News   Sep 23, 2019
 26     0 
News   Sep 23, 2019
 676     0 
News   Sep 23, 2019
 353     0 

Transit Fantasy Maps

TheTigerMaster

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
12,285
Reaction score
4,204
Location
Best Toronto
I used to use Ortelius (Mac only), but about a year ago I switched over to Illustrator. For anyone who doesn't want the price tag of Illustrator though, Ortelius is a great map-making tool. It's a pretty reasonable price too (I think it was below $50).
Ortelius is great, but I appreciate the flexibility of Illustator. I found Illustator pretty easy to learn, so if you're interested in mapping I recommend spending the time. Don't be intimidated by the complicated UI, you really only need a few tools.

I just started using the line, curve and ruler tools and Googled my way to figuring out whatever else I needed to know.
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
1,376
Reaction score
680
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sXdLvFZN7eV4QRaRUgPnpK_RLeg&usp=sharing

I worked on this before they said they would put the DRL under Queen.

If they continued to build new lines and change the busy bus routes to LRT or subway eventually the GTA would have a transit system that would keep it's citizens moving.

One line I think is needed is a line down the middle of the U. Following Bathurst and Avenue, it could provide a relief of the Yonge side.
 

BurlOak

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
5,659
Reaction score
1,410
The solution is obvious and still could be highly achievable:



Have the Crosstown Line emerge out of the Brentcliffe portal as it is constructed now, but instead of routing at-grade, erect pillars and have the guide-way run elevated, cutting over the eastbound lanes of Eglinton to a side-of-roadway platform at the south side of the Leslie intersection (this could also have a pedestrian connection to the Vanderhoof Ave residences). Then east of the station, gradually have the guide-way descend back to ground level to cross the Midtown rail corridor. Then by the Celestica ramps go completely underground to enter Science Centre Stn. Any thoughts on this proposal?
Developing the idea farther:
  • From the portal just East of Scenic, to get the elevation to pass over the eastbound lanes (EBL), the line would have to rise quickly and then pass over the EBL east of the Don River Bridge with an S curve.
  • The station would be (west) half elevated
  • Then go under/through the rail embankment. Three tunnels needed I think, 1 for pedestrians, 1 for each direction of LRT.
  • The Celestica ramps are at various elevations and will most definitely interfere with the LRT line - thus I propose it be changed to a Diamond type interchange.
  • The line would go back under the EBL of Eglinton west of Celestica and join the median alignment.
The next thing to consider is how this line could get over the DVP.

I found this Plan from an EA (I think 2012) and marked it up.

ECLRT at Leslie.jpg
 

Attachments

BurlOak

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
5,659
Reaction score
1,410
Here's what I came up with at Don Mills.

  • The BIG problem is that there are cross-over tracks and pocket tracks west and east of the actual platform. Not only did these add 300m to the tunnel and a hundred million or more to the cost compared to if it was put on the south side of the road west of Don Mills. It also pushes the level portion of track farther East, meaning more aggressive grades are needed to elevate the track to get over the DVP (and off ramps).
  • They used 5.5% to obtain a stop at Ferrand. I continue this grade over the DVP, and then descend at 5% with a station above Wynford.
  • The line switches to the south side since the DVP slopes downward a touch and it makes the grades work out a bit better.
  • The only concession appears to be that the Southbound offramp right turn ramp may need to be tightened up to achieve the vertical clearance for the elevated track.
  • (sorry, my plan/elevation diagram cuts out just before Wynford, and I just sketched that in). The Wynford interchange ramp configurations would remain as existing.
ECLRT at DVP.jpg
 

Attachments

44 North

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
3,187
Reaction score
1,467
Location
Ward 28
re: discussion about Sheppard Subway extensions in Shepp thread
With Line 3 becoming disused and the ROW essentially becoming available/salvageable, I think it could change the dynamic of previous Sheppard extensions considerably. All past reports had the line lazily drifting somewhere toward SC. However now I think planners/politicians will realize there's an opportunity to cut the costs by having the line elevated (gasp!) through SC - perhaps as far as Markham Rd/Centennial. Not unlike past SRT routings.

Looking at all ridership modeling it wouldn't make a lot of sense to build for 150m trains / +30k pphpd capacity. But 100m lengths (+20k capacity) should theoretically cut the costs by a good margin, and have the line future-proofed for this millennium. Combined I think these could be very helpful to the project's cost-benefits case.

2011 KPMG report routings
Sheppard-extension-to-SC.jpg


possible routing using disused Line 3
Sheppard-extn-using-Line3ROW.png
 

Attachments

Tuck

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 7, 2016
Messages
214
Reaction score
195
The route may be salvageable, but is it desireable? I feel like the extension will more likely go as far on Sheppard as possible before turning south to meet BD. Which I guess would be a clever way of them to get that last part of the BD that was cut....
 

