could see if this approach is at all successful. I like taking the St Clair streetcar west then the Spadina subway, or alternatively 5 Avenue, to avoid Yonge line overcrowding, but this is annoying and bus route 5 is not very frequent.
LikeLike
Steve I had some questions and concerns with regards to the discussion in the press yesterday regarding Lever site and the Broadview LRT – did this discussion and the notion of having a Broadview LRT (which based on previous discussion was highly impractical) just raise serious concerns with regards to a DRL let alone a DMRL?
Can you actually run a real LRT (as opposed to Streetcar) through the route suggested in the Post?. If so what the heck would the routing be North of the Danforth, going up Broadview looks like it would run into a couple of sharp turns.
Also can you adjust the light spacing and access on Broadview enough to run an LRT?? Or are they simply suggesting somehow running the Streetcar at higher frequency with light priority and calling it an LRT? Can you realistically make Broadview wider, and / or ban parking ? Can they run a restricted right of way in this area?
Steve: North of Eastern Avenue, it would be a streetcar because Broadview is only 4 lanes and cannot be widened. South of Eastern on the “New Broadview”, the road can be built with provision for a streetcar right-of-way. In any event, the purpose of this connection is not to replace the DRL, but to provide an alternative route to the Danforth subway for riders, and more importantly a connection to the eastern waterfront lines on Queens Quay and to the Port Lands.
A DRL serving this site will be at or north of the rail corridor probably heading to a Front/Wellington alignment west of the river. It does not make sense to go further south because of (a) difficult soil conditions and (b) a very poor connection to the existing subway lines at Yonge and University.
LikeLike
Thanks Steve, that is what I thought I saw on previous plans for the area, and was confused (scared) by a “Broadview LRT”. I hope this is not something that is grabbed by somebody to make an argument against the DRL or DMRL. It is an unfortunate reality that this (DMRL) is a necessity now to allow the system work and develop.
LikeLike
I think this is just an example of the misapplication of “LRT” (in the context of a limited stop light rail line within a Class A or B separated right of way) but it wouldn’t be the first time. The Queens Quay West and Queens Quay East (now East Bayfront) LRT lines would have been limited stop but used ‘streetcar’ gauge vehicles. The 509 streetcar was once officially the Harbourfront LRT with an orange line on the TTC “Subway/RT/LRT” route map, and Spadina and St. Clair and even the Scarborough RT have been referred to as LRT at one time or another.
I’ve always said that the inherent advantage of light rail is its flexibility and adaptability … but that also leads to confusion because so many things can be “LRT” (including “light metro/mini – metro/Light Rapid Transit” … a whole other story).
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
I really think that is the issue, in that people end up not being on the same page. I understand that if you actually do create something that has a dedicated ROW it is not unreasonable to call it an LRT. However 1 car vs. 3 or 4, completely closed ROW & gated crossings with full light priority or better still full grade separation vs. simple curbs with open crossing and partial light control create a real variance in application and confusion as to which will apply.
In Toronto we need create different names, and make sure that nothing without a dedicated right of way and some form of light priority is included as an LRT.
So Spadina or St Clair with light priority active might be an SLR (streetcar light rail), Crosstown a MCLRT or MVLRT (multicar car, or multi vehicle LRT). We could talk about Grade Separated SLR, or Grade Separated (GS)-MCLRT, or in street right of way (S) MCLRT.
This sort of thing just to get the press to start doing the same, and when politicians choose not to we and the press will know that they are playing games.
Clarity would make debates cleaner, and make it easier to get people to a point where they could agree or at least make reasoned arguments. You might to get arguments like ‘I am fine with an LRT, but since I have to travel 25 km, I would really prefer to see fewer stops less than 1 per km’, or ‘I think this should be aimed locally, and needs stops every 350 meters’ instead of ‘fairness demands we get a subway’ when there is a route with 6k or fewer on it with few headed towards downtown. Also might allow us to get on with a debate as to where transit should be headed and what we are trying to accomplish, not just who needs it. This argument of course applies equally well to BRT, where we are calling something a BRT when it is only a un-enforced “dedicated” lane for busses and people turning, not a closed right of way, or separate roadway.
