S
spmarshall
Guest
I could do that too. With one subway line to boot.
|
|
|
I could do that too. With one subway line to boot.
D
Darkstar416
Guest
Nice plan unimaginative, it's basically what I'd advocate as far as subway expansion goes myself. However, I'd add an extension to Dowsview as well to genuinely "finish Sheppard."
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
^ Indeed, I've been itching to see that 3 platform set-up in action.
U
unimaginative2
Guest
I missed that! I'd put it between 6 and 7.
I'd say light rail is probably more suitable for serving the Rexdale area. Same goes for Markham.
Also notably absent is Mississauga. While MCC is a massive trip generator (likely the largest outside Downtown Toronto, the airport, and possibly York U), I think it might be better served by S-bahn style service on the Milton GO line. Not only would it allow a faster express-style service to downtown, but it would also provide easy connections to the subway at Kipling (and potentially Dundas West). The even bigger benefit is that it would also serve well-located stations in Mississauga like Meadowvale, Streetsville and Erindale, serving as a kind of Mississauga rapid transit. It could even be extended north along the OBRY to Brampton with stops at the Meadowvale Business Park and several spots in Brampton.
I'd say light rail is probably more suitable for serving the Rexdale area. Same goes for Markham.
Also notably absent is Mississauga. While MCC is a massive trip generator (likely the largest outside Downtown Toronto, the airport, and possibly York U), I think it might be better served by S-bahn style service on the Milton GO line. Not only would it allow a faster express-style service to downtown, but it would also provide easy connections to the subway at Kipling (and potentially Dundas West). The even bigger benefit is that it would also serve well-located stations in Mississauga like Meadowvale, Streetsville and Erindale, serving as a kind of Mississauga rapid transit. It could even be extended north along the OBRY to Brampton with stops at the Meadowvale Business Park and several spots in Brampton.
D
Degnaw
Guest
wouldn't a westward sheppard extension be able to take riders off the Yonge line (i.e. those who want a seat or something)? In addition, there is a dire need for more system connectivity (not really, but it just looks better on a map)
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
"In addition, there is a dire need for more system connectivity (not really, but it just looks better on a map)"
No, there is. There's a good chance that even if we got more subways, B/D and YUS would be extended at all four ends, an Eglinton line would not go east of Spadina and the Sheppard line would not go west of Yonge - all that would accomplish is make both YUS and B/D impossibly overcrowded.
No, there is. There's a good chance that even if we got more subways, B/D and YUS would be extended at all four ends, an Eglinton line would not go east of Spadina and the Sheppard line would not go west of Yonge - all that would accomplish is make both YUS and B/D impossibly overcrowded.
D
dashingdan
Guest
Yeah, that'd be great, except Milton doesn't go through MCC. And a diversion through MCC is about as likely as a subway extension beyond Kipling. Actually, less likely. It'd have to be tunnel, and if you're gonna have a tunnel, you might as well have a subway no?
S
socialwoe
Guest
"They can go beyond STC if there's something worth going to - and the Zoo is not worth two lines."
That's the basis of the loop. The Zoo wouldn't be a route's end, rather just another station along a continuous line. If we can have subways ending in Downsview Park and not-close but close enough railyards and ROWs (Kipling and Kennedy), what's to stop an elevated line from working in northeast Scarbourough? I haven't closed off my mind from an extension beyond the Malvern area either.
"Malls are probably the #1 trip generators, and their parking lots are great for park'n'ride commuters and/or can easily be converted to towers."
Yes they are, but within reason. You're talking 5 kms of unused subways to reach Hwy 7 when there's already a GO station there. Where's the logic? The undeveloped lands around Malvern Town Centre (yes it's a mall) and Sheppard-Markham intersection can produce just as many kiss'n'ride spots and there'd still be room left over for regional BRT terminal to Markville.
"Two S-curves in such a confined space (between John and Bathurst) may not even be possible."
It is if the curve starts at Peter St, line runs diagonally to Alexandra Park (near Bathurst/Dundas) and veers down Bathurst. The train comes to a complete stop, (Wollesley Loop site is where the Bathurst stop would be)
before turning back onto Queen St. No screech, enough spacing.
