nfitz
Superstar
That's interesting.
So Relief Line North option 4, but then cut west to Richmond Hill Centre. Though if they are doing that, why not do option 3, and eliminate the Richmond Hill GO line inside Toronto? Would be much cheaper.
|
|
|
Ontario Line North of Eglinton (was Relief Line North) (Speculation)
- Thread starter jaybe
- Start date
So Relief Line North option 4, but then cut west to Richmond Hill Centre. Though if they are doing that, why not do option 3, and eliminate the Richmond Hill GO line inside Toronto? Would be much cheaper.
ARG1
Senior Member
I can think of a few reasons, first there's a lot more stuff on Don Mills Road in general, plus there's that massive cluster at Don-Mills and Sheppard, Fairview Mall, Seneca College at Don Mills and Finch, and the Tech Hub and Mini Downtown at Highway 7 and Leslie. Comparatively, what benefit does the Richmond Hill corridor provide? Lower cost? Cost cutting measures are nice in places like Leslieville where they don't worsen rail access in any way (in fact it improves it) while offering a lower cost. The only downside to the Ontario Line compared to the DRL is maybe the ultimate capacity, but even then its fairly minor, and the capacity is still quite large. Going Option 3 would have the downside of literally going around every major urban area and location of interest.
nfitz
Superstar
Pretty much. One would assume if they went for Option 3, that they would built most of the Transit City Don Mills Line ... which would have the advantage of potentially eventually going north of Steeles.
KhalilHeron
Active Member
I think line 3 does well to show the downsides of building rapid transit in a rail ROW just because it's cheap. There are no real destinations along the Richmond Hill line and it does well to avoid all the density at Sheppard and don mills, and Sheppard and Bayview, with Leslie being far less built up, with only an IKEA as an attractive destination. I think turning onto the hydro corridor at Seneca college to get to the Richmond hill Corridor makes more sense. If the alternative was an underground alignment under don mills, I'd agree the Richmond hill alignment would be far more cost-effective, but I doubt the amount of money saved by staying at grade instead of elevated over don mills would be worth it. Now overall I would far rather it turn east instead of west at Seneca and head to Markham instead of Richmond Hill. Makes far more sense to me.
ARG1
Senior Member
Pretty sure Option 3 + Don Mills LRT would be far more expensive than Option 4.
Bureaucromancer
Active Member
I definitely agree with turning east, but given that RH GO electrification seems to be a non-starter, it's worth noting that this is a place that branching would work pretty well.
JSF-1
Active Member
I tried to disseminate whats on that map.
There are other ones not marked on the map. It also looks like this map has some sort of "North Toronto" line that would realistically utilize the Highway 407 corridor. It is possible to run a GO Line from Oshawa to Hamilton via the CN/Highway 407 corridor (ridership notwithstanding) although I don't know how you could get that line to Pearson.
There are other ones not marked on the map. It also looks like this map has some sort of "North Toronto" line that would realistically utilize the Highway 407 corridor. It is possible to run a GO Line from Oshawa to Hamilton via the CN/Highway 407 corridor (ridership notwithstanding) although I don't know how you could get that line to Pearson.
afransen
Senior Member
That Ontario Line extension westward is kind of kooky. Why not just upgrade Lakeshore West and add some infill stations? I honestly can't think of an obvious, non-redundant way to extend OL west.
ARG1
Senior Member
I highly doubt that's the extension for Ontario Line West. It follows the Waterfront West LRT so perfectly that... well that's probably what that is.
drum118
Superstar
Taking the OL to Steeles is a "MUST" to help the Yonge Line.
Taking the OL to RHC is overkill when you already got the Yonge Line going to RH in the first place as well the GO Line.
Taking it west to Pearson dose 2 things, takes people to the airport faster and not requiring a car per say depending on stations locations as well being overkill for the quality of service along with low ridership. Another money pit line going north of Steeles.
You are better off taking it to Markham New Downtown, but still a money pit.
The only place I can see the OL going west is to Jane St and then north to Steeles. It can replace the Waterfront western extension by servicing Humber Bay Shores Area before going up Jane. it would be a faster route than the LRT.
Taking the OL to RHC is overkill when you already got the Yonge Line going to RH in the first place as well the GO Line.
Taking it west to Pearson dose 2 things, takes people to the airport faster and not requiring a car per say depending on stations locations as well being overkill for the quality of service along with low ridership. Another money pit line going north of Steeles.
You are better off taking it to Markham New Downtown, but still a money pit.
The only place I can see the OL going west is to Jane St and then north to Steeles. It can replace the Waterfront western extension by servicing Humber Bay Shores Area before going up Jane. it would be a faster route than the LRT.
micheal_can
Senior Member
One could see the ends of the O/L being Pearson and Markham. It will provide a relief for Yonge-Bloor, and for the Yonge line overall.
ARG1
Senior Member
Considering the massive Yellow Circle around Richmond Hill Centre, I have a feeling they really want to turn RHC into a massive downtown core that would justify more transit on its own right with tons of transit connections and stuff, sort of like a Union Station North. If you think its overkill, they'll make sure its not overkill by any means necessary.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
I’ve always liked the idea of the OL turning up differin and running up to Eglinton or so.
afransen
Senior Member
If that's the case, should we really be that precious about a neighbourhood like Thornhill? If we plan to make Langstaff/Bridge a major urban centre, that is going to spill over.
ARG1
Senior Member
That's a really good question, without a really good answer. There are definitely a lot of issues to consider, the first being that there's this massive behemoth of a highway running right in the middle of all of this. However the way I've personally seen development in the area is more northerward focus with a lot of focus around Highway 7 in particular, and with most of the density occuring on the north side of the highway - leaving Thornhill mostly unharmed as a historic area. If anything happens, it will probably be that Thornhill gets a few midrises and goes for a more town house style design over the next 30 or so years. Remember this is a 30 year plan, so this is accounting for subtle changes in the areas, and a lot can change in 30 years, especially as many of these communities are already 20-30 years old and are aging quite significantly.