News   Nov 13, 2019
 362     2 
News   Nov 13, 2019
 747     5 
News   Nov 13, 2019
 3.2K     13 

Transit Fantasy Maps

jcam

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
473
Reaction score
234
Toronto 2051.png
As does Crosstown East and Crosstown West. The symmetry there is just so aesthetically pleasing that it just has to be built.

But you just reminded me that the TTC style does not do right-angles. I guess I have something else to fix on my map now... Expect a v3 once I figure out what to do with Sheppard.
Go out another 20 years, and relief line goes up South Kingsway and Jane to Sheppard, Sheppard goes west to Jane, and ta-da! Toronto's own circle line.

Wisla, hope you don't mind I added on.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

doady

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,965
Reaction score
328
Location
Mississauga
Unlike Mississauga however, Scarborough is incredibly under-served by GO-Lines. The majority of Scarberians have to bus towards either Kennedy/STC or to Line 1.

It should be no surprise that the Relief Line route extended to Sheppard and Don Mills becomes such a priority under those circumstances. Beyond Line 1 relief, it significantly cuts down the length and time of Scarborough bus commutes.

Now, re-activate the Midtown corridor, construct a few infill stations along the Stoufville line, and provide a Toronto-fare zone to the GO-RER lines in Scarborough, and the framing of transit discussion in Scarborough would completely change.
Don't get me wrong, I am supportive of the DRL. It should be Toronto's #1 priority. DRL is actually DRL2. DRL1 was University-Spadina. Relief is needed both west and east.

Scarborough has Stouffville Line which is very similar to Milton Line in Mississauga. Lakeshore Line provides all-day 30 minute service in both Mississauga and Scarborough. Really, the only difference is GO fares are not competitive with TTC fares. Lack of fare integration between TTC and GO doesn't help either (GO riders in Mississauga only have pay to 80 cents more to use MiWay).
 

Filip

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,538
Reaction score
870
Location
Београд
Seems about the same to me, if just considering Toronto. Old Toronto has more population west of Yonge. Same with North York.

But GTA overall, the population is much, much higher west of Yonge. There is farmland in Scarborough. Not so much in Etobicoke. There's no Mississauga or Brampton beyond Scarborough.

So I don't know how you can say we should invest into transit more east of Yonge than west of Yonge. Bloor-Danforth Line extends close to the Mississauga border, so it should be extended to Pickering border as well? Don't tell me you believe this.

Even disregarding the GTA's population weighted heavily west of Yonge, and just looking at the distance, a subway extension to Scarborough Town Centre is same as an extension to Tomken Road in Mississauga. Scarborough is basically the Mississauga of the East.
That's exactly my point. The population on the west end (disregarding municipal boundaries) is on an order of magnitude larger than the east. Ok.. So Mississauga is not Toronto (therefore doesn't have the same support as Scarborough would), but that doesn't mean all those Mississauga drivers making my commute hell get to disappear on the border.

Why should my commute last as long as someone from Scarborough when I can walk to downtown in about an hour and a half! Try that from STC.
 

nfitz

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
23,253
Reaction score
3,360
Location
Toronto
Go out another 20 years, and relief line goes up South Kingsway and Jane to Sheppard, Sheppard goes west to Jane, and ta-da! Toronto's own circle line.
2051 and still no Sheppard East LRT!

I doubt they'd build a subway station at Royal Orchard - more likely if they start adding infill stations that they'd build Willowdale.

Also, that DRL downtown is misleading - it makes it look like it stops at both Queen and Osgoode rather than just at City Hall.
 

TheTigerMaster

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
12,390
Reaction score
4,370
Location
Best Toronto
Why should my commute last as long as someone from Scarborough when I can walk to downtown in about an hour and a half! Try that from STC.
The situation is exactly the same at the east end of the city.

Queen and Lakeshore to City Hall
Walk: 1 h 38 min
Transit 47 min

Scarborough Centre to City Hall
Transit 50 min
 

Filip

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,538
Reaction score
870
Location
Београд
The situation is exactly the same at the east end of the city.

Queen and Lakeshore to City Hall
Walk: 1 h 38 min
Transit 47 min

Scarborough Centre to City Hall
Transit 50 min
Where is Queen and Lake Shore? Sorry I'm not following. STC is basically somewhere in middle-Mississauga if the same distance is applied from City Hall going west.
 