LikeLike
Assuming this is a peak hour context, I wouldn’t be too down on twenty percent. I think that as far as providing alleviation on Yonge is concerned, it might be worthwhile in that what is an increase of “only” a fifth for Relief Line ridership may translate to a decrease by about a third of Eglinton LRT ridership between Yonge and the Relief Line that would otherwise be feeding into Yonge.
LikeLike
Steve I understand that this is likely heresy at this point, but would it not make more sense in terms of the system as an entirety, to build a Don Mills LRT to and beyond Steeles possibly even turning west towards Richmond Hill and going north beyond it, instead of a Yonge Street subway extension? I look at the capital costs projected for the Don Mills LRT (Transit City), and even if I double it, it seems to leave some money for a DMRL (note you are dropping 6 hard km off the bottom and adding 8 or 9 easy km to the top if you don’t go west to Bayview or Yonge). This would mean you were not adding load to the top, and were intercepting additional load from the east that would otherwise head to the Yonge street line. This would need to be at least a controlled crossing, light priority closed ROW Multi-car LRT.
When we are worried about overloading Yonge, somehow it seems illogical to just keep adding to it as a substantial portion of this traffic will flow to the south. I am of the mind that if you look at Spadina as a relief line (not such a bad way) it makes more sense to direct BRTs & LRTs here as well, instead of extending either it or the Yonge line further.
I understand that this may not serve the North York City Centre as well, however, it would provide improved service to the office areas east of Don Mills on Sheppard, and the center at Don Mills and Eglinton. However, what North York City Centre really needs to make it more attractive is a run to the airport anyway (Finch LRT to Yonge anyone) as this would also make it accessible from the West.
Steve: You are mixing a variety of demands into one route. The long-haul trips to downtown belong on GO Transit, not on a route that runs all the way down Don Mills to, eventually, the DRL. Trips to mid-town locations on Yonge (e.g. North York Centre, Yonge-Eglinton) will travel by subway. Local trips on Don Mills will be on the 25 Don Mills bus and, eventually, on the LRT line. Trips from the inner part of the north-east 416 (Don Mills, western Scarborough) will travel both by whatever is built in the Don Mills and Scarborough corridors plus the Eglinton LRT depending on their destination and the easiest route available.
I agree that we cannot keep loading more passengers onto Yonge, but we need to consider the origins and destinations of various groups of riders when looking at alternatives.
LikeLike
Steve I agree, and I will admit to a prejudice against GO (operate on a large headway generally). However, the Yonge extension will in essence do the same thing. There will be trips on the Yonge subway that head to North York and intermediate points like Sheppard and Yonge, Sheppard and Vic Park, Don Mills and Eglinton. The GO as set-up is focused on trips to the Core, which is likely one of the reasons that alternative centres have never really flourished.
A Don Mills LRT like the Yonge extension would also serve these partway trips, and intercept traffic inside Metro headed to the Yonge Line. I do not see trips really observing a 416/905 barrier even though there is a provider issue there. However, in terms of how it would be funded, and perceived to benefit you certainly have a point (Toronto would perforce need more money per capita from the Province to support these trips).
Steve: There is a big difference in the areas a Don Mills line would serve versus the Yonge subway. There are far fewer jobs, not to mention academic institutions, in mid-town Don Mills than around the Yonge corridor, and the subway will get people there faster.
