Urban Toronto - Powered by vBulletin
UrbanToronto News - the latest headlines
Sheridan College Breaks Ground for McCallion Campus Expansion
ALSO
Page 245 of 245 FirstFirst ... 145195235243244245
Results 3,661 to 3,673 of 3673

Thread: Transit Fantasy Maps

  1. #3661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BurlOak View Post
    Elevating ECLRT from DVP to Kennedy and connecting to the SRT/LRT also accomplishes this. The question is whether Ellesmere is busier than Eglinton. I'd say Eglinton wins, but it is close. Elevating Eglinton from DM to Kennedy is about $1B (6km x $150M) and its about $2B from Kennedy to Malvern by LRT. Your option is $3.5B for the B-D subway extension plus $1.0B (as guess) from DM to Ellesmere/Kennedy.



    I think everyone would like this.



    Lets say Eglinton to Just north of Lawrence is maybe 2.5km. North of the railway, the west side is all industrial/business, so the elevated portion could be about 3km in length to the north side of 401. Then, again, an underground section of say 1km would be needed for the underground interchange with Sheppard. (If needed, the 2km extension to Seneca could be elevated through the peanut and beyond). If we multiply this out, 2.5km x $300M for the underground portion, 3.0 km x $150M for the elevated portion and 1km x $300 for the Sheppard interchange = $1.5B. This is a moderate amount, but it is about what can be saved by using the elevated Eglinton alignment.

    So I guess the options are DRL to DM/Eg. and Scarborough Crosstown using this alignment, or a DRL to Sheppard and Scarborough Crosstown using elevated Eglinton/SRT corridor.

    The two things that can be stated for certain. 1) that Eglinton should have the portal on the south side. 2) Toronto needs to embrace elevated transit otherwise nothing will be accomplished.
    Hmm. Valid points. I guess in this fantasy of mine the B/D extension (Scarb Subway) is a go, SmartTrack may require use of the Stouffville Corridor, and the SRT would be abandoned outright regardless. Although I don't ever support the idea of abandoning the SRT, I think I'm at least grudgingly on board with the Scarb Subway. It's a done deal IMO. Tory's remarks in tonight's debate kinda sealed that for me.

    My plan shortens the Scarb Subway by 1.7km, thereby saving ~$1B. And although I think an elevated Eglinton East is a great idea, it (combined with an SLRT) would create quite a circuitous Crosstown. From Don Mills to STC it would be 11.3km, whereas using the rail corridor and Ellesmere alignment I've proposed it would come in at 9km. On top of that, it would offer broader and more evenly-distributed rapid transit coverage to a large quadrant of Scarborough. The current SRT alignment combined with a grade-separated Eglinton East doesn't work alongside a Scarb Subway IMO...too much RT in such a small area.

    Lastly, and what originally got me to consider this line, is that it's a great compromise for those wanting a Sheppard Subway, and opposed to an SELRT.

    Your numbers seem correct, and I'll probably do a further rough analysis for comparison of the options.


  2. #3662
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ottawa (formerly Downtown Toronto)
    Posts
    5,646

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 44 North View Post
    So here’s the 2.0 version of my previous map.
    I like it! I would almost be tempted though to have the DRL continue into Scarborough along the Eglinton alignment and have the Don Mills section be a continuation of the Eglinton line. That would set up a nice mirror in the west end, whereby the Jane LRT could be re-routed into the ECLRT. Since Eglinton is only going to be running 3 car trains, it would be sufficient to have surface operations on both the Don Mills and Jane branches (saving a boatload of cash over the tunnelled/elevated option). And realistically, the Scarborough branch is the one that's going to be carrying the bulk of the load anyway, not the Don Mills branch. Might as well give the higher usage line the direct access to downtown.

    It's certainly a very interesting idea though, and it really doesn't even need the Scarborough Subway in the plan to make it work. In this case, it would almost be better to extend the subway along Eglinton to the Eglinton East GO station or Kingston Rd.
    Twitter: @JAndrewJ86

  3. #3663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 44 North View Post
    Hmm. Valid points. I guess in this fantasy of mine the B/D extension (Scarb Subway) is a go, SmartTrack may require use of the Stouffville Corridor, and the SRT would be abandoned outright regardless. Although I don't ever support the idea of abandoning the SRT, I think I'm at least grudgingly on board with the Scarb Subway. It's a done deal IMO. Tory's remarks in tonight's debate kinda sealed that for me.
    Don't get me wrong, this is a well thought out idea. It does seem strange that you are assuming the B-D extension is a go, but the on-street ECLRT, which is already designed, and the Brentcliffe portal, which is under construction, are considered changeable.

