[rbt]

Though with ten-digit dialling, there's no reason they can't use 416 as an exchange code in the 416 area code, and similarly for 647, 905, 289, etc. People don't get confused by dialling 800-800-8300 for Tiger Direct, after all.

For a while I had a 416-888-#### type phone number. It did seem to confuse a number of people for whatever reason.

 

[Dan416]

My sister has a 647-289- number that sounds a little confusing. It is best avoided to avoid confusion. But I don't think we'll ever see an area code use its own exchange (416-416, 289-289, 905-905, 647-647, etc) just because that'd be a bit much.

 

[prosperegal]

My sister has a 647-289- number that sounds a little confusing. It is best avoided to avoid confusion. But I don't think we'll ever see an area code use its own exchange (416-416, 289-289, 905-905, 647-647, etc) just because that'd be a bit much.

I don't think you can do that, anyway.

 

[Komiksulo]

I don't think you can do that, anyway.

CNAC simply doesn't allow it in its numbering assignment. Once ten-digit dialling was introduced, the system was quite capable of supporting it.

 

[Dan416]

CNAC simply doesn't allow it in its numbering assignment. Once ten-digit dialling was introduced, the system was quite capable of supporting it.

Oh I'm sure it could be done. CNAC just believes it'd be confusing, and for good reason: because it is!

In certain situations they would allow assignment of potential area codes (e.g. 365, 367, 368, 437, 742) and in jeopardy conditions even neighbouring area codes (e.g. 226, 519, 705, 613) but I don't think they'd ever allow using the same area code. I mean, if they don't have to use those codes, why should they?

With mandatory ten-digit dialling, you could even have exchanges that start with 1 or 0 even.

And this is waaay off-topic isn't it LOL. Mods you could move this discussion into my earlier 905 area code poll

 

[Fresh Start]

Agreed ... I keep hoping that someone will move the posts to a correct thread.

Ask and ye shall receive! Let me get things started afresh.

I doubt that. Both are crosstown lines but Bloor goes downtown, the biggest trip generator in the GTA by far, while Eglinton doesn't. Case closed.

When I said "built to its full potential" I meant just that... Case closed!

This is the Toronto I want to be living in, not Transfer City Pandorum.

Like what you see, no? Continuous transfer-free commuting all across Toronto (and the GTA, more on that later). And where the transfers do occur, they are direct and connecting to equally rapid and reliable transit services. The DRL should not end arbitrarily at some random point, it needs to be expanded out fully from eastern Scarborough to Mississauga and the airport. This is better than the Union Pearson AirLink in that it gets one to the airport in roughly the same timeframe from Union Stn (22 minutes, matching Blue $22) but also allows residents of the innercity direct access to the airport without travelling out of their way to Union or Dundas West first. Spreading out the points of entry, the rapid transit options available to the public; rather than concentrating all at a central hub, should be our focus.

If you're going to do LRT/Light rail transit, do it right, grade separate as much as financially possible. Never have the line have to stop for an undesired intersection. This plan may cost more than Transit City's majorly surface LRT plan but it would be 100 times more practical and can implemented in stages through tolling and other means of "invisible" taxation. The Jane-Eglinton-Don Mills Line would almost be like a subway with only the Jane section north of Hwy 400 existing in at-grade road-median ROW.

A dedicated busway ROW could and SHOULD be implemented along chief transit arteries throughout the city. And like it or not, 80,000 people commute across east-west the Finch corridor daily, the majority of which would be proximal to the Finch Hydro Corridor which both the TTC and GO Transit have conducted transit feasibility studies on. The bulk of this traffic are long-haulers destined for the subway or crosstown voyages such as Etobicoke to Scarborough not on-street localized demand which the sustained parallel 36 Finch West bus on reserved lanes to improve upon headways. The 427/27 eclipses the Yonge corridor north of Finch in terms of bus traffic. A busway needs to go here too and would cater to two major trip-generators en route that presently only get the infrequent 111 and 112 buses. And in case you may gripe about the innercity aligned DRL, the busway can penetrate more waterfront high-density urban communities directly where the people actually live (i.e. not in rail corridors) and transport them to their nearest subway at optimal speeds (average 22km; 30 kmph for Finch East-McCowan ROW; 30-40 kmph for F.H.C. ROW; 60-80 kmph for Hwy 27/427 ROW).

