44 North
Senior Member
It can work, and I think it is worth it. Twin bored tunnels, platform in the middle. As you’ve shown in your image of Finch West, the entire platform area doesn’t need to be opened to the surface during construction - which is a common practice. So yes, the 504 and 505 can be disrupted, or it can be kept going with some engineering work (more likely the former over the latter). But even if it does require diverting, it’s not that big of an issue. Those lines can be looped on Broadview at Queen, Dundas, or Gerrard; and buses can hit up Broadview in their place. I'm assuming such will be the case when the DRL intersects with Line 1 if under King or Queen. And again, the gradients and curves in this section are nothing crazy. And nothing here is “hanging off the side of the valley†(that's a bit rich). And you're right that Broadview has a bend at this point, which is a complication. But it's nothing that will rule out construction. Here's a slapdash image to show possibilities:
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.
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.
Originally when I posted this idea back in Sept/Oct, I said I wanted the Prov to undertake this proposal for the sole reason that they’re less likely to sway to NIMBYism. Loot at the Georgetown South and UPX project: High frequency diesel behind people’s backyards, deafening pounding of pilings...and they got it done! Like I said before, I know this park and what the viaduct through Riverdale would entail. I actually thought of the idea whilst standing on the pedestrian bridge connecting the two parks. I’m not saying there won’t be opposition. But these issues can be remedied with meetings and promises (e.g tree plantings to hide the viaduct, improved baseball diamonds, improved/asphalt running track, aesthetically pleasing design). The tree-planting idea I think would go a long way to allowing this proposal. Bring Back the Don and TRCA has continually been identifying areas for planting and naturalization. And a similar point about renaturalization post-bridge construction was made in the Yonge North study. The traditional DRL bridge between O’Connor to Thorncliffe is even closer to a larger number of homes. The same issues will arise there, and similar promises will have to be made to allow it.
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 “unprecedentedâ€. 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 large 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.
Frankly, I think many will be in for a rude awakening regarding stations and density increases along the traditional DRL route south of Danforth. Much of the area is predominantly detached Edwardian homes. Edwardian means by default they have heritage value and it’s without a question there will be a vociferous uproar about a) removing rows of them for stations and development; and b) changing the neighbourhood’s character. Aside from a couple highrises directly south of Broadview Stn, there is only one tall building in that large quadrant south of the Danforth (it’s an aluminum-sided standalone oddity on Logan that sticks out like a sore thumb). The community opposition to higher-density development in this area isn’t hypothetical - there’s well-documented resistance. All the development in that area in recent memory has been lowrise and mostly townhomes. Carlaw is seeing midrise factory loft conversions, but I can’t think of a single area where high-density has been approved.
And if you need more proof about this opposition, look at the Danforth. It has a subway, but where’s the density? Why haven’t any tall buildings been approved? Interestingly, the only tall buildings between Broadview and Woodbine are at Broadview. Between Danforth and Mortimer, yes there’s a lot of density and I can see some growth potential. But as it stands the only highrise growth I’ve seen in that area in the last decade or so has been on Broadview at Pottery Rd. As for anything around O’Connor, much of that area is almost as suburban as Mississauga. Even adding a second storey to some homes is a complex undertaking that local NIMBYS routinely oppose.
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.
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.
Yeah, well. There’s still some development opportunity there, and a current condo proposal closeby. Even the nearby Loblaws can be turned into a development. As for the Midtown Line...my proposal doesn’t rule that out.
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.
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 “nothingâ€). 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 “growthâ€.
I recall the word “miraculousâ€, which I interpret as meaning impossible. Not to mention the fact that you started that post by saying how the elevations were too high to properly connect under Broadview (they aren't), that there was nowhere to realistically launch tunnels (there's actually several perfect locations), and that you left blank spaces for more yet-to-be-determined theories as to why it's somehow technically unfeasible.
So an extra $2,100,000,000 for a little bit more development (or arguably less)? And a marginal increase in new ridership (or arguably less)? I dunno, I think my Don Line can give the traditional DRL a run for its money. Not trying to sound cocky, deluded, or trolling. But I believe in this proposal more now than I did before.
My focus is Phase I and III built in one shot.