"Two lines to the Zoo is the brilliant idea?"
I was referring to my proposal to utilize the inter-Toronto GO stations before expanding the subway system. If fares were made compatible with TTC fares and there was a guranteed all day service, more people in Toronto would use it. There also more things that could be done such as aquisition of some of CN tracks like the one that runs through central Toronto (already passing by Dupont and Summerhill Stns) which intersects with every north-south bus route in the northeast. Unlike your plan for the NW, this already exists and if started today would likely be operational by the end of the decade.
"Yeah, you've covered the corners, but what about the middle? Thorncliffe Park, Jane & Finch, Don Mills & Finch, Bathurst & Steeles...major nodes, with tens of thousands of people, but they get no lovin'."
Okay here's one. Since you despise jogs so much lets have the Sheppard Line dip upto Jane-Finch and back, upto Bathurst-Steeles and back, upto Seneca and back and have the Eglinton Line dip down to Throncliffe Park and back. Bathurst-Steeles would only work if YUS avoided Vaughan and loop back to Yonge- which was an outdated suggestion from the '80s.
"Complete Sheppard, Eglinton, Queen, Front, Weston, and Don Mills lines would create an incredibly powerful network of subways."
Nice you prioritize my east-west lines first
! Come to think of it a 'Front' downtown-bypass line may work. It's still apart of the Queen Line only it separates from the line at Dufferin and Broadview with stops at Exhibition, Strachan, Fort York (this also would comprise a people-mover to the Island Airport), Skydome, Union (why not construct this concurrently with the new reno), St Lawrence Market and Distillery. This would run during rush-hour peak and holiday/special events.
"Subways should go where demand warrants, not to far-flung corners of the map where riders are few and far between... building full-fledged subways anywhere but the high density neighbourhoods that can support them is a waste of time."
But in order to get to those 'far-flung corners' the lines must and DO pass through dense neighbourhoods. I'm for inclusion not exclusion of people who can't afford to live in the core but must get to work/school/amenities somehow.
That's the basis of the loop. The Zoo wouldn't be a route's end, rather just another station along a continuous line. If we can have subways ending in Downsview Park and not-close but close enough railyards and ROWs (Kipling and Kennedy), what's to stop an elevated line from working in northeast Scarbourough? I haven't closed off my mind from an extension beyond the Malvern area either.
"Malls are probably the #1 trip generators, and their parking lots are great for park'n'ride commuters and/or can easily be converted to towers."
Yes they are, but within reason. You're talking 5 kms of unused subways to reach Hwy 7 when there's already a GO station there. Where's the logic? The undeveloped lands around Malvern Town Centre (yes it's a mall) and Sheppard-Markham intersection can produce just as many kiss'n'ride spots and there'd still be room left over for regional BRT terminal to Markville.
"Two S-curves in such a confined space (between John and Bathurst) may not even be possible."
It is if the curve starts at Peter St, line runs diagonally to Alexandra Park (near Bathurst/Dundas) and veers down Bathurst. The train comes to a complete stop, (Wollesley Loop site is where the Bathurst stop would be)
before turning back onto Queen St. No screech, enough spacing.
"Two lines to the Zoo is the brilliant idea?"
I was referring to my proposal to utilize the inter-Toronto GO stations before expanding the subway system. If fares were made compatible with TTC fares and there was a guranteed all day service, more people in Toronto would use it. There also more things that could be done such as aquisition of some of CN tracks like the one that runs through central Toronto (already passing by Dupont and Summerhill Stns) which intersects with every north-south bus route in the northeast. Unlike your plan for the NW, this already exists and if started today would likely be operational by the end of the decade.
"Yeah, you've covered the corners, but what about the middle? Thorncliffe Park, Jane & Finch, Don Mills & Finch, Bathurst & Steeles...major nodes, with tens of thousands of people, but they get no lovin'."
Okay here's one. Since you despise jogs so much lets have the Sheppard Line dip upto Jane-Finch and back, upto Bathurst-Steeles and back, upto Seneca and back and have the Eglinton Line dip down to Throncliffe Park and back. Bathurst-Steeles would only work if YUS avoided Vaughan and loop back to Yonge- which was an outdated suggestion from the '80s.
"Complete Sheppard, Eglinton, Queen, Front, Weston, and Don Mills lines would create an incredibly powerful network of subways."
Nice you prioritize my east-west lines first
! Come to think of it a 'Front' downtown-bypass line may work. It's still apart of the Queen Line only it separates from the line at Dufferin and Broadview with stops at Exhibition, Strachan, Fort York (this also would comprise a people-mover to the Island Airport), Skydome, Union (why not construct this concurrently with the new reno), St Lawrence Market and Distillery. This would run during rush-hour peak and holiday/special events. "Subways should go where demand warrants, not to far-flung corners of the map where riders are few and far between... building full-fledged subways anywhere but the high density neighbourhoods that can support them is a waste of time."
But in order to get to those 'far-flung corners' the lines must and DO pass through dense neighbourhoods. I'm for inclusion not exclusion of people who can't afford to live in the core but must get to work/school/amenities somehow.
B
Brighter Hell
Guest
Like I said before, there are lots of ways to provide rapid transit to outer areas without subways. When light rail, commuter rail, or a hybrid like the S-Bahn would serve those areas just as well at a fraction of the cost, why would we waste billions on subways? That makes as much sense as building an international airport in Moosonee when it's served just as well by a local one.
An LRT or electric regional rail that runs up the Milton sub could easily go up Hurontario without a tunnel. That type of thing is done routinely around the world. It would be a lot faster than the surface streetcars downtown. And a fraction of the price of the subway, even if new tracks had to be laid for much of the route.
D
doady
Guest
The LRT route you describe is useless.
Any LRT along Hurontario should built along the entire length of the corridor.
Btw, I have been working a transit map of my own for the past 2 months or so. I just need to finish drawing the roads and expressways (which are very difficult because of their complexity) in the background and label it and do the legend then I will be finished and I will post it here.
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
"If we can have subways ending in Downsview Park and not-close but close enough railyards and ROWs (Kipling and Kennedy), what's to stop an elevated line from working in northeast Scarbourough?"
Because that loop is a terrible idea that cannot possibly be supported by the area's residential patterns. York U just happens to be just beyond Downsview and Kipling and Kennedy each see a million buses a day funnel in...there's nothing beyond Malvern. You really think people from Ajax are going to sit on buses that cross that old bridge on Old Finch?
"You're talking 5 kms of unused subways to reach Hwy 7 when there's already a GO station there. Where's the logic?"
There's a potential GO station right in the middle of Malvern. Why build a subway? And why would a McCowan line be unused? The Milliken/Woodside area of Scarborough contains almost 50,000 people. The Kennedy/14th/Markham/Steeles block of Markham also contains 50,000 people. There's about 200,000 more people within easy reach of Markville Mall, plus the mall itself and the ability to connect with a Hwy 7/407 transit corridor. Malvern will never be connected with anything beyond itself and will top out at about 75,000 people - but it deserves a loop?
"Unlike your plan for the NW, this already exists and if started today would likely be operational by the end of the decade."
Your plan ignores this and builds two lines to Malvern...I've mentioned how useful the midtown GO line would be many times before. You posted a fantasy subway map - why are you now throwing it all away and extolling the virtues of GO trains?
"Bathurst-Steeles would only work if YUS avoided Vaughan and loop back to Yonge- which was an outdated suggestion from the '80s."
Why is it outdated? Because it's from the 80s? So what? The only difference since then is that Vaughan has gotten sprawllier while Sorbara and friends started the subway to Vaughan process. Looping the YUS along Steeles is a solid option - it would drag the North York Centre condos up Yonge and along Steeles to merge with the three dozen towers at Bathurst and each stop along the way would see tens of thousands of daily riders.
"This would run during rush-hour peak and holiday/special events."
Why? A Front alignment would probably see higher ridership than a Queen alignment. It'd serve areas seeing massive and intense development.
"But in order to get to those 'far-flung corners' the lines must and DO pass through dense neighbourhoods."
Your planned network manages to avoid some of the densest neighbourhoods in the city so that it can serve parkland, sprawl, and industrial parks, via some quite circuitous routes.
