That's better. Still needs a crossover and wye junction.
“That’s better� Didn’t I and another poster point out to you that a station need not be totally open to the surface during construction, and therefore doesn’t need to follow the street for its entirety? You were wrong, I wasn’t. As for requiring the wye...not if using different vehicles. Probably a vehicle that would likely be used for RER, or more specifically; Richmond Hill RER. In other words it’s not necessary for the DRL to use TTC subways, and if interlined with ST or RER - won’t be.
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.
Last week I was told my proposal would have very little ridership; now it’s above LRT threshold? For a line that costs less than $300M/km, being above LRT threshold is pretty good in my books.
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.
If Pape has the DRL, bus routes should definitely be designed to offload there. But rather than talking hypothetically about what the future may hold, I’m talking about the fact that Broadview has higher ridership than Pape. Another fact is that it’s also further west than Pape, which is a bonus in the reasons why Broadview makes a better B/D intercept station for a relief line. Another fact is what you agreed with: that bus routes are not fixed and can be altered – whether to future Broadview or future Pape.
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
Maybe not a completely tangible improvement to operations; but an East York streetcar line would allow for all the property value increases, upzoning, and development that some posters claim is only contingent on a heavy rail underground subway. Not to mention an improved rider experience over a bus. All at a mere fraction of the price of heavy rail underground subways.
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.
The post you replied to was all true. And again, I don’t even really support building costly infrastructure in such a way. Economics, capitalism, politics, and reality does. If there were more derelict factories and warehouses on the traditional DRL route, I’m quite certain it would’ve been up and running years ago.
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.
Yeah, well. Unfortunately development dollars are spread across the city, and dedicated funding sources don’t bring in enough to cover what we need. Not to mention the fact that subway infrastructure seems to outpace inflation, and a billion dollars is a shit ton of money. Speeding up the commute of current TTC riders in Pape Village or Thorncliffe is not even really a part of the reason we need a DRL. At least not in the top five reasons. Again, not saying conventional DRL is unimportant.
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.
That wasn’t an argument. I asked a question which many have trouble answering. Does it seem realistic to have $Billions spent on what essentially amounts to two costly rapid transit lines (and what can be argued as a duplication of service) around Gerrard Sq? Without writing paragraphs of your opinion on why you think it’s a good idea (which I pretty much agree with on), just answer if you believe it’s realistic.
Gerrard Station:
^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.
You don’t need to lecture me about Toronto, particularly this area. I know what’s there, what’s not there, and what will never be there. Relieving the downtown surface network is one of the reasons for the DRL. The 72 Pape bus and 506 (well outside of downtown) isn’t really an issue in that regard. While you rely on an outdated aerial image or some amateur website to get an idea of what’s going on in that area, I know exactly what’s there. And alternately what won’t be there.
There’s also a SmartTrack station, which would bring people downtown and across downtown faster. Are you aware that this DRL map was created before SmartTrack’s incarnation and priority status? Have you contemplated the potential for some kind of mutual exclusivity?
I’m aware of the development, I’m aware of the Port Lands. I’m aware WT has focused on an LRT solution for our waterfront, and I’m aware that there’s to be a SmartTrack station a few blocks west of this supposed Queen Stn. But in case you weren’t aware, SmartTrack is now our priority, it was created after this map, and it’s also taken priority status from the DRL shown in this map.
Bayview-River St Station:
I don't have to talk about the remaining stations, as they do pretty much the same thing for the west end.
The main problem with this station is that it probably won’t be built. No agency will build or insure a surface station within feet of a volatile river that experienced two major flooding episodes a month apart in just one summer. Perhaps the line can be elevated, while also ducking under the bridge. But apparently to some elevated means it will be a roller coaster or amusement park ride, or something to that effect.
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.
I know this area extremely well. I asked if it seems realistic to build a very costly subway station, as part of a very costly line, in an area opposed to high density development - all alongside a second rapid transit line/station (which has been prioritized in place of a DRL). Do you think the City or Prov will follow through with such an investment? Don’t you think ST may have taken the role of the DRL for this area? It’s a simple question.