 

[CapitalSeven]

That's nearly the silliest map ever.

 

[Justin10000]

^^you beat me to it.

 

[Dan416]

That's nearly the silliest map ever.

^^you beat me to it.

Thanks for your constructive criticism guys. It's not even my map but I find that vaguely insulting. It's one thing to point out things you disagree with in a constructive manner. It's very much another to dismiss someone's hard work as "silly". Unless you're saying it in jest, but somehow I doubt that's the case.

 

[kettal]

A giant loop to serve the all-important Sheppard & Senlac intersection. Brilliant!

 

[Second_in_pie]

Thanks for your constructive criticism guys. It's not even my map but I find that vaguely insulting. It's one thing to point out things you disagree with in a constructive manner. It's very much another to dismiss someone's hard work as "silly". Unless you're saying it in jest, but somehow I doubt that's the case.

Alright, be ready for the constructive criticism now. Where to start...

The Yonge North... ICTS?! Yeah... stop Yonge at Finch, just to continue it with a slightly lower capacity service that still requires a grade separated ROW? Very, very bad idea. I don't get how people constantly deny that Yonge north of Finch is subway-level. As son as the DRL starts getting built, Yonge should be started up to Langstaff. It'll be needed to give a transit backbone through Thornhill, as well as transit-oriented redevelopment that's slated for the Yonge corridor. In my opinion, the Yonge subway could eventually go up to Major Mac to serve more density through RHC that could definitely be supported through redevelopment. I'd also add in the stations between York Mills and Lawrence, and Lawrence and Eglinton.

I'm fine with Sheppard East (though I'd add in a station at Progress to anchor STC development and a Progress-Malvern LRT.) But Sheppard West definitely has to go to Downsview. It has to exist to connect Yonge with the Spadina Line, which includes with VCC, York U, and Downsview. A stupid little loop to Senlac would be pretty useless.

A Finch Hydro Corridor RT should be regional, not as a local Finch LRT replacement. That'd be like Yonge, Bathurst, York U, Jane, Finch/Weston, then following the Hydro Corridor down to the airport. In the east, it could be Yonge, Seneca, Warden, McCowan, then down to Malvern and Pickering along the 401. A local TC-like RT would be needed to serve the rest of Finch, but probably well after at least a decade of ridership growth and more of the Finch-esque high density development.

I still don't understand the obsession over merging the DRL into Eglinton. Eglinton should be one line along the entire stretch. The very erratic DRL route would probably be immensely expensive, slow down the trains, and to be honest, there's a lot more high density development potential along the waterfront than in the old, stable neighborhoods that would probably just mostly serve a tourist purpose.
I personally disagree with the idea of the DRL west going north of Bloor. It'd almost exclusively follow the Georgetown corridor, and there's really nothing that demands a local stop spacing along that corridor. And instead of following the Georgetown corridor at all, I'd put it along the waterfront to the Ex, up to Parkdale and up Roncesvales. This'd provide a pretty easy connection with Parkdale and Humber Bay, spurring new transit-oriented development in both.
The subway north on Don Mills is a winner for me though. It's a wide road, so a raised guideway wouldn't be very bad, and would cut costs considerably on a route that already has density to support a RT, not to mention redevelopment potential. But I don't get why you put it back on the 404, instead of going up through the Peanut to Seneca. Since I feel like being picky with it, here's a section by section of the way I'd build the route north of York Mills:
After about Duncan Mill road, start moving the guideway down, probably expropriating some land to keep the lanes on the road. By the time it gets to the 401, it should be level with the ground. Then, right over the 401, there should be a ground-level station complex with connections to either side of the road, which would host a greatly increased sidewalk with higher barriers and maybe some greenage. This might be the only highway overpass that would work with rapid transit, because Don Mills doesn't actually turn onto the 401 so there's no danger for pedestrians with fast-moving cars. After the 401, it'd go underground quickly, to avoid expropriation needed on the more tightly packed section of the road north of the 401. After a connection at Sheppard, and stations at the north and south of the Peanut plaza, there'd be a station right at Don Mills and Finch, where the line would turn towards the main complex of Seneca college, with a station on the Hydro Corridor to make it easier for students, and as a connection with a FHC RT.

