That's better. Still needs a crossover and wye junction.
As for a switchover to B/D...I don’t want to get into that quite yet because I don’t know what vehicles I’d like to use. I’ve always been partial to LRT. Heck, I wouldn’t care all that much if it were recycled CLRVs coupled together. If you say the ridership will be so low, then surely an LRT solution can work. But long and short, I have thought about it. I’m just not fully decided yet.
An LRT has always been ruled out by the TTC. Some station locations are better than others, but no matter which route it takes through the downtown core, it will have more ridership than what an LRT can handle. Therefore LRT is out of the question. When I say your route will have low ridership, I'm talking about north of Danforth especially.
Bus routes can be altered. And I’ve already mentioned my (yet to be published) parallel fantasy idea about extending the 504/505 up Broadview and looping it back to service Pape Village and draw more riders to Broadview. It can work quite well, even if it involves single track sections. Transit City-lite, yo! Fact of the matter is that Broadview has more usage, and buses that otherwise go to Pape can be diverted to Broaview - thus bumping up the the ridership further. As for worrying about providing relief to B/D...I think SmartTrack has got that covered. IMO that line is more of a B/D relief than Yonge.
The reason why you chose Broadview has everything to do with putting the DRL in the Don Valley. Rearranging buses and streetcars to artificially inflate ridership at your preferred station is not how important decisions like this should be justified. How about I propose to reroute some those buses to Pape, and boom Pape now has higher ridership than Broadview, therefore Pape should be the interchange. As I've said, Broadview many not necessarily remain more used than Pape when the DRL is built. For one, the 100 Flemingdon Park bus would stop coming to Broadview, and would terminate at Thorncliffe or Flemingdon Park station.
Regarding your proposed rerouting exercise:
- The TTC doesn't like to build streetcars in mixed traffic anymore, due to high cost for low benefit. These days, they demand a ROW for any streetcar expansion
- Splitting transit service on the same street at Pape village by extending the streetcar and having buses cover the rest is not an improvement over the existing bus route
- Pape Ave will still need bus service since there's not gonna be a subway under your plan, and you want to move it to Broadview where there's already four bus routes that overlap
Stupid or not, the Scarb Subway was voted on and supported by a majority at Council; plus the Prov and Feds. Even Tory recently said he prefers the 3.5km stop spacing. So it’s not really all that “unprecedented”. And 3.5km is still larger than my 3.1km, not to mention with an actual population bypassed in between. Unless you think a stop at Brickworks is logical, it should be pretty obvious why there’s such a la`rge gap between stops when crossing the valley at that point. And guess what, most cities build transit like I’ve proposed: more direct routes, use of greenspace, use of open air sections for a line, sacrifices for cost-savings. In case you weren’t aware, transit costs nowadays – but more specifically in TO – are absolutely astronomical. The Crosstown alone is up there with some of the world’s most expensive RT projects. Honestly, I think most cities building anything akin to the DRL, for such ridiculous costs, would avoid the disjointed “fair” approach of serving every neighbourhood along the way.
So council killed the LRT in favour of a subway that most transit planners strongly disagree with, and whose routing has not been finalized yet. Therefore it's ok to take inspiration from a bad decision. You should really be comparing the stop spacing seen in East York which averages about 600 m, not suburbia transit that serves a completely different buildform. Yes, it is very obvious why your line goes on for 3.1 km: because there is nothing there. Even where your subway finally comes to a stop, there is still almost nothing there. This is precisely the reason why I don't like this route.
As for the cost argument, there's over $15 billion dollars of rapid transit under construction or about to begin in Toronto and the GTA, with another $15 billion or so promised for the next wave of projects like GO RER, DRL, Yonge extension, and Hurontario LRT. So yes, money for transit is coming to Toronto, and when the time is right I believe that a proper DRL up to Eglinton is not unrealistic, and is something that we should start planning for today. If this city cannot find the money to invest in proper transit, then we are not worthy of our status as an alpha world city.
So on top of having SmartTrack with direct service to the core, the non-high density area around Pape from Queen to Gerrard will also have underground subway service. Does such a heavy investment there seem realistic? Meanwhile you write-off River St even when I pointed out that a tower project has been proposed to adjoin another tower project, all next to a huge area in the throes of higher density redevelopment.
