jaybe said:
- If routed under the 404, it could have a stop at Woodbine and Steeles. There must be more than 10,000 jobs (IBM, BMO, Extendicare, etc) within walking distance.
- A stop around Esna Park/John Street would improve transit for 000's more workers
- A final stop at Highway 7 would connect with Viva and provide reasonably quick access to Markham City Centre, Richmond Hill City Centre
Click to expand...
I don't know what you are talking about in terms of "walking distance"

These are 1.2km walks if you are lucky, often longer, through windswept, harrowing, high-traffic, industrial areas and parking lots. Nobody is doing that during the winter. Even exiting these office buildings to reach your car in the adjacent parking lot is a massive hastle to overcome on windy days.

As much as I like the idea of connecting these employment lands (if it were feasible) I fear that sending it up Woodbine is problematic. It is too far west to serve Markham City Centre (which will be well served by GO-RER) and it is too far east to serve Richmond Hill and Langstaff Gateway (which is currently not serviced well by rapid transit). Personally, I would send the Relief Line to the latter direction instead of or in addition to Yonge North.
 
If the DRL north does follow Overlea - how is the curve from Overlea to Don Mills going to work? The curve would start at the half way point of the Don Valley if same size as DRL south's curve.
 
WislaHD said:
As much as I like the idea of connecting these employment lands (if it were feasible) I fear that sending it up Woodbine is problematic. It is too far west to serve Markham City Centre (which will be well served by GO-RER) and it is too far east to serve Richmond Hill and Langstaff Gateway (which is currently not serviced well by rapid transit). Personally, I would send the Relief Line to the latter direction instead of or in addition to Yonge North.
Click to expand...

Potentially, the subway could end at Steeles @ Woodbine, connecting to the busy Steeles bus / BRT, and either BRT or light rail up Woodbine.
 
innsertnamehere said:
RER overtaking subways? To do that GO would need to experience roughly 500% growth. RER is expected to increase ridership by a comparatively meager 100%. It's not happening.
Click to expand...

Sections of the RER in the 416 should experience ridership growth way beyond 100% though. Otherwise, the scheme probably needs serious re-tweaking.

We need to look to Paris, Berlin and Munich (and not NYC's subpar LIRR/Metro-north networks), where Sbahn/RER in the central city functions seamlessly as a subway line.
 
Kitsune said:
If the DRL north does follow Overlea - how is the curve from Overlea to Don Mills going to work? The curve would start at the half way point of the Don Valley if same size as DRL south's curve.
Click to expand...
Yes, the bridge would be curved.
I quickly sketched this with 400m radius curves. In blue is 150m radius - when I was thinking that the DRL would be SkyTrain to be compatible with the Eglinton line and the Scarborough Line :). I was thinking of a slightly more southerly routing to keep the distance to station below 500m for all of Thorncliffe, but it is questionable if it can fit.
I was thinking underground track if the more southerly track - with Cut-and-cover which would be much less disruptive due to the faster construction time. If following Overlea, it may be elevated, although I think it is much easier (from a public acceptance perspective) to elevate a 90m or 100m long SkyTrain/LRT compared to a 150m subway.

Untitled.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    191.2 KB · Views: 406
Last edited:
The Relief Line over the Don next to the Leaside Bridge could look like this:

Vancouver_skybridge.jpg

The Skybridge linking New Westminster with Surrey in the Vancouver area
 
Are you sure it won't look like this? Wrong type of bridge in wrong location leads to problems. You don't need a 300m clear span in the Don Valley (existing bridge has 38m spans). You don't need to maximize clearance below the bridge.

nipigon-river-bridge-fails-in-cold.jpg
 
BurlOak said:
Yes, the bridge would be curved.
I quickly sketched this with 400m radius curves. In blue is 150m radius - when I was thinking that the DRL would be SkyTrain to be compatible with the Eglinton line and the Scarborough Line :). I was thinking of a slightly more southerly routing to keep the distance to station below 500m for all of Thorncliffe, but it is questionable if it can fit.
I was thinking underground track if the more southerly track - with Cut-and-cover which would be much less disruptive due to the faster construction time. If following Overlea, it may be elevated, although I think it is much easier (from a public acceptance perspective) to elevate a 90m or 100m long SkyTrain/LRT compared to a 150m subway.

View attachment 122921
Click to expand...

The Thorncliffe Park Stn should be oriented more towards TCP East, that's where the density is highest.

There should also be an intermediate stop in Flemingdon Park, situated in the hydro corridor along Don Mills to best be accessible to both north and south legs of Gateway Blvd. In that vane, I vote for the red line to TCP and blue line east of there.
 
Hopkins123 said:
The Thorncliffe Park Stn should be oriented more towards TCP East, that's where the density is highest.

There should also be an intermediate stop in Flemingdon Park, situated in the hydro corridor along Don Mills to best be accessible to both north and south legs of Gateway Blvd. In that vane, I vote for the red line to TCP and blue line east of there.
Click to expand...
The Blue line can only be done with SkyTrain or LRT. The 150m radius that I drew is too tight for subway.
 
BurlOak said:
If following Overlea, it may be elevated, although I think it is much easier (from a public acceptance perspective) to elevate a 90m or 100m long SkyTrain/LRT compared to a 150m subway.
Click to expand...
This is a community without much political power and that definitely won't be complaining about receiving a subway station that would cut their commutes by 3/4. I wouldn't worry about public acceptance perspective.
 
I don't see a need to create further disturbance in the valley below. Keep the footings, rebuild the bridge deck, and cut some vehicle lanes in favour of a cycle path on this never-congested bridge. Make it truly multi-modal.
 
I heard today from someone at a company that will bid on the project that they are expecting an RFP to drop anytime now for the Osgoode to Pape section of the line.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top