BurlOak
Senior Member
I think I have too much work in the East in the 2030's (finished on 2040), and too much in the west the following decade. But here's the idea.
|
|
|
BurlOak
Senior Member
Some details.
1) Downtown. The King Line would go up Dufferin - completely underground. The Ontario Line would follow close to the current alignment - but maybe immediately south of the Gardiner (instead of above the GO). Like I said before, as long the transfer is no worse that Union - City Hall bound passengers would transfer here. I cross the Ontario line (elevated) north of Gardiner for a Station at Sunnyside for transfers to/from major streetcar routes. It then crosses back to the south side.
2) Farther North, the King Line basically switches from Dufferin to Weston Road at Davenport. Between Rogers and St. Clair, the line would move from underground to elevated - and stay that way for the rest of the route northwest. Interchange Station at Dufferin/Bloor, St. Clair and Mount Dennis - and with FWLRT (beyond this map). Continues over/beside GO corridor from St. Clair to almost 401. The one thing I'm maybe least happy with is that this parallels the GO corridor for about 6km - but that rail corridor does provide the opportunity to switch from underground to elevated.
3) The Ontario Line continues West along the Lakeshore - I don't foresee any stations between Parkside and Humber Shores, which is a bit long at 3.5km. I thought about 2 Humber Shore stations, but that would maybe just be inconvenient for the majority of the people. The other thought was a stop at Sunnyside Beach, but again not sure if it's warranted.
The Ontario line take Mimico Creek to get up to the Queensway (there's no other convenient point farther west). Likely 5 stations on Queensway at about 1km spacing - Royal York, Islington, Kipling, East Mall, Sherway.
1) Downtown. The King Line would go up Dufferin - completely underground. The Ontario Line would follow close to the current alignment - but maybe immediately south of the Gardiner (instead of above the GO). Like I said before, as long the transfer is no worse that Union - City Hall bound passengers would transfer here. I cross the Ontario line (elevated) north of Gardiner for a Station at Sunnyside for transfers to/from major streetcar routes. It then crosses back to the south side.
2) Farther North, the King Line basically switches from Dufferin to Weston Road at Davenport. Between Rogers and St. Clair, the line would move from underground to elevated - and stay that way for the rest of the route northwest. Interchange Station at Dufferin/Bloor, St. Clair and Mount Dennis - and with FWLRT (beyond this map). Continues over/beside GO corridor from St. Clair to almost 401. The one thing I'm maybe least happy with is that this parallels the GO corridor for about 6km - but that rail corridor does provide the opportunity to switch from underground to elevated.
3) The Ontario Line continues West along the Lakeshore - I don't foresee any stations between Parkside and Humber Shores, which is a bit long at 3.5km. I thought about 2 Humber Shore stations, but that would maybe just be inconvenient for the majority of the people. The other thought was a stop at Sunnyside Beach, but again not sure if it's warranted.
The Ontario line take Mimico Creek to get up to the Queensway (there's no other convenient point farther west). Likely 5 stations on Queensway at about 1km spacing - Royal York, Islington, Kipling, East Mall, Sherway.
Last edited:
44 North
Senior Member
I think any line that goes along Queensway would have to be downsized to remain in the realm of possibility. So perhaps a two-car setup for accompanying two-car sized stations. Could still be part of the RL though, running along its downtown section. But as its own separate service. I'd even envision it going east and terminating at Hearn, cuz who knows what could be there in thirty years.
Johnny Au
Senior Member
The Rumsey stop could be used to serve Holland Bloorview as well.
This is a really big thing I just did, and I'm so stoked that I finally can share it. This is a culmination of all sorts of ideas I've had of how to improve Toronto's public transit system. I'm not super happy about the formatting, but considering what I had, I think it gets the point across without having too many colours.
I originally planned to have an Albion-Wilson-Bathurst line and a Dufferin-Wilson-York Mills line, but I think this arrangement works better because few people would be travelling from end to end anyways, and it would be more convenient for riders if the lines travelled in a relatively consistent direction. I'm not thrilled about the Classic LRT line arrangement south of Bloor/east of Parkside, but my focus was more on unlocking development potential in the yellow belt for this map.
(Edited to re-upload a new version, because the old one had a misplaced label.)