You should really be arguing against the TTC and their decades of experience, not me. The BD line is very well used despite having both low density and frequent stop spacing. Let me say this again:
subway station ridership comes from surface transit, not density. In addition, your line completely avoids having any interchanges with GO RER. The TTC is well known for ignoring GO transit, and yet even they seem to have a better grasp than you at the importance of integrating the subway with GO transit, which is a trend that is increasingly becoming the new normal. Downsview Park subway station, Caledonia crosstown station, and Mt Dennis crosstown station are just a few examples of what's to come.
Gerrard Station: this will be a key interchange with two frequent GO lines akin to Bloor GO / Dundas West station. It connects with the 72 Pape bus that serve the future Portlands communities. It connects with the 506 streetcar, which is also wonderful because: Starting from Main St, the distance to the next subway station (currently Yonge & College) will be cut in half --> This will both shorten commute times for many existing 506 riders, while also attracting a number of new riders who currently prefer taking one of the many north-south bus routes to the BD line since it's currently a much faster way to get downtown than taking this streetcar. Your Oak station also connects to the 506, but it takes longer to get there.
These connections alone will ensure that this station will be well used. But as for development, there a lot of land ripe for development in the immediate vicinity. In fact there are very few plots of land south of Danforth with as much development potential as this one. I encourage you to check out google streetview on Carlaw street, from Gerrard to Queen. There's almost as much land to develop here as your Oak station. It doesn't matter whether it's 12 storeys or 30, it's still urban renewal, and walk-in traffic from pure residential development alone (both it's here and at River St) makes a minuscule contribution to station usage compared to the connecting transit routes. There will be more people coming in from the Portlands via the 72 Pape bus than from any of these condos.
^Note that I may have highlighted some land that has already been developed by now. If that's the cause, then great. Progress is already underway.
Queen East Station: Not as important as Gerrard, but is 1.2 km away from the next station at River St, which is already a lot more than the Danforth line stop spacing. It connects with the extremely busy 501 streetcar. And just like with the previous station, it will dramatically shorten access time to the subway from the east end, thus improving their commute times, and providing relief to a streetcar that's jam packed long before it even crosses the Don River. There is also massive development planned south of Eastern Ave and in the Portlands. While it's not in the immediate vicinity of Queen East, it's time to stop assuming that subway stations are only there to serve the front door of a few condos. The 72 Pape bus will be bringing tons of people from the Portlands to this station, and will also continue north to Gerrard Station for those who need to use GO.
Bayview-River St Station: Connects with the Richmond Hill GO line. The main problem with this line that causes low ridership today is that it doesn't have enough stations, partly because it's located in the valley. Hmmm, sounds familiar? A new GO station in downtown for the RH line that also interchanges with the DRL and two streetcar lines, will provide new options for those who's trip does not end at Union station, and thus a new alternative to the Yonge Line for some North York and 905 residents. Since the RH line will never connect with the BD subway for obvious reasons, this is the next best solution. To further improve the usefulness of the RH line, there should also be new stations at 16th Ave, John St, York Mills, Don Mills, Lawrence, and Eglinton Ave. Other than that, Bayview-River St station also connects with two of the busiest streetcar lines, and serves lots of new development in the area.
I don't have to talk about the remaining stations, as they do pretty much the same thing for the west end.
So on top of having SmartTrack with direct service to the core, the non-high density area around Pape from Queen to Gerrard will also have underground subway service. Does such a heavy investment there seem realistic? Meanwhile you write-off River St even when I pointed out that a tower project has been proposed to adjoin another tower project, all next to a huge area in the throes of higher density redevelopment.
Yes. That heavy investment for a key mobility hub will be absolutely worthwhile. No matter where the DRL gets built, there will always be a few highrise buildings somewhere that won't have a subway station at their front door. I can put a station at King & Spadina, which is a good location but some people will still believe that it should have been at City Place or Rogers Centre instead because there's more towers there.
This location is already well served by the 506 and 505 streetcars that provide access to the Yonge line within a few minutes. They also provide residents with direct access to many huge destinations such as Dundas Square, Eaton Centre, Ryerson, and U of T without having to take the stairs and use two subway lines. Both streetcars have plenty of capacity available to accommodate new development because:
- the 506 Carlton will have offloaded many passengers at Gerrard Square station before it gets to River St
- the 505 Dundas has only been en-route for 10 minutes from Broadview station by the time it gets here, and streetcar stops on Broadview are also shared by the King streetcar
- by the way, just 10 minutes to access either Danforth or Yonge line by streetcar, is a lot better than what can be said about much of the city's dense neighbourhoods, including the ones you've left behind
As I've said, Oak station relies on residential development that cannot happen at a large enough scale to get the same kind of high walk-in ridership like at Sherbourne station or North York Centre, because as i've said: to the north you have untouchable Cabbagetown, and to the east you have the Don River just one block away. You cite Regent Park which it's more mid-rise than high-rise, and those three ugly towers that are about to get a fourth one. Other than that, all this station does is connect with one streetcar line. I'm not trying to write off this area. I love Regent Park, but I believe it's already well served, and that there is a better opportunity at Gerrard Square to create a
more useful station. A mobility hub whose benefits will extend much more far and wide than Oak station, whose ridership will be higher, and which would decrease commute times for more people. Not far south from here, there's already the planned Bayview-River St Station that serves a similar kind of area as Oak, except that it also connects to a GO line, two streetcars, and has more density planned here than Oak. Meanwhile, you yourself write off one of the densest neighbourhoods in Toronto:
"The stations aren’t close enough to Thorncliffe or Flemingdon. Big whoop. Those ‘tower in a park’ neighbourhoods are suburban by default, and have been proudly so for decades. They have ample parking and spacious tree-lined roadways. Why is it so necessary to spend $Billions – sacrificing other priorities or nearby development opportunities - just to place a station adjacent to a few 60s-era, auto-centric buildings that really aren’t all that high-density to begin with? And they still get service, in an area prime for development. So what if it’s slightly farther than some expected."
Needless to say,
nobody agrees with you.
An extension of Redway Rd as part of its extension to Bayview isn’t unrealistic. With Thorncliffe Pk Drive connected and looped to Beth Nielson, I think a solid grid could be created. At the very least something to run buses into a bus bay built as part of the station. The greenspace below the hydro corridor can be used for surface or station parking...which isn’t anything new for the TTC (e.g Finch). As for redeveloping manufacturing and warehouses into some other use (which can still involve land zoned for employment), that’s up to the City’s planning department. It can be done, and it has been done. Comparing this site to Kipling is actually quite apt, considering their similarities. There are numerous other sprawling TTC stations I can compare it to, but Kipling fits well because it also has a freight corridor next to it.
Compare if you want, but Kipling gets very high ridership because of it's many bus connections plus the GO station. Open up any transit map and just look at where all these buses are coming from. Finch, same thing: a high ridership station where trains arrive with standing room only, tons of bus routes serving a huge catchment area, and prime locations on Toronto's main street that have attracted office buildings in addition to lots of condos. Thorncliffe is at an awkward location that is difficult to reroute buses to in an elegant way, and you know it. Rezoning more employment lands so that more jobs can be lost to the 905 is not in the city's best interest, and is something that is routinely oppose everywhere else. I'm all for development and urban renewal, but this is not an appropriate development site, is not in the best location, is not high in demand like Finch, is not gonna attract enough development, and will hardly put a dent in ridership until the entire business park is razed for really large condos. I don't see that much demand here for so much development, nor do I expect an impoverished immigrant community to be driving their cars in droves to park at this station. At Finch and Kipling, the park & ride people are generally wealthier, and live in the 905 where transit is weaker and where the nearest subway transit station is too far to get to in a reasonable time. Contrary to what you said previously, Thorncliffe will not suddenly become middle class thanks to your DRL (or any), nor will it become desirable because of its seclusion. It hasn't happened to St James Town despite its downtown location, and I don't expect that to happen here either. Toronto's most sought after neighbourhoods are not ones that turn their backs to the city.
I don’t know about this “living next to a highway sucks” comment. There are people paying big money to live within spitting distance of the Gardiner, which is a proper expressway and is way worse than the Allen. I wouldn't do it personally, but others would. The Allen is just a short highway and hasn’t detracted from private interest. Like I’ve said, it’s local residents opposing development, not anything to do with the Allen itself. Or the odd station locations. As for the subway not travelling under Dufferin, sure it could’ve done that. But it would’ve been more expensive, and probably not have been built as a result. And even if it were, Dufferin may very well have remained as you describe it.
Downtown is downtown. People are moving there in droves, and are willing to live in the tiniest of condos located next to highways, busy rail corridors or wherever there's still room left to build, because the benefits of downtown living are totally worth it. My comments about Allen Road may not have been entirely accurate, but I think you know what I'm trying to say about building subway too cheaply. If you think Dufferin could have remained the same (and yes that was a possibility), then you should expect even less at your industrial park stations. Do you ever pause to think what would happen if development doesn't pan out has you're hoping? Just looks at Scarborough Centre, Warden, Kennedy, Downsview for example, all of which were more sensible development sites. And even the Sheppard subway, which did see development, has gained little if any ridership since it was built.
Never said Sheppard was successful. Merely that the Cdn Tire warehouse and ample land with “nothing there” is why the line got built. And nor am I saying that a Vaughan extension made sense, merely that it got built because ‘nothing was there’. I don’t agree with this method of building subways. But as history shows it’s how they get built in TO.
Although I’m not in any way against the traditional DRL alignment (contrary to how I’ve been labelled after posting my map), I will say with a straight face that development is a bigger driver of costly transit projects than simply building transit to existing neighbourhoods or current riders. Oftentimes it’s the swaths of greenfield, greyfield, and brownfield sites that are most attractive (i.e – what many here describe as “nothing”). As well, if there’s an opportunity to save $Billions of dollars at the expense of little ridership growth, most city’s would understandably take it. IMO existing riders simply switching from riding the Pape bus to walking into a future DRL station does not count as “growth”.
Vaughan and Sheppard has everything to do with politics and ego. Sheppard was approved with the help of unrealistic development projections in NYCC and STC that never materialized. Whatever was build to this day along Sheppard has done little if anything to increase ridership. At this point, Toronto is so far behind that we cannot keep building transit to empty fields that may or may not develop in the future, while dense neighbourhoods everywhere are left to fend for themselves. The DRL should have been built long ago at a time when there was actually "nothing there" outside the downtown core, but we've waited so long that those areas have been largely built out by now, and now it's time to serve them instead of focusing so much on the latest nowhere lands. Many of those "existing neighbourhoods" you speak of have lots more room to grow further or undergo badly needed urban renewal once planners are ready to stop ignoring them.
My focus is Phase I and III built in one shot.
Phase II should happen before phase III. It would divert more riders from Yonge & Bloor, serve more development happening there today than what your industrial park stations will ever get, bring enhanced access to GO RER in the west end, and provide relief to the streetcars. At least that's what the TTC thinks. To continue what I was saying above, the King streetcar situation is a perfect example of those "current riders" coming from "existing neighbourhoods" such as Liberty village. They have been ignored for far too long thanks to your preferred style of transit planning, to great detriment for quality of life. Fortunately the DRL is a solution that can remedy this particular example. A solution that you prefer to leave for last.
Not trying to sound cocky, deluded, or trolling. But I believe in this proposal more now than I did before. I think it can be well argued that my Don Line proposal:
-relieves Yonge more than the conventional DRL
-has greater potential for large-scale, high-density development than the conventional DRL
-consequently has greater potential for new ridership growth than the conventional DRL
-provides a faster/shorter trip than the conventional DRL
-costs at least two billion dollars less than the conventional DRL
Yeah, the more problems we point out, the more cocky you get. You're entitled to your own opinion, but it's quite obvious by now that your priorities are a little different than that of the TTC and Metrolinx, and your transit line is the product of your way of thinking:
- Bringing transit to empty sites are a higher priority than quelling un-met transit demand in places that already exist, along transit corridors that have high ridership today let alone tomorrow. Painful lessons learned from many failed development nodes are to be ignored.
- Having stronger links to transit routes that connect people from far and wide is not necessary because there happens to be less density, but Thorncliffe and Flemingdon Park are not worthy of a station. Accordingly, your line completely avoids GO, while other transit lines planned or under construction are doing the opposite.
- Saving about two extra minutes for people coming from Don Mills and Eglinton is considered a benefit, when far more people in other areas will face longer commute times than the conventional DRL.
- At a time when transit investment has never been higher, it's more important to save money today than to make sure that the most important transit line in the entire Big Move is built in a way that benefits the most people, and brings the most benefits for the city
- Somehow, a line with less ridership that provides less relief to the BD line, will provide more relief to the Yonge line and Bloor/Yonge station than the conventional DRL.
- The criteria for choosing the all important interchange location with the BD line to build phase III as part of phase I as cheaply as possible, rather than to provide the most relief as originally intended. It's the job of Smart Track pick up the slack. Whether that will be good enough to provide enough capacity to accommodate decades of future growth and decreasing car usage is uncertain, but that concern takes a back seat to putting the DRL in the Don Valley, and leaving phase II for last.
I will eat my words if your alignment gets short listed during the EA process currently underway, but I don't expect that to happen.
