A few more things that I should add to my previous post:
Very easy to refute: I think it’s quite safe to say that intercepting B/D at Broadview would result in a greater diversion of Yonge-bound riders than if the intercepting line were to be further east at Pape. I may make some diagrams and charts to show this, but it seems to be a logical conclusion. Surely others agree with me on this?
A small study showing one routing option, and a statement supporting that option, doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
Amazingly, now you're trying to outsmart the team of experts who worked on that report for years, and dismiss it as a "small study". Obviously there's a lot more work to be done, but there has to be some logic as to why Pape has been the preferred option all along, including in the Network 2011 plan created back in 1985. I get what you're trying to say, but by that logic it can be argued that Sherbourne would provide even more diversion because it's further down the line and would thus allow more people to transfer. Problem is, trains are getting way too crowded down the line. Today it's already jam packed at Pape let alone Broadview, and that will not get any better with decades of future population growth even with the help of Smart Track. Pape appears to strike the best balance between diverting riders from Bloor-Yonge and creating capacity on the BD line, while also allowing for a northerly extention to Eglinton.
Queen/Broadview is great and big things are happening. But I still consider it to be within walking distance of a theoretical station at Queen/River, as well it will have ST Unilever Stn.
Interesting argument. Actually, that's completely valid, which I will now apply to Oak station. Queen/Broadview works out to be a 7 minute walk from Queen/River, which is perfectly acceptable. Here's what that looks like:
However most people are willing to walk longer than that. Planners typically use 10 minutes as the catchment area, as they did with the
Dufferin LRT station for example. So lets see how far 10 minutes can get you:
Well isn't that interesting! Now what were you saying again...
River at Oak has seen a highrise proposal; a rather large one. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see more proposals b/n River and Bayview from Queen to Gerrard. Just like other areas outside the core, it's considered an underseved shoulder area. Whereas Pape/Gerrard will have ST, this will have nothing.
It turns out that the lions share of density around Oak is close enough to Queen/River station, especially the area between River and Bayview from Queen to Gerrard that you singled out for future development. What Oak station really does different, is benefit low-rise Cabbagetown at the expense of having no GO connection and one less streetcar compared to Queen/River. Meanwhile the 505 and 506 are still a good option for quick door to door transit to huge destinations like Eatons, Dundas Square, Ryerson and U of T, and personally I would rather use that then to take two subway trains to those same places. Underseved it isn't.
Now for some reason you can't seem to grasp the greater importance of a GO RER mobility hub at Gerrard Square and other places, so let me pull out some numbers this time. From that same report:
There appears to be a high number of transfers from GO Transit’s Lakeshore East and Richmond Hill services at Gerrard/Pape and Bayview/River stations. However, there is an additional reduction in passenger alightings from GO Rail services at Union Station due to the western leg. Specifically, there appears to be a high number of transfers at Dundas West, Roncesvalles and Queen/Dufferin stations from GO Transit’s Georgetown, Lakeshore West and Milton services respectively. Overall there are 10,000 less passengers alighting from GO Rail services at Union Station with both the eastern and western legs of the DRL, representing a 15% reduction in passenger activity at Union Station. Significantly relieving Union Station demands is an added benefit of this DRL option.
So there's a high number of transfers to the DRL, combined with a 15% reduction at overcrowded Union station. And as for station by station usage during the AM peak hour:
Lets use Queen/River to represent Oak station, since they mostly overlap anyway. You said that Gerrard Square station is not justified because there happens to be less density there, and yet it has more boardings than Queen/River where there's more density. As I tried to say all along, density does not contribute as much ridership as as having good connections to surface transit routes. This just further proves my point that Gerrard is a better and more useful station. Not only that, but even Queen/River would get better numbers than Oak because there's more density, more streetcar connections, plus another GO station. I also think the report underestimates the volume of transfers from GO to DRL, because the 2031 reference networked didn't forecast Smart Track and GO RER. All it had assumed were these following extensions:
- Lakeshore West GO from Hamilton to St. Catharines
- Lakeshore East GO from Oshawa to Bowmanville
- Georgetown GO from Georgetown to Kitchener
- Stouffville GO from Stouffville to Lincolnville
- Milton GO from Milton to Cambridge.
More of an open statement: I’ve never once said anything negative about the DRL. I want it to happen. But if it’s not going to happen (which is a distinct possibility), then I’d like there to be a backup alternative which can fulfill almost all the original promises of a DRL.
You claim that your DRL costs about the same as phase I of the conventional DRL. If lack of funds prevent the conventional DRL from happening, then I don't see why your backup plan will happen instead.
Some may prefer a rinkydink TC Don Mills LRT, but I think this plan is better. Does anyone recall TC Phase II – Don Mills LRT? I think my proposal makes a lot more sense than having a trolley trundling along Overlea and Pape; or descending 150ft to the valley floor, meandering beside a river, then somehow abruptly ending at Castle Frank and having passengers connect to B/D via a 120ft-high and 500ft-long escalator tube. That was a bad idea for a relief line.
What the heck are you talking about? The Transit City map had the LRT go down to Pape station, not the Don Valley. More recently however, plans have changed to have the LRT terminate at Eglinton instead, because according to Steve Munro:
- Pape ave is too narrow for a ROW, so the LRT would have to go underground
- The Leaside bridge is not strong enough to carry LRT, so it would need structural modifications
- Because there's so much infrastructure investment required, it would be better to invest in a subway instead
My proposal allows for large-scale development - at least significantly larger than the traditional DRL alignment.
No it doesn't. Development at Thorncliffe Park is supposedly the best part about your plan that makes it a huge game changer over the conventional DRL, and that it will thus translate to more new ridership growth. That is not gonna happen. First of all, this
recent article about several rezoning proposals at Don Mills & Eglinton demonstrate just how protective the city is of its employment lands:
Six major rezoning requests have been filed with the City by owners looking to rezone lots totalling 132.6 hectares near Don Mills Road. Re-zoning these lands to mixed use would allow new developments including condo towers, offices and retail spaces. All six requests were denied.
Celestica Inc. is one of the applicants in Don Mills. The company is seeking to convert its property, at 844 Don Mills Road, a former factory and office complex for IBM, to a mixed-use complex. The initial proposal detailed a plan to build eight new condo towers which would include 2,897 condo units. The city refused the application for an Official Plan Amendment; the company is appealing to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Many redevelopment proposals apply to sites which are currently industrial, which the City Toronto has been battling for years to retain for workplaces. “Jobs make better use of transit than residences as a land use,” Day says. “People who live along the corridor need a chance to work along the corridor as well, so it’s important to maintain the employment uses.”
Even at a prime location like Don Mills and Eglinton where there is strong desire to increase density, projecting jobs remain a higher priority. Meanwhile there's a highly dense, compact community of 15,000 people and high unemployment, but what you want to do is put your station in a remote location, gerrymander existing bus routes toward new side streets to access that station, and raze the entire business park so that you can create a new community instead of serving the one that exists today. But at the same time you oppose Gerrard station that would get more usage, because "oh look there's a tower proposal at Oak St".
You're also under the impression that Thorncliffe Park has mediocre development potential with the conventional DRL. Except that's also wrong. It's already among the densest neighbourhoods in Canada to begin with, but here are some of the possible development sites that don't involve tearing down office buildings (unless it's to make way for bigger ones):
The main entrance of the station will likely be built in front of East York Town Centre, which is the main shopping hub of this neighbourhood. No resident faces more than a 10 minute walk to either the mall or the station, but this could be further enhanced by expanding the existing network of pedestrian paths in and around Burgess Park. Parking lots at the mall are available for Park and Ride commuters, but can eventually be moved underground and redeveloped. Existing TTC bus routes are already quite efficient to begin with, and do not have to be rerouted elsewhere to connect with the subway.
Your plan also ignores Flemingdon Park, where there could have been further opportunities for development. I haven't even highlighted some of the lowrise townhomes in the area.
I think it can be well argued that my Don Line proposal:
1. relieves Yonge more than the conventional DRL
2. has greater potential for large-scale, high-density development than the conventional DRL
3. consequently has greater potential for new ridership growth than the conventional DRL
4. provides a faster/shorter trip than the conventional DRL
5. costs at least two billion dollars less than the conventional DRL
And to conclude:
1. If that were the case, I'm not seeing evidence of that in any new and old studies so far
2. Fail. Your idea of development goes against the Official Plan and will not be approved
3. You avoided many communities, you avoided important links to the RER network, you have fewer stations at the worst locations which rely on residential development that is out of touch with the city's best interests
4. Only because there's less stations, as if that was a good thing. Your line puts far more people at a disadvantage than those that benefit, so maybe it's times to stop using that misleading argument
5. And that's the only reason why you are still pushing this inferior transit plan
