[north-of-anything]

Here's my visualization of approximately where the west extension could go.

Not all these stations are necessary, but I think the most important stations would be Palmerston, Roncesvalles (as a transit hub of some kind), Humber Bay (as a transfer point for streetcar riders from the west), East Mall, and Dixie (to potentially reduce the amount of Mississauga residents getting on Kipling).

The extension could potentially be elevated from Etobicoke Creek to east of Parkside, as Queensway definitely has the space for it.

Considering the existing plans to improve the Waterfront West lines, as well as the most likely scenario that the TTC will cheap out and use Toronto gauge for the relief line, I think this is one of the best-case scenarios. (Plus, bringing the subway into Peel might help win over some big-name and big-wallet supporters.)

 

[Hopkins123]

Here's my visualization of approximately where the west extension could go.

View attachment 172505

Not all these stations are necessary, but I think the most important stations would be Palmerston, Roncesvalles (as a transit hub of some kind), Humber Bay (as a transfer point for streetcar riders from the west), East Mall, and Dixie (to potentially reduce the amount of Mississauga residents getting on Kipling).

The extension could potentially be elevated from Etobicoke Creek to east of Parkside, as Queensway definitely has the space for it.

Considering the existing plans to improve the Waterfront West lines, as well as the most likely scenario that the TTC will cheap out and use Toronto gauge for the relief line, I think this is one of the best-case scenarios. (Plus, bringing the subway into Peel might help win over some big-name and big-wallet supporters.)

You skipped Ossington. Otherwise not bad of an effort.

 

[steveintoronto]

I suppose a main challenge with possible RER-style would be providing power: Does the entire line get third rail or overhead catenary?

Given the choice, almost all new systems go catenary. It's much more efficient in many ways, the question then choosing the older style 750/1500VDC, or as almost all new stand-alone systems (not connected to a legacy one) 25kVAC, as per Adelaide (and others):
Bombardier Wins Contract to Supply 25kV Rail Cars for Adelaide ...

https://www.bombardier.com/.../details.678-bombardier-wins-contract-to-supply-25kv...
Mar 31, 2011 - The 66 new rail cars have been designed specifically for Adelaide's revitalised suburban network Bombardier Transportation announced today ...

Don't know about our specs, but usually the commuter rail systems use something like 25 kVolts, give or take.

That's the de-facto UIC international standard, and what GO propose.

Strategic benefits of a RER-compatible Relief Line are substantial. The question is whether the authority in charge will be willing to bear the somewhat higher initial cost, for the sake of benefits that will become evident in a more distant future.

This remains the big 'if' with this present QP regime. It might be one of the few advantages to "subway upload": Metrolinx take a new look at it, realize the cost is coming from mostly provincial coffers, and decide to 'make them in our own image'.

Let's flip that over: What possible logic would Metrolinx have in perpetuating a heritage incompatible system with the provincial greater whole? It's a bit like Spain with her heritage gauge, or pretty much any nation in Europe. Sometimes they're forced to stick with what heritage forces them to, but when they want to go 'cross-border'...it's with standard gauge tracks and equipment.

If Toronto wants TTC gauge, then Toronto should pay for it. Good luck on that. It's going to be tough enough to get QP even to pay for regional systems.

 

[WislaHD]

Looks like Humber was a sort of original plan for the western extension.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Then it could have been extended west to Long Branch or swing north to go up Jane.

 

[thettctransitfanatic]

Then it could have been extended west to Long Branch or swing north to go up Jane.

We have already said many times Long Branch and the southern Etobicoke areas don't need the demand from the Relief Line, and both Jane and Lake Shore will POSSIBLY see LRT lines in the future, though I doubt it.

 

[11th]

Looks like Humber was a sort of original plan for the western extension.

I suppose the Roncesvalles - Humber section could have been incorporated into the rail ROW in some ways, and it's not like there was/is much demand in between.

 

[WislaHD]

I suppose the Roncesvalles - Humber section could have been incorporated into the rail ROW in some ways, and it's not like there was/is much demand in between.

I am pretty sure serving trips between Roncesvalles and Humber wasn't the design purpose. It was to serve as a catchment for South Etobicoke and the 501 streetcar.

Then it could have been extended west to Long Branch or swing north to go up Jane.

Why do we have an obsession with sending subways into our "Stable Neighbourhoods" where there is little redevelopment potential.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Bear in mind that this wouldn't have opened until the early 80s even under the 60s plan. My guess is that if it hadn't somehow become collateral damage in the fight against the freeways it would have ended upbuilt as an ICTS line, with the Etobicoke RT expressly intended as an extension and some vague idea that the Scarborough RT would eventually be through routed via Eglinton.

