Today Sun Mon
It is forcast to be Mostly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Mostly Cloudy
27°/16°
It is forcast to be Chance of Rain at 11:00 PM EDT on May 27, 2012
Chance of Rain
26°/20°
It is forcast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 28, 2012
Chance of a Thunderstorm
36°/22°

23 Comments

news

Rocket Talk: What’s the Status of the Downtown Relief Line?

Have questions about the TTC? Rocket Talk is a regular Torontoist column, featuring TTC Chair Adam Giambrone and Director of Communications Brad Ross’s answers to Torontoist readers’ questions. Submit your questions to rockettalk@torontoist.com!

Reader Neil Shyminsky asks:

I know that a Downtown Relief line, running from Dundas West to Union to Pape, was proposed twenty-five years ago, and I read recently that the TTC would like to revisit it in ten years or so. I’ve also read that it might now intersect with the Queen streetcar line, rather than going as far south as Union. (A line which, I’m sure I don’t have to add, is so painfully slow and unreliable that I’m not certain “relief” would be an appropriate descriptor of any such expanded line.) I realize that there are a lot of tracks to be laid elsewhere between now and the hypothetical point at which this line is built, but is there an actual plan for the Downtown Relief Line?

TTC Chair Adam Giambrone says:

Toronto has talked about an east–west subway line serving the downtown all the way back to the early twentieth century, when the first studies were done. Indeed, the thought of the subway was so much on people’s minds that when they built the Prince Edward Viaduct, it was designed to accommodate a subway under the road platform.
Then in the early 1940s, as Canada was at war, TTC engineers began drawing up plans for a subway on Yonge to replace the Yonge streetcar, which simply could not carry enough passengers in the heavy traffic of the time:
“The Commission does not propose to stand idly by and allow this deterioration of its services and of the city itself to take place. There must be a gradual separation of public and private vehicles, both of which are now trying to operate on the narrow streets originally designed for horse-drawn traffic,” said a Policy Statement by the Toronto Transit Commission in 1945.
At the same time, the TTC began initial designs on an underground east–west streetcar route that would have travelled along Queen Street in the centre of the city. The TTC even built out the shell of a “Queen Lower” station for this line.
The TTC paid for most of the construction of the Yonge line from operating profits gained from increased ridership during WWII. (Due to parts and vehicle rationing, the TTC was unable to invest profits from increased ridership into new vehicles, though industrial production was otherwise ramped up.) There was not, however, enough for the Queen line, and in what would become a pattern, requests for federal or provincial funding in the late 1940s for it were turned down.
The first east–west subway was, as we know, built on Bloor–Danforth by the TTC under direction from the then-Metro government, and funded by both Metro and provincial governments.
Then-Mayor Nathan Phillips spoke against the decision to build the Bloor–Danforth line, and instead advocated for the Queen subway. The TTC and others, however, argued for Bloor–Danforth, and we all know the result.
Subway construction in the 1960s and 1970s was focused on pushing outwards to the inner suburbs. However, by the late 1980s, ridership was at an all-time high (only surpassed in the last few years) and the Yonge line, which had reached ridership in the low- to mid-thirty thousands per hour, was near capacity.
It was at this time that the TTC began a study of a “relief” line from the east part of the Bloor–Danforth line to the centre of the city, to offload the pressures on the Yonge line south of Bloor, where the problem was and still is the greatest.
The very preliminary study looked at a line that would come down somewhere in the Pape corridor and east–west in the Richmond corridor, stopping just west of the University line. The second phase of the line was envisioned to head north somewhere in the Roncesvalles corridor, possibly using the Georgetown rail corridor. A third and maybe fourth phase—reviewed even less—considered continuing north up to around Jane and Eglinton in the west, and Don Mills and Eglinton in the east through what is now Flemingdon Park.
The plan was killed with the recession of the early 1990s. With TTC ridership plummeting due to massive job losses, large fare increases, and service cuts, the pressure was relieved to the Yonge line in general and the choke point of Bloor-Yonge Station in particular.
Fast-forward to today.
Ridership on the TTC and Yonge lines has reached record highs. The Commission has not cut service, and as a result the TTC is one of the few North American or European systems to not see a drop in ridership—rather, we are on track to continue to set record ridership numbers this year and next. In addition, the condo market shows no signs of letting up, and there is even talk of extending the Yonge line to Richmond Hill and beyond, bringing more and more riders to what passengers know is an already busy line (indeed, the busiest piece of transportation infrastructure in Canada and one of the busiest in North America).
The new Toronto Rocket subway trains arriving this year will hold eight percent more passengers because they are one long tube, with no room lost to having separate cars. The Automatic Train Control (ATC) project, which will be complete by 2015 on the Yonge–University–Spadina line (Union to Eglinton will be complete by late 2012 or early 2013) will also allow the use of more trains on the line since the headways—the distance between trains—can be shortened and perhaps will also allow for longer trains.
These measures, however, will eventually not be enough to keep up with demand. Even with these increases in capacity to the Yonge line (and eventually also the Bloor–Danforth, which will get ATC by the early 2020s), the choke point will increasingly become Bloor-Yonge station. Today, around 480,000 people daily move through the station and many transfer trains. The station will not be able to handle the increased volume.
Currently the passenger separation project, which uses barriers and staff at Bloor-Yonge station to ensure better traffic flow, has increased the Yonge line’s capacity by six to ten percent a day by allowing, on average, two more trains to get through per hour, and sometimes as high as four more. With each train carrying one thousand people in rush hour, this program, which costs around $250,000 a year, has been a tremendous success. While it is somewhat unpopular, it is an absolute must until ATC is brought online and major multi-hundred-million dollar renovations to the station are made. These renovations, which will be expensive and very difficult, are needed to help the “vertical flow” of the station—the movements of passengers up and down between the two lines—which is constrained.
Seeing the current and future challenges at Bloor-Yonge station, on the Yonge line, and perhaps eventually also the Bloor-Danforth line, the TTC recently restarted studies on the Downtown Relief Line. The study will cost three million dollars, and is being broken down into two phases. Phase 1, which will be completed by the end of this year, will look at ridership, capacity, and transit policy issues for serving the downtown core. Phase 2, which will be completed by the end of 2011, will consider rapid transit needs up to 2031; it will look at different technologies, possible routings, and possible station locations. And, importantly, it will let the City know what property must be protected so that future construction may be considered.
At the current $300 million per kilometre cost for subway construction, this is anywhere from a three billion– to eight billion dollar–line, depending on how long it is. Due to the large amount of big buildings in the downtown core, this will be a very challenging project and, unlike the 1980s, when surplus industrial land was available in the east end for a new car-house, today much of that land is already spoken for.
The original Queen subway was conceived of as an underground streetcar line, and the plan for the original DRL of the 1980s was to use ICTS (the same technology as the SRT), but today, the DRL would be built either as an underground LRT (like Eglinton) or as a full subway.
Demand projections for the original DRL were in the fifteen thousand to eighteen thousand people per direction range, per hour in the peak hour, but demographics have changed and it will be interesting to see if all the condo construction and some new commercial space offsets the loss of some very large employers (like Massey Ferguson) that were expected to generate ridership. Remember, subways need more than just rush hour traffic to be justified, and while the King and Queen streetcars carry around one hundred thousand people a day combined (and perhaps they would carry more if they weren’t seen as unreliable due to traffic congestion), there needs to be hundreds of thousands per day to justify a subway.
There will be public meetings late this year and early next year, and the study will be done by the end of 2011. While the DRL is in the twenty-five-year funding plans, the last few months have shown there is little appetite financially at the Province for large projects, so it will be interesting to see if the DRL is ever built.
A great city needs a strong transit system built on a variety of modes and one would hope that one day, funding will be in place to allow us to move forward on great city-building projects like the DRL. The TTC is doing its part to push forward the debate.