    I always thought about giving the Stouffville corridor to GO, but many people said the space was not required. I think it does have merrit though.

    Quote Originally Posted by gweed123 View Post
    I like it! I would almost be tempted though to have the DRL continue into Scarborough along the Eglinton alignment and have the Don Mills section be a continuation of the Eglinton line.
    Maybe it can be interlined so that alternate DRL trains go to Scarborough and Fairview Mall and alternate ECLRT trains go to Fairview Mall and Scarborough.

    I thought about this using the Eglinton alignment and it was not possible, because of the proximity of DVP. With your alignment (and stacked tracks) there is more distance between the DM/Eg. station and the DVP so it could probably be done.
    Last edited by BurlOak; Yesterday at 09:48.

  4. #3664

    Default

    44 North, what's the purpose for the branch to Sheppard/Don Mills?

  5. #3665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gweed123 View Post
    I like it! I would almost be tempted though to have the DRL continue into Scarborough along the Eglinton alignment and have the Don Mills section be a continuation of the Eglinton line. That would set up a nice mirror in the west end, whereby the Jane LRT could be re-routed into the ECLRT. Since Eglinton is only going to be running 3 car trains, it would be sufficient to have surface operations on both the Don Mills and Jane branches (saving a boatload of cash over the tunnelled/elevated option). And realistically, the Scarborough branch is the one that's going to be carrying the bulk of the load anyway, not the Don Mills branch. Might as well give the higher usage line the direct access to downtown.

    It's certainly a very interesting idea though, and it really doesn't even need the Scarborough Subway in the plan to make it work. In this case, it would almost be better to extend the subway along Eglinton to the Eglinton East GO station or Kingston Rd.
    Thx. And you’re right in that it would create quite the mirror image with both a Don Mills and Jane LRT. I’ve been trying to shy away from attempts to achieve a “balanced” system that ‘looks good on paper’. IMO it only protracts the narrow-minded approach to transportation planning that has befallen Toronto’s schemes over the decades. Namely, that transit and investment is to be blindly distributed across the city in some politically equitable fashion, in spite of the reality of commuting which always favours more direct routes. Transit City, Network 2011, the Ford napkin...all follow this same disjointed, “fair” approach of following the grid and concession system. Even the DRL is typically drawn as such with 90deg bends.

    This is why I think it’s wise to use rail corridors and greenspace; because of the possibilities of steering demand away from conventional and disjointed E-W, N-S paths.

    I guess I may've dissed my own idea and went on a bit of a tangent. Ironically, to explain the promise of tangential transit routing. I actually had originally thought the Don Mills section would see enormous demand, way above what this Crosstown-SRT would see. But I guess the opposite is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTigerMaster View Post
    44 North, what's the purpose for the branch to Sheppard/Don Mills?
    Oh, to create a thorough Yonge relief, and show the possibility of more affordable approaches to rapid transit. But it seems only one small stretch of Don Mills between Eg and Shepp could be affordably grade-separated, and that demand through that stretch isn’t as enormous as I thought. Perhaps a redux of this map will be released which will simply omit this Don Mills section. Or have the Don Line become the Richmond Hill GO RER north of Lawrence, and interchange with Sheppard at Leslie…which actually sounds pretty good.

  6. #3666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BurlOak View Post
    Don't get me wrong, this is a well thought out idea. It does seem strange that you are assuming the B-D extension is a go, but the on-street ECLRT, which is already designed, and the Brentcliffe portal, which is under construction, are considered changeable.
    This fantasy map considered the realistic prospect of across-the-board opposition to in-median LRT. As is evidence by recent news regarding Sheppard, even supposed progressive and pro-transit politicians are now against the SELRT. With it gone, I'd see the in-median portion of the ECLRT disappearing with it. And frankly, I had my doubts that either would ever be completed to begin with. Not that I think we'll see a major push for subways on Sheppard or Eglinton East, but rather simple opposition to the current proposal.

    I'm not sure exactly where we're at with the Crosstown, but I think there's still a small window to align the eastern portal to the south side of Eglinton. As I understand it, the tunnel shaft is on the south side. A little cut/cover and alignment redesign seems possible.

    Because this Crosstown-SLRT addresses E-W demand near or within Sheppard's catchment, while dipping near Eglinton East's catchment and offering a connection to the Crosstown, it's a good compromise. Obviously it would still have the politically toxic "LRT" monicker, but many progressive politicians are wiser than the Fords and aren't opposed to meaningless semantics. It's namely in-median that they don't want. This proposal works perfectly with a B/D extension because Scarb gets its subway, the SRT is not abandoned, E-W demand for a key quadrant of Scarb is addressed, and there will be no 'dem streetcars blockin up tha road'/'two-tiered transit' nonsense.

  7. #3667

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 44 North View Post
    I'm not sure exactly where we're at with the Crosstown, but I think there's still a small window to align the eastern portal to the south side of Eglinton. As I understand it, the tunnel shaft is on the south side. A little cut/cover and alignment redesign seems possible.
    I agree, I think technically there is still a window to correct the errors with the Brentcliffe portal. The issue is whether the political will exists to fix it.

    Quote Originally Posted by 44 North View Post
    Oh, to create a thorough Yonge relief, and show the possibility of more affordable approaches to rapid transit. But it seems only one small stretch of Don Mills between Eg and Shepp could be affordably grade-separated, and that demand through that stretch isn’t as enormous as I thought. Perhaps a redux of this map will be released which will simply omit this Don Mills section. Or have the Don Line become the Richmond Hill GO RER north of Lawrence, and interchange with Sheppard at Leslie…which actually sounds pretty good.
    Are you sure Don Mills to Sheppard would not have the ridership. Especially if it goes to Seneca, it would intercept a lot of riders before they get to Yonge - even if the Lawrence and York Mills boardings are not that high.

    Using Richmond Hill GO would work if it saves money, but I would rather have 2 lines (Richmond Hill for distance and Don Mills for local) than only one.

  8. #3668

    Default

    Thanks for the great map 44North. You have a real computer skill there, god knows I couldn't do it.

    I have to disagree, however, with your downtown alignment. I have always believed that any new line downtown should either go to Union via the rail corridors due to a massive cost savings and less construction time or use Queen Street. I don't understand the prevailing logic of using King. King will cost a "kings" ransome and the tunnel would have to be very very deep due to the extensive PATH system. Also being right up against Union has never made sense to me as Union already enjoys the best transit connections in the country.

    If they are going to spend so much money on a DRL then I think Queen is a far superior choice. Not only, unlike King, would it serve new areas of the core but be much cheaper to build and far easier. Remember the Queen subways station is already built so that would be a great time and money saver. Yes the station would have to be expended and brought up to code but still far less expensive and not even remotely as disruptive to the street above. The siruption at Queen and Yonge will be miniscule compared to the hell that would be created for years at Yonge and King and University for that matter.

    Another great benefit of Queen is the extension to Univerity/Spadina Line. Although the station is not built it was built in the anticipation of a Queen Street subway. They built the station taking this into account by removing all cable, underground electrical systems which add a lot of time to station building and disruption.

    If a new tunnel is built downtown I think the emphasis for such a huge project should be to serve new destinations and populations. Queen fits this bill and would also be the least costly, least disruptive, and easiest to build to boot.

  9. #3669

    Default

    Okay, I have a new idea. But it's definitely broader in scope than I'm used to. It'd probably be more up Gweed's alley.

    Considering my proposal puts two separate lines (or two sections of one line) onto key sections of what could've been a future GO Midtown corridor - and essentially negates any opportunities for such a crosstown commuter line. How about making the Eglinton Crosstown-Ellesmere-SLRT the de facto GO Midtown line. Complicated optics of using an active freight corridor aside, a GO Midtown line wasn't all that fantastic for intra-Toronto travel to begin with. Kipling, Dupont, Summerhill, Leslie, Agincourt... Aside from Kipling, those aren't exactly high demand nodes/hubs.

    By interlining this Don Branch with a Richmond Hill 'light' RER/RT north of Lawrence, and having an EC-SLRT potentially (very long shot) being interlined with a future Seaton GO line; Don Mills can become a key transport hub and a virtual second Union. This makes a lot more sense than Summerhill, and may be better than that Bathurst idea Metrolinx floated.

    I may work on a map to show what I mean.

  10. #3670
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Former City of York, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    4,468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 44 North View Post
    So here’s the 2.0 version of my previous map. Rather than branching – which as Gweed pointed out may require trains of different lengths – the Scarb section is simply an extension of the Crosstown. Malvern to Mount Dennis, completely grade-separated.

