joeclark
New Member
Wyliepoon, where did you find that illustration?
|
|
|
TTC: Pape Station Renovation
- Thread starter AlvinofDiaspar
- Start date
dowlingm
Senior Member
Until there is a plan for coping with the additional passengers an LRT would bring to Pape Station, either by extending the LRT south or by diverting some of the load west of Pape onto other modes, Don Mills LRT could possibly do more harm than good. At peak AM the B-D is full by Coxwell (where I get on) although turning back some cars before Kennedy at Warden might give a little relief there.
I like the Don Mills-Coxwell idea because of the straight-line connection from Don Mills to serve East York Civic Centre, East York CI and East General Hospital and a stretch of Danforth which is prime for intensification plus the short extra stretch needed to connect to the downtown network at Coxwell/Fairford.
But the reality of the Thorncliffe Park catchment is difficult if not impossible to ignore, the rather upmarket estate at Coxwell/O'Connor might have some issues with a TBM under their pricey houses and it's a bit of an indirect route to downtown where let's face it most people are headed anyway.
That's why I would run it (either under Beechwood Crescent or Hopedale or on the surface along the ravine) to Broadview/O'Connor and then down Broadview to link it to the 504/505, emerging to surface either on street between Withrow and Wolfrey (where there is a grade change, essentially the road dropping to meet the subLRT) or at Bridgepoint through Riverdale Park. With the deletion of Broadview as a terminus the streetcar tracks could become extra bus bays - perhaps for a 97 style Danforth bus when B-D hits ultimate capacity.
Connection at Broadview pushes downtown travellers the option of 504/505 as well as no-change Don Mills-downtown services via Queen or Gerrard rather than to the bulging Yonge/Bloor. As there is no plan (yet) to get a route from Pape south downtown travellers are likely to try and squeeze on a train there and stay on to Y/B.
For some reason Steve Munro hates that idea - which is weird because he lives at Broadview and it would remove the streetcar from the busy junction at Broadview/Danforth. I think it's that the 504/505 would have to terminate further north and he's not wild about that.
I like the Don Mills-Coxwell idea because of the straight-line connection from Don Mills to serve East York Civic Centre, East York CI and East General Hospital and a stretch of Danforth which is prime for intensification plus the short extra stretch needed to connect to the downtown network at Coxwell/Fairford.
But the reality of the Thorncliffe Park catchment is difficult if not impossible to ignore, the rather upmarket estate at Coxwell/O'Connor might have some issues with a TBM under their pricey houses and it's a bit of an indirect route to downtown where let's face it most people are headed anyway.
That's why I would run it (either under Beechwood Crescent or Hopedale or on the surface along the ravine) to Broadview/O'Connor and then down Broadview to link it to the 504/505, emerging to surface either on street between Withrow and Wolfrey (where there is a grade change, essentially the road dropping to meet the subLRT) or at Bridgepoint through Riverdale Park. With the deletion of Broadview as a terminus the streetcar tracks could become extra bus bays - perhaps for a 97 style Danforth bus when B-D hits ultimate capacity.
Connection at Broadview pushes downtown travellers the option of 504/505 as well as no-change Don Mills-downtown services via Queen or Gerrard rather than to the bulging Yonge/Bloor. As there is no plan (yet) to get a route from Pape south downtown travellers are likely to try and squeeze on a train there and stay on to Y/B.
For some reason Steve Munro hates that idea - which is weird because he lives at Broadview and it would remove the streetcar from the busy junction at Broadview/Danforth. I think it's that the 504/505 would have to terminate further north and he's not wild about that.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Between Thorncliffe Park, Cosburn, and Greektown...Pape is the obviously better choice. The cheapest option would probably be to punch through Redway, run down Bayview, and connect with Castle Frank (possibly continuing down Parliament?).
dowlingm
Senior Member
The moneyed types on the ravine have neutered Redway I fear after the BRT proposal died and Pitfield got beat.
also it depended on the Bayview Extension and getting an LRT down and back up to Castle Frank and down Parliament would be, erm, challenging.
also it depended on the Bayview Extension and getting an LRT down and back up to Castle Frank and down Parliament would be, erm, challenging.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
No, it wouldn't be that challenging.
Northern Light
Superstar
Pape is Blue and Redway is Rightly Dead
In reverse order to my title:
Redway Rd is and should be dead and buried.
I am not so well monied (I do Ok) LOL; I don't live in Leaside.
However, as someone whose job it is to protect this City's ravines and natural areas I can't fathom letting Redway ever get built in any form.
The proposed extension (a part of the original Leslie St. Extension alignment) would go right through Crothers Woods a beautiful old-growth forest of mature Sugar Maple, Beech and Oak which has some of Toronto's best wildflowers (lots of Trilliums) among its many attributes.
