News   Nov 05, 2024
News Roundup for November 5, 2024
 32     0 
News   Nov 05, 2024
Autumn's Embrace
 209     0 
News   Nov 04, 2024
Catching Up on Two Years of Construction at Topped-Off Leaside Commons
 675     0 

Transit Fantasy Maps

BurlOak said:
I actually thought my costs were quite generous. No a single bit of tunnel is being constructed - and none of the stations are especially complex in terms of integration with multiple bus routes, RER, etc. - with the exception of STC, which is an existing station requiring only a bit of refurbishment.
Click to expand...

This one seems low-balled: $0.8M Throncliffe to Sherbourne (6km ,1 station). That's 133 million per km, and we can hardly build at-grade LRT for that cost.

But that section is not in Phase 1, therefore might be less relevant.

BurlOak said:
  1. From the "EGLINTON CROSSTOWN RAPID TRANSIT BENEFITS CASE" (the combined SRT/ECLRT), the demand was about 13k (ppdph). I can assume this will be similar for this direct Scarborough Line. Let's bump this to 15k for 2041 demand.
  2. From the "Ontario Line Initial Business Case", the demand is 20k (ppdph).
  3. Thus, 2041 demand is 35k.
  4. Using my 120m stations (20% larger than that assumed for the Ontario Line - the capacity would be 36k.
Click to expand...

The total demand might be less than 20k + 15k. Of those 15k using the new Scarborough line, some are already counted as OL riders. In the old scenario, they would transfer from Line 2 at Pape, while in the new scenario, they will transfer at Thorncliffe from the new Scarborough line. So, that part should work.

BurlOak said:
I almost think no matter what you do, two branches would swamp the Downtown portion of the Ontario Line - especially if you think about extending Ontario Line farther north. I would rather have redundancy with multiple routes, compared to a single line that carries 40k+

My plan is that this branching is an interim measure - with the new Thorncliffe to Sherbourne to King portion being complete by the early 2040's, or in conjunction with extension of the Ontario Line to Fairview Mall (or Seneca).
Click to expand...

While redundancy adds reliability, it adds costs as well. Not sure what is easier to fund, one 40k line or two 25-30k lines, but the second option will certainly cost more at the end. Sort of a trade-off.
 
Rainforest said:
This one seems low-balled: $0.8M Throncliffe to Sherbourne (6km ,1 station). That's 133 million per km, and we can hardly build at-grade LRT for that cost.

But that section is not in Phase 1, therefore might be less relevant.
Click to expand...
I am generally thinking of $100M /km, and $100M for a simple station, and $200M for interchange stations or Stations with significant transfer infrastructure.
What this stretch has going for it is no concerns about working in traffic and having to stage traffic by shifting lanes, etc.
Rainforest said:
The total demand might be less than 20k + 15k. Of those 15k using the new Scarborough line, some are already counted as OL riders. In the old scenario, they would transfer from Line 2 at Pape, while in the new scenario, they will transfer at Thorncliffe from the new Scarborough line. So, that part should work.
Click to expand...
You are correct. I only thought of this after I had posted. But still, it does show that demand could be quite high - maybe 30k shortly after opening. It won't be long before it exceeds capacity.
Rainforest said:
While redundancy adds reliability, it adds costs as well. Not sure what is easier to fund, one 40k line or two 25-30k lines, but the second option will certainly cost more at the end. Sort of a trade-off.
Click to expand...
When I look at Toronto's system compared to other cities of similar size (Madrid, Berlin), we are far behind. Besides redundancy, this would also serve another area of downtown Toronto. It is also spending some money in future years instead of building 1 line with 40k capacity now. For cash strapped governments, and considering time value of money, this may be more palatable.
 
BurlOak said:
What can be done with Scarborough Subway, now that Ontario Line route is more or less set.

SRT corridor to Hydro corridor to Thorncliffe.
Here it would temporarily interline with the Ontario Line. The next phase of this Scarborough Line would forge it's own way downtown, through the valley, up Rosedale Valley, and down Jarvis.
Cost.
$0.2B for funicular from Lawrence East to Kennedy (1.5km connection to B-D).
$1.0B to rehab track from McCowan to Lawrence East (5km, 5 Stations).
$2.0B to elevate from Lawrence East to Thorncliffe (6 Stations, 8km).
$1.0B to lengthen all planned Ontario Line Stations to accommodate this additional demand.

Other phases
$0.8M Throncliffe to Sherbourne (6km ,1 station).
$1.5B to mostly elevate from McCowan to Malvern/Finch (4 Stations, 6km).

$6B? Down Jarvis, across King, and up Roncy? (haven't really thought about this route enough - maybe 12km up to ~St. Clair).

View attachment 196494
Click to expand...
A bit more detail around Throncliffe. The Ontario Line (OL) would have stations at Don Mills/Gateway and Eglinton. The Scarborough Line (SL) would have a station at the East end of the same mall at Gateway/Hydro corridor. Basically, we are pushing a transit line through the neighbourhood, so it becomes much more palatable to the locals if they can actually use it with a stop.
They would of course share the Thorncliffe Station at Overlea and Throncliffe (west branch). As a side benefit - this also provides better access to the planned train yard location.

196674
 
At Throncliffe Station itself. The two OL tracks would be roughly in the median. The two SL tracks would be roughly above the sidewalks. The Southbound platform would be above the SW (southwest) bound Overlea Blvd lanes. The Northbound platform would be above the NE (northeast) bound Overlea Blvd lanes. There would be a cross-over tracks just NE of Overlea Station, so that in the interim, SL trains could use the OL tracks to head downtown. The full station could be built in phase 1, with the SL tracks SW beyond the Station being built in phase 2.
The Station elevation would be a few metres higher elevation that that of the approaching OL tracks. NE of the Station, the OL tracks would dip a couple of metres, while the NE bound SL tracks would climb to elevate over the OL tracks. Similarly in the SW, the OL tracks would dip a couple of metres, while the NE bound SL tracks would be elevated over the OL tracks.

196676
 
BurlOak said:
At Throncliffe Station itself. The two OL tracks would be roughly in the median. The two SL tracks would be roughly above the sidewalks. The Southbound platform would be above the SW (southwest) bound Overlea Blvd lanes. The Northbound platform would be above the NE (northeast) bound Overlea Blvd lanes. There would be a cross-over tracks just NE of Overlea Station, so that in the interim, SL trains could use the OL tracks to head downtown. The full station could be built in phase 1, with the SL tracks SW beyond the Station being built in phase 2.
The Station elevation would be a few metres higher elevation that that of the approaching OL tracks. NE of the Station, the OL tracks would dip a couple of metres, while the NE bound SL tracks would climb to elevate over the OL tracks. Similarly in the SW, the OL tracks would dip a couple of metres, while the NE bound SL tracks would be elevated over the OL tracks.

View attachment 196676
Click to expand...

The locals will not accept two elevated lines along Overlea Blvd.
 
Rainforest said:
The locals will not accept two elevated lines along Overlea Blvd.
Click to expand...
If locals don't want additional transit, I think it would be easier still just to go straight down Don Mills to the Valley, and then follow the valley. If the locals don't want the $200M station and tracks, I would be just as happy to save it.
 
Someone requested this from the Ontario Line post, so this is an update of a map I've posted before. My take on GTHA transit endgame.
197167
 
