joeclark
New Member
Wyliepoon, where did you find that illustration?
Until there is a plan for coping with the additional passengers an LRT would bring to Pape Station, either by extending the LRT south or by diverting some of the load west of Pape onto other modes, Don Mills LRT could possibly do more harm than good. At peak AM the B-D is full by Coxwell (where I get on) although turning back some cars before Kennedy at Warden might give a little relief there.
I like the Don Mills-Coxwell idea because of the straight-line connection from Don Mills to serve East York Civic Centre, East York CI and East General Hospital and a stretch of Danforth which is prime for intensification plus the short extra stretch needed to connect to the downtown network at Coxwell/Fairford.
But the reality of the Thorncliffe Park catchment is difficult if not impossible to ignore, the rather upmarket estate at Coxwell/O'Connor might have some issues with a TBM under their pricey houses and it's a bit of an indirect route to downtown where let's face it most people are headed anyway.
For some reason Steve Munro hates that idea - which is weird because he lives at Broadview and it would remove the streetcar from the busy junction at Broadview/Danforth. I think it's that the 504/505 would have to terminate further north and he's not wild about that.
What's so special about Thorncliffe Park
You are telling us to ignore the most dense area along the proposed route. That is like saying "Screw putting a station right at Bloor-Yonge, stick one at Rosedale Valley and Park instead. It's close enough."A station at Overlea/Don Mills ain't good enough?!! What's so special about Thorncliffe Park that we'd spend multimillions diverting a line that functions perfectly in a straight alignment? Everyone keeps telling me that the DRL's good enough of the downtown core in spite of only serving the periphery, yet you're giving a fledgling enclave of a few thousand residents a direct 'subway' stop that a reroute of the 81 bus could connect within mins?
Wait, this is you we're talking about, so you'll find a way I'm sure
You are telling us to ignore the most dense area along the proposed route. That is like saying "Screw putting a station right at Bloor-Yonge, stick one at Rosedale Valley and Park instead. It's close enough."
You're entirely missing the idea that the prime directive of the DRL was and still is to relieve the downtown streetcar lines and the Yonge Line at the same time. What is the Don Mills LRT relieving? Sure, the Yonge Line to some degree, and the suburban east-west bus routes perhaps, but it seems to me that local service is the priority. Thus, it makes absolutely zero sense to skip Thorncliffe Park and put a station at Don Mills and Overlea.
It's not like there's no room. Overlea has a massive median that can be converted to a ROW, it's pretty much perfect for LRT. I can not see how you can possibly justify not running it through there.
18,000 people, and there's another 20,000 at Pape & Cosburn.
It's not a presumption when it's based on personal observation.No need for personal ad hominen presumptions.
Yes, it would serve the area, I'm not denying that. Not nearly as well as a diversion through Thorncliffe would though. The problem here seems to be that you are insistent on the line linking with the B-D east of Pape, whereas everyone at the city and most of this forum agrees with Pape Station as the best linking point.If not for the Don Valley dividing Overlea into east and west sides, Throncliffe and Flemingdon Parks would be the same continuous area with apts lining the way right across Overlea, hence a stop @Overlea/Don Mills would serve the area.
I'm no noob. I've been lurking on here a long, long time. In fact, I registered two months after you did. Just because my postcount isn't high, it doesn't mean I'm a moron. You just make yourself look stupid by using such a petty insult.The DRL and Don Mills are one and same, noob.
Once again, it's not the wrong direction if you take it down to Pape like the city plans on doing. Also, have you ever stopped to wonder exactly why all those bus routes you name go to Thorncliffe Park? Perhaps because it needs a high level of service? By running LRT through Thorncliffe, you reduce the number of buses required to serve the area, thus allowing them to be deployed elsewhere. At the same time, you serve existing density, not an undeveloped intersection 500 metres away.Veering a line 2kms in the wrong direction just for the sake of a mall is illogical and impractical, not to mention insensitive to everyone who came in from as far as Major Mack to get into the downtown or interchange at Danforth quickly. Local service on Overlea is over-complicated and excessive to the point you're severely spoiling TC residents via this diversion. Let's see-25, 81, 88, 56, 100, 403... can you say overkill?
Would that be the DRL that somehow serves every downtown trip generator regardless of physical constraints that you seem to love bringing up in every thread? Also, I have no idea what the hell you're on about with having to get off at Front to catch a bus into the city. Last that I checked, Union Station is in fact on the YUS and it does, in fact, serve "the city". Thus: transfer from streetcar to DRL, DRL to Union, Union to destination on the YUS loop. Is it that difficult for you to comprehend?No one's discounting that but in order for a) Coxwell and b) Queen East to have some semblence of mass transit along their corridors this feels like the best alignment to me. While the DRL's limited to the rail corridor (and we know intensification just loves those areas), a re-imagined DRL borrowing from Queen proposals gets into the nitty-gritty of the city, alleviates YUS/BD and likely will trigger gentrification. If you're a new homeowner of a waterfront condo, more power to you but don't expect me to got off at Front St and still have to wait in the freezing cold for a bus into the city.
So you agree with diverting the Eglinton Line south, likely at huge expense, in order to serve Thorncliffe Park? But what about the poor people coming in from as far away as Eglinton Square!? Imagine them having to endure such a horrible diversion of their service in order to serve Thorncliffe Park! They deserve quick subway access!Thorncliffe Park could be served by an Eglinton Line as I've said before, such that we're keeping both daily ridership and accessibility high priorities for both catchments (Eglinton and lower Don Mills area).
Yes, it would serve the area, I'm not denying that. Not nearly as well as a diversion through Thorncliffe would though. The problem here seems to be that you are insistent on the line linking with the B-D east of Pape, whereas everyone at the city and most of this forum agrees with Pape Station as the best linking point.
For the record, I was referring to a subway through downtown along the rail corridors, combined with a transfer to Don Mills at Pape. Demand north of the B-D is not enough for a subway. Thus, the way I see it, Jane should go down the rail corridor to Dundas West, the subway should run from Dundas West to Pape, then the Don Mills line north from Pape. Note that the DRL could just be an extension of the aforementioned LRT lines as well, so don't get on me with the whole OMG TRANSFER CITY!!!1!!11ONE argument. There are multiple technologies available, after all.
Once again, it's not the wrong direction if you take it down to Pape like the city plans on doing. Also, have you ever stopped to wonder exactly why all those bus routes you name go to Thorncliffe Park? Perhaps because it needs a high level of service? By running LRT through Thorncliffe, you reduce the number of buses required to serve the area, thus allowing them to be deployed elsewhere. At the same time, you serve existing density, not an undeveloped intersection 500 metres away.
Would that be the DRL that somehow serves every downtown trip generator regardless of physical constraints that you seem to love bringing up in every thread? Also, I have no idea what the hell you're on about with having to get off at Front to catch a bus into the city. Last that I checked, Union Station is in fact on the YUS and it does, in fact, serve "the city". Thus: transfer from streetcar to DRL, DRL to Union, Union to destination on the YUS loop. Is it that difficult for you to comprehend?
So you agree with diverting the Eglinton Line south, likely at huge expense, in order to serve Thorncliffe Park? But what about the poor people coming in from as far away as Eglinton Square!? Imagine them having to endure such a horrible diversion of their service in order to serve Thorncliffe Park! They deserve quick subway access!
I have no problem being insensitive to people who should be on a GO Train...insensitive to everyone who came in from as far as Major Mack to get into the downtown