TTC: Bloor Danforth Line 2 West Extension(s)

[M II A II R II K]

Perhaps there'll be a Dundas Mississauga LRT that could cover Cloverdale and terminate at Kipling. Fare arrangements aside.

 

[JBR]

Imagine building a storage facility + serving for what, 5 or 6 vehicles?

St Vincent (Keele) Yard has storage for 8 full size trains, however only 4 are stored there and the southern most tracks are used for work cars. It saves $$ and deadhead time for the start and finish of west end service routing to and from GreenWood Yard

 

[Towered]

Perhaps there'll be a Dundas Mississauga LRT that could cover Cloverdale and terminate at Kipling. Fare arrangements aside.

Dundas St Rapid Transit (Metrolinx, Mississauga, Halton Region, CoT)

I don't see this line getting off the ground until the 20's at this time. Metrolinx wants this to be a BRT 100% regardless what Mississauga wants east of Hurontario. Because of all the issues with Hydro One at Kipling, an LRT station can't be located where it was proposed to go. The only...

urbantoronto.ca

 

[drum118]

I have to disagree with your statement about the tower to the west of the tail track. The ROW is still there and is even in the drawings for Pinnacle Etobicoke. If you stand at the end of the tail track or on the new GO bridge you can visually see the ROW and the tower is not in the way.

I strongly advise you that you need to visit that west end in person and look at this so ROW as I have even before the bus terminal was built as well have the photos before and after shot. I even have shots for the Pinnacle site too as well from the new walkway.

I stand to be corrected, but the original plan call for the subway to enter CP corridor before the condo and that not the case anymore.

At the same time, how do you plan on getting the subway getting underground to get it to the southside as well continue west in this so call ROW?

You have track 1 next to the property line for Kipling GO Station, then tracks 2-4.

Do you think the owners of that condo stand by and have a subway run next to it?? It was a great mistake to have it built there in the first place.

If and when CP allows GO to have 2 tracks in the corridor as well 2 for themself, there will be a 2 foot crash wall along the north side of track 1.

How wide do you think the ROW must be to have the subway on the surface??

 

[turbanplanner]

I strongly advise you that you need to visit that west end in person and look at this so ROW as I have even before the bus terminal was built as well have the photos before and after shot. I even have shots for the Pinnacle site too as well from the new walkway.

I stand to be corrected, but the original plan call for the subway to enter CP corridor before the condo and that not the case anymore.

At the same time, how do you plan on getting the subway getting underground to get it to the southside as well continue west in this so call ROW?

You have track 1 next to the property line for Kipling GO Station, then tracks 2-4.

Do you think the owners of that condo stand by and have a subway run next to it?? It was a great mistake to have it built there in the first place.

If and when CP allows GO to have 2 tracks in the corridor as well 2 for themself, there will be a 2 foot crash wall along the north side of track 1.

How wide do you think the ROW must be to have the subway on the surface??

Lots of good points you can only really get an idea about from visiting in person!

 

[Northern Light]

@drum118 and @JBR

I am not advancing a position here in the discussion between you two as it simply isn't something I've examined closely. But I am going to post a couple of images to see if they help advance that discussion in any way.

The first shows the legal lot lines along the subway ROW running west from Kipling Station:

I can't speak to whether TTC has any ownership beyond this point, but they appear to control with some certainty up to that point.

This is a zoom/close-up of that area at the extreme south-west:

The distance between the end of the track on the surface and that legal lot line is ~46M; the distance from same place (end of track) to the next visible condo building is ~180M

 

[drum118]

@drum118 and @JBR

I am not advancing a positing here in the discussion between you two as it simply isn't something I've examined closely. But I am going to post a couple of images to see if they help advance that discussion in any way.

The first shows the legal lot lines along the subway ROW running west from Kipling Station:

View attachment 439932

I can't speak to whether TTC has any ownership beyond this point, but they appear to control with some certainty up to that point.

This is a zoom/close-up of that area at the extreme south-west:

View attachment 439933

The distance between the end of the track on the surface and that legal lot line is ~46M; the distance from same place (end of track) to the next visible condo building is ~180M

You are correct up to the east side of the bus terminal for the ROW, but this will show there is no ROW west of the bus terminal.

It was the first thing I noticed over a decade ago when talk surface about the extension as well the transit hub.

You can't remove that area as its the ramp to the underground parking.
<https://www.google.com/maps/place/B...ca0a571e9a860826!8m2!3d51.9234395!4d4.4746054>

 

[AlxOptimism]

Do you think the owners of that condo stand by and have a subway run next to it?? It was a great mistake to have it built there in the first place.

Couldn't you dig a trench to run the subway through to reduce noise/disruption to the condo owners? Like the Blue line in Calgary, it runs very close to dwellings as shown below

Obviously heavy rail is noisier than LRT but wouldn't you only need 50%+1 of unit owners to agree to sell the ROW?
Don't forget that they stand to benefit from the extension of the subway as well vis a vi higher property values.

 

[drum118]

Couldn't you dig a trench to run the subway through to reduce noise/disruption to the condo owners? Like the Blue line in Calgary, it runs very close to dwellings as shown below
View attachment 439934
Obviously heavy rail is noisier than LRT but wouldn't you only need 50%+1 of unit owners to agree to sell the ROW?
Don't forget that they stand to benefit from the extension of the subway as well vis a vi higher property values.

There is no room period to try to build a trench in the first place.

You are far better off buying the whole area, tear everything down and start fresh as you will not get the 50% + 1 to sell the south end off as it will too close to the building. You can put all the surface parking underground and have 2 30s towers with 4/6 podium for office space on the redevelop land.

 

[JBR]

I strongly advise you that you need to visit that west end in person and look at this so ROW as I have even before the bus terminal was built as well have the photos before and after shot. I even have shots for the Pinnacle site too as well from the new walkway.

I stand to be corrected, but the original plan call for the subway to enter CP corridor before the condo and that not the case anymore.

At the same time, how do you plan on getting the subway getting underground to get it to the southside as well continue west in this so call ROW?

You have track 1 next to the property line for Kipling GO Station, then tracks 2-4.

Do you think the owners of that condo stand by and have a subway run next to it?? It was a great mistake to have it built there in the first place.

If and when CP allows GO to have 2 tracks in the corridor as well 2 for themself, there will be a 2 foot crash wall along the north side of track 1.

How wide do you think the ROW must be to have the subway on the surface??

I was in tail track #2 at Kipling on Wednesday afternoon and can confirm there appears to be room to extend west without interfering with the condo in the ROW.

I do think 100% they would dig down for a portal closer to Kipling station (possibly where the current tail tracks are) and create an underground WYE for Obico Yard (if ever built).

 

[W. K. Lis]

I was in tail track #2 at Kipling on Wednesday afternoon and can confirm there appears to be room to extend west without interfering with the condo in the ROW.

I do think 100% they would dig down for a portal closer to Kipling station (possibly where the current tail tracks are) and create an underground WYE for Obico Yard (if ever built).

Similar to how the Islington portal is on the west side of the railway.

From link.

 

[fanoftoronto]

There is a requirement for a transit reservation on all Dundas developments that back onto the tracks. Tho it looks like the requirement is for underground tunnels. You can see it in the architectural plans of the Pinnacle development:

This would seem the plan is for the tracks to go underground soon after Kipling station and then continue beside the tracks along Dundas.

 

[AlxOptimism]

This would seem the plan is for the tracks to go underground soon after Kipling station and then continue beside the tracks along Dundas.

There is definitely enough room for tunnel bores and this has been provided for with the mentioned setbacks for underground infrastructure.

The contention was whether it is feasible to build surface/trenched/cut-cover next to the rail corridor. The ROW is ~21m between Kipling transit hubs parking ramp and the CP property line if you wanted to build cut and cover.
You could build on the surface (necessitating a change in Pinnacle's plans) but condo/property owners would likely refuse to sell their land.

 

[Northern Light]

There is definitely enough room for tunnel bores and this has been provided for with the mentioned setbacks for underground infrastructure.

The contention was whether it is feasible to build surface/trenched/cut-cover next to the rail corridor. The ROW is ~21m between Kipling transit hubs parking ramp and the CP property line if you wanted to build cut and cover.
You could build on the surface (necessitating a change in Pinnacle's plans) but condo/property owners would likely refuse to sell their land.

I'm not taking a position here, but will note, expropriation is certainly a viable solution.

The only thing with that choice is obviously cost, which generally would factor making the owners whole; meaning if you have to interfere with a parking access or eliminate a recreational amenity you either
have to:

a) Relocate those things and rebuild them elsewhere, which comes with cost and issues of feasbility

b) Pay the condo corp to do same

c) Pay for loss of resale value if any or all these things can't be replaced feasibly.

 

[superelevation]

Because a) It creates other options for where Line 2 might be routed b) as yet no one has shown data demonstrating that subway-level capacity will be needed and c) there is nothing “crappy” about LRT - or even BRT.

I don’t foresee that the industrial area between Kipling and Sherway will be converted to higher density. Sherway may be a useful terminal point for Line 2, but given the low density west of Etobicoke Creek there certainly isn’t any case to extend it any further than that. So unless the Sherway precinct will generate sufficient density, it’s a waste to go there as a subway, above ground or otherwise. There is little ridership generated except along Dundas. (Even there, some feel BRT will suffice)

LRT along the Queensway can be justified by the new development going in along its length, and linking the Mall to the population near Humber Bay and beyond to Downtown (perhaps via Ontario Line) is a good thing.

The Mall owners have lobbied for a subway for decades, but the numbers aren’t there. The entire workforce of a retail mall would barely fill a string of buses. And the clientele is all non peak, post morning rush and gone by 10 PM. The redevelopment, and not the retail, is the only thing that could create enough ridership to justify a subway level of investment.

- Paul

The idea that a place you serve with transit is not changed by the transit seems like a major issue with these assumptions, a subway extension is naturally going to make a mall a more attractive destination as well - driving all day ridership. Having heavier midday demand also sounds like a good thing to me!

The cost should be low and immediate demand for ridership should not be the only consideration, demand can be built! - forcing people to transfer to go a few kilometers is silly, if you really want a low cost solution extend the subway as a single track and make the terminus double track and run a train every 15 minutes - building an entirely independent system is not "cost effective". Density also isn't the only way stations get ridership? If that was the case Warden would not be a high ridership station - but, it is because we have buses!

This is a very sensible take. An LRT would be a terrific fit for this area.

People will cal the SRT crazy but a 3.5km tram isolated from any other connected rail service is not?

If it stops every so often and serves all the people and stimulates development along the length of the route, yes.

...

A subway to Sherway Gardens is great for Sherway Gardens, but unless the area attracts development (and it may, there was a study....) it's a very undeserving target for subway. Whereas a Queensway LRT would serve more people.... and Sherway too.

...

- Paul

So "LRT" will stimulate demand etc, but subway wouldn't? I do not see why one electric rail vehicle is any more likely to be tunneled than another. This also assumes we just continue tunneling everything forever even if it's completely insane - in which case why don't we just dig a brand new tunnel straight to Square One from Bloor for the Milton Line?