[gweed123]

I think that the only people assuming a stop at Eglinton on any conceivable future Midtown GO line are the same people who think that there should be a stop on the Richmond Hill Line at Bloor. The geography doesn't lend itself to a good connection there.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

A station at Wynford would be a lot easier, and could be accomplished if you build the future Relief Line's station box with the very south end at Eglinton, and the very north end stretching as far north as you can, with a tunnelled walkway to fill in the rest.

 

[kEiThZ]

I suppose the question could be asked. At what cost can we justify the work of preparing this line for Pickering airport. We don't want another Pearson where the rail line comes near but not close enough to the airport terminal. IIRC the plans called for a spur line into the terminal area.

Just adding in the Pickering airport plan here for reference. Would it make sense to move the terminal closer to the rail line, for example, rather than another spur line? Is the airport to far out into the future to even consider the impacts of decisions made today on the potential airport many years from now?

But Pickering airport is such a red herring. Most people don't realize that the proposed full build out is not happening in the lifetime of anybody on this forum today. If ever. The biggest aviation issue in the GTA is lack of a GA airport with the impending closure of Buttonville in 2018 (pushed back from 2017). Pickering Phase 1 will be another Buttonville in essence. Possibly absorbing Oshawa traffic as well, allowing that airport to be redeveloped. I've flown out of there. It's so hemmed in by residential development. Annoying as heck.

In terms of aviation plans, I think what happens with VIA's High Frequency Rail and Queen's Park HSR proposal to London will heavily impact demand for commercial service at Pickering. Those rail developments if they come through, should free up enough slots at Pearson to really negate any impetus to expand commercial service at Pickering for a long time (at least in our lifetimes). Also, to be noted. Both Air Canada and Westjet are upsizing the aircraft they operate. This means more passengers with the same schedule. So again, less necessity for another airfield.

All that means, is that it's pointless to plan the rail corridor with some intent of servicing a major airport that is a long ways away. Corridor protection is about all that should be spent on this.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

A station at Wynford would be a lot easier, and could be accomplished if you build the future Relief Line's station box with the very south end at Eglinton, and the very north end stretching as far north as you can, with a tunnelled walkway to fill in the rest.

That's 500m, FYI.

Assuming 200m for the subway platform, that's 300m of walkway. 4-5 minute walk.

To be fair, it is the same length between Main Street station and Danforth GO. But it does preclude doing the opposite and having the north end of the subway platform at Eglinton, and having an entrance closer to St Dennis Drive. Guess it would be a debate more worthy in the Relief Line thread re: stop location and spacing.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

From what I have seen, it appears that the assumption is a midtown train would stop at Eglinton, where passengers could transfer to the Crosstown via steps to the Leslie stop. Is this preferable to trying to make a stop at Don Mills and making a connection to Relief Line North?

Perhaps some people will get their wish on the DRL-Long and we will receive a station at Barber Greene Rd on the Relief Line.

I wouldn't be opposed to that idea, as by then I imagine Barber Greene area will be receiving development pressure, it would be 1km north to Lawrence and 800m south to Eglinton - adequate stop spacing, and an interchange with the Midtown Corridor would warrant the station.

The question is, if a stop at Barber Greene and at Leslie (1km) be too narrow stop-spacing for the Midtown Corridor.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

A visualization:

 

[reaperexpress]

As it stands today, GO trains will run on the south side of the current CP tracks from Lambton Yards to the west of CP Agincourt Yard.

I stand to be corrected, but didn't Metrolinx buy tracks on the north side of CP Agincourt Yard a few years ago. If so, a fly-under will have to be built west of the yard to get to those track.

A fair number of current crossing would have to be close or grade separated to meet the plan 15 minute service on the line. A lot of noise walls will also have to be built.

When I did my fantasy track map for the west half of the Midtown line, I showed the flyover/under being around the Humber River, but the west end of Lambton Yard is an even better location, with lots of underutilized wasteland:

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

The question is, if a stop at Barber Greene and at Leslie (1km) be too narrow stop-spacing for the Midtown Corridor.

A visualization:

View attachment 113823

Well I highly doubt both stops will be justified on the Midtown corridor, when making the transfer can be done. That's why I framed it as one or the other. I don't dream up SmartTrack fantasies.

Perhaps some people will get their wish on the DRL-Long and we will receive a station at Barber Greene Rd on the Relief Line.

I wouldn't be opposed to that idea, as by then I imagine Barber Greene area will be receiving development pressure, it would be 1km north to Lawrence and 800m south to Eglinton - adequate stop spacing, and an interchange with the Midtown Corridor would warrant the station.

That wouldn't be outrageous, IMO. It might be a huge opportunity for employment in the area. A good chunk of the land between the rail corridor and Barbara Greene/Greenbelt, as well as south of the rails and east of Don Mills, is commerical/employment industrial, which is mostly 1 storey warehouses (one of which my dad used to work out of before we moved to southwestern Ontario when I was a kid). Those lands could attract some additional talent for existing tenants to expand, or attract some major high-value employers, unless the city wishes to foolishly chip away at those uses.

I assume it is more commercial closer to Don Mills itself, there's an office park on the east side, and a strip mall on the west. Potential opportunity for dense mixed development.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Well I highly doubt both stops will be justified on the Midtown corridor, when making the transfer can be done. That's why I framed it as one or the other. I don't dream up SmartTrack fantasies.



That wouldn't be outrageous, IMO. It might be a huge opportunity for employment in the area. A good chunk of the land between the rail corridor and Barbara Greene/Greenbelt, as well as south of the rails and east of Don Mills, is commerical/employment industrial, which is mostly 1 storey warehouses (one of which my dad used to work out of before we moved to southwestern Ontario when I was a kid). Those lands could attract some additional talent for existing tenants to expand, or attract some major high-value employers, unless the city wishes to foolishly chip away at those uses.

I assume it is more commercial closer to Don Mills itself, there's an office park on the east side, and a strip mall on the west. Potential opportunity for dense mixed development.

In a transit plan like that, we really should be thinking of how to build optimal levels of urban employment and population densities. This is not a tiny piece of land we are looking at here. Consider:



If there is anywhere in the city to consider creating a regional sub-centre from scratch, it would be at Eglinton and Don Mills. Especially if the Midtown Corridor is activated, and the Relief Line North is built (thus connecting here with the Unilever site and Downtown).

Maybe we do not need two stops at both Leslie and Barber Greene. I think if someone is heading to Yonge on Eglinton, a one-stop transfer from Barber Greene to Don Mills while not optimal, is not a deal-breaker.

 

[Steve X]

Railways can be a subway too! Alternatively if they want to spend the money, they can just reroute the railway into a new tunnel that would be built going through the Eg/DM intersection. The tunnel would be rather large and expansive to fit bi-level trains. Do we build for cheapness or best rider connectivity?

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

In a transit plan like that, we really should be thinking of how to build optimal levels of urban employment and population densities. This is not a tiny piece of land we are looking at here. Consider:

View attachment 113847

If there is anywhere in the city to consider creating a regional sub-centre from scratch, it would be at Eglinton and Don Mills. Especially if the Midtown Corridor is activated, and the Relief Line North is built (thus connecting here with the Unilever site and Downtown).

Maybe we do not need two stops at both Leslie and Barber Greene. I think if someone is heading to Yonge on Eglinton, a one-stop transfer from Barber Greene to Don Mills while not optimal, is not a deal-breaker.

Wow, that is some serious context, thanks for that overlay!

Railways can be a subway too! Alternatively if they want to spend the money, they can just reroute the railway into a new tunnel that would be built going through the Eg/DM intersection. The tunnel would be rather large and expansive to fit bi-level trains. Do we build for cheapness or best rider connectivity?

I would like to believe we build to strike a balance sometimes, but uh...can't really back that up lately.

Anyway, I think the East and West Don are your two biggest challenges, followed by existing development. Otherwise I wouldn't mind straightening the corridor from Lawrence Ave to Thorncliffe Park, and intersecting Don Mills & Eg on the way.

 

[drum118]

Railways can be a subway too! Alternatively if they want to spend the money, they can just reroute the railway into a new tunnel that would be built going through the Eg/DM intersection. The tunnel would be rather large and expansive to fit bi-level trains. Do we build for cheapness or best rider connectivity?

Only have to look a Zürich stations underground that are built for DD trains as one example of doing it.

While we bore a single track tunnel, Europe in many places are boring one tunnel for 2 tracks regardless single or DD cars.

I am already on record calling for the DRL to be built for DD trains up to 10 cars long for stations that will interline with the RH line and other lines. The next Young Line needs to be built for 10 DD cars trains.

As for Humber River crossing CP, it was proposed as a fly-under which is more costly and time consuming than a fly-over. A fly-over would work there fine and done a lot faster.

 

[smallspy]

While we bore a single track tunnel, Europe in many places are boring one tunnel for 2 tracks regardless single or DD cars.

It's really easy to figure out why they do it once you consider how much smaller their trains are compared to ours.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[hw621]

So this corridor is basically dead, as it is not mentioned in any of Metrolinx's plans?

 

[crs1026]

It is always an option, but no it’s not being actively pursued.

While it’s an interesting idea, there is nothing that makes it compelling as a priority at the moment. Line 2 would have to be at capacity before it would hit anyone’s radar screen.

- Paul

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It is always an option, but no it’s not being actively pursued.

While it’s an interesting idea, there is nothing that makes it compelling as a priority at the moment. Line 2 would have to be at capacity before it would hit anyone’s radar screen.

- Paul

There isn't much need for it at the moment but Line 2 doesn't have much to do with it- using this corridor would be more about providing an express E-W route.

AoD