Haydenpoon
Active Member
It is more economical to build one branch and run 100% frequency, then to build two branches and run a 50% frequency on each branch.
|
|
|
Shining Tree
New Member
If you can find a way to go over highway 404 (i.e. just south of existing vehicular bridge), then pretty much everything you show is elevated. It's much more affordable to have branches if they cost $100 to 150M/km and not $500M.
Rainforest
Senior Member
I think the branching is possible if Sheppard becomes LRT of any kind. The trunk up to Pharmacy could be elevated, the branches with lower frequencies could be mostly at-grade.
If Sheppard is extended retaining the existing subway technology, or converting to OL type trains, then the per-km cost will be too high to create branches.
Both options have their pros and cons; if the Ontario Line eventually reaches Sheppard, then convertion of Sheppard to OL type trains will become a more appealing proposition. But if branches are desired, then it should be LRT.
kali
Active Member
@north-of-anything curious why you positioned Sullivan station between VP and Pharmacy
north-of-anything
Active Member
Oh, and I should mention that I think the line should be converted to LRT in the same vein as the Crosstown, to maintain similar service on the current part of the line to what exists today, but I don't see how it would be completely impossible as a full-fledged subway.
Lots of lines have branches, from the different services on the NYC lines to the many branches of Boston's Green Line.
I think it should climb upwards while under the 404, but only emerge above ground somewhere between the 404 and Victoria Park Avenue. Line 4 is fairly deep, and around Consumers there is a lot of underutilized land that can be expropriated before we get a street wall on Sheppard. But yes, everything beyond that point, ideally, is above ground.
The roads are only about 400 meters apart. Putting the station between the two roads would make both a very short walk from the station. It also allows for more space to bring the line above ground if Consumers Station is placed underground.
Sensible decisions based on economics? Now we're really getting into fantasy territory. /s
Lots of lines have branches, from the different services on the NYC lines to the many branches of Boston's Green Line.
I think it should climb upwards while under the 404, but only emerge above ground somewhere between the 404 and Victoria Park Avenue. Line 4 is fairly deep, and around Consumers there is a lot of underutilized land that can be expropriated before we get a street wall on Sheppard. But yes, everything beyond that point, ideally, is above ground.
The roads are only about 400 meters apart. Putting the station between the two roads would make both a very short walk from the station. It also allows for more space to bring the line above ground if Consumers Station is placed underground.
Bureaucromancer
Active Member
The thing that always jumps out about an Ellesmere branch to me is that following Highland Creek east of Centennial would put the branch point east of Centennial, which seems desirable given the likely traffic breakdown.
Shining Tree
New Member
Michael Schabas, in the report that contained the "Scarborough Wye" suggest that it could be elevated before hwy. 404. I am not certain I believe him though.
In the report by Gordon Chong, they had elevations of the entire Sheppard line - except the portion from Don Mills Station to Consumers Station. So I have no way of confirming exactly what can be done.
robmausser
Senior Member
I feel like if the Scarb RT/LRT or the one stop scarb subway was being built the option that goes down to STC and then up to Malvern would make the most sense.
However now that the subway is planned to Sheppard and McCowan, I feel like going there makes more sense.
I think that we can use the Eglinton East LRT for Malvern, and have it loop back and connect to McCowan. A Zoo spur could be built in the future.
Shining Tree
New Member
I did a bit of math, and the branches at the extremities are not getting much service. Once you're beyond 8 or 10 minute frequency, I don't think you can call it rapid, frequent, transit. Looking at the Schabas "Scarborough Wye", it had Sheppard service overlapped with SRT service - creating more reasonable frequencies.
WislaHD
Superstar
Though it might be said that 12 minute frequencies for Malvern is not really that out of question for the respective densities and transit mode share of the area. It certainly doesn't look off when looked at international comparisons.
But at that point I'd begin questioning the value of the branch and whether it's worth the capital investment!
But at that point I'd begin questioning the value of the branch and whether it's worth the capital investment!
north-of-anything
Active Member
I wouldn't suggest that both of the southern extensions be built! I called them Options 1 and 2 to kind of imply that having both would be too much. In fact, I don't think either south extension would be warranted if refurbishing Line 3 is on the table - just make STC a south terminus for Line 4 that has a transfer onto Line 3, and maybe even skip the Midland stop and go right to Village Green.
north-of-anything
Active Member
I decided to merge one of my previous ideas (Parliament streetcar) with a couple other proposals to come up with this.
The 501 Queen route now ends at the 2150 Lake Shore development, here labeled as Humber Bay, in the streetcar loop that connects to the proposed GO station. It continues eastwards through its present-day route to the Scarborough border. A new route, potentially replacing the 509, now covers the stops west of Park Lawn, allowing for a quicker ride to the South Core. It then continues through the underground segment below Bay and Yonge, maybe or maybe not stopping at Queens Quay or Union, before continuing onto the East Bayfront route and up Parliament to Castle Frank Station.
Also marked along the route are all of the streetcar stops, both major and minor, however I did make some changes:
West of Royal York: Stops at 28th, 15th, and 5th Streets were removed. 28th and 15th Streets do not have traffic lights anyways.
Royal York to Humber Bay: Stops at Norris/Hillside, Superior, and Louisa were removed.
Humber Bay to Kingsway: The stop north of Silver Moon and the stop at Jean Augustine Park are served by the 509 branch only, while the current Humber Loop is served by the 501 only. Kingsway is served by both lines.
Kingsway to Dufferin Street: Windermere is served by the 501 and Ellis by the 509 to reduce stopping frequency in Swansea without compromising service. The 509 splits at Colborne Lodge and stops only at Budapest Park and Jameson Avenue before Dufferin. Stops at Triller and Dunn were removed.
Queen from Dufferin to Parliament: Sudbury is not shown here but IDK how much of an obstacle the rail bridge is to the Dufferin stop. Stops at Abell, Shaw, Peter/Soho, St. Patrick, York, Victoria, and Ontario were removed.
Harbourfront from Dufferin to Queen: Follows the existing 509 route, minus stops at Fort York and Billy Bishop. East of Bay, the streetcar stops at Freeland, Lower Jarvis, Lower Sherbourne, and Small before turning onto Parliament. On Parliament, there are stops at Mill and King.
Queen east of Parliament: Stops at Carroll, Saulter, Logan, Pape, Alton, and Elmer were removed. The stops on the Downtowner/Kingston branch were inaccurate from the get-go, I think, so just ignore them. I'm not sure if any of these stops have already been removed or not.
Most stops have a larger buffer between them, but in some areas I kept trios of closely spaced stops because the middle one serves a point of interest (e.g. Niagara and the St. Nicholas church, Sackville and Trefann Court/Regent Park). I do look forward to the day where the streetcar stops in Toronto aren't so close together that it's a pain to draw them all for a single line, let alone the whole system.
Bureaucromancer
Active Member
It seems to me like a Long Branch car running along the lake would be one of the worst choices for through running across Bay on Queens Quay... This is a car specifically offering a direct ride downtown, and one I would expect to see real demand for subway transfers on...
I definitely like the concept of a Parliament car, but it really seems better routed as an independent services terminating at Exhibition or attached to Bathurst. The tempting thing to draw for me would be for Parliament to operate on a new ROW south of the Exhibition grounds via Ontario Place.
I definitely like the concept of a Parliament car, but it really seems better routed as an independent services terminating at Exhibition or attached to Bathurst. The tempting thing to draw for me would be for Parliament to operate on a new ROW south of the Exhibition grounds via Ontario Place.
north-of-anything
Active Member
Parliament being attached to Bathurst admittedly makes a lot more sense. The problem I have with through running across Bay is that it doesn't make sense for any lines to be doing it. It would be much better if there was a stop right at Bay parallel to Queen's Quay that allowed people to walk to the Ferry Docks station and the PATH network. Is there a lot of ridership on the Bathurst line that takes the long approach to Union? (As someone not familiar with the streetcar network, this is difficult enough without factoring in what will run along the eventual Lower Don Lands tracks...)
On the other hand, I do think that the Harbourfront route should be extended northwest, and have a line end at Park Lawn instead of making a single route do short turns.
Bureaucromancer
Active Member
In principle I agree, and this is a big part of why I very much do want a Bay streetcar through run from the south as a fairly high priority following the relief line (I kind of picture it as the next project after what's officially under way, the 407 busway and something parallel to the 427). It's less a local route to me, though it certainly has demand, than a distributor for services that would otherwise end up having to be squeezed into the Union loop.
That said, I don't think a combined Bathurst/Parliament car would be that bad, especially considering that neither of these routes have direct connectivity now. There definitely is SOME call for a through service on QQ, and Parliament seems the least problematic way of serving this assuming we had all the streetcar lines that have been discussed in place.
PS: Having written that I looked at a map and realized my TRUE dream world would keep Bathurst as an independent service, while having Parliament and Dufferin cars operate opposing one way loops around the Exhibition via Ontario Place.
Last edited: