|
|
|
- Thread starter aquateam
- Start date
WislaHD
Superstar
Well with the Don Branch rerouting of the Richmond Hill line, at least Leslie Station on the Crosstown will finally be justified. How would a transfer there even work though? I assume it would require a lot of elevators...
mdrejhon
Senior Member
Yeah. But there's precedent. There are escalators in some subway stations worldwide that are very long -- one of the Washington D.C. Metro stations (Wheaton) has an escalator long enough to reach between Castlefrank TTC and a theoretical new Richmond Hill station. 230 feet long escalators (70 meters 35 meter altitude). Prince Edward Viaduct is 40 meters high above the Don Valley waters, and a little less that above the iron tracks of Richmond Hill.
Of course, there'll be a fair walk horizontally, but our Spadina TTC station has a 150 meter tunnel. Heck, if we switch to the other railroad (Don Valley Branch?) -- the same horizontal distance between Broadview TTC and a theoretical Don Valley station (excluding altitude change, such as via escalator).
It would be quite useful to have some interchanges between TTC and frequent Don Valley rail service (15-min RER). It might not be a real relief line (though some will do a transfer at either Castlefrank or Broadview, for example, to avoid the nightmare at Bloor-Danforth interchange) but a useful part of Toronto transit, to make it easier to go to point A and B.
Toronto needs lots more better interchange stations between GO (RER) and TTC. There are over one dozen interchange opportunities, like shifting stations around (e.g. Oriole-Leslie) to better interchange with Sheppard subway and make the waste of a stubway a MUCH more useful subway (in conjunction with the Sheppard LRT).
All the interconnections won't be much of a relief to peak period, but if there was a dozen interchanges all over Toronto, it may reduce load at the chronically overcongested (and worsening) Bloor-Danforth interchange by approximately 10% during peak, as a total sum. Even without Richmond Hill and Don Branch at first, but eventually when those lines finally (20 years?) get upgraded to 15-min service, then it's time to add more valley interchanges (Castlefrank/Broadview, ECLRT, Leslie...) with good wayfinding.
We still need the DRL, but we must interchange like crazy in order to make 15-min RER service feel like truly now belongs on all the TTC maps city-wide (by 2025, 2030, 2035), as real rapid transit route alternatives. We have to display merged transit maps on all TTC maps and GO maps, by 2025, for all routes that have rapid transit frequency service (15 mins and better).
Last edited:
44 North
Senior Member
The elevation is pretty small. An elevator would probably be required, but this location wouldn’t be any more different in terms of getting people to street level than many proposed SmartTrack / RER stops. Or some of our elevated subway stations.
Streetview: https://goo.gl/maps/TkAwH
Another benefit is that the Crosstown’s Leslie stop is to be east of Leslie, so it’s actually closer to the rail line than if located right at Leslie. And although the use of this rail corridor is a good reason to put in a stop at Leslie, the area north of Eglinton along Leslie is developing quite a bit. There are actually a few large development proposals.
Attachments
jcam
Active Member
Problem is the Don Branch is on the DVP side of the viaduct, so the closest station is Broadview. I think someone has suggested jumping the Don Branch across the DVP, diving into the valley wall to get an underground station at Broadview, then punching it back out, over the DVP and reconnecting with the Don Branch before it hits the bridge over Bayview. Requires some tunneling and overpasses, but probably cheaper than a DRL underground.
Last edited:
mdrejhon
Senior Member
And even cheaper, there is a way to do this without rerouting. We can keep Don Branch where it is, and interchange Don Branch with Broadview with less walking than that long TTC Spadina tunnel. It would be very good bang-for-buck relief, Scarb commuters going to Union will prefer a less crowded, scenic interchange and quick 15-min zoom to downtown via the Valley -- than to negotiate the Bloor-Yonge transfer nightmare (predicted to become even worse in coming years, with the subway extensions).
Don Branch is only a hair above 200 meters away horizontally from Broadview station.
We'd need a hallway roughly similiar distance from Broadview, as the 150-meter TTC hallway between the two lines at Spadina stations. So we have local precedent for the level portion. Certainly, there's the elevation difference, but that would probably be escalator rather than walking. So less walking will occur between Broadview TTC and a Don Branch station, than our local Spadina station.
The vertical elevation would need to be solved (e.g. similiar to the hillside escalators like at Ontario Science Centre). A pedestrian bridge will be needed over the Don Valley Parkway. But all of this would be WAY more scenic and less walking than the Spadina TTC hallway. Short section of tunnel may be needed between Broadview and the hillside which would be the biggest/costliest engineering challenge. To skip on that, you could terminate the stairs/escalator at Playter Gardens, and let people walk through there to Broadview TTC. That would reduce a lot cost (perhaps a Phase 1 Playter Gardens connection without escalator skipped, with the addition of completely indoor connection to TTC -- tunnel/escalator -- as part of Phase 2). Such a Don Branch station would theoretically mean a quick 15 minute GO RER trip to downtown from that area, bypassing the chokepoints (Bloor-Yonge) and slower streetcars of Gerrard. This would be attractive enough to warrant a Don Valley interchange with TTC Line 2. (eventually...) With some REALLY good TTC wayfinding (on TTC maps), it could actually reduce load on Bloor-Yonge chokepoint from Scarborough commuters, doing a transfer at Broadview. It won't be full DRL relief (won't help many commuters, such as near Beach), but would produce noticeable Bloor-Yonge chokepoint relief, at least when simultaneously combined with other relief measures (other interchanges, the SmartTrack route, etc). Throw in DRL too, along with a dozen interchanges integrated into TTC maps, such as these, and we finally have a rapid transit network the envy of a lot of cities. (GO RER + TTC extensions + ECLRT + Hurontario + Finch LRT + Sheppard LRT + a dozen new TTC/RER interchanges + eventually DRL too). But interchange opportunities that exist, should be taken advantage sooner than later if economical -- where we can interchange, definitely interchange it, for improved convenience of point A to B.
So depending on which rail we use (Richmond Hill or Don Branch), it could be Broadview or Castlefrank. It will be a long time before we need to revisit the problem (demand-wise, electricification-wise), but this isn't unobtainium.
Last edited:
44 North
Senior Member
That they did
:http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40534&d=1420738715
It’s definitely feasible. And IMO it’s much more optimal to connect a station along the Don Branch to Broadview than it would be to connect the Richmond Hill line to Castle Frank – both because of the smaller distance, but also the smaller elevation. Another good point is that the City owns a large and well-located TDSB property between Broadview Stn and the valley which could easily be redeveloped with a pedestrian connection below. These are a couple of maps I made awhile back to give an idea of the potential:
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=41183&d=1422844209
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=41318&d=1423095539
nfitz
Superstar
It was also shot down by several people as being beyond redemption. Given the number of public parks that the proposed alignment was shown as going through, I can only think that the person behind it deliberately chose the most offensive possible alignment. The give away of course that it was a massive troll was when they revealed the image showing it going through the Ontario Science Centre! The level of subtle but brilliant humour of that proposal has I think been lost on many people.That they did
44 North
Senior Member
Right on cue.
Last edited by a moderator:
mdrejhon
Senior Member
I made a post in another forum, which is useful to repost here:
____________
Now that the RER electricification plan is announced, and it excludes electricification of Richmond Hill line, I propose the following idea as a useful transit line that may be cheaper than adding new subways:
Pros:
- More corridor space to double-track than Richmond Hill (can even triple-track small sections for passing)
- Two way frequent all day electricified service (15min or better)
- Metrolinx owns Don Branch now
Proposed stations:
1. Eglinton Station (ECLRT interchange, Ontario Science Centre)
2. Millwood St Station (large residential neighborhood to west)
3. Danforth Station (interchange with TTC Broadview subway, Greektown)
4. Gerrard St Station (interchange with TTC Gerrard streetcar, Bridgepoint Hospital, Riverdale ped bridge)
5. Queen St Station (interchange with TTC Queen streetcar, Regent Park)
6. Union
Requirements:
- Refurbishing and adding extra trackage
- Redoing the big bridge (1100 feet) to accomodate extra track
- There's already double-tracking to north of Gerrard, south of Danforth. Don Branch and Richmond Hill can share this.
- Add a small bit of track to the south of Leaside trainyard (between Eglinton and Millwood), may require expropriation of one small office/utility building, physically grade separated from freight. Delicate negotiations needed.
- Timeline would theoretically be "the next 10 year plan" (2025-2034)
Engineering Challenge Note:
- Flooding on low tracks. Need to raise flood-prone tracks first. (biggie)
- Hillside Escalators (like Ontario Science Centre), e.g. Danforth station connecting Playter Gardens to a Don Valley overpass to station on west edge of Don Branch under Bloor-Danforth. Broadview TTC is only ~200m horizontal separation, not too much more than the 150m TTC Spadina hallway, and escalator will reduce walking compared to that. Ped tunneling may be an engineering challenge.
- Electric substation potentially in way of one of the stations (is there room? Reaching near end-of-life? Relocation opportunity? RER electricification opportunity?)
- Union capacity (offpeak won't be a problem, but peak might be problematic in 15 years)
This line may have large amount of community pressure, due to scenery disruption, but would be greatly preferable over widening the Don Valley Parkway. Once Toronto falls in love with RER convenience, community opposition might loosen a bit by the mid-2020s, especially if Don Valley Parkway gets worse and part of Gardiner is planned to be demolished.
As we know, one single GOtrain carries one full hour of freeway lane traffic (2000 cars per hour) -- don't underestimate the need for this train in Toronto, circa 2031. A single track can move far more people during peak than an 8-lane freeway! A pair of railroad tracks, properly signalled, with some extra passing track, can push eight GOtrains per hour in each direction, moves more people than the whole width 16-lane of 401 combined! Europe has pulled that off, with even-more-frequent trains in some corridors (e.g. Paris RER 3-minute headways). In addition to population growth through 2031, combined with demolishing parts of the Gardiner, we will need RER in the Don Valley (on either line).
Last edited:
Forgotten
Active Member
Don't get the bridge fanboys started. Sooner or later reality will hit and they might realize you can't run trains through high voltage power lines.
My preferred solution for the Richmond Hill corridor is this:
Link: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43869799/Richmond Hill Line.jpg
It basically combines the DRL with GO RER. Benefits:
1) It maximizes the relief potential of the DRL, by stretching way further north than any TTC Subway DRL proposal ever could, without an unlimited budget.
2) It makes the Richmond Hill line actually useful south of York Mills.
3) It serves the "traditional" DRL catchment area.
4) It gives commuters along the line the choice of heading either straight into the CBD (via the Central Tunnel, aka the Red Line), or into Union via the Green Line.
5) It reduces the need for the North Yonge Subway extension.
Link: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43869799/Richmond Hill Line.jpg
It basically combines the DRL with GO RER. Benefits:
1) It maximizes the relief potential of the DRL, by stretching way further north than any TTC Subway DRL proposal ever could, without an unlimited budget.
2) It makes the Richmond Hill line actually useful south of York Mills.
3) It serves the "traditional" DRL catchment area.
4) It gives commuters along the line the choice of heading either straight into the CBD (via the Central Tunnel, aka the Red Line), or into Union via the Green Line.
5) It reduces the need for the North Yonge Subway extension.
k10ery
Senior Member
That they did
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40534&d=1420738715
It’s definitely feasible. And IMO it’s much more optimal to connect a station along the Don Branch to Broadview than it would be to connect the Richmond Hill line to Castle Frank – both because of the smaller distance, but also the smaller elevation. Another good point is that the City owns a large and well-located TDSB property between Broadview Stn and the valley which could easily be redeveloped with a pedestrian connection below.
Not to get fussy about precedence, but I proposed this route as an alternative to DRL in a post back in January 2012: http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showth...it-Expansion-Study/page10?p=588063#post588063
I then wrote, in part:
So the key differences are it would terminate at Broadview for now - but the north extension is of course possible (though the proposals here ignore the necessary cost of replacing the Half Mile bridge.) And the line would tunnel up to Broadview station. Doesn't this make more sense than the complicated and inconvenient ideas about a long pedestrian tunnel and escalator ride -- how could that even be AODA compliant?
(Last note, if I proposed this now I would forget about the King St tunnel, and send it straight to Union on the platforms reserved for UP Express, then through route it out to the airport. DRL problems solved! You're welcome.)
44 North
Senior Member
Ah, interesting! A couple points: How would you have gotten the line from a King St tunnel onto the Don Branch? I'm genuinely interesting in ideas about that possible connection, because it does seem quite complicated (but worthy of being analyzed). Generally I'm not a fan of any 'direct to Union' routing. If this is to be a pseudo-DRL, I think it's worth it to combine the project with a tunnel through downtown.
Another thing is I believe you're overestimating the complexity of twining/refitting the Half Mile Bridge. Metrolinx did a similar bridge widening project over the Humber for the UPX/Georgetown corridor. Literally, the bridge is almost identical in design, but slightly shorter in length. There are 1986 estimates for refitting the Half Mile, and the costs don't seem all that high (particularly when compared to the astronomically-priced subway projects we've undertaken since).
Attachments
mdrejhon
Senior Member
Wheelchair Inclinator next to escalator (with a full enclosure for safety, perhaps) to an enclosed new pedestrian overpass, followed by elevator downwards to the station platform from the new enclosed pedestrian overpass over Don Valley Parkway & Don Branch).
The tunnel idea is interesting. I would not be opposed to merging DRL and Don Branch. It may not provide as much relief as, say, Coxwell, serving a larger area of southeastern Toronto, but would be substantially cheaper. Some people, like Steve Munro, would probably object to this though.
I don't think UPX would ever shut down, as it's expected to be a profitable service for Metrolinx, so currently we're stuck with it wasting corridor passenger capacity that could have been used for bigger-capacity rapid transit trains (larger subway sized or GOtrain sized trains). There are reasons why it's going to be hugely popular with airport travellers, even to the point of occasional standees on 3-car trains (747/A380 landings). So if routing to Union, then another train berth will be needed (even Platform 3, if it's not a through route), or Don Branch could perhaps behave as the East-side continuation of either Kitchener or Barrie RER trains (perhaps Barrie, since Kitchener line will be paired up with the Stoufville line, in the SmartTrack plan)
Last edited: