[Wrenkin]

So basically it destroys the park ...

How does it destroy it? Maybe I'm missing something, but this is the same park that's right beside the incredibly noisy DVP, yes? If you were worried about this you could spend more money and put the elevated portion in the middle of the expressway for a stretch.

 

[44 North]

How does it destroy it? Maybe I'm missing something, but this is the same park that's right beside the incredibly noisy DVP, yes? If you were worried about this you could spend more money and put the elevated portion in the middle of the expressway for a stretch.

It doesn't destroy it. Nfitz likes to be overly dramatic and is keen on using fallacies. My map of Riverdale above shows that the line would keep to the park's periphery.
And good point about using the DVP or central part of the valley to run the viaduct instead. But the existing pedestrian bridge connecting Riverdale E + W is kinda in the way. I'm sure it could be temporarily removed/rebuilt, but that would definitely complicate things and up the cost. Perhaps there is a way it can be threaded below the central span of that pedestrian bridge... but I don't know if it would have enough clearance and the right gradients to pass over Bayview or the DVP if it were so low.

 

[nfitz]

How does it destroy it? Maybe I'm missing something, but this is the same park that's right beside the incredibly noisy DVP, yes?

There's a river between West Riverdale park and the DVP. The proposed subway viaduct takes out the two ball diamonds that remain. On the east side, it takes out a running track and another baseball diamond.

Admittedly both sides were very much damaged by the DVP and Bayview Avenue. Hopefully we'll see both gone one day.

It doesn't destroy it. Nfitz likes to be overly dramatic and is keen on using fallacies. My map of Riverdale above shows that the line would keep to the park's periphery.

44 North likes to stretch the truth. Your graphic clearly shows it running over 3 ball diamonds and the running track! This is keeping to the periphery!

 

[CapitalSeven]

Exactly, the DRL is going to replace a streetcar line.
.

That's purely speculation. It could just as well not replace any line, or partly replace one or more lines.

 

[JGHali]

Neither Yonge nor Bloor/Danforth suffered for lack of "local" service when the subways opened. The case for retaining street car service is the fact that there will still be key streetcar routes at either end (to Neville, and to Long Branch) and there may be value in letting people carry on on the surface rather than transfer to the underground. Perhaps these routes would get new routings...eg west end of Queen car connects with the western stub of the DRL (wherever that is), then turns south to the Exhibition and east to Union as a 509/510...or north to Bloor. Or something.

This is the essential point. It's well and good to say that a DRL could "replace" a surface route, but that makes the shaky assumption that it will actually follow any existing surface route to any meaningful extent. It's fairly unlikely that any DRL will travel west from downtown to any great degree in the near term. It's further unlikely that any DRL will run close enough in parallel to either King or especially Queen to justify removing two of the most heavily used local transit routes in the entire city. Adelaide in particular is about three blocks south of Queen and two blocks north of King - the idea that tunnels to either are at all feasible is a fantasy.

It is further unlikely that any DRL will have anything approaching Bloor-style station spacing. The technical and financial challenges of constructing not only tunnels but stations in the core will see to that. Another issue with the idea of the DRL's replacing a surface line is simply that it will not actually follow the route of any existing line. The 501 is a bit similar in route, but it's also a local service that will not be replaced by any implementation of a (Getting to) Downtown Relief Line. It's not like the presence of a subway on Yonge or University eliminates the role of buses on Bay or streetcars on Spadina.

 

[MisterF]

This is the essential point. It's well and good to say that a DRL could "replace" a surface route, but that makes the shaky assumption that it will actually follow any existing surface route to any meaningful extent. It's fairly unlikely that any DRL will travel west from downtown to any great degree in the near term. It's further unlikely that any DRL will run close enough in parallel to either King or especially Queen to justify removing two of the most heavily used local transit routes in the entire city. Adelaide in particular is about three blocks south of Queen and two blocks north of King - the idea that tunnels to either are at all feasible is a fantasy.

It is further unlikely that any DRL will have anything approaching Bloor-style station spacing. The technical and financial challenges of constructing not only tunnels but stations in the core will see to that. Another issue with the idea of the DRL's replacing a surface line is simply that it will not actually follow the route of any existing line. The 501 is a bit similar in route, but it's also a local service that will not be replaced by any implementation of a (Getting to) Downtown Relief Line. It's not like the presence of a subway on Yonge or University eliminates the role of buses on Bay or streetcars on Spadina.

First, the Yonge line eliminated the Yonge streetcar and the Bloor line eliminated the Bloor-Danforth streetcar. Second, the DRL is not simply for getting people to downtown, it's for getting people around downtown as well. The former is what regional rail is for, the latter is best served by subways. The King and Queen streetcars are simply not up to the task.

The DRL wouldn't have to replace an entire streetcar route. It could replace the central portion while the outer portions serve as feeder lines to the subway. It would work just like any other surface transit route in the city. The inconvenience of a transfer at, say, Queen and Broadview would be made up for by the speed and reliability of the subway. As St. Clair shows, streetcar lines don't all have to connect to each other.

Finally, I have yet to be convinced that Bloor-style station spacing wouldn't be feasible on the downtown portions of the DRL. Bloor has only two stations between Yonge and the Don. Any fewer than that on the DRL would be totally inadequate to serve the people who work and live along that part of the line. If that many stations in the downtown shoulder areas aren't feasible, how are we managing it on Eglinton? Once you get east of Yonge and west of University, it's not a whole lot more complex. Eglinton style spacing would be ideal for the DRL east and west of downtown. At the risk of repeating myself, the ridership of the DRL would more than make up for the added cost of stations being fairly close together. Not to mention the savings from not running a duplicate streetcar.

 

[JGHali]

What exactly are we managing on Eglinton? Between Yonge and Bayview there is only a stop at Mount Pleasant, but that will see the elimination of several intervening bus stops. Not necessarily a big deal, but there we are.

And, no, the purpose of the DRL is not to serve as a fabled "Queen Subway" but to relieve congestion on the Yonge line.

It is also completely wrong to suggest that that King and Queen cars are not "up to the task" - that's certainly the case with existing funding levels, but the notion that "nothing can be done" to improve streetcar (or any surface) routes) represents a failure of imagination. Long before we even have an EA done for a DRL, the new streetcars will be running on King and Queen, and we will have had years to introduce proof-of-payment, timed transfers, transit priority, and hopefully the elimination of street parking and finally adequate enforcement against illegal turns and stopping. You don't need a subway to enjoy good, frequent service, and implication of this argument is a general lack of knowledge about how, say, even buses work in countries and cities where transit is adequately funded.

 

[dunkalunk]

First, the Yonge line eliminated the Yonge streetcar and the Bloor line eliminated the Bloor-Danforth streetcar. Second, the DRL is not simply for getting people to downtown, it's for getting people around downtown as well. The former is what regional rail is for, the latter is best served by subways. The King and Queen streetcars are simply not up to the task.

The DRL wouldn't have to replace an entire streetcar route. It could replace the central portion while the outer portions serve as feeder lines to the subway. It would work just like any other surface transit route in the city. The inconvenience of a transfer at, say, Queen and Broadview would be made up for by the speed and reliability of the subway. As St. Clair shows, streetcar lines don't all have to connect to each other.

Finally, I have yet to be convinced that Bloor-style station spacing wouldn't be feasible on the downtown portions of the DRL. Bloor has only two stations between Yonge and the Don. Any fewer than that on the DRL would be totally inadequate to serve the people who work and live along that part of the line. If that many stations in the downtown shoulder areas aren't feasible, how are we managing it on Eglinton? Once you get east of Yonge and west of University, it's not a whole lot more complex. Eglinton style spacing would be ideal for future DRL phases as it heads east and west from downtown. At the risk of repeating myself, the ridership of the DRL would more than make up for the added cost of stations being fairly close together. Not to mention the savings from not running a duplicate streetcar.

With a King DRL, I'd actuallly be OK with removing streetcar service on King if it means shifting the streetcars to Queen and replacing the lost local service to the points south of King with an East-West bus route. The issue that I have with the idea of a complete replacement of the King Streetcar with a subway are actually to do with the crappy local service south of King.

Maybe the 47 Lansdowne bus could be extended via Jamieson and King to serve Liberty and continue to Union? Regardless There needs to be better bus service on both Liberty and Front; I'm not really sure why a Front St bus doesn't already exist.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Re; DRL's stop spacing,

In the scenario where SmartTrack already exists, the need for medium-long distance commutes in the core would already be served by SmartTrack. It would not be wise to have the DRL effectively duplicate SmartTrack's purpose, it should instead serve small-medium distance commutes inside the core and this means Bloor/Eglinton level of stop spacing.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

How close are we talking? The standard 700 m sounds reasonable to me.