    The current setup for the Crosstown’s east portal is for the line to enter Eglinton in the centre of the roadway, just east of Brentcliffe. I’d like this to be aligned to the south side, so that east of the CPR corridor it can arc south and become an elevated section above the valley. This viaduct would enter a portal into the valley’s west wall (alongside the Don Line). Doing so keeps the Crosstown grade-separated all the way to Don Mills (very important IMO), while omitting a Leslie surface stop (no biggie).

    Below Don Mills/Eglinton, the Don and Crosstown can have paralleling platforms. As both travel north, the Don will rise in elevation while the Crosstown will lower - with the Crosstown passing under the Don and running alongside the CPR corridor where it surfaces via a portal. Or whatever seems logical. Perhaps a stacked configuration with the Crosstown overtop(?).

    Everything north of Eglinton is mostly an amalgam of cheapest-where-possible alternatives and alignments – all grade-separated. Elevated, surface, trenched, cut/cover...possibly in-median for open stretches. Ellesmere has a solid a 6 lanes of through traffic + grassy boulevard, which is ample enough to handle a combination of elevated along the industrial section, and at/below-grade for the residential section. To join the current SRT just east of Kennedy, the line will be below-grade – as the SRT currently is while passing under the Stouffville line.

    Don Mills I foresee as being mostly tunnelled (i.e - $$$). However, from just south of York Mills to the 401 there are opportunities for a lengthy elevated section.

    Just as it was with the original SRT and pre-1996 open air subway extensions; greenspaces, vacant lots and industrial areas should be used to our advantage when connecting nodes/stations. Obviously using the right-of-way of an active rail corridor is a complex issue, but I don’t think it should be written-off completely when certain sections offer important connections. In my opinion this Crosstown/SRT would be a much better use of funds than either the SELRT or in-median portion of the Crosstown. Perhaps it could be built with the funds from both of them?
    Really I think this map is just as good as the last one. Great Job. I think elevated transit will get rid or lessen some of the ridership requirements of RT. But I want to know, what would you do for Eglinton East and Kingston Road up to UTSC and Mount Dennis to the airport. I know this is a relief line, but I think covering those two areas would lessen some of the pressure on the current system.

  11. #3671
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Midtown
    Posts
    994

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTigerMaster View Post
    44 North, what's the purpose for the branch to Sheppard/Don Mills?
    Personally speaking, I really want to see the subway(/some form of rapid transit) go up to Don Mills and Lawrence. Aside from Downtown and Midtown, the Shops at Don Mills is my favorite part of the (urban) city and that surrounding neighborhood and area of the city is ripe for the increased densification a subway stop would bring.

  12. #3672
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ottawa (formerly Downtown Toronto)
    Posts
    5,646

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 44 North View Post
    Thx. And you’re right in that it would create quite the mirror image with both a Don Mills and Jane LRT. I’ve been trying to shy away from attempts to achieve a “balanced” system that ‘looks good on paper’. IMO it only protracts the narrow-minded approach to transportation planning that has befallen Toronto’s schemes over the decades. Namely, that transit and investment is to be blindly distributed across the city in some politically equitable fashion, in spite of the reality of commuting which always favours more direct routes. Transit City, Network 2011, the Ford napkin...all follow this same disjointed, “fair” approach of following the grid and concession system. Even the DRL is typically drawn as such with 90deg bends.

    This is why I think it’s wise to use rail corridors and greenspace; because of the possibilities of steering demand away from conventional and disjointed E-W, N-S paths.

    I guess I may've dissed my own idea and went on a bit of a tangent. Ironically, to explain the promise of tangential transit routing. I actually had originally thought the Don Mills section would see enormous demand, way above what this Crosstown-SRT would see. But I guess the opposite is true.
    I generally shy away from the mirroring for the sake of mirroring as well, but I think in this case it actually makes sense. South of Eglinton, median ROW construction on Jane is next to impossible without massive expropriation. That makes tunnelling the only viable option, which is fiscally unfeasible due to the cost to ridership ratio. That means that whatever LRT proposal is implemented along Jane would likely stop at Eglinton. So in my opinion, it makes sense to route the Jane LRT via the Eglinton tunnel so that the people there have direct access to YUS. The same theory holds true for the Don Mills corridor, especially if the DRL goes up to Eglinton.

