[gweed123]

I know that Steve Munro likes it, but what exactly is the benefit to tying directly into the Greenwood Yard? Is the yard able to or does it make sense to convert it handle the new Toronto Rocket of trains? There are many places where new yard could be built on public lands not otherwise occupied. Should we even be using the Toronto Rocket trains for the DRL given service flexibility provided if we went with standard gauge? Doing so opens up the CPR West Toronto Yard for TTC use and allows the ARL to be converted to a rapid transit line.

When you look at where Greenwood is located on the DRL route, it's at the perfect point where the line would split. This would allow it to serve both branches, as well as the trunk line. A yard closer to downtown along the trunk wouldn't really be possible due to land acquisition costs, and placing a yard on a branch makes it difficult to access the other branch. Also, Greenwood is the only TTC yard with a direct rail connection. Having that yard have connections to both the DRL and Bloor-Danforth would be a big plus.

Using Greenwood also opens up new yard locations for Bloor-Danforth, which could include a westward expansion. I've detailed that before, but suffice to say it would also be a good political move when looking at Phase One of the DRL. Scarborough gets a new direct-to-downtown subway, and it may not fly very well if Etobicoke didn't get something as well, even if it's just a one-stop extension.

The question of gauge is an interesting one. Under my scenario above, the Scarborough-Exhibition line would be interlined for a stretch with the Bloor-Danforth line. That interoperability IMO is a big plus, which wouldn't be possible using different gauges.

Also, I believe that the ARL would be better suited for a conversion to a GO REX line than a TTC subway line, and the CPR West Toronto Yard you mentioned could prove valuable in that case as well.

 

[M II A II R II K]

I would have it go down to the beaches, an Ashbridges Station would get great use in the summer time, and have an express route to the financial district hitting the new developments along the way on the east waterfront.

 

[W. K. Lis]

There's another option that the Metrolinx/TTC planners could look at. The Relief Line could turn east at Danforth and continue east to Scarborough. The Bloor-Danforth could terminate at where the Relief Line takes over. When ready, the Bloor-Danforth could then turn north to get to Don Mills & Eglinton.

 

[gweed123]

I would have it go down to the beaches, an Ashbridges Station would get great use in the summer time, and have an express route to the financial district hitting the new developments along the way on the east waterfront.

I've always envisioned that area being served more by an at-grade LRT in the median of Lakeshore than with a subway extension. Ideally something like this:

It would run as either an extension of the East Bayfront LRT, or run into a DRL/GO REX station in the West Donlands. It could also include a branch into the Portlands once that is redeveloped. It would still hit all of the areas you mention, but I think it would be more cost-effective and more to scale with the ridership that it would produce.

 

[Thoughtless Miscreant]

I know that Steve Munro likes it, but what exactly is the benefit to tying directly into the Greenwood Yard? Is the yard able to or does it make sense to convert it handle the new Toronto Rocket of trains? There are many places where new yard could be built on public lands not otherwise occupied. Should we even be using the Toronto Rocket trains for the DRL given service flexibility provided if we went with standard gauge? Doing so opens up the CPR West Toronto Yard for TTC use and allows the ARL to be converted to a rapid transit line.

Because if you didn't connect at Greenwood you have to build a wye at Pape, and that would be much more expensive and disruptive.

 

[BurlOak]

Because if you didn't connect at Greenwood you have to build a wye at Pape, and that would be much more expensive and disruptive.

OR

have a non revenue track under the rail corridor from Pape to Greenwood (less than 1 km). This would probably cost less than $100M - which is a minor factor in deciding where a $5B line would go.

OR

have the DRL be completely separate from the B-D line (maybe even different technology) and use a different location for the Yard.

The yard location would be more flexible.

Off the top of my head there are a few locations that I'd choose. (links are to Google Maps Loactions)