 

[Palma]

First, the Yonge line eliminated the Yonge streetcar and the Bloor line eliminated the Bloor-Danforth streetcar. Second, the DRL is not simply for getting people to downtown, it's for getting people around downtown as well. The former is what regional rail is for, the latter is best served by subways. The King and Queen streetcars are simply not up to the task.
.

The King and Queen streetcars are up to the task if you live in the area and make the streets more lively

 

[Rainforest]

Re; DRL's stop spacing,

In the scenario where SmartTrack already exists, the need for medium-long distance commutes in the core would already be served by SmartTrack. It would not be wise to have the DRL effectively duplicate SmartTrack's purpose, it should instead serve small-medium distance commutes inside the core and this means Bloor/Eglinton level of stop spacing.

DRL cannot duplicate SmartTrack, since it will take a different route.

I'd rather see medium-wide stop spacing on DRL (1 - 2 km), and retain the streetcars. It will be cheaper to build, and more effective in diverting trips from Yonge since more riders will switch to a faster option.

 

[salsa]

Amazingly, 44 North is still pushing his DRL idea. There are quite a few issues that I have with it, that I'm not sure where to begin. Lets compare this to the "traditional alignment" that interchanges at Pape / Danforth, with a little help from drlnow.com.


South of Danforth

Needless to say, putting concrete bridges through two popular parks will be extremely controversial if it's ever attempted, for obvious reasons that were discussed here previously.

Oak station should be closer to Gerrard St, but having to weave around those parks makes that tricky to do. Meanwhile, a connection to 505 Dundas is missed entirely (but to be fair, the same is true for the traditional Pape / Danforth alignment).

It's better if the subway goes through East York rather than downtown. Gerrard station could so elegantly connect with a new GO station, the 506 Carlton, and 72 Pape bus all in one multimodal hub (see image below), with some decent development potential available within a 5 minute walk. Riverdale is also a great place for a station somewhere on Queen street, east on the Don River. These two stations will also save several minutes for westbound streetcar riders, by allowing them to transfer to the subway sooner compared to 44 North's alignment.

Broadview / Danforth Interchange

What an engineering feat! I hope you realize there's a huge difference in elevation between the Don Valley and the BD line. Look how small that train looks from up there. It's a long uphill slog for subway trains to get from the rail corridor on the right, to Broadview station somewhere on the left. Ditto for south of Danforth.

Image by Craig White

I also see huge constructablility issues with this:

- A new DRL subway platform would be at least 150 m long, not just a little dot. It has to fit neatly along Broadview Ave, as there's nowhere else to build it without demolishing buildings.
- There should be a crossover here just like every other interchange station on the TTC, especially if phase one will end at Danforth. Just like the platform itself, it also has to be built cut and cover along the street.
- How do you plan to tunnel beneath all those highrise and lowrise building? Since cut and cover is not an option, don't forget to also make some room for TBM extraction shafts. It's a lot of hassle for such a short tunnel drive, but I don't know how else to do it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
^ I've left some extra space for professional engineers to explain the myriad of other problems with this interchange.

Construction here will completely snarl the 504 and 505 streetcars, northbound DVP onramp, and the main traffic artery between downtown and East York. At least with a Pape / Danforth interchange, motorists can use alternate streets to go around the mess upon crossing the bridge into East York. No streetcars will be affected, and routes 25 and 81 can be rerouted to Donlands. With a subway under Pape, these buses can eventually be removed entirely, thus improving traffic flow, noise, and air quality.

Since the Scarborough subway is moving ahead, the amount of overcrowding that we see on the Yonge line today will start to happen on the BD line as well. Which means that the DRL will also have to provide some relief for the BD line. The traditional DRL has an interchange station at Pape, which during the morning rush will provide relief two stations sooner compared to an interchange at Broadview. Pape station has also received significant investment recently under the TTC modernization program.




Thorncliffe & Flemingdon Park

So now that this miracle of an interchange has been pulled off, off we go to the next station at Laird Drive, over 3.1 km away. A distance unprecedented in TTC history. I guess it's a logical place for a station if we have to use the rail corridor, but development potential here is mediocre. Everything south of the tracks is taken up by forest and huge hydro transmission towers. West of Laird is largely stable, lowrise residential. Whatever potential ridership and development that may occur here will also compete with the Eglinton crosstown station located on the same street. Good luck, cause Eglinton / Laird is a much more ideal location.