The proposed extension would devestate this area which is frankly not that large and already under enormous pressure from its urban surroundings.
Aside from the trees that would be cut to make way for this monstrosity, there would be heavy road-salt contamination, and other new pollution, and all for a bizarre transit routing that would serve a grand total of noone.
That's right, passing through forest and serving an essentially de-populated ravine-system means no passenger pick/up or drop/off between Milwood and ????? the Subway?
The Castlefrank Hill is too steep to be climbed by an LRT technology it would blow the motor half-way up (I'm not kidding)
So the idea proposed by Ms. Pitfield was escalators from Bayview all the way up the hill (over 350ft to the subway platform) Can you imagine if they broke?)
Oh and there's another hillside of trees denuded for the new escalator. No indication how your going to turn the LRT back either.
Suffice to say its a bad idea from a transit perpsective and from and a broader environmental one.
I'm all in favour of a Don Mills LRT which should logically go to Pape; and a DRL which should connect Pape to either King or Union. But leave the nice ravine alone!
Please and Thank you.
******
Now onto the Pape Stn Question directly....
I was passing through yesterday.
And I noticed the Ceiling above the Eastbound Plaform, at the Eastern End....
Has been painted Dark Blue!
Huh?
Anyone have any idea what that's about?
My understanding is the ceiling is to be removed as part of the upcoming reno.
In reverse order to my title:
Redway Rd is and should be dead and buried.
I am not so well monied (I do Ok) LOL; I don't live in Leaside.
However, as someone whose job it is to protect this City's ravines and natural areas I can't fathom letting Redway ever get built in any form.
The proposed extension (a part of the original Leslie St. Extension alignment) would go right through Crothers Woods a beautiful old-growth forest of mature Sugar Maple, Beech and Oak which has some of Toronto's best wildflowers (lots of Trilliums) among its many attributes.
The proposed extension would devestate this area which is frankly not that large and already under enormous pressure from its urban surroundings.
Aside from the trees that would be cut to make way for this monstrosity, there would be heavy road-salt contamination, and other new pollution, and all for a bizarre transit routing that would serve a grand total of noone.
That's right, passing through forest and serving an essentially de-populated ravine-system means no passenger pick/up or drop/off between Milwood and ????? the Subway?
The Castlefrank Hill is too steep to be climbed by an LRT technology it would blow the motor half-way up (I'm not kidding)
So the idea proposed by Ms. Pitfield was escalators from Bayview all the way up the hill (over 350ft to the subway platform) Can you imagine if they broke?)
Oh and there's another hillside of trees denuded for the new escalator. No indication how your going to turn the LRT back either.
Suffice to say its a bad idea from a transit perpsective and from and a broader environmental one.
I'm all in favour of a Don Mills LRT which should logically go to Pape; and a DRL which should connect Pape to either King or Union. But leave the nice ravine alone!
Please and Thank you.
******
Now onto the Pape Stn Question directly....
I was passing through yesterday.
And I noticed the Ceiling above the Eastbound Plaform, at the Eastern End....
Has been painted Dark Blue!
Huh?
Anyone have any idea what that's about?
My understanding is the ceiling is to be removed as part of the upcoming reno.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
It's really obvious that I prefer the Pape option...I just said so!
I do not want to run a Don Mills line down Bayview, I'm just acknowledging the option. Even if I did, it would run in the rail corridor, not through the forest. The wildflowers and the children won't be harmed by road salt because no road would be built.
I do not want to run a Don Mills line down Bayview, I'm just acknowledging the option. Even if I did, it would run in the rail corridor, not through the forest. The wildflowers and the children won't be harmed by road salt because no road would be built.
DENTROBATE54
Banned
If trains empty out by Coxwell, does that not tell you that's precisely where the line should be located? Density eastbound form Yonge, tapers off by this point such that anyone left on the train is only shuttling off to monster suburban terminals. As the marker of the end of the urbanized zone, Coxwell Avenue itself needs a line.
Exactly what I was saying. The brain trust needs to remember as new lines emerge the routing of several bus routes will change such that Pape from Overlea to BD will only have one route (presumbly 81 Thorncliffe Park), hence lessening traffic congestion. Without having to divert 2kms west then south, commuters from Don Mills would actually interface BD quicker and through a far less complicated interchange (given Coxwell's elevated bus terminal there's accomodation at mezzanine level [at grade] for a roughed-in station).
What I like most about using Coxwell though is that it provides a makeshift Queen Line for the Beaches/Leslieville/Riverdale/Corktown residents and businesses to have a quick link to the downtown. This is far better than serving artificial waterfront communities in the few 000s (Port of Toronto/West Don Lands).