Filed under: , , , ,

Report error Send a tip

Comments

  • http://undefined rek

    I’ve never understood why Pape seems to be the consensus. There’s really not much there, whereas Broadview has condos, a hospital, Chinatown, and if you go as far south as Queen East you get a streetcar line serving denser development than Gerrard.

  • http://undefined Christopher Hylarides

    Giambrone should take lessons from Madrid, which built their subway lines at a cost of $65M/km. That’s the cost per kilometre of Transit City. Oh wait, that involves using the private sector. Never mind, we can’t have that.
    Also, why shouldn’t this subway go all the way to the beach and turn up Woodbine? Why Pape?

  • CanadianSkeezix

    I don’t disagree with the arguments in favour of Broadview. I’ve always assumed that Broadview would be a challenge, construction-wise, given that street’s meandering path. Pape is an very busy busy station, accommodating most of the bus passengers from up north (Thorncliffe Park, Don Mills, etc.), so I’m not sure its accurate to say that there is “not much there”. IIRC, although no decision has been made, the Don Mills LRT (if it ever comes to pass) would most easily terminate at Pape, so there is also that.

  • CanadianSkeezix

    Cost, I assume. I don’t think anyone is contemplating a subway out to the Beaches, as nice as that would be.

  • http://undefined jw03

    Please run for mayor.

  • http://undefined addict

    i use Pape and Broadview stations frequently. Pape is *way* more congested than Broadview… by a long shot.

  • http://undefined Adam

    Besides @CanadianSkeezix’s points above, I think it has to do with the distance between the existing Danforth subway line and the downtown rail corridor. Without connecting to the corridor as directly as possible, the cost expands dramatically.
    If only we could build a tunnel in the lake!

  • http://undefined addict

    if you look at the number of passengers using Pape station compared to all the stations east of Pape up to Woodbine, you’ll see that at peak times, Pape has the greatest amount of traffic – easily more than all the stations between Donlands and Woodbine combined.

  • http://undefined Vincent Clement

    Read Steve Munro’s take on the cost of building a subway. It wasn’t just using the private sector that resulted in cheaper costs in Madrid.

  • http://undefined rek

    Pape *station* might be higher traffic than Broadview (is it? I don’t know), but Pape Avenue? Not in my experience. There’s Gerrard Square, and some converted warehouse-offices (I used to work in one of them), but the bulk of it is low density residential.

  • http://undefined rek

    “I don’t think anyone is contemplating a subway out to the Beaches…”
    I did. :)

  • http://undefined thewatchmaker

    Pape is a major transit hub for the area between the Don Valley and Main – it has two Frequent Service lines running north through Thorncliffe and up Don Mills, and another running south to Queen (and, occasionally, along the waterfront to Union). And there are a lot of lower/working class-oriented highrises along Pape near the DVP and in Thorncliffe, which means that these lines are really busy. It also provides the route to the Science Centre, for what that’s worth.

  • http://undefined CanadianSkeezix

    Rek, you can’t just look south of Danforth (having said that, there are probably more condos units built or planned on Carlaw near Pape than along the entirety of Broadview, and depending on the route, a Pape-routed subway could capture more of Leslieville/Riverside population than a Broadview one). Looking north, the Pape/Cosburn high-rise corridor centered on Pape Avenue has even more people than Thorncliffe Park. Along with all the previously mentioned population and connections, and the possible Don Mills LRT, a DRL connection at Pape is quite logical.

  • http://undefined sprung

    What about removing the extra charge for Express buses? I heard that this was supposed to happen in 2010 but here we are halfway through the year and nothing so far. The Express buses can take passengers from crowded subway lines and move them to buses with lots of space (e.g. 141 Express on Mt Pleasant/Jarvis).
    Seems like an easy solution to implement.

  • http://undefined atomeyes

    They did a study on 3 options: Pape, Broadview and Broadview/Castle Frank. Logically, Pape makes most sense and has lower environmental impact and will probably be cheaper to do.

  • http://undefined Colin

    In true Giambrone fashion he didn’t even answer the question. Nice history lesson and evasion.
    It’s time for new blood at the TTC. NOW not in the fall.

  • http://undefined rek

    He answers it in the 6th-from-the-bottom paragraph onward.

  • http://undefined Jos

    While Pape makes sense for congestion purposes, it doesn’t for commercial purposes.
    What would make most sense is Coxwell, because of the Hospital and Civic Center. After that, it’s a straight shot up to connect to Don Mills. A station at Don Mills/Eglinton would serve that area very well (isn’t there supposed to LRT stop there?). After that? a few more stops and then suddenly you’re at Fairview for another connection.

  • http://undefined Edmund

    I agree with Jos. Coxwell makes the most sense geographically, because for any extension(!) to Don Mills station, you just point the moles north (well, NNE) and get ‘em drilling. But Pape/Broadview may be the best from a traffic point of view. I don’t think the density is there at Queen and Jones, never mind Queen and Coxwell. The case for the DRL should be as watertight as possible, so the penny-pinchers of this world have as little ammo as possible.

  • http://undefined Edmund

    I meant NNW, of course.

  • http://paul.kishimoto.name Paul Kishimoto

    Beat me to it.
    Christopher, apply Ockham’s razor. “Spain != Canada” is the better explanation, not some hate-on the City has for the private sector. To pick two items out of Munro’s post:

    • No Environmental Assessment was conducted in Madrid. — the EA was the stage in which a lot of the St. Clair delays happened. For good or ill, a lot of not-really-”environmental” issues get shoehorned into EAs, resulting in delays and increased costs.
    • The Madrid standards for fire safety including ventillation and emergency access are less stringent than in North America. For example, all new Toronto stations must be built with dual exits. On Sheppard, this was implemented with full second exits rather than emergency exit shafts. — if you want the TTC to compromise on safety to save money, argue for that specifically.
  • http://undefined Martin

    $8 Billion, and it will last for50 years before it needs and major work done to it? That means it will cost $160 million a year. Doesn’t sound too bad.
    As to the hundreds of thousands of passengers per day, did the Seppard line have that when it opened? Does it now?
    Where it would go isn’t all that important at this point. What’s important is that the excuses need to stop and the city needs to find a way to make improvements like this.

  • http://undefined Dick from Red Deer

    Many of the comments above are more interested about the eastern half of the DRL. I am located in what would be the western half (Liberty Village) so bear with my lack of familiarity about east end possibilities. I do know from other boards and discussion that Pape was considered a prime node since the possibility of extending the line north of Danforth would be better served from there, eventually working towards the Don Mills area. Beyond that comment I won’t presume to tell those in the east side what is best for them.
    It was curious that Giambrone didn’t discuss possible routes and stations with any specificity. Truth be told there are a lot of contenders along the route that are underserved. Stations that have been mentioned include Distillery District, a connection with Lakeshore/King LRT route down to Cherry Street, St. Lawrence Market, Union Station (of course), the convention centre, CityPlace, Fort York, Exhibition/Liberty Village, Roncesvailles. It would also allow a connection to Dundas West for those along the western half where you will be able to connect with the Pearson Rail Link. CityPlace alone is supposed to house something like 140,000 people (the population of Peterborough). We need higher volume service along the southern portion of the city. By taking the load off Yonge and Bloor, they can save a ton of money that would be better spend on the DRL.