You are correct a Don Mills LRT would take GO traffic in terms the Core destined, however I suspect not all of these trips should be GO or headed to the core. I think part of the current issue is that the system is not set up to support trips from non core points to non core points. Adding to Yonge reinforces this tendency, building a parallel removes from this. Relying on GO while all lines run to Union, reinforces this. Your point in my mind does reinforce the need to have a very clear current and projected understanding of origin-destination pairs. However, any route into the 905 will mix many trips onto a route, but is required to provide travel to intermediate points. I suspect it would be better (given load) to misalign load onto a Don Mills LRT than having it misaligned on the Yonge subway as it is currently being driven (granted both are sub-optimal). Making GO work better, especially to intermediate points (MidTown GO service to the Crosstown & a DMRL?) would be preferred. However, I think we really need to see a stop to the on-going ridiculously expensive and destructive extension of subway lines.
A Don Mills LRT of this design is not meant to serve downtown bound 905, however, you are correct it will. As will a Yonge subway, or even a bus to Finch. It was meant to take load Yonge would assuming that some would head west on the Sheppard subway, some east on a Sheppard LRT, some on the Crosstown east and west some stop at York Mills, some at Eglinton and of course some south on the DMRL. My point being building subway, precludes building all else (as it consumes all available finances).
Steve: I don’t agree. We are quite likely to see GO improvements long before the DRL is built, and a Don Mills LRT requires a DRL to somewhere as a prerequisite.
LikeLike
Sorry Steve, point of clarity, I was imagining this imaginary LRT to be no more fine grained than the Yonge subway.
LikeLike
A Downtown Relief Line (DRL) has been all in the discussions but what about a Bloor Danforth Relief Line? Too often (and even outside of rush hours), there is not even breathing space on the Bloor Danforth line. Burying the Eglinton Crosstown LRT completely will provide a very good Bloor Danforth Relief Line and failure to do so now will have us waste more money in the future.
Steve: Off peak crowding on BD has nothing to do with “relief” but with the service level. The same applies to the YUS. As for a buried Eglinton offloading Bloor, you really need to look at the origin destination pattern of BD travellers before you assume that Eglinton in whatever form will draw traffic away from BD. BD has many destinations in its own right (notably the midtown business district and the University) and provides easy access to the YUS at two points for trips going south of Bloor. By contrast, Eglinton is mainly residential.
People are travelling on BD because it takes them where they want to go. You are using BD congestion to support arguing for full grade separation on Eglinton, and I don’t think that is valid. The lines will serve different demand patterns.
LikeLike
I agree that Bloor-Danforth can be very busy. My observation is that passenger levels change dramatically at Dundas West Station (I’m a west ender so I see it often) … likely because of the streetcars and the density in the area. Indeed I’ve often wondered if passenger numbers change as significantly at Broadview (it being the other end of the 504 and 505) or at points further east?
Steve: There is a drop at Broadview and another at Pape corresponding to major transfer points with surface routes.
I’d wager, however that instead of relieving the Bloor-Danforth line by burying Eglinton the better solution would be to put more money into:
1. Building the King St Transit Mall so 504 Streetcars can run faster.
2. Improve the frequency of GO services, (ideally with some kind of fare integration system) and divert passengers at Bloor/Dundas West (and Kennedy and to a much lesser extent, Danforth/Main Street).
3. Build the “DRL West” branch.
4. Provide some kind of a BRT (Quality Bus) service along Eglinton from Renforth Gateway (to be cobstructed at the Renforth/Eglinton/Matheson triangle) to Mount Dennis station in the west, and from Kennedy to Markham Road or Eglinton GO Station in the east until the Crosstown LRT is extended.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
I ride the west end of the trains as I get off at Kipling and have often had standing room only until Dundas west. I think part of the problem is caused by having a number of stations on the west end with exits near the west end of the platform. I have noticed the couple of times that a train arrived as I entered the station before walking to the west end my car was not as crowded. On the other hand if we are getting standing room crowds after 11:00 p.m. with a 5:00 minute or better headway on a weeknight then the service is being used.
LikeLike
Have they not stated that the DRL is a prerequisite for the Yonge Line extension as well? I hope that these GO improvements are nearly immediate, not just that we will be waiting forever for a DRL or DMRL. Also I hope the alternatives for the intermediate trips will be seriously looked at, not just be extending the Yonge Line. I have a hard time believing that this is a cost effective way of extending service into the 905, while I understand the political attractiveness.
LikeLike
At the risk of drawing lines on the map, it seems to me that the west end of the DMRL should not go to Dundas West, but instead be the start of the WWLRT. If the relief line was LRT, I think it would be a pretty obvious solution, especially if the idea is to run the relief line to some west-of-Union new GO terminal. I am not sure how far a subway relief line could go for a reasonable cost. The WWLRT would proceed west from wherever the west terminus of the relief line is.
With the growth at Liberty Village, a more rapid transit option with limited stops would nicely complement the King car, which isn’t going away despite the dreams of some people. Ideally running the relief line to the west side of Humber Bay would be great, since there is tremendous development going on and no transit other than the Queen car, Prince Edward bus, and the lame Humber Bay express bus. However, there isn’t a whole lot of subway-worthy development — or connecting routes — between Liberty Village and west of Humber, except maybe for Roncesvalles. But few people coming in on the Bloor-Danforth from the west end are going to transfer at Roncesvalles to take a streetcar to another subway line.
LikeLike
So, the TTC is wasting our money going ahead with the numbering of the lines in spite of various poll showing more than 70% of residents opposed to the idea. So much for the customer charter, huh? This morning in the train they announced that they were having some issue on the Bloor Danforth Line. On the station, they announced the same but instead of calling it the Bloor Danforth called it the Green Line. Yesterday, they were having some issue with the Yonge University Spadina line and called it Line 1 in the announcement. They are wasting thousands of signs and throwing away hundreds of thousands of maps simply because they show line names instead of line numbers. So much for respect for the environment, huh? They also hired people who have nothing better to do to yell “Free TTC buttons for you” at the stations whose job is to hand out millions of buttons (what an environmental waste) to tell people about the new numbering system. My comment is this: Don’t bother building a Downtown Relief Line and instead waste money on things that are not needed like dropping meaningful line names to implement a numbering system thereby creating millions of tonnes of environmental waste and millions of dollars in waste.
Steve: While I concur with some of your sentiments, I think you’ve gone a bit over the top here. I plan to write about the line numbering in a future article once I have a chance to photograph Bloor-Yonge station (or should that be Line 1/2 station?).
This is supposed to be a signage test, but the TTC is already referring to the new line numbers system wide, and as you point out, inconsistently.
LikeLike
Well, Eglinton Ave East also has many destinations in their own right. And Eglinton LRT will also provide two different access points to the Green Line or Line 1 or Yonge University Spadina Line (I don’t know what it’s called anymore due to repeated mixing of these names on the subway system all this week and I hope that the old names will be restored). Eglinton Line if competely buried will provide huge relief to the Bloor Danforth Line and combine that with a Downtown Relief Line (DRL) that comes at least as north to as Eglinton, then what we will end up with will be a real network and not just individual lines. It is still not too late to bury the Eglinton Line completely as construction work on the eastern portion does not begin for a few years and surely it will cost more in the short run but will provide massive amounts of long term benefits.
LikeLike
I think this is a winning idea … but they have to invest the money to build a proper connection to the waterfront rather than trying to run along the existing King tracks. I’m not sure about Queensway though … it seems like there would be no point in having the WWLRT running along the south side of the Gardiner between Dunn and South Kingsway when the Queensway ROW is available.
The obvious question attatched to the WWLRT is what to do with local service west of the Humber Loop.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
The plans for WWLRT would involve turning the existing Lake Shore trackage to ROW by the addition of curbs. The proposal does not touch the existing tracks as far as I know. So the “local service” along Lake Shore would persist, though some stops may be removed. My opinion is that excessive removal of stops would be a bad idea. Right now, through the numbered streets of New Toronto and Long Branch, the stops are generally every second street, and ocassionally every third street. (You can’t go by the street numbers alone, you have to look at a map.) The neighbourhoods on either side of Lake Shore are totally dependent on Lake Shore for east-west transit, because the alternative bus service on Horner is cut off by the railway lines. There can be over 500m walk from either side to get to Lake Shore. Adding wider stop spacing can mean another long hike to the nearest stop once you get to Lake Shore.
Some people think the WWLRT should run along The Queensway. I am not sure what the rationale for this is, beyond “we don’t want a big LRT in our neighbourhood” and “The Queensway is wide and has room”. Looking at the 80 Queensway, the headway weekdays is 30 minutes peak period, 24 minutes mid-day. Why on earth would you want to build an LRT along such a low-ridership street?
LikeLike
Moaz: actually I’m wondering if it is wise that, once the WWLRT is in place the ‘local’ service be offered by bus leaving the ROW for the limited stop LRT.
I don’t know about LRT along the Queensway out to Sherway … I was thinking in the context of the Queensway ROW. There are plans to enhance density along Queensway out to West Mall but I don’t know if it will ever need a limited stop LRT.
I prefer an LRT along Lakeshore that essentially recreates the radial railway that ran out to Port Credit. As Mississauga redevelop Lakeview and East Port Credit and Toronto redeveloped Long Branch, there will be significant demand for fast ‘Lakeshore Local’ type services on Lakeshore itself, not the rail corridor.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Moaz, adding a bus to make local service along Lake Shore seems like the wrong approach to me. One purpose of the WWLRT is to relieve the King car by serving Liberty and Parkdale; another is to provide faster access to downtown from South Etobicoke. The Queen car — when it comes — takes around 25 minutes from Long Branch to Humber loops. With an exclusive ROW and the most modest signal priority, it would be down to maybe 20 minutes while making stops. Some stops may be removed, but if you start removing enough stops to require a bus, you have suddenly taken away the time savings, not to mention convenience.
I have been to a number of public consultations and seen the output of amateur urban planners. Putting an LRT on The Queensway, west to Sherway Gardens, is very popular. I don’t think any of them actually ride the Queen car along Lake Shore, though.
By the way, it’s “Lake Shore (Blvd)” in Toronto, and “Lakeshore (Rd)” in Mississauga.
LikeLike
Moaz: But will the Lake Shore streetcars stopping more frequently end up delaying the WWLRT service?
The WWLRT is starting to sound like a limited stop streetcar in a ROW … in the vein of the Queen car along the Queensway ROW. In that sense why not have two “LRT” lines (on Queensway and Lake Shore … and possibly Lakeshore) … one serving the old streetcar suburb, and the other serving the increasingly dense ‘avenue’ a decade from now?
Noted.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
I think the location and usefulness of WWLRT depends quite a bit on where the west end of the DMRL winds up. The LRT along The Queensway west from Humber is not, as far as I know, on the list of any significant planning organization. Such a route would make sense if the DMRL’s west end was somewhere by Humber Bay, but I don’t expect that’s feasible. In the absence of a direct connection to a subway, extending LRT service west along The Queensway makes no sense to me. There are quicker ways to get to Sherway Gardens, and the entire area is pedestrian-unfriendly.
For the WWLRT, I would assume that all the streetcars on Lake Shore would be WWLRT, with possibly 508 service during peak periods mixed in. I would expect the Queen car would be cut back to Humber. I must admit that I haven’t looked at the routing proposals in detail. Anyway, it’s moot until the DMRL is sorted out.
Steve: It’s also moot until Rob Ford is booted out of office. David Miller was advocating a route through a revamped western waterfront connecting to The Queensway at Colborne Lodge Road. A related problem is the future of the Exhibition Place grounds and what transit service will serve this, especially if development is concentrated on the south edge of the site.
LikeLike