44 North

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
3,214
Reaction score
1,505
Location
Ward 28
Personally, to connect to the Portlands/Expo site I'd prefer to see the Cherry streetcar ROW extended north to Queen, to a future DRL station. It could be tunnelled if necessary for that last bit, allowing for an underground connection like at Spadina or Union. That would be far easier to build (especially since about 1/3rd of it is already there), and easier to scale up and down depending on demand. A low usage streetcar ROW doesn't carry nearly the same operating expenses as a low usage subway.

This setup also doesn't depend on the QQE project, since it would still have a subway connection. However, if that project were to go ahead, theoretically you could have two lines converging at Expo: one from Union, and one from Sumach (DRL).

Doing that also opens the door up to a Parliament LRT, which would in essence mirror Spadina, but on the eastern edge of downtown. That would also mean that the Expo connector lines would link to 3 of the 4 subway lines in the city. You may actually have created *gasp* a grid!
It would definitely be interesting to have the Cherry spur extended underground, and a platform-to-platform connection with this potential Sumach station. I'm not sure how feasible it would be to create a portal/tunnel leading into Sumach station since most of the spur is already in place, and development in the WDL has mostly occurred already. So I don't know where it could dive underground. But the idea of a solid N/S connection is no doubt sound. And with a DRL route (mostly) chosen already, this could definitely change the dynamics of waterfront transit planning.

An idea of a Parliament LRT is interesting, and this was actually considered as part of the 80s-era Relief plans.

IMG_3885.JPG
 

Attachments

44 North

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
3,214
Reaction score
1,505
Location
Ward 28
So Parliament Street warranted an LRT line in the 80s, yet can't even get a stop on the DRL today? Weird.
It didn't really warrant an LRT. It was studied as a possible solution for providing Yonge relief (and was thoroughly rejected in the process).

IMG_3884.JPG
IMG_3886.JPG

But on the topic of waterfront transit, and in keeping with the existing future plan to extend Broadview south through the Unilever lands (and bring in a new streetcar line to the Port Lands), I'm wondering if Broadview could receive the LRT treatment from Danforth to Commissioners. Not for relief or anything, nor as a priority. But perhaps an eventual move toward improving streetcar reliability/speed. Both for the 504/505, and whatever is running through the eastern waterfront.

*Somewhat related, but I still maintain my belief that a significant portion of the legacy network built in the Lower Don Lands, East Bayfront, and Port Lands should receive a sizable portion of grade-separation. Trench or elevated...I don't care. Just so long as we don't repeat the same mistakes as the western waterfront (i.e under-building or not building at all). We need to ensure that this future area is reliably connected to the core and city. It may very well become North America's version of Canary Wharf.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

gweed123

Moderator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
7,543
Reaction score
1,016
Location
Burlington
It would definitely be interesting to have the Cherry spur extended underground, and a platform-to-platform connection with this potential Sumach station. I'm not sure how feasible it would be to create a portal/tunnel leading into Sumach station since most of the spur is already in place, and development in the WDL has mostly occurred already. So I don't know where it could dive underground. But the idea of a solid N/S connection is no doubt sound. And with a DRL route (mostly) chosen already, this could definitely change the dynamics of waterfront transit planning.

An idea of a Parliament LRT is interesting, and this was actually considered as part of the 80s-era Relief plans.
Intersting photo! Yes, the portal location around Queen could be tricky, but I think it's doable. It would probably have to happen at the same time as the construction of the station box for the DRL station, so the area would be a mess anyway. Given the depth that the DRL station would need to be to cross under the Don, the LRT platform could be overtop of it, possibly 1 level below mezzanine level. It shouldn't be built as a loop, as that would eliminate the possibility of a northern extension.

For the Parliament section, I see the tunnel being extended north along Sumach to Shuter, then west along Shuter to Parliament. It could either emerge on Shuter and make a surface right turn onto Parliament, or make that turn underground and have the portal on Parliament itself. Parliament would then be one lane in each direction plus a median LRT ROW. North of Wellesley, the road can be widened so that it's 2 vehicle lanes in each direction (or just two heading southbound if needed).

Parliament I think is a chicken and egg kind of scenario. The demand is there, but the bus runs so infrequently and doesn't really go anywhere, so not many people use it. And the E-W streetcar routes through the area are usually packed by the time they even get there (going inbound). If there were a DRL station that it could connect to, the "down and over" movement could be quite popular. Especially if an RER station is built in the West Donlands, then you'd have a subway connection at Queen, and an RER connection a few stops later. And if you stay on even longer, you could wind up at Union.
 

dunkalunk

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
1,215
Reaction score
61
Sumach consists one one southbound driving lane and another southbound parking lane between King and Queen. Is there room in the right-of-way for grading and a tunnel portal? I suppose you could just close the street to cars for that purpose, but at that point, would a tunnel even be needed?
 

44 North

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
3,214
Reaction score
1,505
Location
Ward 28
Intersting photo! Yes, the portal location around Queen could be tricky, but I think it's doable. It would probably have to happen at the same time as the construction of the station box for the DRL station, so the area would be a mess anyway. Given the depth that the DRL station would need to be to cross under the Don, the LRT platform could be overtop of it, possibly 1 level below mezzanine level. It shouldn't be built as a loop, as that would eliminate the possibility of a northern extension.

For the Parliament section, I see the tunnel being extended north along Sumach to Shuter, then west along Shuter to Parliament. It could either emerge on Shuter and make a surface right turn onto Parliament, or make that turn underground and have the portal on Parliament itself. Parliament would then be one lane in each direction plus a median LRT ROW. North of Wellesley, the road can be widened so that it's 2 vehicle lanes in each direction (or just two heading southbound if needed).

Parliament I think is a chicken and egg kind of scenario. The demand is there, but the bus runs so infrequently and doesn't really go anywhere, so not many people use it. And the E-W streetcar routes through the area are usually packed by the time they even get there (going inbound). If there were a DRL station that it could connect to, the "down and over" movement could be quite popular. Especially if an RER station is built in the West Donlands, then you'd have a subway connection at Queen, and an RER connection a few stops later. And if you stay on even longer, you could wind up at Union.
And as an add-on to both of our posts: I think it's safe to say that planning with streetcars would be a helluva lot easier if we had bidirectional vehicles to work with. No loops, no turnaround madness. Just the old in-and-out. I know in the Flexity Outlook thread people are wont to tear you a new one for suggesting our legacy network should have two separate vehicles that are (mostly) incompatible with one another. But it just seems so logical for us to use double-ended LRVs if we're to be planning a new sub-network (which we are in a way).
 

gweed123

Moderator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
7,543
Reaction score
1,016
Location
Burlington
Sumach consists one one southbound driving lane and another southbound parking lane between King and Queen. Is there room in the right-of-way for grading and a tunnel portal? I suppose you could just close the street to cars for that purpose, but at that point, would a tunnel even be needed?
I guess you don't need a tunnel, but it would make the transfer a lot easier. This is especially true since you're digging a massive (and deep) station box anyway. There's also no easy surface location to put such a transfer facility, without some pretty hefty expropriation. I would actually place the portal between Eastern and King, when it passes underneath the Richmond and Adelaide ramps, and then do cut and cover under Sumach north of there. The vet hospital at the corner of Sumach and King may have to go, but that should be all the expropriation needed.

And as an add-on to both of our posts: I think it's safe to say that planning with streetcars would be a helluva lot easier if we had bidirectional vehicles to work with. No loops, no turnaround madness. Just the old in-and-out. I know in the Flexity Outlook thread people are wont to tear you a new one for suggesting our legacy network should have two separate vehicles that are (mostly) incompatible with one another. But it just seems so logical for us to use double-ended LRVs if we're to be planning a new sub-network (which we are in a way).
I agree to a certain extent. I'm fine with the track gauge difference between Legacy and Transit City vehicles, but I really wish the new streetcars were bidirectional and had doors on both sides. Centre island platforms on busy streets would be so much easier than having two small island platforms wedged between lanes going in the same direction.
 

DKsan

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
436
Reaction score
115
Are integrated stations even needed anymore?

With Presto-enabled, couldn't they build a (ugh) one way loop to connect the Cherry car up to Queen/Sumach, and just have you transfer on street?
 

Top