Needless to say, nobody agrees with you.
Uncalled for sweeping statement; there are people outside this forum. Perhaps 99% of Ontarians and Canadians outside of Toronto believe that it doesn’t make fiscal sense to spend a billion dollars to bring stations slightly closer to current residents, just to avoid having some transit riders walk 200m further. I don’t even really agree all that much with this sentiment. But if presented with a surface or trenched station for significantly less – while providing a similar service; they’d probably prefer 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
IIRC our discussion about this Thornclife Stn – and comparing it to other TTC stations like Kipling – is that properties around it can be rezoned, upzoned, and developed; and that the station can still be very much used. In other words, the station is realistic; as is development around it. Whether you think it’s a bad station location or a good one is superflous. People in Thorncliffe Park can use this affordable station, which you seem to agree with. Those in any future development around the station (such as the mammoth Coke site) will be even closer. As a bonus, many current residents are within very reasonable walking distance (1km, which isn’t unrealistic for RT, particularly in the suburbs) And yes, Thorncliffe and Flemingdon are very much suburban – even considering their proximity to downtown.
Again, you don’t need to give me your opinions on what I already know. I know this city quite well. St James Town? It’s fully turning around. Just as many towers in Toronto are. Yes, the City still houses riff raff in some TCHC buildings, but the neighbourhood is changing very much – despite your assumption that it hasn’t. It’s a nice vibrant area, Manhattan-esque, crime is way down, yuppies are returning. Neighbourhoods cycle, just as Thorncliffe and Flemingdon will. I’ve explained how and why they will. As for claiming that secluded enclaves are undesirable...okay, that’s not all that right. But whatever.
The majority of cities worldwide try to find savings when building subways. Or when building anything major for that matter. And I know I was right about why there’s little development around stations along the Allen. You agreed with me. As for oddly arranged, anti-pedestrian stations with bus bays...that’s a TTC and City Planning issue. And an issue somewhat unique to TO. But whether it’s along a highway, deep underwater, or through a wormhole; how a line is run when it’s between stations is virtually inconsequential to station usage or nodal development around stations.
Vaughan and Sheppard has everything to do with politics and ego.
I explained how I side with your opinions more than not. But I made a point about how developing large developable properties plays a leading role in getting major infrastructure projects approved (whether greenfield, greyfield, brownfield, blockbusting etc). There’s much evidence to prove this, which I’ve pointed to. You still haven’t disproved this fact.
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.
Yes, well, the area around Gerrard Square or Carlaw will be nothing like Liberty Village. I’ve already given evidence why. If the DRL can be built in one go, I think everyone here will support it. But it doesn’t seem like it will. Phase I DRL + rinkydink Don Mills LRT is my best case scenario.
And what is the reasoning for the DRL? Relieve Yonge, relieve downtown surface network while giving cross-downtown service, and improve development opportunities. Which seems to be in line with its mandate. I don’t think improving the travel time for current transit users in Pape Village or around Gerrard Square is all that much reason to spend $Billions on a DRL. Particularly with SmrtTrack prioritized. Again, not my opinion. Just stating a logical conclusion as to its buildability, and possibly why it won’t get built.
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:
Oh please. “The more problems we point out� Recall the supposed engineering issues that you claimed were so numerous that you rudely left a series of blank spaces for people to fill in? Recall that they didn’t exist? Recall using a photograph of the Viaduct in some rude and weird attempt to disprove the feasibility of my plan? Or your point about carving station boxes? I’m no engineer, but I very easily refuted those futile attempts.
It seems there’s very few “problems†left with my plan. I can count two (which are more inconveniences than “problemsâ€). On top of the fact that it falls very much in line with past TTC projects/plans (i.e – building to “nowhereâ€, utilizing existing infrastructure, using open air or elevated sections, etc). Are you even aware of the Network 2011 DRL and the elevated sections and beelines it had? The all-underground DRTES DRL with many stops and serving already developed areas is nothing like what the TTC or the City has tackled before.