 

[north-of-anything]

I think whether it would have been built first or seventh is irrelevant at this point, we're nearly 40 years past when it would have opened. The relief line needs to be built... five years ago, and the most important consideration for where it should be extended should be what Toronto is now, and will be in the 2020s. We're not going to be seeing explosive growth in Long Branch or Swansea. This line needs to serve where there is going to be the highest ratio of development potential to existing transit infrastructure.

I also think a connection to the future Waterfront West LRT service is more important than a connection to Line 2, considering that the streetcars that already overlap with the Relief Line's service area already connect to Line 2. This is why I think a Queensway extension is the most desirable choice, or failing that, a Roncesvalles-Keele alignment.

 

[Jaye101]

It makes me cringe to see people suggest the Queensway/Lakeshore as a potential routing. Line 2 is no where near capacity west of the Humber during rush. The 80 Queensway runs every ~20 mins during rush. Yes, Park Lawn needs additional transit connections.. The planned GO station will give them downtown bound trains every 15 mins. A waterfront LRT to the nearest DRL station will provide an additional connection that should provide significant improvement to the current situation.

Meanwhile south of Bloor in the west end of the Old City, you have:
-63 Ossington operating every 3 mins peak, 22,000 riders over ~7km = 3,142 riders per KM
-47 Lansdowne operating every 4 mins peak, 15,000 over ~10km = 1,500 riders per KM
-29 Dufferin, 44,000 over ~12km = 3,666 riders per km

A corridor 1.5km wide with 2014 ridership at 81,000 riders, with not one stop downtown.

It is important to remember that the Roncesvalles corridor is not a central corridor, it does not see the level of riders as the Lansdowne-Ossington corridor. Nor does it offer the opportunity to relieve all 4 streetcar routes midway into downtown. If you combine the number of riders currently using the Dufferin corridor, with the potential riders who will transfer from all 4 Streetcar routes (5 if the Line is extended to St. Clair), this line would be well used today, IMHO.

It's also important to remember, University south of Bloor is ~at capacity during peak. Line 5 and Line 7 will feed into University when they open in 2 and 4 years respectively. This is a problem that we should foresee.

A Dufferin-Jane alignment could offer a long term solution to many of the problems we've collectively identified. This map includes GO lines, proposed GO stations as well as Line 5 and 7 in their entirety for context. The dark blue line is the DRL West. This is a longer version of the previous map I posted on Page 1.

 

[WislaHD]

It makes me cringe to see people suggest the Queensway/Lakeshore as a potential routing. Line 2 is no where near capacity west of the Humber during rush. The 80 Queensway runs every ~20 mins during rush. Yes, Park Lawn needs additional transit connections.

Queensway is a chicken-or-egg problem. What would ridership look like if the route was frequent? How would ridership look like if commuter direction in those areas was changed east-west rather than north-south?

The development potential of the Queensway is the most relevant factor for that routing.You basically have a 300m corridor from Queensway to the Gardiner where high-density development could be built. In a city facing a housing shortage, this is important.


Dufferin however is also a fine corridor option. All this just underlines how under-built our rapid transit network in Toronto is.

 

[Hopkins123]

It makes me cringe to see people suggest the Queensway/Lakeshore as a potential routing. Line 2 is no where near capacity west of the Humber during rush. The 80 Queensway runs every ~20 mins during rush. Yes, Park Lawn needs additional transit connections.. The planned GO station will give them downtown bound trains every 15 mins. A waterfront LRT to the nearest DRL station will provide an additional connection that should provide significant improvement to the current situation.

Meanwhile south of Bloor in the west end of the Old City, you have:
-63 Ossington operating every 3 mins peak, 22,000 riders over ~7km = 3,142 riders per KM
-47 Lansdowne operating every 4 mins peak, 15,000 over ~10km = 1,500 riders per KM
-29 Dufferin, 44,000 over ~12km = 3,666 riders per km

A corridor 1.5km wide with 2014 ridership at 81,000 riders, with not one stop downtown.

It is important to remember that the Roncesvalles corridor is not a central corridor, it does not see the level of riders as the Lansdowne-Ossington corridor. Nor does it offer the opportunity to relieve all 4 streetcar routes midway into downtown. If you combine the number of riders currently using the Dufferin corridor, with the potential riders who will transfer from all 4 Streetcar routes (5 if the Line is extended to St. Clair), this line would be well used today, IMHO.