Next stop, Thorncliffe Park. I don't know how you can say with a strait face that Thorncliffe Park will be served. Your proposed station is somewhere beyond these trees:

In the other direction, it's just parking lots and lowrise industrial. There is nothing here. Nobody is gonna walk to this grassy nowhere land from their apartment. And just like with the pervious station, development potential is mediocre if not worse. It's location will do little to quell the feeling of isolation of Thorncliffe Park, if residents will still have to get on a bus to use the subway just like today. I encourage you to read this to better understand why a proper subway station for this community is justified.


And then finally, the subway will quickly burrow itself underground, briefly re-emerge to cross the valley again, then take a sharp turn to reach Eglinton / Don Mills. I'm no expert, but I'm sure there are some problems here to be worked out as well. For one, the curve is probably too sharp and too far north since the platform and crossover has to fit under Don Mills (just like with Broadview).

And of course, there's no station at Flemingdon Park. Cosburn is another missed opportunity. It's a very walkable area that lends itself well to transit. The Cosburn bus runs frequently, and there are many apartment buildings within walking distance.

Travel Time

Your key justification for this alignment is to save money, and that it's faster than the traditional DRL.
- Your proposal: 10.3 km, 9 stations
- Traditional DRL: 11.9 km, 10 stations (maybe 11)

You've saved 1.6 km, and one station. That's probably 2 minutes at best, which to me doesn't live up to your hype. The only riders who will save time under your proposal are those coming from Eglinton /Don Mills station. For everyone else, not so much. Thorncliffe & Flemingdon Park residents will still have to take the bus. No station on Cosburn. East-end streetcar routes will have to cross the river into downtown before intersecting with the DRL, instead of intersecting sooner at Pape Ave. And so on. Since when is having more stations a bad thing?



Cost

You probably underestimate the amount of money that your proposal will save. You have 1.7 km of bridges, all of which are either tall, curved, sloped, or in difficult locations. Your interchange will cost substantially more than Pape / Danforth due to said engineering difficulties. Much of the existing rail corridor is only single track and along a steep slope, so that will have to be widened which is not a simple task. Look no further than the issues with widening the Richmond Hill GO line, for example. Nevertheless, some money could be saved. But is it worth it?

With your station locations (particularly north of Danforth) and fewer connecting buses, ridership will be worse than the Sheppard subway. Last time when this city tried to go cheap on subways, we ended up with the Spadina line in the middle of a highway, with atrocious public realm surrounding every station. In hindsight, was saving money like that really a great idea? Meanwhile, Dufferin Street (which runs close to Allen Rd) is one of the busiest and most miserable bus routes in the city, is one of the ugliest streets in the city, and had almost no development on it for decades. Had the Spadina line gone under Dufferin street instead, it would look completely different today north of Eglinton, and the subway would have better ridership. But that's what happens when people want to be cheap. Therefore, I do not want the same kind of mistakes to be repeated with the DRL. Subways are supposed to be built where people live and where people want to go, not in the middle of nowhere. Subways last for many decades and transform neighbourhoods, so no matter mow much they cost, they have to be done properly. If Scarborough and Vaughan get to enjoy all-underground subways, then it's about time that downtown gets the same kind of investment that should have happened years ago.

 

[44 North]

@Salsa There are no unrealistic engineering issues with connecting under Broadview. It would accomplish the task just like every other DRL intersects with a station, whether it’s Queen, Osgoode, Pape, etc. I’m aware that a dot doesn’t represent the size of a station/platform. If it’s too complicated to connect under Broadview, then connecting to stations under Line 1 will be an even bigger issue.

And the elevation and gradients required from East Riverdale Park to a platform below Broadview isn’t all that much. Let’s say from the valley floor in the park to ground level at Broadview is 35-40m (it wouldn't be 40m. maybe from the river's surface, but def not the park). Minus the height of the elevated section (max ~8m), minus the depth for the line/platform to be situated below Broadview’s platform (15m), and then factoring in the length between (600m)... that’s about a 2% gradient (is my math right?). For your argument I’ll bump it up to 2.5%; which if I’m not mistaken is realistic with heavy rail, and even more realistic with light rail. On top of that, the valley is an excellent place to stage construction or run a TBM. Both sides of that section of tunnel can be staged perfectly for access roads and launch sites. Ditto for West Riverdale for placing the shaft to build the downtown tunnel.

Broadview has higher ridership (29,000) vs Pape (25,000), not to mention more surface connections. Why is it any less of a relief-providing station than Pape? Wouldn't the exact opposite be true? And the 504 and 505 on Broadview would remain intact. And the DVP onramp would be untouched and well out of the way during construction.

As for pointing out that I have ‘1.7km of bridges’ which are ‘all very tall’. Easy now, yes elevated rail can be considered a bridge. But I used the term viaduct to specify that these aren’t all bridges as people expect. The majority of the elevated sections would be low, just like elevated is elsewhere in Toronto and across the globe. The one actual high bridge is already in place (the abandoned “Half Mile Bridge” – actually 350m). Just south of that would be a flyover from the valley wall. I’ve looked at the gradients and curves involved. It’s doable and realistic.

You make the 3.1km distance between Broadview and Leaside sound a lot worse than it is. And it’s not even that unprecedented considering City Council just voted on and supported an extension with an even bigger gap (Kennedy Stn to Lawrence/Danforth Rd – almost 4km). At least in my proposal there’s a reason there’s no stations in between (it’s an enormous valley crossing with literally nothing in between, save for a park).

You do the math: elevated rail comes out less expensive than tunnelling in almost every case - particularly when tunnels and stations are very deep. Yes, I do have bridges in my proposal. But so does the conventional DRL for crossing the Don at Leaside, and crossing the West Don through E.T Seton. The only true difference between mine and the conventional DRL is how I cross the valley at Riverdale, which again is more an elevated section than an actual bridge. What exactly is “controversial” about a short section of elevated track through a greenspace? We’ve done it before. And with or without my idea, we’ll be doing it again.

Dynamic cities like Toronto aren’t static. I expect that we’ll be building bridges and angering NIMBYs for many millennia. I don’t really get how everyone is onboard with subway-like commuter rail running behind half the city’s backyards. But one elevated section of track through a park, ~200m from most of the homes, is somehow out of the question? Makes no sense to me. A Sheppard West extension is going to need a bridge. Does that rule out extending that subway? Many of our future subways will need bridges, too. Look at how many bridges SmartTrack will need. Does that rule them out? Again, I know and love Riverdale, I know elevated rail and what it can do, and I know Toronto’s NIMBYism. This proposal seems in line with what’s realistic in this city.

Your logic as to why it’s imperative that the DRL be built through Leslieville and Gerrard Square is the exact same logic I’m applying when saying it should travel along River St. Currently Moss Park and Regent Park are being rebuilt and tripling in density. Not to mention private peripheral proposals for developments at sites like Oak/River (literally, those are some of the shittiest buildings in TO, and developers want to buy them up and adjoin more highrises to them). All this, and no improved transit for them? Where are the proposals for tripling densities around Gerrard Square? I doubt there ever will be any, at least not as big as what's happening in and around Regent Park

As for pointing out how my DRL doesn’t reach Pape Village or Thorncliffe. Yes, I am 100% aware of that issue. You don’t need to lecture me on Toronto. I know this city very well; IMO more than most. Re: Laird... yes, I know there can be little development around a station there. But that doesn’t mean it can’t provide an important surface transit connection for those transferring by bus from Eglinton, from Thorncliffe, and from Pape Village. Re: Thorncliffe’s station and how there’s “nothing there”. Well guess what, there’s been “nothing” at many of our stations. A few zoning changes, and that issue is remedied. Take a look at Kipling Stn. It also has a hydro corridor, freight rail, and warehouses. That didn’t stop some highrises from being built:

The problem with the University-Spadina line isn’t that it’s in the middle of a highway. It’s that area NIMBYs oppose development, rezoning, and upzoning around stations. Just like many of our stations. There have been plans for decades to develop around that line’s stations (e.g Lawrence Heights). There’s interest by the City and by developers. NIMBYs are the reason we’re not seeing it. Where the train runs when it’s between stations is a non-issue in this regard. And what I've learned about rapid transit in TO is that building a subway to some empty fields for new development is way more realistic than building a subway to current density nodes. Sheppard, Spadina ext, SRT, B/D extension...history proves this.