Rainforest
Senior Member
3) The Ontario Line continues West along the Lakeshore - I don't foresee any stations between Parkside and Humber Shores, which is a bit long at 3.5km. I thought about 2 Humber Shore stations, but that would maybe just be inconvenient for the majority of the people. The other thought was a stop at Sunnyside Beach, but again not sure if it's warranted.
The Ontario line take Mimico Creek to get up to the Queensway (there's no other convenient point farther west). Likely 5 stations on Queensway at about 1km spacing - Royal York, Islington, Kipling, East Mall, Sherway.
View attachment 215362
[/QUOTE]
Assuming OL is build as planned, with the western terminus at the Exhibition and pointing west while being above ground, that will create a strong push to extend it further west using the LS West rail corridor, and then serve the southern Etobicoke. That's not necessarily the optimal extension, as the north-western options have their merits too, but the ease to build argument will be definitely in favor of continuing west on surface rather than ducking underground and making a relatively sharp turn.
The Ontario line take Mimico Creek to get up to the Queensway (there's no other convenient point farther west). Likely 5 stations on Queensway at about 1km spacing - Royal York, Islington, Kipling, East Mall, Sherway.
View attachment 215362
[/QUOTE]
Assuming OL is build as planned, with the western terminus at the Exhibition and pointing west while being above ground, that will create a strong push to extend it further west using the LS West rail corridor, and then serve the southern Etobicoke. That's not necessarily the optimal extension, as the north-western options have their merits too, but the ease to build argument will be definitely in favor of continuing west on surface rather than ducking underground and making a relatively sharp turn.
WislaHD
Superstar
I think a station in Swansea/Sunnyside (at Windemere) is valid.3) The Ontario Line continues West along the Lakeshore - I don't foresee any stations between Parkside and Humber Shores, which is a bit long at 3.5km. I thought about 2 Humber Shore stations, but that would maybe just be inconvenient for the majority of the people. The other thought was a stop at Sunnyside Beach, but again not sure if it's warranted.
The Ontario line take Mimico Creek to get up to the Queensway (there's no other convenient point farther west). Likely 5 stations on Queensway at about 1km spacing - Royal York, Islington, Kipling, East Mall, Sherway.
I am reposting this but years back I drew an alignment option with the focus being on coverage and limiting tight turns (though the Park Lawn turn may still be too tight). It might be a bit station heavy, I think one or both of the Park Lawn & Queesnway or Marine Parade Drive stations could be cut. That being said, the stop spacing is alright for subway standards.
Otherwise, there is probably room for one Bessarion-esque station on The Queensway between Kipling and East Mall near the Ikea site, but City Planners really need to figure out if they can support conversion of industrial land for residential development there.
Rainforest
Senior Member
I don't think smaller trains can get a share of track time in the OL downtown tunnel.
They want to run at 90' headways to provide the required capacity. Probably won't entirely succeed and will have to accept 105' or 110' headways instead, and the capacity will drop from 34k to ~ 27 k. But, what happens if they allow smaller trains to take 1/3 of track time? The capacity will go down to 22 - 23 k, which is certainly too small.
Hopkins123
Senior Member
There should be a stop at Windermere for the Swansea community.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Y-Line and B-Line will use 150m long TTC subway, while the S-Line (Sheppard subway) will be converted to the same trains as the O-Line (Ontario Line) - mostly because they need to handle steep grades to become elevated West of Highway 404.
All trains on the S-Line, O-Line and K-Line would be 120m long for both the Ontario Line and the King Line. Perhaps until ridership reaches peak level, they would run somewhat smaller trains, but the design is for 120m.
Generally, everything in the Downtown is underground, while beyond that is all elevated (except for the legacy network that is already completed underground). The general rule of thumb is that major interchange stations are 2-track, 3-120m long platforms with Spanish Solution. Other underground stations are 120m long. Most elevated stations are 80m long, and the first two cars of the train don't stop at a platform West of Yonge (last 2 cars East of Yonge). The exceptions are STC and Centennial, which are just parallel tracks separated by about 75m, and Throncliffe which will have 4 tracks and 2 platforms with cross platform transfer - mainly due to the construction sequence.
north-of-anything
Active Member
As someone who occasionally went there as a child, that was my intention. It's meant to serve all the medical institutions on Kilgour as well as the adjacent neighbourhood.