Because that loop is a terrible idea that cannot possibly be supported by the area's residential patterns. York U just happens to be just beyond Downsview and Kipling and Kennedy each see a million buses a day funnel in...there's nothing beyond Malvern. You really think people from Ajax are going to sit on buses that cross that old bridge on Old Finch?
"You're talking 5 kms of unused subways to reach Hwy 7 when there's already a GO station there. Where's the logic?"
There's a potential GO station right in the middle of Malvern. Why build a subway? And why would a McCowan line be unused? The Milliken/Woodside area of Scarborough contains almost 50,000 people. The Kennedy/14th/Markham/Steeles block of Markham also contains 50,000 people. There's about 200,000 more people within easy reach of Markville Mall, plus the mall itself and the ability to connect with a Hwy 7/407 transit corridor. Malvern will never be connected with anything beyond itself and will top out at about 75,000 people - but it deserves a loop?
"Unlike your plan for the NW, this already exists and if started today would likely be operational by the end of the decade."
Your plan ignores this and builds two lines to Malvern...I've mentioned how useful the midtown GO line would be many times before. You posted a fantasy subway map - why are you now throwing it all away and extolling the virtues of GO trains?
"Bathurst-Steeles would only work if YUS avoided Vaughan and loop back to Yonge- which was an outdated suggestion from the '80s."
Why is it outdated? Because it's from the 80s? So what? The only difference since then is that Vaughan has gotten sprawllier while Sorbara and friends started the subway to Vaughan process. Looping the YUS along Steeles is a solid option - it would drag the North York Centre condos up Yonge and along Steeles to merge with the three dozen towers at Bathurst and each stop along the way would see tens of thousands of daily riders.
"This would run during rush-hour peak and holiday/special events."
Why? A Front alignment would probably see higher ridership than a Queen alignment. It'd serve areas seeing massive and intense development.
"But in order to get to those 'far-flung corners' the lines must and DO pass through dense neighbourhoods."
Your planned network manages to avoid some of the densest neighbourhoods in the city so that it can serve parkland, sprawl, and industrial parks, via some quite circuitous routes.
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
"Nice you prioritize my east-west lines first"
Check the transporation threads going back a while and you'll find I'm probably the only person who was supporting Sheppard AND Eglinton before you came along. But the DRL needs to be done first - it should have been done decades ago.
Check the transporation threads going back a while and you'll find I'm probably the only person who was supporting Sheppard AND Eglinton before you came along. But the DRL needs to be done first - it should have been done decades ago.
C
cdl42
Guest
No and yes. "Subway" is simply a label, it doesn't really define what the built operation is. If I build a subway and call it a "Transrapid" it doesn't stop it from being a subway. The tunnel from Union to Queen's Quay could properly be called a "streetcar subway" but yet not a "subway". See what I mean? Labels aren't important. Basically any rail service in a tunnel could be called a subway.
Anyway, another way to word it is to say that we should build a subway line from MCC to Kipling, but once trains reach Kipling station they should run express downtown along the Milton line. This would be more attractive by allowing for a faster trip and wouldn't overwhelm the already very busy Bloor line. This subway could also run west (above ground) from MCC serving Streetsvile, Erin Mills, Meadowvale, and even Brampton. A well-located park and ride lot could divert traffic from the 401, 427, and Gardiner and offer travel times very competitive with the car.
S
socialwoe
Guest
"Your plan ignores this and builds two lines to Malvern...I've mentioned how useful the midtown GO line would be many times before. You posted a fantasy subway map - why are you now throwing it all away and extolling the virtues of GO trains?"
Would you rather wait 80 years for a utopian subway system or something that would be up and running within five years? It's serious laziness on elected official's part not to get this in the works long ago. This even conects to Weston SUB.
"Your planned network manages to avoid some of the densest neighbourhoods in the city so that it can serve parkland, sprawl, and industrial parks, via some quite circuitous routes."
It is what it is. You have to pass by some minor places to reach the major ones. Think Castle Frank-I'm sure the millionaires ride transit too. At least the industrial parks generate factory workers riding the rails which may double those who use it in residential areas. And like you said these can be converted into townhouse spaces a la Agincourt.
"Because that loop is a terrible idea that cannot possibly be supported by the area's residential patterns...there's nothing beyond Malvern. You really think people from Ajax are going to sit on buses that cross that old bridge on Old Finch?"
Nope, they'd use Lawson Stn on the Eglinton Line.
"There's a potential GO station right in the middle of Malvern. Why build a subway? And why would a McCowan line be unused?"
There's still alot of open fields north of Steeles, development
is only limited to the major cross streets 0.5-1 km apart.
Centennial GO exists now, Malvern may never materialize. And who said it had to be a 'subway', a surface or above surface transit line is what I initially planned for the Malvern area.
Even if I went along with your idea I'd still veer it to serve the Malvern area since as you've stated that's 75,000 passengers that'd be overlooked otherwise. So here goes: BD continuing from McCowan Stn- Bellamy, Markham, Progress, Milner, Sheppard-Neilson, Malvern, Finch-Tapscott, Finch-Middlefield, Sandhurst, McNicoll, Miliken, Denison, 14th, 407, Markville, Raymerville, 16th, Bur Oak, Major Mackenzie. Satisfised?
"only difference since then is that Vaughan has gotten sprawllier while Sorbara and friends started the subway to Vaughan process. Looping the YUS along Steeles is a solid option"
I actually agaree with this. A continuous loop is better than dead-ending YUS at some big box stores. The only problem is this prevents the Yonge part from going upto Richmond Hill GO.
"Why? A Front alignment would probably see higher ridership than a Queen alignment. It'd serve areas seeing massive and intense development."
H
Would you rather wait 80 years for a utopian subway system or something that would be up and running within five years? It's serious laziness on elected official's part not to get this in the works long ago. This even conects to Weston SUB.
"Your planned network manages to avoid some of the densest neighbourhoods in the city so that it can serve parkland, sprawl, and industrial parks, via some quite circuitous routes."
It is what it is. You have to pass by some minor places to reach the major ones. Think Castle Frank-I'm sure the millionaires ride transit too. At least the industrial parks generate factory workers riding the rails which may double those who use it in residential areas. And like you said these can be converted into townhouse spaces a la Agincourt.
"Because that loop is a terrible idea that cannot possibly be supported by the area's residential patterns...there's nothing beyond Malvern. You really think people from Ajax are going to sit on buses that cross that old bridge on Old Finch?"
Nope, they'd use Lawson Stn on the Eglinton Line.
"There's a potential GO station right in the middle of Malvern. Why build a subway? And why would a McCowan line be unused?"
There's still alot of open fields north of Steeles, development
is only limited to the major cross streets 0.5-1 km apart.
Centennial GO exists now, Malvern may never materialize. And who said it had to be a 'subway', a surface or above surface transit line is what I initially planned for the Malvern area.
Even if I went along with your idea I'd still veer it to serve the Malvern area since as you've stated that's 75,000 passengers that'd be overlooked otherwise. So here goes: BD continuing from McCowan Stn- Bellamy, Markham, Progress, Milner, Sheppard-Neilson, Malvern, Finch-Tapscott, Finch-Middlefield, Sandhurst, McNicoll, Miliken, Denison, 14th, 407, Markville, Raymerville, 16th, Bur Oak, Major Mackenzie. Satisfised?
"only difference since then is that Vaughan has gotten sprawllier while Sorbara and friends started the subway to Vaughan process. Looping the YUS along Steeles is a solid option"
I actually agaree with this. A continuous loop is better than dead-ending YUS at some big box stores. The only problem is this prevents the Yonge part from going upto Richmond Hill GO.
"Why? A Front alignment would probably see higher ridership than a Queen alignment. It'd serve areas seeing massive and intense development."
H
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
"Would you rather wait 80 years for a utopian subway system or something that would be up and running within five years?"
Uh, you're the one who posted the fantasy subway map...
"You have to pass by some minor places to reach the major ones."
You don't seem to understand that Malvern is at the absolute edge of the GTA and will remain so, for generations, at least. Why does it need two subway lines - one of which runs through the Rouge Park - while far larger, far more central neighbourhoods are ignored? Taking the whole city into consideration, Malvern is a minor place.
"Nope, they'd use Lawson Stn on the Eglinton Line."