A station at Overlea/Don Mills ain't good enough?!! What's so special about Thorncliffe Park that we'd spend multimillions diverting a line that functions perfectly in a straight alignment? Everyone keeps telling me that the DRL's good enough of the downtown core in spite of only serving the periphery, yet you're giving a fledgling enclave of a few thousand residents a direct 'subway' stop that a reroute of the 81 bus could connect within mins?Broadview's even closer than Pape is. Why overservice one area of the 416 while Malvernites can't even get a mass transit link without fierce opposition?
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
18,000 people, and there's another 20,000 at Pape & Cosburn.
Panzerfaust
Active Member
^^^ Also what he said ^^^
You're entirely missing the idea that the prime directive of the DRL was and still is to relieve the downtown streetcar lines and the Yonge Line at the same time. What is the Don Mills LRT relieving? Sure, the Yonge Line to some degree, and the suburban east-west bus routes perhaps, but it seems to me that local service is the priority. Thus, it makes absolutely zero sense to skip Thorncliffe Park and put a station at Don Mills and Overlea.
It's not like there's no room. Overlea has a massive median that can be converted to a ROW, it's pretty much perfect for LRT. I can not see how you can possibly justify not running it through there. Wait, this is you we're talking about, so you'll find a way I'm sure.
You are telling us to ignore the most dense area along the proposed route. That is like saying "Screw putting a station right at Bloor-Yonge, stick one at Rosedale Valley and Park instead. It's close enough."
You're entirely missing the idea that the prime directive of the DRL was and still is to relieve the downtown streetcar lines and the Yonge Line at the same time. What is the Don Mills LRT relieving? Sure, the Yonge Line to some degree, and the suburban east-west bus routes perhaps, but it seems to me that local service is the priority. Thus, it makes absolutely zero sense to skip Thorncliffe Park and put a station at Don Mills and Overlea.
It's not like there's no room. Overlea has a massive median that can be converted to a ROW, it's pretty much perfect for LRT. I can not see how you can possibly justify not running it through there. Wait, this is you we're talking about, so you'll find a way I'm sure.
DENTROBATE54
Banned
No need for personal ad hominen presumptions.
If not for the Don Valley dividing Overlea into east and west sides, Throncliffe and Flemingdon Parks would be the same continuous area with apts lining the way right across Overlea, hence a stop @Overlea/Don Mills would serve the area. In actuality we're only talking a distance of 300-350m apart. JC Guong posted his fantasy map a few years ago depicting a Don Mills subway running straight down to Coxwell. However it does include a slight veering west for Thorncliffe Pk.
The DRL and Don Mills are one and same, noob. Veering a line 2kms in the wrong direction just for the sake of a mall is illogical and impractical, not to mention insensitive to everyone who came in from as far as Major Mack to get into the downtown or interchange at Danforth quickly. Local service on Overlea is over-complicated and excessive to the point you're severely spoiling TC residents via this diversion. Let's see-25, 81, 88, 56, 100, 403... can you say overkill?
No one's discounting that but in order for a) Coxwell and b) Queen East to have some semblence of mass transit along their corridors this feels like the best alignment to me. While the DRL's limited to the rail corridor (and we know intensification just loves those areas), a re-imagined DRL borrowing from Queen proposals gets into the nitty-gritty of the city, alleviates YUS/BD and likely will trigger gentrification. If you're a new homeowner of a waterfront condo, more power to you but don't expect me to got off at Front St and still have to wait in the freezing cold for a bus into the city.
And they can grin and bare it the same way Malvernites who live in excess of an hour away from the nearest subway stop have to endure. In all my life I've never heard of people whine about living 6 blocks away from the subway (Pape, Chester even) with bus service right at their footsteps (25, 81, 87) and still wanting blood from a stone
. Thorncliffe Park could be served by an Eglinton Line as I've said before, such that we're keeping both daily ridership and accessibility high priorities for both catchments (Eglinton and lower Don Mills area).Panzerfaust
Active Member
It's not a presumption when it's based on personal observation.
Yes, it would serve the area, I'm not denying that. Not nearly as well as a diversion through Thorncliffe would though. The problem here seems to be that you are insistent on the line linking with the B-D east of Pape, whereas everyone at the city and most of this forum agrees with Pape Station as the best linking point.
I'm no noob. I've been lurking on here a long, long time. In fact, I registered two months after you did. Just because my postcount isn't high, it doesn't mean I'm a moron. You just make yourself look stupid by using such a petty insult.
For the record, I was referring to a subway through downtown along the rail corridors, combined with a transfer to Don Mills at Pape. Demand north of the B-D is not enough for a subway. Thus, the way I see it, Jane should go down the rail corridor to Dundas West, the subway should run from Dundas West to Pape, then the Don Mills line north from Pape. Note that the DRL could just be an extension of the aforementioned LRT lines as well, so don't get on me with the whole OMG TRANSFER CITY!!!1!!11ONE argument. There are multiple technologies available, after all.