MrGoose
Active Member
IDK what the right place to post this is, but how come the province doesn't do transit oriented development and zoning with regards to the GO Trains similar to how the Caltrain functions in the bay area?
In California, you get little downtowns clustered around these Caltrain stops like these examples from San Mateo, Palo Alto and Mountain View
Put that in contrast with what we have around GO stops in Mississauga (Clarkson GO), Oakville , Milton, King City etc.
In California, you get little downtowns clustered around these Caltrain stops like these examples from San Mateo, Palo Alto and Mountain View
Put that in contrast with what we have around GO stops in Mississauga (Clarkson GO), Oakville , Milton, King City etc.
Neutrino
Senior Member
Paging @north-of-anything - give us some more fantasy road reconfigurations 
WislaHD
Superstar
Well, Metrolinx has identified all these GO stations as mobility hubs / major transit station areas (MTSAs) with specific intent accomplish what you speak of in the long-term. Planning in this province moves at a glacial pace though, so throughout the region we are still waiting for the various municipalities to adopt these mobility hubs into their Official Plans as they are obligated to do (many are resisting for as long as they can, for example, refusing development applications around existing GO stations for being too dense, citing that MTSAs are not currently listed in their official plans, so there is no planning basis for high-rise towers, etc.).
In the short-term, Metrolinx also has to deal with the competing usage of the GO station parking lots for their customers.
Another major issue is that many of these station areas are geographically challenging, have existing residential built form patterns that are incompatible with intensification, or are in provincially designated employment lands which are protected in our planning regime (and that is not necessarily bad thing, you don't have residential development without jobs, and industrial lands throughout the GTA have very low vacancy rate). The areas along the Caltrain you screenshot seem to be areas that were developed during the heyday of rail (just guessing, I might be wrong), and seem to have existing urban structure and street grids to match. That urban structure in contrast, is amenable for intensification.
Last edited:
JSF-1
Active Member
I believe there is a two-fold issue here. The first being urban planning, Toronto and Canada in general still has a long way to go to solve out horrendous urban planning principles. As well the sleepy-suburbs around Toronto aren't really clamoring to develop anything but more residential. They seem intent on trying the keep the suburban dream alive for as long as possible to the ultimate detriment of residence. The other issue is with Metrolinx and the various transit agencies in the GTA. The fact is the GTA is still very auto-dependent mostly due to our horrific urban planning. Metrolinx and transit agencies for there part don't seem to be to concerned with any of this and Metrolinx further fuels this problem by constructing parking garages of a grand scale. The fact is we know many GO Stations sit on some prime real estate the Metrolinx could sell for some good cash and can be developed, however municipalities may be against this as it brings development they may not want, and Metrolinx also likes the money they make from the parking lots and integration of transit services is still a far off dream.
Basically our Urban planning forces people to drive because public transit outside the urban cores is non-existent. Metrolinx further fuels this car culture by constructing grand palaces for car owners and suburban municipalities don't want any of that "urban" development ruining the quaint little suburbs so they would likely be up in arms if ML started selling off GO properties to developers. As well Metrolinx isn't in the business of Property development/ ownership themselves as that is mostly an East Asian occurrence.
If it were up to me I would create a ranking system for the Stations based off potential for development. It would go something like this:
Class A Stations: Stations that serve as the centre of an urban core. Development of the site should the be the highest priority. These stations should become hubs of transit and commerce ala; Central stations for their municipality. (Examples: Union, Cooksville, Brampton, and Langstaff)
Class B Stations: Stations that are of some importance but don't fit the bill as being a large hub. These stations may be in suburban areas/towns that aren't of the same quality as say Brampton, Mississaugga, or Toronto. Development is encouraged although to a smaller degree.
Class C Stations: Stations that have little to no development potential mostly due to being located in areas of little to no development. (Examples: Lincolnville, Gromley)
Something along these lines is encouraged although the success of it would be based solely on the roles ML and municipalities play. Success could be quite easy to achieve if say ML was able to unilaterally sell GO lands to developers without municipal approval, or if ML was allowed to become a property developer. However if municipalities are allowed to be envolved with the process unless there is an overhaul to our urban planning system, such a development scheme would fall to special interest groups; especially in suburban areas.
north-of-anything
Active Member
I like this concept, because as much as some people say "every GO station should be a mini-downtown" it's simply not practical. I definitely have some ideas as to what stations would be in which class.