My DRL intersects with Eglinton and Bloor/Danforth east of Yonge: so it does provide Yonge relief, maybe even more relief than Pape.
It can be built from St Andrew to Don Mills for half of the original DRL’s cost connecting those very same stations: surface and elevated costs less than tunnelling, there’s no denying that.
The engineering which you tried to claim is impossible: well, I beg to differ.
That it misses out on key sections of Riverdale and East York: yes, that is the line’s issue. But if it means the DRL can actually get build and not ignored because we have $25bn worth of other transit priorities, then I’m willing to sacrifice those areas.

I get that this post is a bit jumbled. It was written rather quickly, so I hadn’t had time to properly form it into a good rebuttal. But I honestly don’t get the philosophy of a lot of posters here. People want Hong Kong level density everywhere, ridicule “undense” places, embrace high-frequency surface rail thundering across the city and backyards of homes. But simultaneously say we should close down the DVP and Bayview, abandon existing infrastructure like bridges and rail lines, and scoff at ideas like short elevated sections or low bridges as being unrealistic.

 

[salsa]

@Salsa There are no unrealistic engineering issues with connecting under Broadview. It would accomplish the task just like every other DRL intersects with a station, whether it’s Queen, Osgoode, Pape, etc. I’m aware that a dot doesn’t represent the size of a station/platform. If it’s too complicated to connect under Broadview, then connecting to stations under Line 1 will be an even bigger issue.

And the elevation and gradients required from East Riverdale Park to a platform below Broadview isn’t all that much. Let’s say from the valley floor in the park to ground level at Broadview is 35-40m (it wouldn't be 40m. maybe from the river's surface, but def not the park). Minus the height of the elevated section (max ~8m), minus the depth for the line/platform to be situated below Broadview’s platform (15m), and then factoring in the length between (600m)... that’s about a 2% gradient (is my math right?). For your argument I’ll bump it up to 2.5%; which if I’m not mistaken is realistic with heavy rail, and even more realistic with light rail. On top of that, the valley is an excellent place to stage construction or run a TBM. Both sides of that section of tunnel can be staged perfectly for access roads and launch sites. Ditto for West Riverdale for placing the shaft to build the downtown tunnel.

Anything is possible, but constructing an interchange at Broadview is more trouble than it's worth. I've already explained that the impact on traffic and surface transit will be worse than at Pape. You also need deeper tunnels that curve up, down, sideways, and under buildings, whereas a Pape tunnel is a simple straight line. You need at least two TBM launch shafts in forested greenspace just for a short tunnel drive. I would also suggest that you visit the Finch West station construction site to get a better idea of how much space is needed to fit both a platform and a crossover. It's a really long site. Your alignment as currently depicted simply does not work, as you made no provisions for this. So no, "connecting to stations under Line 1" will not be a bigger issue. It's time to go back to the drawing board.

Finch West


One thing I didn't mention yet is that recent reports on a DRL study mentioned the need for a wye junction with the Danforth subway, so that trains could reach Greenwood Yard. Building such a structure would require existing buildings on Danforth to be demolished. Steve Munro talked about this, and he identified Donlands station as a possible interchange. His proposed alignment continues east to the west side of Greenwood Subway Yard, thus providing a link to the existing network without the need for a new junction under the Danforth. Something you also didn't think about.

Steve Munro's DRL

Broadview has higher ridership (29,000) vs Pape (25,000), not to mention more surface connections. Why is it any less of a relief-providing station than Pape? Wouldn't the exact opposite be true? And the 504 and 505 on Broadview would remain intact. And the DVP onramp would be untouched and well out of the way during construction.

Those who ride the BD line during the morning rush know that overcrowding gets pretty bad these days by the time you get to Pape, let alone Broadview. The Scarborough subway will only exasperate this problem, so having the DRL interchange two stations sooner at Pape will provide more relief for BD than at Broadview. It's time that everyone stop pretending that the Yonge line is the only looming catastrophe that we are forced to deal with.

As for the slightly higher ridership at Broadview, it won't necessarily stay that way. Bus route 100 is basically a shuttle bus for Flemingon Park residents to access the subway, and it will stop coming to Broadview station as soon as a DRL stop is built in the area, since Broadview Ave is already well served by buses. This will happen regardless whether it's your route or the TTC's. Also, The 87 Cosburn would intersect with a new DRL station at Pape / Cosburn before terminating at Broadview, thus further affecting ridership.

How can you say the 504 and 505 on Broadview would remain intact, when there's gonna be a massive pit in the middle of the road?

What exactly is “controversial” about a short section of elevated track through a greenspace? We’ve done it before. And with or without my idea, we’ll be doing it again.

