News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.8K     0 

My preference is Corridor #3, because it makes a future extension to Richmond Hill significantly less expensive than the North Yonge Extension.

I also wouldn't be opposed to doing all of #3 and just the branch of #5 to Victoria Park & Lawrence, and terminating it there. That would be a pretty good intercept for Victoria Park and Lawrence East buses. The latter would be especially important since the Scarborough Subway is skipping Lawrence.
 
Well to go into Richmond Hill - Option 3, 4, 5 and 6 are all ok. Option 4, 5, 6 can take a slight S curve to go under woodbine, which with whatever comes of the Buttonville redevelopment might not be a bad idea in the distant future.
 
Another reason why I think #5 is very strong and likely to prevail is that it shortens the bus travel time for people living in Scarborough living north of between Lawrence and Sheppard...eventually all the way to Steeles.
 
I'll be short with my comments, and wont go too deep into analysis for now since we already have some good discussion going on here:

Option #1 via Bayview is clearly the worst option out of all of the proposed routing, and it would defeat the purpose of a "relief line" since it's way too close to the Yonge line and riders would most likely choose the Yonge line over the relief line.

Option #2 via Leslie is the next worst option as it would go through primarily low density residential neighborhoods with little opportunity for intensification which is what the city also wants. It would also only be able to attract a significant number of riders at major intersections via bus connections and 1 subway interchange.

Option #3 via Leslie and Don Mills makes sense only if the city is intent on connecting the relief line with the Richmond Hill line. This would require Metolinx being on board with relocating Oriole. If they don't, Option #3 is basically useless.

Option #4 via Don Mills is the best option in my opinion. It presents the most opportunity for intensification, would replace a heavily congested bus route, would be able to attract riders from both the east and west, doesn't heavily rely on bus routes for increased ridership, etc.. The list really goes on for the benefits here.

Option #5 via Don Mills and Victoria Park is a complex one and it really depends on how much ridership that alignment could attract via Victoria Park. If the costs (ie: tunneling through the DVP, Don River, and Richmond Hill line) exceed the benefits (ie: ridership numbers) it wouldn't make sense to proceed with this option.

Option #6 via O'Connor and Victoria Park would be the 2nd best option overall. It would be able to attract a significant amount of riders from both the east and west, and would have the added benefit of relieving (to some extent) the eastern segment of Bloor-Danforth line.
 
Amare said:
I'll be short with my comments, and wont go too deep into analysis for now since we already have some good discussion going on here:

Option #1 via Bayview is clearly the worst option out of all of the proposed routing, and it would defeat the purpose of a "relief line" since it's way too close to the Yonge line and riders would most likely choose the Yonge line over the relief line.

Option #2 via Leslie is the next worst option as it would go through primarily low density residential neighborhoods with little opportunity for intensification which is what the city also wants. It would also only be able to attract a significant number of riders at major intersections via bus connections and 1 subway interchange.

Option #3 via Leslie and Don Mills makes sense only if the city is intent on connecting the relief line with the Richmond Hill line. This would require Metolinx being on board with relocating Oriole. If they don't, Option #3 is basically useless.

Option #4 via Don Mills is the best option in my opinion. It presents the most opportunity for intensification, would replace a heavily congested bus route, would be able to attract riders from both the east and west, doesn't heavily rely on bus routes for increased ridership, etc.. The list really goes on for the benefits here.

Option #5 via Don Mills and Victoria Park is a complex one and it really depends on how much ridership that alignment could attract via Victoria Park. If the costs (ie: tunneling through the DVP, Don River, and Richmond Hill line) exceed the benefits (ie: ridership numbers) it wouldn't make sense to proceed with this option.

Option #6 via O'Connor and Victoria Park would be the 2nd best option overall. It would be able to attract a significant amount of riders from both the east and west, and would have the added benefit of relieving (to some extent) the eastern segment of Bloor-Danforth line.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything expect for Option 6 being the 2nd best route because the south end stations, H and M, are a bit to close to Line 2 as well as missing Science Centre Station. That title should go to Option 5.
 
Below is my analysis for potential local catchment area ridership for each station (assuming the bus routes will bring in the same regardless).

Personally based on the below I think
- #5 is removed since there needs to be 2 bridges over the Don (cost).
- 2/3/4 demand nodes could be served via a RER on the Leslie Spur (vs a subway)
- 1 is silly...but there are a lot of campaign contributors who also support Sunnybrook

Which leaves....6. Other than leaving out Thorncliffe it's the best of them (but again could a Leslie Spur RER serve them just as well?)

Sheppard and North - Advantage 5 & 6

Near Sheppard there are huge opportunities for all options (some already developing with the Sheppard Stub). North of Sheppard there are more opportunities to redevelop along Vic Park.

York Mills – advantage 2 & 3

A & O – small plaza with mostly single-detached. Low/no opportunity for development
E & J - Large industrial area that can be redeveloped. But close to tracks so should RER be built here instead?
K – same as E&J but penned in on one side by the Don Valley so less catchment area

Lawrence & Area – advantage 1 or 3/4

B – Sunnybrook area which could have high latent demand
F – Edward gardens isn’t big enough. Plus could recommission Leslie spur instead for RER
I – Shops of Don Mills. Already demand plus they are building condos on top of the stores
L - feeds mid-rise commercial area (Wynford Dr). But needs 2 bridges over the Don (vs 1 or zero for other options)
N – Decent sized plaza plus some industrial to the west

Eglinton – No advantage

assume will be redeveloped regardless of option (and all of them have great opportunities

South of Eglinton – 3/4/5 or 6

D/H – what’s the point. Single family homes. And walking distance to Danforth
C (assume stop for 1 & 2) – fairly built up but most likely high latent demand
G (assume stop for 3/4/5) – can get catchment for 1&2 plus redevelopment opportunity for Mall
M – large retail/industrial area to the NW for redevelopment
 
Amare said:
I'll be short with my comments, and wont go too deep into analysis for now since we already have some good discussion going on here:

Option #1 via Bayview is clearly the worst option out of all of the proposed routing, and it would defeat the purpose of a "relief line" since it's way too close to the Yonge line and riders would most likely choose the Yonge line over the relief line.

Option #2 via Leslie is the next worst option as it would go through primarily low density residential neighborhoods with little opportunity for intensification which is what the city also wants. It would also only be able to attract a significant number of riders at major intersections via bus connections and 1 subway interchange.

Option #3 via Leslie and Don Mills makes sense only if the city is intent on connecting the relief line with the Richmond Hill line. This would require Metolinx being on board with relocating Oriole. If they don't, Option #3 is basically useless.

Option #4 via Don Mills is the best option in my opinion. It presents the most opportunity for intensification, would replace a heavily congested bus route, would be able to attract riders from both the east and west, doesn't heavily rely on bus routes for increased ridership, etc.. The list really goes on for the benefits here.

Option #5 via Don Mills and Victoria Park is a complex one and it really depends on how much ridership that alignment could attract via Victoria Park. If the costs (ie: tunneling through the DVP, Don River, and Richmond Hill line) exceed the benefits (ie: ridership numbers) it wouldn't make sense to proceed with this option.

Option #6 via O'Connor and Victoria Park would be the 2nd best option overall. It would be able to attract a significant amount of riders from both the east and west, and would have the added benefit of relieving (to some extent) the eastern segment of Bloor-Danforth line.
Click to expand...

Agreed with almost all these points, except #6. It sounds a bit suspicious that #6 is expected to attract most ridership, despite bypassing Thorncliffe Park and Flemmington Park. If their analysis is accurate, then sure go for that, but I have a feeling that their modeling is skewed somehow.
 
Option 4 seems logical because it connects to the end of Sheppard line. It would make the Sheppard LRT + Sheppard Subway massively more useful, as a powerful interchange station as the terminus of 3 lines concurrently!.

Option 2 and 3 could eventually interline with Richmond Hill GO line -- and replace the GO trains -- basically send the subway trains north to Richmond Hill as the Richmond Hill RER by 2041-2051, reconnecting with Yonge subway at the north end of the Yonge subway extension. They need to send the subway trains UNDER the Crosstown, likely at the same track grade as the Richmond Hill GO line. When you've done that already, then one must consider the possible interlining opportunity (use subway trains for Richmond Hill RER) when you electrify and fully grade separate the Richmond Hill line. No GO stations are lost, and you gain a surface subway in place of the Richmond Hill GO line! Hit two tax birds more efficiently with one stone. You can short turn most DRL trains at the Elginton Crosstown, but send trains every 7.5min (peak) or 15min (offpeak) up the rest of the Richmond Hill GO route. The existing track speed of Richmond Hill/Don Valley is so low, that the subway would be equally as fast for faraway riders, despite having extra stops, provide more destination choices for Richmond Hill + DRL users without a transfer, be a superset of existing Richmond Hill GO line, possibly be cheaper (no $1B flood mitigation), and be potentially so much better than a separate Richmond Hill RER solution that has bigger bang-for-buck than flood mitigation in the Don Valley. Obviously, this is farther-future Richmond Hill RER timeline stuff but Option 2 and 3 provides this tantalizing possibility.

Option 5 and 6 are definitely massively preferable to Option 1 which doesn't spread the subway goodness far-and-wide enough.

I can find enough reasons to like all options except Option 1. All with different pros/cons.
 
Last edited:
muller877 said:
Below is my analysis for potential local catchment area ridership for each station (assuming the bus routes will bring in the same regardless).

Personally based on the below I think
- #5 is removed since there needs to be 2 bridges over the Don (cost).
- 2/3/4 demand nodes could be served via a RER on the Leslie Spur (vs a subway)
- 1 is silly...but there are a lot of campaign contributors who also support Sunnybrook
Click to expand...
An advantage of #5 is that it roughly follows the CP line, which means it would be built on a bridge for 2+ kilometers - much less costly than underground. It is quite curvy, which is not desirable - maybe if they built is as SkyTrain to be compatible with the Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown it could handle the curves better :) .
Amare said:
Option #5 via Don Mills and Victoria Park is a complex one and it really depends on how much ridership that alignment could attract via Victoria Park. If the costs (ie: tunneling through the DVP, Don River, and Richmond Hill line) exceed the benefits (ie: ridership numbers) it wouldn't make sense to proceed with this option.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine anyone would consider tunneling under the East Don.
 
The problem with option 5 following the CP tracks between Science Center and Lawrence - or even follow the tracks to where they meet Victoria Park is there is no room in the ROW for subway service if you go by the size that runs near Kipling on Line 2. You would need to move the CP tracks a bit south between Eglinton and DVP, and after the east don Expropiate a couple propertys on the south side for Subway service. It would likely be immensely cheaper then tunneling, especially if you put the Lawrence station where the CP ROW crosses Lawrence (which is 500m roughly from Vic Park / Lawrence). As an FYI - where the CP row runs under Victoria Park there is an elevation difference of 27 feet / 8 meters. After lawrence, accounting for a 100m platform to the east of lawrence (the other 100 is west of Lawrence) it is about 47 feet lower / 12 meters lower. I imagine if they go Option 5 they'll look at that scenario.
 
Cobra said:
Another reason why I think #5 is very strong and likely to prevail is that it shortens the bus travel time for people living in Scarborough living north of between Lawrence and Sheppard...eventually all the way to Steeles.
Click to expand...
Sheppard East subway has to be completed in order for that to work imo. At least to McCowan.
 
3z9nOaA.jpg


There are a few stations beyond the identified corridors that were also shown at today's meeting.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top