It's also important to remember, University south of Bloor is ~at capacity during peak. Line 5 and Line 7 will feed into University when they open in 2 and 4 years respectively. This is a problem that we should foresee.

A Dufferin-Jane alignment could offer a long term solution to many of the problems we've collectively identified. This map includes GO lines, proposed GO stations as well as Line 5 and 7 in their entirety for context. The dark blue line is the DRL West. This is a longer version of the previous map I posted on Page 1.

View attachment 173714

I'm not a fan of that alignment either although Queensway to Sherway would be even worse. Too much expropriation involved unless you go super deep. And your alignment totally neglects Parkdale. The DRL needs to reach the critical Queensway/Queen/King/Roncesvalles intersection. That is the organic endpoint of downtown, close to trip generator St Joseph's Hospital and relatively short distance of Swansea and Humber Bay Shores. From there a very express, relatively inexpensive cut-n-cover alignment parallel to Parkside Dr can be achieved up to Bloor. Despite what's been said about the water table at Keele and Bloor, we've seen engineering feats accomplished at Leslie and Sheppard to keep the Don River from flooding that station. Similar could be done here. Another multifaceted stop could occur spanning Annette/Keele/Dundas, intercepting the 2 routes on either end of the platform. Then there's the redevelopment potential of the Stockyards and integration with the 512 at St Clair. Northwards in the Weston-Galt but staying in that alignment through the Village of Weston and then potentially all the way west to Highway 27, then north where future stations could occur at Woodbine Centre/Racetrack and Humber College where it'd terminate and meet the Finch West LRT.

 

[Hopkins123]

Queensway is a chicken-or-egg problem. What would ridership look like if the route was frequent? How would ridership look like if commuter direction in those areas was changed east-west rather than north-south?

The development potential of the Queensway is the most relevant factor for that routing.You basically have a 300m corridor from Queensway to the Gardiner where high-density development could be built. In a city facing a housing shortage, this is important.


Dufferin however is also a fine corridor option. All this just underlines how under-built our rapid transit network in Toronto is.

Even following the Lakeshore to Long Branch would be a better idea than the Queensway. At least Lakeshore has the preexisting Mimico apartment clusters and Humber College already en route to boost ridership. What you're suggesting could take decades to come to fruition, if ever. Dufferin's too close to the Spadina Line. Keele-Weston meanwhile's that nice sweet spot in-between Jane and Dufferin that captures ridership from all directions. Basically you'd be taking 3 ~40,000 ridership per day ridership corridors and combine them into a single super 120,000 ridership one.

 

[Jaye101]

Even following the Lakeshore to Long Branch would be a better idea than the Queensway. At least Lakeshore has the preexisting Mimico apartment clusters and Humber College already en route to boost ridership. What you're suggesting could take decades to come to fruition, if ever. Dufferin's too close to the Spadina Line. Keele-Weston meanwhile's that nice sweet spot in-between Jane and Dufferin that captures ridership from all directions. Basically you'd be taking 3 ~40,000 ridership per day ridership corridors and combine them into a single super 120,000 ridership one.

South of Bloor, the University line is at Capacity. Therefore Dufferin is not too close to University.

Keele, Weston, and Jane are North York corridors, not Old City. They all have very little significant ridership or density within the Old City. South Kingsway (Jane) south of Bloor through Swansea is not a practical route, neither is Parkside. The only north south corridor that has a consistent urban fabric is Dufferin, with parallel routes ~500m on both sides experiencing significant crowding with a combined 2014 ridership of over 80,000 people.

Roncesvalles can be argued for, for the sake of "connectivity" to create a hub at Dundas West, but this isn't consistent with the needs of the Old City of Toronto. IMO. Which are:

-Reduce crowding on University south of Bloor, a connection to Line 2 west of Dufferin does this less effectively.
-Reduce crowding on the 29 Dufferin, 63 Ossington, and 47 Lansdowne corridor, the only routes south of Bloor in the west that experience significant crowding.
-The 506 particularly has very poor service, how do we increase transit access to this area (Little Portugal, Little Italy)? Duplicity?
-The 504 and 501 need duplicity

It is possible for the DRL to run under Dufferin in the Old City and one of the mentioned suburban corridors in North York.

I don't really see the Queensway or Lakeshore as options. They do not alleviate any pinch points that can't otherwise be eliminated by upgrading existing infrastructure. Sure maybe one day, but the Dufferin corridor is bursting at the seams approaching maybe even surpassing 100,000 riders, while University south of Bloor is set to hit it's capacity ceiling.

This is all just my interpretation of the facts.