Where are we doing it again? I'm not ideologically against any bridges through greenspace provided they don't detract from the park, but try swaying the local NIMBYs that vastly outnumber you and I. This will trigger many raucous public meetings, council debates, and environmental scrutiny. Even a small condo is enough to start a war in this neighbourhood, but somehow this is not controversial?

As for pointing out that I have ‘1.7km of bridges’ which are ‘all very tall’. Easy now, yes elevated rail can be considered a bridge. But I used the term viaduct to specify that these aren’t all bridges as people expect. The majority of the elevated sections would be low, just like elevated is elsewhere in Toronto and across the globe. The one actual high bridge is already in place (the abandoned “Half Mile Bridge” – actually 350m). Just south of that would be a flyover from the valley wall. I’ve looked at the gradients and curves involved. It’s doable and realistic.

You do the math: elevated rail comes out less expensive than tunnelling in almost every case - particularly when tunnels and stations are very deep. Yes, I do have bridges in my proposal. But so does the conventional DRL for crossing the Don at Leaside, and crossing the West Don through E.T Seton. The only true difference between mine and the conventional DRL is how I cross the valley at Riverdale, which again is more an elevated section than an actual bridge.

Fine.

Your logic as to why it’s imperative that the DRL be built through Leslieville and Gerrard Square is the exact same logic I’m applying when saying it should travel along River St. Currently Moss Park and Regent Park are being rebuilt and tripling in density. Not to mention private peripheral proposals for developments at sites like Oak/River (literally, those are some of the shittiest buildings in TO, and developers want to buy them up and adjoin more highrises to them). All this, and no improved transit for them? Where are the proposals for tripling densities around Gerrard Square? I doubt there ever will be any, at least not as big as what's happening in and around Regent Park

My logic (and that of TTC and Metrolinx) for the DRL be built through Gerrard Square has more to with surface transit connections than development. Not that development potential doesn't exist here either, you will start seeing some proposals when this station is built, such as this one. As you know, subway ridership is mostly fed by surface transit routes, not density. At Gerrard Square, there will be a subway station, a GO station serving two lines, the 506 streetcar, and 72 Pape bus. Bloor GO / Dundas West station is a successful example of this kind of multimodal arrangement, and one that will become increasingly busy as Smart Track and GO RER start to get underway. Your station at River St is not as useful. It's nice that Regent Park gets a station, but pure residential development alone does not generate high ridership unless it's at a massive scale a la North York Centre, except that NYC station also has a mall, community centre, office buildings, and ML Square. At River St, development opportunities are partially constrained by untouchable victorian lowrise north of Gerrard (Cabbagetown), and the Don River just one block east. Given that this is the edge of downtown, I think midrise would be more appropriate than 50 storey glass boxes. Not having a station here hasn't stopped urban renewal from happening anyway, or in countless other places all over downtown. At the end of the day, it's surface transit that brings most riders to the subway.

As for pointing out how my DRL doesn’t reach Pape Village or Thorncliffe. Yes, I am 100% aware of that issue. You don’t need to lecture me on Toronto. I know this city very well; IMO more than most. Re: Laird... yes, I know there can be little development around a station there. But that doesn’t mean it can’t provide an important surface transit connection for those transferring by bus from Eglinton, from Thorncliffe, and from Pape Village. Re: Thorncliffe’s station and how there’s “nothing there”. Well guess what, there’s been “nothing” at many of our stations. A few zoning changes, and that issue is remedied. Take a look at Kipling Stn. It also has a hydro corridor, freight rail, and warehouses. That didn’t stop some highrises from being built:

View attachment 40562

The difference between Kipling station and your version of Thorncliffe Park, is that Kipling is well connected to arterial roads, GO transit, and many TTC bus routes (and eventually Mississauga). It's another example of how high density is not a prerequisite for high ridership. Development here was a no brainer because it's a huge transportation hub, and there's lots of easy surface parking to work with. But Thorncliffe Park station doesn't benefit from any of that. Not only is the land occupied by employment uses instead of surface parking, the location is far removed from the arterial road grid. Any development here will be just as isolated as the apartments of Thorncliffe Park. Fortunately you won't be seeing a whole lot of cranes here anyway. I mean, who the hell want's to live in an industrial park? No development here would actually be better for everyone.

Laird station: yes it can connect to buses, but those buses also connect to Eglinton & Laird a short distance away. Having two stations in close proximity serving similar demands, similar catchment areas, and having similar service frequency is counterproductive. This location is better suited for a GO station on the eventual midtown line, thus providing access to regional transit for those who need it, and leaving Eglinton for local travel.

You make the 3.1km distance between Broadview and Leaside sound a lot worse than it is. And it’s not even that unprecedented considering City Council just voted on and supported an extension with an even bigger gap (Kennedy Stn to Lawrence/Danforth Rd – almost 4km). At least in my proposal there’s a reason there’s no stations in between (it’s an enormous valley crossing with literally nothing in between, save for a park).

It's 3.5 km, not 4, but it didn't have to be that way. I think most of us would agree that not having a Brimley station is a mistake, however most of us also agree that this subway was stupid to begin with. However council may still change their minds on having that station. If not, then it's also possible that the EA might recommend to shorten the tunnel by moving Lawrence station from McCowan to Brimley, or that the subway take a more diagonal path, or both. Regardless, suburban subways will always have large stop spacing compared to older areas. On Danforth, the subway stops every 600 metres, and the fact that your DRL continues on for 3.1 km to an industrial park is completely out of touch with how most cities have built transit in the dense inner city. I love streetcars, but putting one on Cosburn as a sop to the residents you left behind will not improve their commute times or turn Cosburn into another lively Queen St (it's all residential, no retail). If your goal is to speed up the travel time between Don Mills & Eglinton and downtown, then build a new station on the Richmond Hill GO line at Wynford Dr. If your goal is to save money, then you get what you pay for: a line with abysmal ridership and scant benefits.

The problem with the University-Spadina line isn’t that it’s in the middle of a highway. It’s that area NIMBYs oppose development, rezoning, and upzoning around stations. Just like many of our stations. There have been plans for decades to develop around that line’s stations (e.g Lawrence Heights). There’s interest by the City and by developers. NIMBYs are the reason we’re not seeing it. Where the train runs when it’s between stations is a non-issue in this regard.

Building a subway in the middle of a highway is the worst place to do it. Just compare the difference in public realm, quality of life, and build form seen on Yonge & Lawrence vs Lawrence West station, or York Mills vs Wilson. One of the reasons why there is low development demand on the Spadina line, is that living next to a highway is undesirable, nor is it not good for your health. Whatever possible development sites that may exist are few and far between, and are adjacent to stable residential areas (hence there's NIMBYism too). My point was, when you cheap out on subways, you get inferior transit and reduced development opportunities. Despite the subway, nearby Dufferin street is lined with undeveloped strip malls, choked with traffic, and has one of the busiest bus routes in the city. This just shows you where people are actually coming from. Had the subway gone under Dufferin, things would have turned out a lot different, and the subway would have been a little less empty in the evening.

And what I've learned about rapid transit in TO is that building a subway to some empty fields for new development is way more realistic than building a subway to current density nodes. Sheppard, Spadina ext, SRT, B/D extension...history proves this.

Wait, what? Are you saying that the Sheppard subway was a successful result of realistic transit planning? Are you saying that building a subway to Vaughan before the clusterfuck at Yonge & Bloor is fixed makes perfect sense. If that the case, well you happened to pick the most unlikely development sites for some of your subway stations. If anything, history proves that building subways to nowhere is a great way to end up with a money pit for many decades, while everyone else will continue to be left on the curb by packed trains and buses.

My DRL intersects with Eglinton and Bloor/Danforth east of Yonge: so it does provide Yonge relief.

I never said it doesn't.

It can be built from St Andrew to Don Mills for half of the original DRL’s cost connecting those very same stations: surface and elevated costs less than tunnelling, there’s no denying that.

TTC version: $5.3 B
Your version: $3.2 B

Not half the cost, skips many neighbourhoods, will have less ridership.

The engineering which you tried to claim is impossible: well, I beg to differ.

I never said it's impossible.

That it misses out on key sections of Riverdale and East York: yes, that is the line’s issue. But if it means the DRL can actually get build and not ignored because we have $25bn worth of other transit priorities, then I’m willing to sacrifice those areas.

Phase one from St Andrew to Danforth is what will be built first, and there's little that can be done to reduce the cost. Phase two will extend the DRL west to Bloor, and will also be very expensive. Phase 3 to Don Mills that you are focused on is the last segment to be built, and is less important than the first two phases. It can wait until city hall and Queens Park are ready to pay for a proper subway line, not a nowhere line.