Transit Fantasy Maps

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.

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.

44 North said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

TheTigerMaster said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

44 North said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

44 North said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

BurlOak said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Ya, I can see your point about all the development south of King/Waterfront but if that was the case then wouldn't using the rail corridor be equally effective with a fraction of the construction time, much much cheaper, and involve almost no disruption to current roads?

Optimally I think a Union connection is best for those reasons but if the city wants a DRL then I think Queen is the way to go. King is great for 9 to 5 but outside of that it doesn't serve a lot of destinations.

I think once Toronto has an effective, affordable, and frequent GO REX system, you will, due to Union capacity constraints, see all regular GO Express trains from the 905 using Union and the more GO RER/Smartrax system use a Queen tunnel. Many suburban train systems use tunnels thru their downtown such as Melbourne and Sydney.

So here’s a new map I concocted. In a way it’s an adoption of the GOALRT idea of years past, and a Midtown GO line – with trains routed through Eglinton instead of along the CP main line. It might be a bit wonky. But thanks to either Gweed or WisaHD for the GoogleEarth template. And I apologize if I’m bombarding this thread...it’s a bit addictive playing around with lines on a map and inventing remedies.

A converted GO Milton line would be routed north on an elevated viaduct through Humber Valley just east of Royal York (behind Rob Ford’s house, funnily enough). I’m sure this is 100% possible, but I can’t vet for any routing through the Humber Valley as much I can with the Don Valley. At Jane this would continue as the Crosstown.

Rather than terminating at Sheppard and Markham Rd like my previous Crosstown-Ellesmere-SRT proposal, this would continue as an elevated line north on Markham Rd to the rail corridor (not sure the name of the southernmost line). Turning east, it would then run to Malvern, Morningside Heights; and continue as a commuter line to north Pickering, Seaton, and whatever major airport may exist. And perhaps a small spur for Rouge Park and the Zoo (for weekend and summer use). Considering this last vestige of a major greenspace bisecting the GTA will be turned into sprawling suburbs just like the other million hectares, it’d be nice to have some railed transit put in beforehand. And I guess there’s federal funding to be had considering a National Park and major airport is involved.

North of Lawrence, the Don Line (DRL) would run in place of the Richmond Hill line. Its current riders may be upset that Union is no longer the terminus and that the ride may (or may not) be a bit longer, but the ends justifies the means. This would reduce the crunch at Union, and may even negate any need to extend Yonge to Richmond Hill. Regardless, the south end of the Richmond Hill line had some serious (multi-year, multi-tens of $millions) floodplane issues needing addressing before ever becoming RER.

As well, UPX would have several stations added and be switched to the same light rolling stock. Nothing new, basically a DRL West as it could’ve/should’ve been.

The entire system is run as rapid transit using LRT, but wherever I put dashed lines would be lower (e.g 15min) frequencies. With the precedent that’s been set of running a heavy rail underground subway line to some vacant fields in the nondescript amalgam of subdivisions that is the sprawling suburban municipality of Vaughan, I think it’s pretty clear that the line between commuter rail and rapid transit has been blurred. Highway 407 station? Gimme a fucking break. These once distinct systems are clearly interchangeable.

I probably can’t answer many questions re: the use of active rail corridors, as I probably wouldn’t know the answer. But what I envision are completely dedicated lines, running separate but adjacent to freight and GO heavy rail traffic. Obviously a significant number of flyovers, bridges, and grade-separation would be required.

Throw in a Lake Shore East/West RER, and Toronto would be a real 21st C metropolis.


____
Somewhat o/t, but any next map will probably be a smaller-scale focus on the Don Branch, or deal with local transit along the waterfront. The waterfront redevelopment is an important area, and it seems we’re about to spend a king’s ransom to give sub-Transit City level service. I love streetcars and whatnot, but over $0.5bn for a miniscule 2km streetcar line is insane. There must be a realistic, semi-rapid transit solution. One idea may involve a branch called Don-Cherry, which would go well with its Don-King counterpart.

44 North said:

So here’s a new map I concocted. In a way it’s an adoption of the GOALRT idea of years past, and a Midtown GO line – with trains routed through Eglinton instead of along the CP main line. It might be a bit wonky. But thanks to either Gweed or WisaHD for the GoogleEarth template. And I apologize if I’m bombarding this thread...it’s a bit addictive playing around with lines on a map and inventing remedies.

Click to expand...

Looking good! I'll address each segment point by point and offer my two cents, haha.

44 North said:

A converted GO Milton line would be routed north on an elevated viaduct through Humber Valley just east of Royal York (behind Rob Ford’s house, funnily enough). I’m sure this is 100% possible, but I can’t vet for any routing through the Humber Valley as much I can with the Don Valley. At Jane this would continue as the Crosstown.

Click to expand...

Interesting alignment, although I think if the goal is to reach Square One it would make more sense to route it along Eglinton West to Renforth Gateway and then either run beside the Mississauga Transitway, or replace it. You could also build a spur to the airport from there, which would satisfy your lower frequency criteria because the frequency would be cut in half at Renforth, considering that's where the split would be. Besides Square One, Renforth Gateway is probably the biggest trip generator along either of those two alignments.

44 North said:

Rather than terminating at Sheppard and Markham Rd like my previous Crosstown-Ellesmere-SRT proposal, this would continue as an elevated line north on Markham Rd to the rail corridor (not sure the name of the southernmost line). Turning east, it would then run to Malvern, Morningside Heights; and continue as a commuter line to north Pickering, Seaton, and whatever major airport may exist. And perhaps a small spur for Rouge Park and the Zoo (for weekend and summer use). Considering this last vestige of a major greenspace bisecting the GTA will be turned into sprawling suburbs just like the other million hectares, it’d be nice to have some railed transit put in beforehand. And I guess there’s federal funding to be had considering a National Park and major airport is involved.

Click to expand...

Agreed, and very similar to what I had proposed for the Scarborough GO REX (SRT alignment through Scarborough, connection to Seaton via the rail corridor). Certainly makes sense IMO.

44 North said:

North of Lawrence, the Don Line (DRL) would run in place of the Richmond Hill line. Its current riders may be upset that Union is no longer the terminus and that the ride may (or may not) be a bit longer, but the ends justifies the means. This would reduce the crunch at Union, and may even negate any need to extend Yonge to Richmond Hill. Regardless, the south end of the Richmond Hill line had some serious (multi-year, multi-tens of $millions) floodplane issues needing addressing before ever becoming RER.

Click to expand...

Yup, agreed here as well. The best way to reduce the capacity crunch on the Yonge line is to divert people off of it before they even get there. Diverting Toronto riders is nice, but diverting York Region riders before they even reach the Yonge line by offering them a valid alternative is even better. I also did the math a while ago, and upgrading the Richmond Hill GO line from just north of Lawrence to RHC + a tunnel from Eglinton to Lawrence is roughly equivalent in cost to building the North Yonge extension.

44 North said:

As well, UPX would have several stations added and be switched to the same light rolling stock. Nothing new, basically a DRL West as it could’ve/should’ve been.

Click to expand...

I see this more as a branch of the Brampton/Kitchener GO REX line than as an LRT line personally, but that's just my opinion. Taking up 2 tracks for LRT in a pretty crowded corridor may not work too well.

44 North said:

Throw in a Lake Shore East/West RER, and Toronto would be a real 21st C metropolis.

Click to expand...

Yup, and the Brampton, Markham, Milton, and Barrie GO REX lines as well. Build those plus what you've proposed here and Toronto is pretty much set.

Thanks. I’m not really trying to go to Square One per se, or any particular current hub of ‘Sauga. Rather trying to intersect key N/S 905 arterials which could otherwise see transit-oriented development (and maybe more stations) in the future. I’ve always liked the idea of a grade-separated Eglinton West, which seems logical on paper. But it would be a costly project (especially with the loss of some of the Richview corridor), and it does put a trajectory into Sauga a tad farther north than I’d like. Although it’s completely fictitious, I think using Humber Valley to connect Eglinton to Bloor and Milton line roughly achieves everything that an Eglinton West extension could – and doubling as a partial Midtown line... Minus any airport connection or fast Midtown-level service. And I don’t want to interfere with the real prospect of SmartTrack *rolls eyes*.