And as for those around Gerrard Square or Queen/Carlaw, they have SmartTrack coming. And with my Don Line offering stations within walking distance of both Thorncliffe and Flemingdon (1km to rapid transit is considered “walking distanceâ€, which is reasonable for suburban areas), the only real area left out is Pape Village (which is within the cusp of walking distance of the current Pape Stn – 1km – 10min walk). I’ve already covered how my route offers opportunity for large-scale development. As well as how it’s very much technically feasible. So as it stands, the biggest issues (or “problemsâ€) with my proposal are that Pape Village is ‘underserved’ (but not really), and that a short elevated section of track may require negotiations with area residents (I previously explained how it’s possible). That’s it.
-$2bn cost saving over conventional DRL
-greater relief of Yonge than the conventional DRL
-more direct/faster route than the DRL,
-south of B/D intersects with the very same surface routes as the DRL
-intersects with all the key transportation nodes req’d for the DRL (Eg/Don Mills, B/D, downtown surface network).
-and factoring in SmartTrack existence, quite possibly more realistic as a rapid transit relief line than the DRL
I’ve already given evidence why this is true. I get that people don’t want to hear it, which is their prerogative. But opinions and beliefs are not disproof. I’d rather a subway line going to what some describe as “nothing†(even though it’s definitely something, and could be something more) - than nothing.
***
Unfortunately, despite the cost savings (which I think is the only reason you continue to advocate it) your meandering route through the Don Valley doesn't come close to fulfilling the benefits of a more conventional DRL.
Metrolinx and the TTC would be better off waiting until more funding was available than to actually pursue such a plan. That isn't a personal attack but objectively analyzing your plan, it fails to connect key transportation nodes, residential areas as well as trip generating surface routes that would actually make it a viable and well utilized piece of infrastructure. Your plan likens the DRL to some sort of multi-billion dollar amusement park ride.
If SmartTrack is our priority, we’ll be waiting a long time for the DRL. And in that waiting period more areas along the conventional DRL route will have developed; thus reducing the city’s desire to use the DRL as a tool for spurring development or upzoning. And my route is less meandering than the conventional DRL, which is evidence by its shorter and more direct route.
Amusement park ride? Oh right, because using an existing bridge, as well as building a short elevated section...smh. Have you seen the plans for Network 2011? Meanwhile we have posters drawing DRL’s with stops every few hundred metres, making circuitous beelines to the waterfront, and essentially rendering the Relief Line as the Alternate Line. And with SmartTrack in place - a very costly and somewhat Duplicate Alternate Line.
***
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".
Not trying to “outsmart†anybody. And has it always been Pape? There’s been various incarnations of this line, and Pape has definitely been identified as a B/D interchange station for different studies. But if we’re going by Network 2011’s formal wording of the term DRL, and assuming it was the right plan, shouldn’t we also embrace the elevated portions and other things the DRTES doesn’t have? And I’m not saying Pape doesn’t make sense. But I stand by my comment that Broadview provides better relief than Pape.
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:
Well isn't that interesting! Now what were you saying again...
Okay, but with that logic shouldn’t my Thorncliffe station provide an adequate catchment for Thorncliffe Park? And ditto for my Don Mills/Eglinton station and how it serves Flemingdon?
It turns out that the lions share of density around Oak is close enough to Queen/River station,.
I also thought of putting just one station at Dundas to serve both Queen and Gerrard. But because King/Queen is a key area, and it is important to intercept E/W surface routes, I put one at Gerrard as well.
Re: “underservedâ€... I guess I meant how the enormous density increase with Regent and Moss Park redevelopments, new highrises proposals, spinoff projects from WDL and Pan AM, etc continue to rely on streetcars; but some lowrise area a couple km outside of downtown, around a crappy mall that was recently developed - in an area that will remain low to mid density and is mostly a sea of century homes - gets not one but TWO rapid transit lines? I think using the term “underserved†is apt to describe the east downtown shoulder area in that situation. At least in how it compares to the Pape/Carlaw area with its two lines.
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:
Okay. But what does the report say once SmartTrack is completed? And I don’t recall saying Gerrard Square isn’t “justifiedâ€. Maybe I was questioning whether it’s realistic that we’ll be seeing two rapid transit lines in that area. And perhaps that development around there will be less than many assume it will be. And as for this DRL station at Bayview and Queen...I don’t think that will come to fruition. I may’ve mentioned why somewhere further up.
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.
I don’t see why not. With SmartTrack taking most future funding, but proving little of the relief Yonge needs; I could see why it’d make sense to still address Yonge’s issues, albeit more affordably. All the way to Eglinton in one build; and if combined with Richmond Hill RER at Lawrence there’s even more incentive.
What the heck are you talking about? The Transit City map had the LRT
I believe I mentioned the DMLRT Pape route. And you don’t remember the Castle Frank option? Point is, TTC pushed oddball plans for a terrible non-rapid transit relief line north of B/D. The same organization that a few years later released DRTES, and which you seem to think is written in stone. And no need to quote Steve Munro.
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
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".
I read that article, I’ve been following the development. This is one of the reasons I come to this site. These zoning issues are preliminary. Rezoning for “mixed use†has been the norm for years. The City is not going to allow a mammoth site like Celestica to remain fallow, particularly if next to a transit hub.
Re: Thorncliffe stn. If anything is “gerrymanderedâ€, it’d be the conventional DRL with its disjointed beeline providing direct service to suburban communities which were specifically designed to be remote and hard to reach.
I never made that quote, nor do I oppose Gerrard. But with two rapid transit lines offering two rapid transit stations at Pape/Gerrard, providing very similar service... I think it’s safe to say that station usage at both stations would be lower than if only one station were built. Seems reasonable enough. The fact that Gerrard/River has a very large mid-to-high density neighbourhood being created, plus further peripheral development - I think it’s safe to assume that my Oak Station would have higher usage than either one of the two stations at Pape/Gerrard.
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):
I don’t even really know what this is supposed to be. Are you agreeing with me that my Thorncliffe station makes sense? And while you were drawing over parking lots, you seemed to have left out the mammoth Coca Cola site. As for the high-density thing; I’m not disagreeing with that at all. That’s why I put a station in Thorncliffe. But I do stand by my comment that the area will change socio-demographically, and even with added development the population could decrease substantially. Reason: single and dinks replacing multi-generational families. As well, some of those buildings are definitely tall, but they also have large lots, and large units. Such is the case with older suburban developments of this style.
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.
A station so close to Eglinton is a bit ambitious IMO. Are you aware that you drew a square over the science centre’s front garden, which is still fairly new?
1. That doesn’t really answer anything
2. “Failâ€, really? Zoning change approval happens regularly, particularly when rapid transit stations are involved. Whether it’s around Gerrard Square, a giant remote Loblaws, or the abandoned Coca Cola plant; land use will change. Much of our downtown waterfront was zoned as industrial not too long ago. Much of the GTA is still rezoning farms. The issues you gotta worry about are organized local opposition/resistance, and heritage status.
3. If the large areas I identified (River St, Redway Loblaws, light commercial/decaying manufacturing around Thorncliffe, plus Regent/Moss Parks which is happening anyways) were to become high-density developments; that would mean a lot of new riders. And faster commutes are always attractive. But I guess my phrasing was ambiguous and this is debatable.
4. Less stations, less distance, more direct, higher average speeds.
5. Okay. But is it really “inferior� $2bn is a lot of money. And funds are finite. Theoretically that amount could be put towards extending the line to Lawrence, allowing for interlined Richmond Hill RER.
*Off topic somewhat, not part of the reply to Salsa. But I was looking at some DRL images, and came across this image which I think is interesting. It seems to give a vague notion of a Broadview-Don Valley-River Street DRL. Perhaps the arrow's arrangement merely makes it look that way.
This one is kinda cool and seems to use the abandoned Don Branch to travel from Leaside through the valley. Doesn’t seem to have a Broadview intercept though. But combine these two, and you get something not unlike the Don Line.
