Transit Fantasy Maps

[micheal_can]

I have been advocating for something like Option 3, definitely would serve the most destinations in the area and cost relatively less due to the existing ROWs and elevated alignment. Something else which could be feasible and very useful would be a modified Option 10, where Line 2 and Line 4 would end at STC, with Line 4 using the Line 2 tunnel between Sheppard and STC. Line 5 would be extended along Progress to also meet at STC. I think this would be a great plan too, except that the cost would likely be much higher than Option 3. Here's what it could look like:
View attachment 371826

Either way, its clear that the current high-level plans to have Line 2, Line 4, and Line 5 meet at Sheppard/McCowan is not great from a rider demand/experience perspective.

When I see maps that show going to malls as a terminus, and then I see an article like this:

A Toronto mall around for over five decades will be completely demolished

Toronto's brick-and-mortar retail landscape has suffered immensely with the rise of online shopping and exponentially more during the pandemic, and...

www.blogto.com

I wonder whether it is foolhardy to do so. Some of the malls have been very successful, while others may end up being redeveloped for something else all together, and it may not be much of a trip generator.

 

[duffo]

When I see maps that show going to malls as a terminus, and then I see an article like this:

A Toronto mall around for over five decades will be completely demolished

Toronto's brick-and-mortar retail landscape has suffered immensely with the rise of online shopping and exponentially more during the pandemic, and...

www.blogto.com

I wonder whether it is foolhardy to do so. Some of the malls have been very successful, while others may end up being redeveloped for something else all together, and it may not be much of a trip generator.

If a low-rise mall gets demolished for high-density, mixed-use residential, then rapid transit is doing exactly what its supposed to do

 

[micheal_can]

If a low-rise mall gets demolished for high-density, mixed-use residential, then rapid transit is doing exactly what its supposed to do

But is that the place to terminate at? Also, are there other already built areas that could use the transit first?

 

[Tuck]

Wow, I used to go to Centerpoint all the time as a kid. I would get my hair cut there. Bit of a weird feeling to think of it going away.

BUT ALSO: Good riddance! I wish they had gotten rid of the entire Promenade too, rather than just the Sears.

 

[JasonParis]

This should help the Steeles BRT to become a reality too.

 

[M II A II R II K]

 

[jcam]

Where did that come from? Never seen it all put together like that...would like to reference.

 

[boilwater]

Where did that come from? Never seen it all put together like that...would like to reference.

dunno about above but i saw it here

https://twitter.com/x/status/1496177737228337159

 

[DirectionNorth]

Where did that come from? Never seen it all put together like that...would like to reference.

I think it's just the tunneling costs, which doesn't include stations - which would make deep bore significantly more expensive.

 

[M II A II R II K]

This could be the new ICTS

 

[afransen]

Weather should not stop a transit line. Just like cost should not be the primary reason to pick a method of construction.

We live in a world of limited resources. Cost is the primary reason we can't do everything we might like. Choosing to spend 3x on transit per km is choosing to get 1/3 the kms built. Maybe even less because the value derived is not sufficient to justify the investment.

 

[afransen]

there's no real room for an elevated extension along Sheppard west to Downsview unless the line ran directly above the roadway for most of the route which would be pretty unpopular. The elevated structure would need to be about 12m wide and stations a minimum of 16m wide (from examples in Toronto, New York, and Vancouver) which the ROW can't really support unless again it is stacked directly on top of the road. I do fully support an underground alignment here, however. It'd be more expensive but the operational benefits probably justify the cost.

Expropriation is an option. Sheppard W is mostly lined with SFHs. Those are going to be intensified anyway, so expropriate them for stations.

 

[nfitz]

Expropriation is an option. Sheppard W is mostly lined with SFHs. Those are going to be intensified anyway, so expropriate them for stations.

I'm not sure why at grade isn't an option. The right-of-way is very wide - over 30 metres. Heck, there's 5 lanes for much of it, with a lot of grass between the sidewalk and the street. Looks that most of the SFH are long-gone, with apartment buildings. Isn't this where surface LRT works best? Otherwise, you end up with 1 km between Bathurst and Faywood stations.

 

[micheal_can]

We live in a world of limited resources. Cost is the primary reason we can't do everything we might like. Choosing to spend 3x on transit per km is choosing to get 1/3 the kms built. Maybe even less because the value derived is not sufficient to justify the investment.

Maybe how I said it didn't make sense. I do know that cost will always be a major factor. However, it should not be the primary factor. That is why, for example, extending Sheppard with something other than the subway cars just to save money should not happen.

 

[afransen]

Maybe how I said it didn't make sense. I do know that cost will always be a major factor. However, it should not be the primary factor. That is why, for example, extending Sheppard with something other than the subway cars just to save money should not happen.

So much better to not have any service. "Perfect" should defeat good.