Oh shoot; I saw you had a connection to Seaton, but didn’t see it was using the SRT alignment. I thought I was being inventive by putting to good use what may otherwise be an abandoned stretch of SRT. On top of your template, I’m now taking your ideas too! There might be a thread on this, but what do you think would be a better route to any future airport or north Pickering development: this Seaton line, or the (Havelock?) line to Peterborough?

And not building Yonge may be beneficial if there’s a realistic alternative. I know Markham and RH politicos have been pushing to have Richmond Hill GO become the DRL (so as to fastrack a Yonge ext); but using the same logic it can be argued that a better RH could reduce the need for their pet Yonge ext. It seems many people in Toronto are obsessed with creating new local priorities and Scarborough connections that they’re ignoring Yonge - which may very well be built before any Scarb Subway. Not that I can blame them, I rarely ever see Yonge on any promised maps.

RE UPX… I guess I might not know exactly what RER even is. I’ve been on systems before, but didn’t really clue in at the time how it stood out. What I’m picturing is plain Crosstown-like LRT, but run just as a high-frequency commuter line in its outer stretches. So in essence this UPX line I’ve shown could take the place of a Brampton/Kitchener GO line…but I may have to think about this some more and do some reading up.

44 North said:

Thanks. I’m not really trying to go to Square One per se, or any particular current hub of ‘Sauga. Rather trying to intersect key N/S 905 arterials which could otherwise see transit-oriented development (and maybe more stations) in the future. I’ve always liked the idea of a grade-separated Eglinton West, which seems logical on paper. But it would be a costly project (especially with the loss of some of the Richview corridor), and it does put a trajectory into Sauga a tad farther north than I’d like. Although it’s completely fictitious, I think using Humber Valley to connect Eglinton to Bloor and Milton line roughly achieves everything that an Eglinton West extension could – and doubling as a partial Midtown line... Minus any airport connection or fast Midtown-level service. And I don’t want to interfere with the real prospect of SmartTrack *rolls eyes*.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. My rationale is simply that the Milton line will probably be getting GO REX level service anyway, so adding LRT to it, especially if it's the same stop spacing, just seems like a duplication in service (much like SmartTrack paralleling the Kitchener GO REX). The LRT extension along the Mississauga Transitway ROW could be done relatively inexpensively as well, and they'll have to Ottawa Transitway upgrade to base it on (happening starting in 2016).

44 North said:

Oh shoot; I saw you had a connection to Seaton, but didn’t see it was using the SRT alignment. I thought I was being inventive by putting to good use what may otherwise be an abandoned stretch of SRT. On top of your template, I’m now taking your ideas too! There might be a thread on this, but what do you think would be a better route to any future airport or north Pickering development: this Seaton line, or the (Havelock?) line to Peterborough?

Click to expand...

Hahaha, no problem! I don't "own" any ideas, I'm just happy when people see value in them and incorporate them into their own schemes. As for a future routing to the airport, I'd say the Seaton line. It would be easier to build a spur off to the airport (much like the UPX spur) and have the main line actually being useful for transit, as opposed to having a line that goes through the middle of a park on the way to the airport. The latter routing kind of makes it a one trick pony.

44 North said:

And not building Yonge may be beneficial if there’s a realistic alternative. I know Markham and RH politicos have been pushing to have Richmond Hill GO become the DRL (so as to fastrack a Yonge ext); but using the same logic it can be argued that a better RH could reduce the need for their pet Yonge ext. It seems many people in Toronto are obsessed with creating new local priorities and Scarborough connections that they’re ignoring Yonge - which may very well be built before any Scarb Subway. Not that I can blame them, I rarely ever see Yonge on any promised maps.

Click to expand...

Good points. The other advantage I see to a GO REX RH DRL (wow that's a long acronym, haha) is that it has the potential to keep the BRT lanes along Yonge connecting to Finch or a Steeles Station. That way for southbound Yonge riders who are headed to NYCC, the transfer point at RHC is eliminated. And let's face it, if there's GO REX and BRT both heading south from RHC, the majority of riders will be on GO REX, so BRT would be sufficient for all of Yonge within YR.