Flemingdon Park. I'm not sure if it's even possible to build in the Gatineau Hydro Corridor, but it's not like anything else is ever going to be built there.
North Toronto Sewage Treatment Plant. If a Pape-Overlea alignment is chosen, this site would lie directly to the west of the track to the north of the Don River. Again, Nothing else will ever be built here.
Ashbridges Bay Sewage Treatment Plant.. Same as above, although the DRL would need to follow an alignment to bring it to Lakeshore to serve the Port Lands. (which in itself is not a bad thing, I have serious doubts about whether or not it is actually feasible/practical to build under a constrained, active rail corridor.)
Wynford/DVP. I have no idea what this land is/was but it is conveniently at the (if temporarily) at the end of the line. Another Eglinton Crosstown yard/maintenance facility could also be co-located here. Personally though, I'd think that the redevelopment potential of this plot is quite large.
Roncesvalles Carhouse. The function of the carhouse for streetcar operation would need to be located somewhere else (Humber Loop/Ontario Food Terminal would be my choice) but a DRL yard could feasibly be constructed here completely below grade. With the help of Infrastructure Ontario, I could see a PPP in which a developer would attain land rights above the maintenance facility to build a residential development on top of this corner to take advantage of the nearby Roncesvalles Subway and Sunnyside GO station.

Of course, the yard's location would be highly dependant on what technology is chosen for the DRL. TTC Gauge subway vehicles can be located near TTC track provided a wye is able to be constructed somewhere on the Bloor Line. If high-floor catenary vehicles are used, the yard can be located pretty much anywhere along the UP Express line (likely in North Etobicoke)

 

[dunkalunk]

Routing needs to come first. Specific rapid transit technology second.

 

[gweed123]

OR

have a non revenue track under the rail corridor from Pape to Greenwood (less than 1 km). This would probably cost less than $100M - which is a minor factor in deciding where a $5B line would go.

OR

have the DRL be completely separate from the B-D line (maybe even different technology) and use a different location for the Yard.

That's true, but remember: the alignment of Pape vs Donlands is pretty insignificant compared to the rest of the line. I mean, choosing 1 or the other will affect the location of only 2 stations along the line, one of which will see significant transfer traffic either way, and the other will see significant walk-in traffic either way. So the decision really comes down to these factors:

1) Ease of construction/layout of the transfer station: I think Donlands has Pape beat in this regard, because not only has Pape just been recently redone with Donlands still looking for a redo, but Donlands is significantly less busy than Pape. This would allow the TTC to shut down Donlands for longer periods of time, something that wouldn't really be possible with Pape due to the significant bus traffic.

2) Surface disruption: Again, I think Donlands has Pape beat here. No matter what street you go under, it's going to cause some disruption to surface operations. Donlands is significantly less busy than Pape.

3) Ease of crossing of the Don River: The conventional assumption is that the current Leaside bridge can accommodate subway on the lower deck (much like the Prince Edward Viaduct), but this may not be the case. If it isn't, it would be simpler to build a new subway-only bridge over the Don Valley. The logical location would be further east of the current bridge, which would provide a shorter routing. It could start where Donlands turns northwest to link up with Pape, and end in the cliff around Thorncliffe Park, which would allow for a NE-SW station alignment in the centre of the neighbourhood.

 

[salsa]

That's true, but remember: the alignment of Pape vs Donlands is pretty insignificant compared to the rest of the line. I mean, choosing 1 or the other will affect the location of only 2 stations along the line, one of which will see significant transfer traffic either way, and the other will see significant walk-in traffic either way. So the decision really comes down to these factors:

1) Ease of construction/layout of the transfer station: I think Donlands has Pape beat in this regard, because not only has Pape just been recently redone with Donlands still looking for a redo, but Donlands is significantly less busy than Pape. This would allow the TTC to shut down Donlands for longer periods of time, something that wouldn't really be possible with Pape due to the significant bus traffic.

2) Surface disruption: Again, I think Donlands has Pape beat here. No matter what street you go under, it's going to cause some disruption to surface operations. Donlands is significantly less busy than Pape.

3) Ease of crossing of the Don River: The conventional assumption is that the current Leaside bridge can accommodate subway on the lower deck (much like the Prince Edward Viaduct), but this may not be the case. If it isn't, it would be simpler to build a new subway-only bridge over the Don Valley. The logical location would be further east of the current bridge, which would provide a shorter routing. It could start where Donlands turns northwest to link up with Pape, and end in the cliff around Thorncliffe Park, which would allow for a NE-SW station alignment in the centre of the neighbourhood.

Pape station is busy because of the high ridership bus routes that use it, such as Don Mills and Thorncliffe Park. Relocating those buses to other stations will substantially reduce the usage of Pape station if necessary, and the Eglinton crosstown may also divert some ridership when it opens. However since Pape station has a good bus terminal, it's better to keep using it rather than diverting buses to other stations, so Donlands would be better in terms of disruption.

The Leaside bridge was build with 4 lanes of traffic, with enough extra strength to accommodate a streetcar line in the future. However the bridge was later widened to 6 lanes which used up that extra strength, so accommodating a subway or lrt is off the table.

My only gripe about the Donlands alignment is that a potential station on Cosburn Ave will not be as close to the high density apartment buildings as would a statiion on Cosburn & Pape.

 

[dunkalunk]

Because it is a subway and will likely be constructed by TBM, and the absence of stations between Cosburn and Thorncliffe Park, the line has more flexibility than a road would have to cross the Don Valley. There is about 30m difference between the elevation of the DVP and the Don River, allowing a subway tunnel to be bored beneath the DVP with a bridge crossing over the river and Richmond Hill GO line before entering a tunnel.

Also, because it would be constructed by TBM, it would be unlikely that Pape would see any closure until it becomes time to construct station boxes. Pape would be closed for maybe a week or two while the shafts are excavated. The shafts would then be covered by steel plates as construction continued.

The most important thing about route alignment is that it needs to go where people are.

 

[TFC]

The most important thing about route alignment is that it needs to go where people are.

I think this needs to be a high priority and, IMO ends up favoring Pape as the terminus station.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Will Pape/Donlands be terminus?

How likely is it the DRL would be pitched in the next mayoral with Eglinton/Don Mills as terminus instead?

 

[innsertnamehere]

^who knows, it all depends on the spring budget at this point. Metrolinx is currently doing an EA for it, so I wonder when info on that will start to surface. From what I understand Metrolinx wants to build the portion south of Bloor first, so Dundas West / Pape or Donlands will be the initial termini. The city may be willing to scrounge for some more federal funding in order to push it further north to Eglinton, but I have a feeling it won't.

It will be interesting to see what happens come election time as (hopefully) the transit taxes will have been passed so the obvious projects will have already been funded. It will be interesting if they are even interested in funding more, as at that point We will be looking at $20 billion in TTC projects going on.

I think Donlands is best because the bridge would be much shorter over the Don Valley. Also easier to shut down for several years.

 

[gweed123]

Pape station is busy because of the high ridership bus routes that use it, such as Don Mills and Thorncliffe Park. Relocating those buses to other stations will substantially reduce the usage of Pape station if necessary, and the Eglinton crosstown may also divert some ridership when it opens. However since Pape station has a good bus terminal, it's better to keep using it rather than diverting buses to other stations, so Donlands would be better in terms of disruption.

The Leaside bridge was build with 4 lanes of traffic, with enough extra strength to accommodate a streetcar line in the future. However the bridge was later widened to 6 lanes which used up that extra strength, so accommodating a subway or lrt is off the table.

My only gripe about the Donlands alignment is that a potential station on Cosburn Ave will not be as close to the high density apartment buildings as would a statiion on Cosburn & Pape.]

All good points. And yes, Donlands does mean a little bit further of a walk for people in the high density area, but it's still a shorter walk than they have today to Pape Station.

Because it is a subway and will likely be constructed by TBM, and the absence of stations between Cosburn and Thorncliffe Park, the line has more flexibility than a road would have to cross the Don Valley. There is about 30m difference between the elevation of the DVP and the Don River, allowing a subway tunnel to be bored beneath the DVP with a bridge crossing over the river and Richmond Hill GO line before entering a tunnel.

Also, because it would be constructed by TBM, it would be unlikely that Pape would see any closure until it becomes time to construct station boxes. Pape would be closed for maybe a week or two while the shafts are excavated. The shafts would then be covered by steel plates as construction continued.

The most important thing about route alignment is that it needs to go where people are.

Pape may not see a lot of disruption, but you can bet that Pape-Danforth will. From an optics perspective of just having retrofitted the station, that's not good.

As for "where the people are", realistically there isn't much of a difference between Pape and Donlands. It's not like we're comparing through East York to through the Don Valley here.

 

[salsa]

^who knows, it all depends on the spring budget at this point. Metrolinx is currently doing an EA for it, so I wonder when info on that will start to surface. From what I understand Metrolinx wants to build the portion south of Bloor first, so Dundas West / Pape or Donlands will be the initial termini. The city may be willing to scrounge for some more federal funding in order to push it further north to Eglinton, but I have a feeling it won't

I wonder what are the engineering challenges of bringing the subway through Thorncliffe Park. Can the tunnels go under the highrise buildings, or would they have to go around the buildings because of the foundations?