To go where? Who would ever want to ride buses and subways for such a long distance when the car can get them there in 1/4 the time?
"There's still alot of open fields north of Steeles, development
is only limited to the major cross streets 0.5-1 km apart."
Yeah, those ~150,000 people already live within a concession of McCowan, unlike your Rouge Park line, which is home to 150,000 squirrels. Slivers of developable land beyond a few km of McCowan are just a bonus.
"Centennial GO exists now, Malvern may never materialize."
So which is it - you said GO train service could be improved within five years but then you say it may never happen, therefore Malvern needs two subways.
"And who said it had to be a 'subway', a surface or above surface transit line is what I initially planned for the Malvern area."
They're continuations of the Sheppard and Danforth lines, aka subways. Doesn't matter if they're tunneled or elevated.
"Even if I went along with your idea I'd still veer it to serve the Malvern area since as you've stated that's 75,000 passengers that'd be overlooked otherwise."
That's a potential future population, and it's not like they're all going to take transit. 75,000 counts people living at McCowan & Sheppard (they'd take a McCowan line, not the Rouge Park line), Morningside & Sheppard, Morningside Heights, etc....they cannot possibly all be served by veering anywhere. If you're lucky, the entire Malvern ward will generate 50,000 daily trips, distributed amongst two subway lines and a dozen major bus routes - clearly, Malvern might have trouble supporting even a single, short, direct subway extension from STC, let alone a loop through the Rouge Park.
Your "McCowan" alignment is silly and no one will take it. Most of your routes are too badly located and circuitous to be of any real value and will only drive people to drive.
edit - "H"
I agree, H. On the other hand, what fantasy map would be complete without a DRL and a Queen line? If you're gonna waste billions on 5 lines to the Zoo and Sherway combined, both Front/DRL and Queen deserve lines. Proposing this would be, of course, sheer lunacy in real Toronto.
Uh, you're the one who posted the fantasy subway map...
"You have to pass by some minor places to reach the major ones."
You don't seem to understand that Malvern is at the absolute edge of the GTA and will remain so, for generations, at least. Why does it need two subway lines - one of which runs through the Rouge Park - while far larger, far more central neighbourhoods are ignored? Taking the whole city into consideration, Malvern is a minor place.
"Nope, they'd use Lawson Stn on the Eglinton Line."
To go where? Who would ever want to ride buses and subways for such a long distance when the car can get them there in 1/4 the time?
"There's still alot of open fields north of Steeles, development
is only limited to the major cross streets 0.5-1 km apart."
Yeah, those ~150,000 people already live within a concession of McCowan, unlike your Rouge Park line, which is home to 150,000 squirrels. Slivers of developable land beyond a few km of McCowan are just a bonus.
"Centennial GO exists now, Malvern may never materialize."
So which is it - you said GO train service could be improved within five years but then you say it may never happen, therefore Malvern needs two subways.
"And who said it had to be a 'subway', a surface or above surface transit line is what I initially planned for the Malvern area."
They're continuations of the Sheppard and Danforth lines, aka subways. Doesn't matter if they're tunneled or elevated.
"Even if I went along with your idea I'd still veer it to serve the Malvern area since as you've stated that's 75,000 passengers that'd be overlooked otherwise."
That's a potential future population, and it's not like they're all going to take transit. 75,000 counts people living at McCowan & Sheppard (they'd take a McCowan line, not the Rouge Park line), Morningside & Sheppard, Morningside Heights, etc....they cannot possibly all be served by veering anywhere. If you're lucky, the entire Malvern ward will generate 50,000 daily trips, distributed amongst two subway lines and a dozen major bus routes - clearly, Malvern might have trouble supporting even a single, short, direct subway extension from STC, let alone a loop through the Rouge Park.
Your "McCowan" alignment is silly and no one will take it. Most of your routes are too badly located and circuitous to be of any real value and will only drive people to drive.
edit - "H"
I agree, H. On the other hand, what fantasy map would be complete without a DRL and a Queen line? If you're gonna waste billions on 5 lines to the Zoo and Sherway combined, both Front/DRL and Queen deserve lines. Proposing this would be, of course, sheer lunacy in real Toronto.