Last edited:
BurlOak said:
If locals don't want additional transit, I think it would be easier still just to go straight down Don Mills to the Valley, and then follow the valley. If the locals don't want the $200M station and tracks, I would be just as happy to save it.
Click to expand...
I decided to address 2 issues.
  1. Keep the Markham GO corridor open to GO and RER, and not TTC.
  2. Keep the SRT open during construction of the replacement line.
Here is what I came up with:
  1. Go West along Ellesmere to Vic Park. Due to the CPR Agincourt line, either the Warden Station is omitted (since the line has to climb very high to cross), or the line has to make a detour north to get over the tracks.
  2. Go South on Vic Park to the Gatineau Hydro corridor.
  3. Go West along Gatineau corridor to Thorncliffe. I have two options here, either following the Hydro corridor (it's a bit wider here), or go through the centre of Flemingdon and give them a station there).
  4. Have the aforementioned interline station at Thorncliffe.
  5. Have the future Scarborough Line go down the Don Valley. Again, I thought of two options, either going up Yellow Creek to Mt. Pleasant, or up Rosedale Valley to Mount Pleasant. In hindsight, there is no real advantage to the former.
  6. Down Jarvis to King Street.
This will have an interchange with the Eglinton Line at Bermondsey, the B-D line at Sherbourne, the Ontario Line at Moss Park, the YUS Line at King and St. Andrew, the Ontario Line again at King/Bathurst.


197586


197587


197590


197588



197589
 
BurlOak said:
  • Because somebody decided to build ECLRT at-grade through Leslie and DVP.
  • I am trying to show a future transit network. I think we need more capacity going into downtown.
Click to expand...

Sorry combine the blue and orange, with high density one line should be good, with transit bring rides the last mile.
 
BurlOak said:
I decided to address 2 issues.
  1. Keep the Markham GO corridor open to GO and RER, and not TTC.
  2. Keep the SRT open during construction of the replacement line.
Here is what I came up with:
  1. Go West along Ellesmere to Vic Park. Due to the CPR Agincourt line, either the Warden Station is omitted (since the line has to climb very high to cross), or the line has to make a detour north to get over the tracks.
  2. Go South on Vic Park to the Gatineau Hydro corridor.
  3. Go West along Gatineau corridor to Thorncliffe. I have two options here, either following the Hydro corridor (it's a bit wider here), or go through the centre of Flemingdon and give them a station there).
  4. Have the aforementioned interline station at Thorncliffe.
  5. Have the future Scarborough Line go down the Don Valley. Again, I thought of two options, either going up Yellow Creek to Mt. Pleasant, or up Rosedale Valley to Mount Pleasant. In hindsight, there is no real advantage to the former.
  6. Down Jarvis to King Street.
This will have an interchange with the Eglinton Line at Bermondsey, the B-D line at Sherbourne, the Ontario Line at Moss Park, the YUS Line at King and St. Andrew, the Ontario Line again at King/Bathurst.


View attachment 197586

View attachment 197587

View attachment 197590

View attachment 197588


View attachment 197589
Click to expand...

The concept is impressive. A few discussion points though:

1) In the south, it might not be necessary to go as far as King. If the goal is to limit the cost of building rapid transit, then Dundas may be a cheaper option for the downtown section of the "Scarborough" line. Dundas is close enough to some of the existing destinations, plus the density is very likely to start spilling north as the space south of Queen gets used up.

2) Hydro might need some push to allow RT in their corridors. Though, the provincial government should be able to legislate that.

3) Keeping the SRT running (while the new line is getting built) might not be an option, because of the SRT's age. To my understanding, SRT is more or less fit to operate till ~ 2026, after that might have to be closed anyway. If so, then it might not be necessary to route the new line in a way that avoids overlaps with the existing SRT route.
 
macookie said:
Sorry combine the blue and orange, with high density one line should be good, with transit bring rides the last mile.
Click to expand...
north-of-anything said:
I mean, that's what we're all hoping for. Unfortunately the blue line is what's in the works, and we're not sure if it will be high density.
Click to expand...
Multiple people seem to be colour blind. :)
(and maybe it's me, because I used different colour schemes on the 2 sets of drawings).

As discussed previously, I vote for redundancy over high capacity. If we can save 20% on cost 20% less capacity, it will just make it more likely that the project gets approved now (due to affordability). Also, spending another 80% on another transit line 40 years in the future (when needed) is likely the better option considering the time value of money.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top