    I do certainly think that the rail corridors are definitely underused, and hopefully GO REX will rectify some of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by 44 North View Post
    Okay, I have a new idea. But it's definitely broader in scope than I'm used to. It'd probably be more up Gweed's alley.

    Considering my proposal puts two separate lines (or two sections of one line) onto key sections of what could've been a future GO Midtown corridor - and essentially negates any opportunities for such a crosstown commuter line. How about making the Eglinton Crosstown-Ellesmere-SLRT the de facto GO Midtown line. Complicated optics of using an active freight corridor aside, a GO Midtown line wasn't all that fantastic for intra-Toronto travel to begin with. Kipling, Dupont, Summerhill, Leslie, Agincourt... Aside from Kipling, those aren't exactly high demand nodes/hubs.

    By interlining this Don Branch with a Richmond Hill 'light' RER/RT north of Lawrence, and having an EC-SLRT potentially (very long shot) being interlined with a future Seaton GO line; Don Mills can become a key transport hub and a virtual second Union. This makes a lot more sense than Summerhill, and may be better than that Bathurst idea Metrolinx floated.

    I may work on a map to show what I mean.
    Hmmm, interesting idea. The primary purpose of the Midtown line IMO is to get quickly from one side of the city to the other, or through it entirely. It's basically the 401 of transit. By combining that with the ECLRT, you're substantially reducing the speed component of the line. Then of course there's the interoperability issues of running LRT along a freight corridor, or GO EMU's through a tunnel that's already partially constructed for LRTs.

    It's certainly an interesting idea, but I think the two should be separate, because IMO they serve different purposes. The Midtown is for express crosstown travel, while the ECLRT is for local rapid transit service along Eglinton.
    Twitter: @JAndrewJ86

  13. #3673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BurlOak View Post
    Using Richmond Hill GO would work if it saves money, but I would rather have 2 lines (Richmond Hill for distance and Don Mills for local) than only one.
    I agree, in theory. But the reality is that Union is compromised with the current and projected crunch. By allowing Don Mills to become the terminus of the ‘commuter’ section, Union is offered a little more breathing room. In the outer 416 and 905, station spacing of any transit is oftentimes commuter-like by default, so whether it’s GO or local rapid transit makes little difference IMO.

    And frankly it doesn’t seem possible to build any RH stations south of Sheppard. By interlining this with the DRL, Toronto is now afforded service. Come to think of it, Gweed may’ve proposed this idea earlier.

    @ssiguy
    Thanks. There’s really not that much skill involved with this software. The hardest part was learning to make a straight line bend. Yes, which is better: King or Queen? I’ve always favoured Queen because it’s more of a direct path through the heart of the city, provides a good catchment between the lake and Bloor, and a transit line there dates back over a century. However, King has higher surface ridership, runs through the CBD, and we’re seeing enormous development south to the lake.

    Perhaps Richmond or Adelaide would be a good compromise. They may be easier to dig up than either King or Queen. And considering the line will be deep regardless, escalators and entrances could be designed to at least exit somewhere close to both Queen and King.

    @Den
    Thanks. Kingston Rd I’ve always envisioned a simple streetcar extension of the 503 east from Vic Park. It wouldn’t be that beneficial to long-haul commuters, or expected to be like whatever was envisioned with Transit City. Just a plain Jane streetcar line, perhaps with ROW like St Clair or Queensway. This could easily be built all the way to West Hill at Morningside. Kingston Rd has seen better days, which is unfortunate because it has a lot to offer. Not to mention our city’s greatest asset, the lake.

    The south end of Scarborough is much older and I think would be more receptive to this type of investment. I don’t think area residents would be as nasty as the SOS crowd along Sheppard. The incentive for upzoning and private development dollars wouldn’t go unnoticed, as we’re already seeing proposals creeping east of Vic Park.

    I don’t know how much benefit this fractured form of Scarb-MalvernLRT (w/out Eglinton or Malvern) would offer to actual commuters. Aside from better GO connections and BRT, I can’t really think of much else for out east.

    @Gweed
    Hmm. I recall tram-trains being talked about not too long ago, and it was noted that they need to be separate due to transport regulations. Basically what I was picturing was a completely separate rapid transit line, using high frequency LRT...but run as a commuter line in its outer reaches alongside any freight corridor. Something akin to the interurban streetcar commuter lines of yore. But as I said before, this is a bit out of my realm.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •