Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

Anonymous2000 said:
As much as I like this plan, there are some problems with it. How would you provide a connection to the Stouffville GO Line? Remember the hydro corridor is roughly equal distance between Steeles and Finch once in Scarborough. Also, an added station at Mc Nicoll (where the corridor parallels in Scarborough) it would have significantly slow down service on the Stouffville line.
Click to expand...

The Big Move calls for Unionville GO to be a mobility hub: Highway 7 and 407 rapidways east and west, and another rapid transit line east, then down McCowan to STC.

I'll attempt to steer this discussion back to the Relief Line: DRL-short would provide connection to the Stouffville line via Line 2 and Main Street or Kennedy station. North of that, future connections could be made to Kennedy GO via Eglinton Crosstown, and Agincourt GO via Sheppard East (LRT or subway, whatever).
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
The Big Move calls for Unionville GO to be a mobility hub: Highway 7 and 407 rapidways east and west, and another rapid transit line east, then down McCowan to STC.

I'll attempt to steer this discussion back to the Relief Line: DRL-short would provide connection to the Stouffville line via Line 2 and Main Street or Kennedy station. North of that, future connections could be made to Kennedy GO via Eglinton Crosstown, and Agincourt GO via Sheppard East (LRT or subway, whatever).
Click to expand...
It's actually more direct than that. The DRL would connect directly to the Stouffville line (and Lakeshore line) at the new station at Eastern and Broadview. And maybe at another station at Pape and Gerrard.
 
An interesting read for all:

What has gone wrong since the ‘golden age’ of Toronto transit
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...olden-age-of-toronto-transit/article34321708/

On mistakes:
  • Building a subway [Spadina] on an expressway median was a huge one
  • Putting the Queen subway on Bloor has turned out to be a mistake
  • great cities that have been able to sustainably expand subways kept building from the middle out (and they didn’t tunnel in low-density areas).
  • stupidest thing we could do is make any of our lines longer [before putting another subway through the core].”
Effects on not building Queen subway after Yonge
  • By not doing Queen right after Yonge, “we missed a crucial starting point for network-building. We’ve never been able to get back to a logical order,” Mr. Levy says. “Call it the Queen line, relief line, whatever, the whole GTA has needed this piece of infrastructure for decades, but politicians keep wasting scarce capital on frills and vote buying.”
  • “Toronto’s biggest transit problem,” says Mr. Crowley, who specializes in data analysis, travel market research and demand forecasting, “is we’ve overloaded core parts of the subway. We’d basically done that on lower Yonge 30 years ago
On Eglinton
  • “Much as I like the Eglinton Crosstown idea, and it’s overdue, too,” Mr. Levy says, “I fear what it will do to Yonge-line crowding. Again, the sequence is so wrong.”
On Scarborough
  • “you won’t find a single independent transit professional who can support this
  • This Scarborough boondoggle, if we were talking about gas plants, it could bring down a government, but transit is ‘special’ for reasons I don’t understand.”
  • Scarborough deserves better transit, but the best options aren’t even being considered.” (Dr. Soberman would simply buy new rolling stock for the SRT and rebuild a bend to accommodate new vehicles.)
On other city centres
  • We’ve also overestimated the potential of these sub-downtowns, especially on jobs,” Mr. Levy says. “It’s twisted our spending priorities.”
When was the last time we did anything good?
  • The Kipling and Kennedy extensions? That’s nearly 40 years ago
On Sheppard
  • I’d raised serious, fact-based concerns about Sheppard-subway ridership forecasts and the role of the project
  • Most people recognized Sheppard was a mistake, but people who learned from it are ignored
On the media
  • And the media, you guys, haven’t always helped. This subway-versus-LRT debate was simplistic and maddening.
What stayed with me
  • We have to relearn the importance of downtown to the whole region, the whole country. We’re in danger of killing the golden goose.”
-Our council have been unbelievably incompetent at driving this through our upper level of governments thick heads.



 
Amazing article @Cobra .

Someone on facebook created this map using 2016 census data.

17311175_10102139514243311_6594700814130234352_o.jpg


Look how the Dufferin corridor compares to anything else not named Queen Street in this city.
 
salsa said:
Meanwhile look at all the black abyss out in Scarborough and north of Downsview station, where council decided that building subways there are a top priority.
Click to expand...

To be fair; a great deal of the black is the ravine/valley park system.

That can make an adjacent medium density area disappear if you average the totals over a given space.

This is well illustrated, at least in my reading, that map shows Thorncliffe as low-density, when it in fact, is anything but. However, it is surrounded by green space.

The idea of the map is sound, and portions of the information are quite useful.

Some, however, are misleading (I'm sure w/o intention).
 
WislaHD said:
Amazing article @Cobra .

Someone on facebook created this map using 2016 census data.

17311175_10102139514243311_6594700814130234352_o.jpg


Look how the Dufferin corridor compares to anything else not named Queen Street in this city.
Click to expand...

If we design subways based on this map, then we have to end the Relief line in East York :) North of the Don Valley, its route will go through areas that are even less dense than areas next to Spadina subway or SSE.

Seriously, transfers from the local feeder routes have much more effect on the ridership counts than density within the walking distance.
 
Rainforest said:
If we design subways based on this map, then we have to end the Relief line in East York :) North of the Don Valley, its route will go through areas that are even less dense than areas next to Spadina subway or SSE.

Seriously, transfers from the local feeder routes have much more effect on the ridership counts than density within the walking distance.
Click to expand...

44 North said:
Something seems up with that map, like things aren't shown in the right location. Someone else made an interactive density map, and I think it does a much better job of showing where Thorncliffe and Flemingdon actually are located.

View attachment 102395
Click to expand...

IIRC the author mentioned that it doesn't show places like Thorncliffe and Flemingdon park well, because their respective census tracts cover larger areas of land.

Don Mills has rather low immediate surrounding density, but massive development potential (especially with a subway) and humongous feeder route ridership. Plus the additional benefit of intercepting ridership that is otherwise bound for the over-capacity Yonge subway. Just so we are clear why Don Mills is priority.

Just because feeder routes contribute substantially more to ridership than local density doesn't mean that density should be discounted. Density is a good predicator of transit-amiable local population, transit-friendly built form, and aligns with our goals of city building.
 
44 North said:
Something seems up with that map, like things aren't shown in the right location. Someone else made an interactive density map, and I think it does a much better job of showing where Thorncliffe and Flemingdon actually are located.

View attachment 102395
Click to expand...

Note that this is only a population density map. It doesn't show employment density, which is arguably more relevant for public transit discussions.

Nevertheless, it's a very good map, although I wish the colours could be changed. It shows a ton of exiting density around the proposed Relief Line Long corridor.

Looking at this map, and other population/employment density maps, Dufferin and Don Mills appear to be the two corridors with the greatest population/employment density in the city, outside of the Downtown and Queen Street areas and the Yonge Street corridor.

We really should have built the Spadina Subway on Dufferin Street. We must avoid making the same mistake with the Relief Line Long, by building it away from Don Mills Road (perhaps in the Don Valley) to save money.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Note that this is only a population density map. It doesn't show employment density, which is arguably more relevant for public transit discussions.

Nevertheless, it's a very good map, although I wish the colours could be changed. It shows a ton of exiting density around the proposed Relief Line Long corridor.

Looking at this map, and other population/employment density maps, Dufferin and Don Mills appear to be the two corridors with the greatest population/employment density in the city, outside of the Downtown and Queen Street areas and the Yonge Street corridor.

We really should have built the Spadina Subway on Dufferin Street. We must avoid making the same mistake with the Relief Line Long, by building it away from Don Mills Road (perhaps in the Don Valley) to save money.
Click to expand...

Exactly. These density maps make it clear that this city has needed a sweeping U along Don Mills, through the core, and back north again. And I agree about the colour needing to be changed for that map.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top