44 North

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
3,187
Reaction score
1,467
Location
Ward 28
The route may be salvageable, but is it desireable? I feel like the extension will more likely go as far on Sheppard as possible before turning south to meet BD. Which I guess would be a clever way of them to get that last part of the BD that was cut....
Well the area is kinda a dog's breakfast in terms of planning/servicing, which I guess is par for the course when plonking a CBD in a industrial/warehouse area. But keeping the line within the SC planning district as much as possible seems like there's benefit. I'd say not doing this was one of the drawbacks of SELRT. Now I don't really 'support' this or a Line 4 extension in the conventional sense. But if it does become a priority again, which seems to be gaining momentum, I think cutting the costs considerably has its benefits.
 

Fritter

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 14, 2016
Messages
309
Reaction score
252
Is it just the rolling stock that has become past it's useful life on the SRT, or has the infrastructure fallen apart as well? Using SRT elevated alignment sounds great, unless it's going to cost a lot to repair the infrastructure.
 

44 North

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
3,187
Reaction score
1,467
Location
Ward 28
Is it just the rolling stock that has become past it's useful life on the SRT, or has the infrastructure fallen apart as well? Using SRT elevated alignment sounds great, unless it's going to cost a lot to repair the infrastructure.
I remember Keesmaat saying something along the lines of it's thirty years old, the whole line needs replacing. I don't believe that for a second. I'm sure it needs capital maintenance no different than any infrastructure, be it above or below ground. But by her logic we'd have to shut down and rebuild all our subway tunnels too.

For the existing E-W infrastructure itself there'd be relatively major capital going in, which was always part of the fleet upgrade or conversion to standard LRVs. The line was always undersized. So in this case it would be: lengthening platforms, some retooling of the guideway and conversion to TTC gauge, and expansion of the yard/maintenance facility. With existing Line 4 the stations would be accommodated for the narrower vehicles, so mostly platform widening of ~50cm. And hopefully the whole thing would use typical subway/metro vehicles procured and tendered openly, using conventional third rail.
 

Tuck

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 7, 2016
Messages
214
Reaction score
195
Another quest
Is it just the rolling stock that has become past it's useful life on the SRT, or has the infrastructure fallen apart as well? Using SRT elevated alignment sounds great, unless it's going to cost a lot to repair the infrastructure.
Another question I have is if the SRT structures could handle heavy rail - they may have been designed with the smaller, lighter trains in mind and therefore be unable to support a heavy set of cars.
 

44 North

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
3,187
Reaction score
1,467
Location
Ward 28
Another quest

Another question I have is if the SRT structures could handle heavy rail - they may have been designed with the smaller, lighter trains in mind and therefore be unable to support a heavy set of cars.
The weight I think should be fine. When it comes to rapid transit vehicles the terms "light" and "heavy" can be a bit misleading. The T1 subway and Line 3 MkI have similar weights, with the T1 actually being lighter per sq metre. Where weight would become a problem would be with standard LRVs - vehicles overbuilt with impact standards for operating in traffic. The Flexity vehicles are like tanks, and would no doubt pose a weight issue. Which I guess is why the Transit City SRT plan involved tearing down the elevated guideway, on top of modifying every station to have low platforms.

The train width could be slightly wider than the current Line 3 fleet (2.5m), but definitely not as wide as our massive subways (>3m). So perhaps in the 2.7m range, or with the same 2.5m floor width but 15-20cm wider at seat height. Track curves may be an issue, but the worst curves would be gone (Kennedy loop, Ellesmere tunnel). Either way a new train order could theoretically have greater articulation points as part its design.

Much of this was studied in the past, so it doesn't seem all that unfeasible to operate different trains. One thing I do wonder is whether the guideway can be fitted with third rail easily. But really even if we did decide to use conventional Toronto subways, building a new guideway and stations along the same alignment would probably be a fraction of the cost/time of a brand new all-underground design spec'd to 150m.
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
1,376
Reaction score
680
The weight I think should be fine. When it comes to rapid transit vehicles the terms "light" and "heavy" can be a bit misleading. The T1 subway and Line 3 MkI have similar weights, with the T1 actually being lighter per sq metre. Where weight would become a problem would be with standard LRVs - vehicles overbuilt with impact standards for operating in traffic. The Flexity vehicles are like tanks, and would no doubt pose a weight issue. Which I guess is why the Transit City SRT plan involved tearing down the elevated guideway, on top of modifying every station to have low platforms.

The train width could be slightly wider than the current Line 3 fleet (2.5m), but definitely not as wide as our massive subways (>3m). So perhaps in the 2.7m range, or with the same 2.5m floor width but 15-20cm wider at seat height. Track curves may be an issue, but the worst curves would be gone (Kennedy loop, Ellesmere tunnel). Either way a new train order could theoretically have greater articulation points as part its design.

Much of this was studied in the past, so it doesn't seem all that unfeasible to operate different trains. One thing I do wonder is whether the guideway can be fitted with third rail easily. But really even if we did decide to use conventional Toronto subways, building a new guideway and stations along the same alignment would probably be a fraction of the cost/time of a brand new all-underground design spec'd to 150m.
The T1s cannot make the turn. Too sharp. So, they would need to get around that problem.
 
Top