44 North said:

RE UPX… I guess I might not know exactly what RER even is. I’ve been on systems before, but didn’t really clue in at the time how it stood out. What I’m picturing is plain Crosstown-like LRT, but run just as a high-frequency commuter line in its outer stretches. So in essence this UPX line I’ve shown could take the place of a Brampton/Kitchener GO line…but I may have to think about this some more and do some reading up.

Click to expand...

The way that I envision RER working is much like it works in Berlin (U-Bahn), Paris (RER), or to use a North American example, San Francisco (BART). Multiple lines running decent frequencies in the outer and middle suburbs, converging as they get closer to the city centre to run at subway-like frequencies. Trains are a hybrid between subway cars and GO cars, with more doors for faster loading and unloading, but more comfortable seats for long-distance rides like a GO train.

Here’s another contribution to the zeitgeist of Toronto amateur transit fantasy maps. I was making a template of GO to overlay our subway system, but decided to tweak things a bit and show it all as if it were rapid transit. Normally I’d sum something like this up as an ultra-fantasy map; but it’s not really that wild since this is more or less the corridors that exist today.

Other than straight sections of the Barrie and Stouffville lines, I think it gives our system a more natural fluidity like most major cities’ systems. And the black background and to-scale representation allows GO’s routes to stand out a bit more. Not much new, this is more just for show.

-Eglinton Crosstown is interlined and through-routed with the Milton line and (future) Seaton line - with an express using the Midtown corridor, and connection to Kipling using the Humber Valley. The route also makes use of the current/future SRT and an extension along Ellesmere.

-Richmond Hill is interlined with the DRL north of Lawrence Ave E (and the previous ‘Don Branch’ routing I proposed through Broadview and Leaside). This runs along Queen until it turns south and hits the Exhibition grounds and BB. Perhaps eventually to become an elevated waterfront loop all the way to the Port Lands in the east.

-SmartTrack is merely the Stouffville line, but interlined with the Kitchener line. And Lakeshore East/West are one line.

I've never liked the idea of Milton being re-routed through the Midtown line. Most of those commuters are heading for the area around Union, not midtown Toronto.

From the SRT thread

Coruscanti Cognoscente said:

I wonder if it would make sense to end the Bloor line at Hurontario & Dundas, and if Square One is your destination you take the Hurontario LRT. Or is that forcing an unnecessary transfer?

Click to expand...

Bamako said:

Quickie map (click, then again for big):



Notes:

-Trenched/at grade extension along railway corridor, tunnel only required to duck under the railway tracks into Sherway station
-Sherway goes underneath the parking lot of the Sears. It could also be at grade, but it would have to go behind the Sears/Chapters which would make it less accessible on foot
-Kipling GO dismantled, moved to Highway 427 GO, a new accessible platform -- Miway, TTC and GO now all at one station
-Although the station is along the railway corridor, the Highway 427 station building would extend to Dundas St to be more pedestrian accessible (like Miway Square One Term)
-Miway/TTC Express buses no longer have to make long procession to Islington/Kipling and back to the 427
-80 Queensway is replaced by Streetcar/LRT

-123 Shorncliffe is put out of its misery for being a dumb route. Replaced by 121 to Long Branch and 111 extension.
-Possible on-street connection to Highway 427 station for 111 extension as it runs to Sherway station
-30 is extended to new station to retain local service on Dundas, is extended on the other end to Dundas West to replace the 40
-Assumes some fare integration so people on the 4 Sherway can transfer to Highway 427 Station
-112 extended to serve a long ignored stretch of road
-Bus bays at Kipling converted into 60ft bays, consuming the new spares
-Bus terminal replaced at Islington

I figure it could be done for under a billion and really improve the area.

Click to expand...

This is the best I have seen. It keeps open the option to go to Dixie and beyond.

I think East Mall/427 station should be closer to Dundas, and Sherway station closer to Queensway.

But if it happens, I'd prefer if they run EMU's, so it can run express to union from Kipling. Likewise I think the Scarborough subway/SRT should do the same from Kennedy. (One or two stops could be added to connect with the DRL, e.g. Queen East/West.)

Transfers could be improved at Kennedy/Kipling for those that want to continue on the BD. Of course, fares would be integrated, if not a single TTC fare.

This would provide relief for the BD/Yonge-Bloor by taking some riders off the ends of the line, while also improving travel times for those heading downtown.