I don't get the Eglinton extension down under Pearson, but I can live with Eglinton east, even if East of Don Mills shouldn't come for at least 10 years after the original line's built. The current way things are going, I don't think that Jane needs a subway. Of course, that could change with new demand and such, but I think with a northern anchor (Spadina Subway) and an easy place to terminate a street-level RT (Eglinton,) it should do quite well with BRT or LRT.

I still like the 27 RT idea, but I think it'd integrate quite badly with the other routes you have there. There's really no demand for a route that creates a full circle around the city, but I'd definitely support a RT that goes from Long Branch, to Sherway, to ECC, to Pearson, then to Woodbine and maybe Humber College.

Yep, there's my constructive criticism.

EDIT: Whoa, what? I didn't realize this was in the Eglinton Crosstown thread. It's kinda off-topic now I thought that with the map and all, I was in the Fantasy map thread! Mods, feel free to move this post as needed.

Though you could keep this, I don't agree that Eglinton should be split up and some parts merged with a DRL. The Georgetown line would go very, very close to the Airport (the real reason for extending the DRL up there,) and the ARL would fill up current demand for a downtown-Pearson link. The Georgetown line should probably be rerouted under Pearson in the future, and that would totally kill any demand for such a route. Splitting up Eglinton to fit it with the DRL also takes out a 1-ride midtown link to the airport, and that transfer is drastically intensified when you're carrying baggage. I'm not saying that people won't take the subway to the airport, I'm sure that it'll see plenty of new transit riders. But that single ride is important, at least for customer satisfaction.

 

[Fresh Start]

A giant loop to serve the all-important Sheppard & Senlac intersection. Brilliant!

That's not the purpose of the loop and you know it. I just included a stop along the way as a bonus. The current tail-tracks of the Sheppard Line end just a few blocks east of Senlac anyway, there's no way to physically turn the line back without first passing through that intersection. Interlining the Sheppard and YUS subways increases the utility of both corridors by eliminating transfers and enhancing interconnection of major nodes (SCC - Agincourt - Consumers - NYCC - Midtown - Bloor/Yonge - Downtown); and particularly for Yonge guarantees customers trying to board south of North York that they'll be able to get a seated ride.

 

[Fresh Start]

Alright, be ready for the constructive criticism now. Where to start...

Um, okay.

The Yonge North... ICTS?! Yeah... stop Yonge at Finch, just to continue it with a slightly lower capacity service that still requires a grade separated ROW? Very, very bad idea.

It actually wasn't something I had planned on doing. I was going to extend the subway to Yonge-Steeles in my map but then after the reaction I got when suggesting as much in the Fantasy thread, I felt I may as well leave well enough alone and showcase an alternative proposal. Btw, only the section from Bishop to Doncaster is underground with a far less complex Steeles Stn en route. Everything else is at-grade in the York and Bala Subs except a few minor sections. Lower passenger densities (Thornhill's Yonge St) command lower passenger capacity and since the YNLRT would run more frequently than the Yonge subway would north of Finch (every second train only), you'd actually be moving more passengers per hour via the light-rail than an extended Yonge subway.

I don't get how people constantly deny that Yonge north of Finch is subway-level.

High Park, Glencairn and Old Mill have subways, that don't make them subway level. Is Thornhill's Yonge Street? You may say yes, but there is irrefutable analyses that would infer otherwise.

As son as the DRL starts getting built, Yonge should be started up to Langstaff.

ROTFLMFAO!

It'll be needed to give a transit backbone through Thornhill, as well as transit-oriented redevelopment that's slated for the Yonge corridor. In my opinion, the Yonge subway could eventually go up to Major Mac to serve more density through RHC that could definitely be supported through redevelopment. I'd also add in the stations between York Mills and Lawrence, and Lawrence and Eglinton.

And you guys made fun of my plan?

In all seriousness, you see that the Yonge North line in my map extends beyond RHC, right? It is intended to go pass Major Mac all the way up to 19th Ave. This is why Yonge North LRT is inherently better, it covers more surface area for less expense. Your way, everyone has to transfer off at RHC Stn to continue north up Yonge St. Inconvenient, so too is descending several flights of stairs in order to access a subway when LRT is on the street and direct. And given the type of development Richmond Hill is aiming to build, it is more suited to surface transit orientation anyway.

I'm fine with Sheppard East (though I'd add in a station at Progress to anchor STC development and a Progress-Malvern LRT.)

I'm glad that you liked something. I thought about a Progress Stn too but then revised it last minute coz I thought it's too close already to SCC Stn.

But Sheppard West definitely has to go to Downsview. It has to exist to connect Yonge with the Spadina Line, which includes with VCC, York U, and Downsview. A stupid little loop to Senlac would be pretty useless.

Stupid or not, it was never about serving Senlac (read above). Eliminating the transfer at Sheppard-Yonge will increase the patronage for the Sheppard Line and interconnect a flock of nodes. And the loop in fact costs far less than a full-blown Sheppard West extension of marginal importance nor significance (if one seriously thinks of Sheppard-Bathurst as a major destination). With FHC BRT or FWLRT 2kms to the north and the Eglinton subway 6kms to the south capable of interconnecting the two arms of YUS prior to Bloor, such expenditure is pointless. My plan puts a half-empty train on the Yonge Line south of Sheppard so that if and when the Yonge subway is extended north customers through Midtown aren't left stranded.

A Finch Hydro Corridor RT should be regional, not as a local Finch LRT replacement. That'd be like Yonge, Bathurst, York U, Jane, Finch/Weston, then following the Hydro Corridor down to the airport. In the east, it could be Yonge, Seneca, Warden, McCowan, then down to Malvern and Pickering along the 401. A local TC-like RT would be needed to serve the rest of Finch, but probably well after at least a decade of ridership growth and more of the Finch-esque high density development.

Look at the map. West of Weston and east of Warden the BRT runs directly along Finch Avenue. Where FHC parallels Finch the distances are negligible in most cases and where the two corridors really begin to diverge is present day of low demand. Bus lanes can be shared between BRT designated vehicles and regular bus routes. So imagine now that you live at Martin Grove Finch going to Finch Stn and either the BRT or 36 bus shows up to take you there. The entire ROW to Weston is shared, so even the regular bus should one opt to take it, will run several times faster than what's possible today.

The FWLRT will likely run at 5-min headways or 12 trips per hour per direction. Combined busway traffic would see a bus every 90 seconds or 40 trips per hour per direction. This equates reduced waiting times to get to one's destinations, more overall capacity rather than trying to cram everyone into a sardine tin trainset (think the SRT during rush hour "cruising" down Finch, lol), and greater reliability such that one doesn't even need to schedule their trip; just stand there and several buses will appear. East of Weston Road the sustained 36 Finch West operates just like before only now capacity's increased from less people having a need for the route/corridor with FHC so closeby and it being several times faster.

The plain simple truth is that the ridership levels along Finch proper will plummet to far, far below what it justifiable for light-rail demand. At 2800 pphpd, the TTC itself admits corridors such as Finch West are well within the mode suitability realm of Bus Rapid Transit but are only using road width and expropriation scaremongering as an excuse to pursue light-rail instead; even if the former can be grade-separated in spots as less overall expense making the two modes interchangeably suitable for Finch proper. But with the FHC right there, even a better opportunity arises to create rapid crosstown transit.

I still don't understand the obsession over merging the DRL into Eglinton. Eglinton should be one line along the entire stretch.

Eliminating transfers. Having the DRL end somewhere major instead of a at random point (Mount Dennis). I agree with you that Eglinton should be one line end-to-end, however we cannot afford it.

The very erratic DRL route would probably be immensely expensive, slow down the trains, and to be honest, there's a lot more high density development potential along the waterfront than in the old, stable neighborhoods that would probably just mostly serve a tourist purpose.

If you live at say Dundas and Bathurst, going to Union or to Dundas West, would you take the streetcar all the way down to Fort York in order to access a rail-corridor aligned DRL? The line envisaged here is intended to dissect the street grid (Rogers/Weston, St Clair/Keele, Dupont/Symington, Bloor/Lansdowne, College/Dufferin, Nassau/Bathrust, Dundas/Spadina, Front/John, etc.) at strategic spots where the all-day walk-in feeder route transfer yield will be very high. Contrast this to Liberty Village, only of residential significance will have a high AM/PM Rush demand but burn out for the rest of the day. If I wanted to take a rapid transit line from Union to Dundas West with some oddly placed station locations along the day, I'd ride the GO!! What is with this city and selling our children's children futures short? The Cheapening, like Coru said, is precisely right. For everywhere that lives, works or recreates anywhere in-between Bloor and the Lakeshore, the Downtown subway loop to Jones and to the Weston-Galt Sub- the inner-city alignment targets all these people whom are guaranteed repeat multi-use patrons of transit, and whom compliment the downtown streetcar service rather than overburden it since a subway along Front/CNR alone does little if anything to alleviate 501, 502/3, 504/8 and definitely not the 505 and 506.

I personally disagree with the idea of the DRL west going north of Bloor. It'd almost exclusively follow the Georgetown corridor, and there's really nothing that demands a local stop spacing along that corridor.

Look again at my map, it only truly follows Weston-Galt north of St Clair. I'd directly serve the Junction (Keele/Dundas/Annette) with a stop with a second station is the isolated enclave surrounding Symington/Dupont close to a lot of recent brownstone townhouse/loft developments. Each of these stops would fill trains.

And instead of following the Georgetown corridor at all, I'd put it along the waterfront to the Ex, up to Parkdale and up Roncesvales. This'd provide a pretty easy connection with Parkdale and Humber Bay, spurring new transit-oriented development in both.

See this is why I don't really think you are against my proposal. You have just described my Southern Toronto BRT explicitly, which is outlined on the map. This is not the purpose of a DRL though, so a Queen Line is more what you're imagining here.

 

[Fresh Start]

The subway north on Don Mills is a winner for me though. It's a wide road, so a raised guideway wouldn't be very bad, and would cut costs considerably on a route that already has density to support a RT, not to mention redevelopment potential. But I don't get why you put it back on the 404, instead of going up through the Peanut to Seneca.

Four reasons: time, speed, cost and demand. Don Mills Stn already is to the east of Don Mills Road so the line needs to physically veer away from that alignment in order to directly serve the subway. Once that far over you'd then have to do a U-loop underneath Fairview Mall in roder to get it back into line with DM. Instead you could just run the line at-grade parallel to the 404 at 80 km/h until one reaches Seneca College Stn. Functionally it'd be a metro with ROW exclusivity vs. road-median ROW stopped by traffic lights. Seneca College is a major trip generator that no Don Mills LRT can physically serve directly. It'd have to veer several hundreds of metres off course, likely grade-separated in order to achieve that. There's also the close-knit local stops on Don Mills Rd that are better off left to a local bus. Don Mills north and south of Sheppard are very different in nature.

Then I thought about VIVA Green which has a station at Gordon Baker Rd and McNicoll which the 404 alignment sustains and Woodbine-Steeles which is a moderate employment centre that is very cut off from local transit (only the Steeles East bus which runs sporadically outside of peak ). I do however close the gap at the Shops at 404 and Steeles Shopping Centre, which will become a major transit hub.

Since I feel like being picky with it, here's a section by section of the way I'd build the route north of York Mills:
After about Duncan Mill road, start moving the guideway down, probably expropriating some land to keep the lanes on the road. By the time it gets to the 401, it should be level with the ground. Then, right over the 401, there should be a ground-level station complex with connections to either side of the road, which would host a greatly increased sidewalk with higher barriers and maybe some greenage. This might be the only highway overpass that would work with rapid transit, because Don Mills doesn't actually turn onto the 401 so there's no danger for pedestrians with fast-moving cars. After the 401, it'd go underground quickly, to avoid expropriation needed on the more tightly packed section of the road north of the 401. After a connection at Sheppard, and stations at the north and south of the Peanut plaza, there'd be a station right at Don Mills and Finch, where the line would turn towards the main complex of Seneca college, with a station on the Hydro Corridor to make it easier for students, and as a connection with a FHC RT.

The stop over the 401 will not work given the grades involved. And you'd slow down the commute of the many to net a handful of peak hour transferees, if that. GO buses along the 401 will feed into either Sheppard-Yonge or SCC whereby customers can backtrack on the Sheppard Line in relatively no time. And your plan neglects Don Mills north of Finch. If I'm assuming right, you'd run a bus north of here then you may as well do so from Sheppard.

I don't get the Eglinton extension down under Pearson, but I can live with Eglinton east, even if East of Don Mills shouldn't come for at least 10 years after the original line's built.

That's why I colored that section in light-blue (i.e. optional). I prefer this alignment to running it along Eglinton west of Martin Grove. Dixon/Highway 27 would have walk-in demand and is 5 minutes south of Woodbine Live/Centre major trip generator; Eglinton/427 has a graveyard and the city's largest highway turnabout interchange. Dixon/Carlingview has the largest concentration of hotels in the region, Eglinton/Renforth is in a hydro corridor. Martin Grove to Pearson per my line is 3km, per ECLRT is twice as long and stops at Convair. Convair, which only sees a handful of buses during peak hour! But again these Transit City lines were never built with the intent to seriously help out the transit user, only lines on a map.

The current way things are going, I don't think that Jane needs a subway. Of course, that could change with new demand and such, but I think with a northern anchor (Spadina Subway) and an easy place to terminate a street-level RT (Eglinton,) it should do quite well with BRT or LRT.

For throughness of service, I'd keep the Jane LRT. When I said ICTS on the map I meant it because the entire Eglinton-Don Mills ROW would be grade-separated not unlike the Scarborough RT. But Jane's a slightly different animal.

I still like the 27 RT idea, but I think it'd integrate quite badly with the other routes you have there. There's really no demand for a route that creates a full circle around the city, but I'd definitely support a RT that goes from Long Branch, to Sherway, to ECC, to Pearson, then to Woodbine and maybe Humber College.

The full circle around the city is actually several routes with varying levels of demand and frequency. These are all highlighted though as red to demonstrate the magnitude of busways and how far-reaching they can be dollar for dollar in contrast to both LRT and HRT. The integrate comment confuses. How has the busway network not full integrated and interconnected the entire subway and LRT network to the greater city and region at large?

Yep, there's my constructive criticism.

EDIT: Whoa, what? I didn't realize this was in the Eglinton Crosstown thread. It's kinda off-topic now I thought that with the map and all, I was in the Fantasy map thread! Mods, feel free to move this post as needed.

I actually planned on posting this in there first but wanted to revive the Eglinton thread (seriously they were discussing area codes?). So aiming for shock value I thought I could evoke discussion, which by your lengthy and well thought-out response, I suppose I must have.

Though you could keep this, I don't agree that Eglinton should be split up and some parts merged with a DRL. The Georgetown line would go very, very close to the Airport (the real reason for extending the DRL up there,) and the ARL would fill up current demand for a downtown-Pearson link.

I think the only real issue with the split route is whether the TTC/Metrolinx keeps headways on both lines synchronized or at low time discrepancy. If my transfer point was as simple as merely stepping off one train and boarding another (cross-platform interchange) I would not mind it. Also the niche of people from eastern Scarborough going all the way across into Mississauga is very low and vice-versa. More people are destined for the downtown core, which is why the DRL needs to be a V-shape rather than a U-shape.

The Georgetown line should probably be rerouted under Pearson in the future, and that would totally kill any demand for such a route. Splitting up Eglinton to fit it with the DRL also takes out a 1-ride midtown link to the airport, and that transfer is drastically intensified when you're carrying baggage. I'm not saying that people won't take the subway to the airport, I'm sure that it'll see plenty of new transit riders. But that single ride is important, at least for customer satisfaction.

Rerouting the Georgetown Line inconveniences all those who are destined for points east or west of the airport. UPAL will be on a separate track. And so long as you're transfer on the same platform level, even with luggage in tow you will find the transfer no more difficult than breathing.

 

[EnviroTO]

That's nearly the silliest map ever.

I had typed up a paragraph of analysis on that map and then I deleted it before posting thinking it would be a complete waste of my time.