[andomano]

Can somebody tell me....if the Queen or Richmond/adelaid alignment was picked....how many stations to Yonge would be there be between pape and Yonge? It'd be good to compare that to the current BD-YUS combo.

Using the original plan, the Front alignment there would be 6 stations total - Pape, Gerard, Queen East, Atiritari, St. Lawrence, Union.
With the addition of Cherry, 7, reducing the stops from 12 to 7

Following a Queen alignment, my network would include 7 stations - Pape, Gerard, Queen East, Broadview, River, Moss Park (Sherbourne), Yonge & Queen.
Reducing the stops from 10 to 7.

 

[dunkalunk]

Can somebody tell me....if the Queen or Richmond/adelaid alignment was picked....how many stations to Yonge would be there be between pape and Yonge? It'd be good to compare that to the current BD-YUS combo.

The number of stations would really depend on the findings of an EA which has not been completed yet. We'll have to see what the study says.

I know in my alignment which went along Wellington, I had included 7 stops including those at Yonge and Bloor compared to 11-12 (depending on whether you count to Union or King) stops and a transfer on the BD and Yonge Subways. It's already been mentioned that Pape to Queen is 10 stops inclusive.

With the expectation that local streetcar service will continue on both Queen and King, complementing the express/semi-express nature of a DRL, I would expect there to be 6 stops or less inclusive.

And to echo a general sentiment (by some) regarding the quibbling of the past few pages, remember, this is just a forum and the discussion of route alignments is just speculation. There's no real reason to get worked up over it until public consultations begin. And even then, the big decisions will be made and justified by the powers that be, whether an individual likes it or not. Smile!

[edit] front and queen are tied, oh noes!

 

[Railization]

Does anybody know of any estimates of the ridership from the studies 20 years ago?

Yes, and they're roughly in-line with Metrolinx's projections at an annual growth rate of 1.35% as stated as the average system growth by the TTC. 13,800ppdph by 2011, IIRC.

 

[Railization]

Can somebody tell me....if the Queen or Richmond/adelaid alignment was picked....how many stations to Yonge would be there be between pape and Yonge? It'd be good to compare that to the current BD-YUS combo.

Excluding the B-D connecting station (because I don't know which station it would connect to, it might not even require a new station at all if it goes via the yard), I'd speculate the stations would be Gerrard/CN, Queen/CN, Cherry/King, Parliament/Richmond-Adelaide, Sherbourne/Richmond-Adelaide, Victoria[Yonge]/Lombard-Adelaide.

 

[kEiThZ]

I am also wondering if the east-end if Coxwell would make a better start point. It lines up the best with Don Mills. Going north from Coxwell, it's a fairly straight path on to Don Mills if and when an extension to the North is warranted. In the south I would take the line south on coxwell to the rail corridor, along the corridor with stops at Greenwood, Jones, Pape/Gerrard/Riverdale, Dundas, Queen (depending on alignment) and Broadview and from there onwards depending on alignment.

So my questions are... Is that too far east to relieve Y/B? Given that it would replicate at least part of an existing GO line would that rule it out automatically? Lastly, are there any technical issues with going north along Coxwell under the Don Valley and up Don Mills? I just thought that it would be far easier if it lined up under Coxwell.

I don't have ridership numbers or cost estimates. I am throwing it out there for discussion.

 

[nfitz]

So 5 new stations between the interchange stations. Seems reasonable. Can't imagine any less than 4, or any more than 6.

 

[kEiThZ]

An addendum to my idea....

From Broadview, cross the river under Queen, then proceed on King...either stay on King (for a King alignment) or maintain the diagonal path from Berkeley street to meet Front at Jarvis and there proceed onto Wellington. Stations at Cherry, Parliament, Jarvis and a terminus at Bay (for Wellington alignment) or St. Andrew (for King alignment...extra station at King).

 

[Railization]

I am also wondering if the east-end if Coxwell would make a better start point. It lines up the best with Don Mills. Going north from Coxwell, it's a fairly straight path on to Don Mills if and when an extension to the North is warranted. In the south I would take the line south on coxwell to the rail corridor, along the corridor with stops at Greenwood, Jones, Pape/Gerrard/Riverdale, Dundas, Queen (depending on alignment) and Broadview and from there onwards depending on alignment.

So my questions are... Is that too far east to relieve Y/B? Given that it would replicate at least part of an existing GO line would that rule it out automatically? Lastly, are there any technical issues with going north along Coxwell under the Don Valley and up Don Mills? I just thought that it would be far easier if it lined up under Coxwell.

I don't have ridership numbers or cost estimates. I am throwing it out there for discussion.

The first thing that stands out is the close spacing. From Gerrard to Dundas, or Dundas to Queen, or Queen to Broadview, the tunnels would be shorter than the platform. I've tested this out on scaled maps with vector software. Not only are the tunnels obscenely short, but the resulting curves might not be acceptable to TTC either (and stations must be straight).

As for Coxwell, I don't think it's that hot. The first thing that stands out by a mile is that it duplicates excessive stretches of BD between Pape and Coxwell. It's not the GO line duplication that's the worst offender, it's the BD duplication. I don't think the GO duplication would actually "rise" by going to Coxwell because there wouldn't be an additional GO Station between Pape and Woodbine anyway. The second thing that comes to mind is that the Coxwell alignment by-passes Thorncliffe (it wouldn't have direct service by the subway like it would from a Pape-originating alignment, and would thereby still be dependent on a feeder-bus network). The third thing is that there is no value in a straight line just for straight line's sake. Yes, subways don't like curves, but that doesn't mean we should go that far out of our way.

While I do think that Coxwell is too far east, I don't think it is the east-west positioning that is the most important factor. You'd get more relief from Pape, the existing ridership numbers speak for themselves, but that's still based on the assumption that there's going to be a transfer. If the DRL interlines with B-D at Greenwood/Donlands, then you'd get maximum use.

Sixth, you're probably looking at a longer bridge and more complicated structural relationship with the DVP because you'd be crossing it at a close-to-parallel angle, whereas at Pape it is crossed at a close-to-perpendicular angle, which is much simpler since it results in a much shorter structural span. It's a little difficult to get a portal into the north end of Coxwell, too. With Pape, there's a convenient spot for a Portal at Minton Pl.

 

[CDL.TO]

So my questions are... Is that too far east to relieve Y/B? Given that it would replicate at least part of an existing GO line would that rule it out automatically? Lastly, are there any technical issues with going north along Coxwell under the Don Valley and up Don Mills? I just thought that it would be far easier if it lined up under Coxwell.

I don't think you should underestimate the effect of the valley there. That's where the Don splits into three branches, and as a result you're actually crossing two valleys... heading north you go down into Massey Creek, back up, and back down again to the East Don River. We're talking a mile of valley, the widest point. This would cause immense engineering difficulties.

Plus, such a route miss all the density (and employment and retail) in Thorncliffe Park. Though, you would serve East York Civic Centre and the East General Hospital, and if you stay on Coxwell south of Bloor you serve Little India and walking distance from the Beaches.

 

[toraerach]

I don't think you should underestimate the effect of the valley there. That's where the Don splits into three branches, and as a result you're actually crossing two valleys... heading north you go down into Massey Creek, back up, and back down again to the East Don River. We're talking a mile of valley, the widest point. This would cause immense engineering difficulties.

Plus, such a route miss all the density (and employment and retail) in Thorncliffe Park. Though, you would serve East York Civic Centre and the East General Hospital, and if you stay on Coxwell south of Bloor you serve Little India and walking distance from the Beaches.

Plus with Pape you have a pretty logical route that would allow you to avoid property aquisition/tunnelling under homes as much as possible. North of O'Conner at Coxwell, there's Coxwell Blvd. and Barbara Crescent that could really screw things up. Plus, in addition to Thorncliffe Park, you'd also miss the density at Pape and Cosburn.

Neighbourhoods along Coxwell (and in the East End generally) will still be better served by a Pape alignment than what's there now. For example, from Little India you could take the 506 and be at Gerrard Station in a few minutes. You'd be able to get downtown much quicker than riding the 506 to Yonge and transferring to the subway or to Broadview and switching to the 504/505.

 

[andomano]

One of the original proposals for the Queen subway included Yonge&Queen, Church, Sherbourne, Parliament, Don, Broadview, Logan and what appears to be Gerrard.

 

[Railization]

That one's a streetcar subway, not HRT like Yonge (note the different lineweights).

 

[Amphibius]

Plus with Pape you have a pretty logical route that would allow you to avoid property aquisition/tunnelling under homes as much as possible. North of O'Conner at Coxwell, there's Coxwell Blvd. and Barbara Crescent that could really screw things up. Plus, in addition to Thorncliffe Park, you'd also miss the density at Pape and Cosburn.

Neighbourhoods along Coxwell (and in the East End generally) will still be better served by a Pape alignment than what's there now. For example, from Little India you could take the 506 and be at Gerrard Station in a few minutes. You'd be able to get downtown much quicker than riding the 506 to Yonge and transferring to the subway or to Broadview and switching to the 504/505.

I think the subway out to Coxwell is of greater convenience to more passengers out east than to just Pape would be. To convince enough commuters from Beaches/East York/Southwest Scarborough to switch from their present travel routes and use the DRL instead, it should be brought closer to them.

At Queen/Carlaw there'd be a stop minutes away from Gerrard Sq anyway, but at Queen/Jones there's also the Leslieville BIA and developments near Leslie/Eastern. Greenwood/Connaught could become a hub for streetcar services to the east given the TTC Barn already on-site. From Coxwell Ave it'd be easier/quicker to access Greenwood Yard than via Carlaw/Gerrard. And both Mortimer and O'Connor @Coxwell are a short bus ride east of Pape Village, which itself is already a short bus ride north of Pape Stn.

Crossing the DVP. What if a Coxwell subway veers slightly to the west, north of Mortimer into a stacked tunnel underneath Lankin Blvd, thereby avoiding the Coxwell Blvd properties? Coxwell Ravine Park at the head of Lankin makes for a sweet right-of-way into the Don Valley. North of the DVP, Don Mills/Overlea is only a couple minutes away from Thorncliffe Park. Were the 81 bus to be realigned, customers could be fed directly into a stop here rather than opt the longer commute southwest to Pape Stn.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

That's a great question. But as we all know, there are no computer models. So why would we even bother trying to determine an alignment if we're all just going to argue over alignments. I understand that's why we have this separate thread, but it seems to be going nowhere fast without any substantive information. Instead we're getting a lot of ado about nothing.

Maybe we need to redouble our efforts on the advocacy part and leave the alignment to the experts. (oh wait, that would be the TTC right? we're so screwed)

There has to be ridership models and origin-destination patterns that can be plugged into a computer to see just which option would affect Y-B the most. We can model traffic patterns, why can't we model ridership patterns.

We just haven't seen the models.

 

[Paleo]

Using the original plan, the Front alignment there would be 6 stations total - Pape, Gerard, Queen East, Atiritari, St. Lawrence, Union.
With the addition of Cherry, 7, reducing the stops from 12 to 7

Following a Queen alignment, my network would include 7 stations - Pape, Gerard, Queen East, Broadview, River, Moss Park (Sherbourne), Yonge & Queen.
Reducing the stops from 10 to 7.

That sounds about right.

Gerrard (with GO transfer)
Queen
Broadview
Regent Park/Cherry
Jarvis (George Brown)

If the line extends past Danforth to Don Mills and Eglinton, bypassing the Thorncliffe area would be a huge mistake.

A point in favour of Pape alignment, isn't Pape from O'Connor to Eastern also the densest north-south corridor in this part of the city?

The part north of Danforth certainly seems a lot livelier than Donlands or Coxwell.