Once again, it's not the wrong direction if you take it down to Pape like the city plans on doing. Also, have you ever stopped to wonder exactly why all those bus routes you name go to Thorncliffe Park? Perhaps because it needs a high level of service? By running LRT through Thorncliffe, you reduce the number of buses required to serve the area, thus allowing them to be deployed elsewhere. At the same time, you serve existing density, not an undeveloped intersection 500 metres away.
Would that be the DRL that somehow serves every downtown trip generator regardless of physical constraints that you seem to love bringing up in every thread? Also, I have no idea what the hell you're on about with having to get off at Front to catch a bus into the city. Last that I checked, Union Station is in fact on the YUS and it does, in fact, serve "the city". Thus: transfer from streetcar to DRL, DRL to Union, Union to destination on the YUS loop. Is it that difficult for you to comprehend?
So you agree with diverting the Eglinton Line south, likely at huge expense, in order to serve Thorncliffe Park? But what about the poor people coming in from as far away as Eglinton Square!? Imagine them having to endure such a horrible diversion of their service in order to serve Thorncliffe Park! They deserve quick subway access!
DENTROBATE54
Banned
Because you're creating a transfer city by cutting off commuters from further east. To Coxwell, at least the major urbanized area's covered. Beaches covered, Coxwell/Danforth gentrificated, Gerrard India Bazaar tourist boosted, semblence of an east-west subway south of BD met.
I don't mind the notion of a downtown relief line, but why limit ourselves to the antiquated 1985 perameters set out by Network 2011? Was it not pre-BD line mindsets that opined for a Queen subway before suburban hijacking of city council votes began? This is the best of both worlds, a Queen line not limited to downtown and a DRL not excluding established inner-city nodes for experimental waterfront condo-cosms. Any downtown routed subway would connect with BD, in the extremist sense at Sherway Gardens and Victoria Park so it's not it'd create a transfer city.
Panzerfaust wake up! Do you think any of the following subway stations are in idyllic locations conducive for population catchments: Victoria Park, Warden, Kennedy, Scarborough Centre, Kipling, Wilson, Downsview? These are the type of monster terminal type stations a DRL line would produce. Anyway my point is none of the mentioned stations are highly pedestrian-friendly nor easily accessible. Ditto, a subway location at Throncliffe Park East and Overlea Blvd would in no way be within walking distance for someone living in a apt on Milepost/Grandstand Place or the 000s that work in the Leaside industrial area. Hence they'd still have to transfer onto the 81/88 services. You can't link everywhere. Even a Coxwell alignment foregoes the real Beach area but is far closer and commutable for Beach residents then at Carlaw or worse Degrassi.
Wow, you just described all of at least 3 transfers one would have to make just to get around the city. Not very accessible and a means of Relief is it? Routing the line through the central downtown area, rather than at its bottom would allow most nodes to be on the grid. Everyone bringing up Union must forget how far a walk it is from anything major. YUS in general cannot be the end all say all of mass transit in the core, more needs to there.
You people are so frustrating to reason with. Thorncliffe Park would be the fifth station east of Yonge, less than 10 mins away. That sounds quick to me, faster even than travassing the entire length of Overlea, the viaduct and a streetcar tunnel that'll likely suffer massive delays via bunching of cars. To wit, Eglinton stops would be spaced much farther apart than what's seen on Bloor such that a diversion to pickup the oh so precious cargo of 18, 000 TCPs en route will tantilate and delight Eglinton Squares because they're still going a hell of alot faster than 24 to BD then across 11 closely-spaced stations.
Northern Light
Superstar
The Ceiling will be BLUE!
Renderings are up on the TTC website, under Station Modernization, Pape Station (March'08)
http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/pdf/pape_open_house_presentation_mar08.pdf
I have to say, I'm not a fan of the proposed look.
Pape, IMHO is in desparate need of a makeover, by my preliminary impression of the finishes is not a good one.
Creamy looking pseudo-stone with blue concrete ceilings? One word: Ewww
I can't figure out how to cut the images out of the .pdf, perhaps someelse can do that.
But in addition to the aesthetic dubiousness....
They now propose the second exits from the platform to go east into the middle of a parking lot, right beside the station!
Huh?
Those parking lots are not TTC lots and are not used by passengers by and large.
So they're going to make area residents exit into the middle of parking lot instead of to the nearest real street! Same obiviously for would entrants from the neighbourhood, first walk across a parking lot to get to the new entrance!
Call to arms! Members of urban toronto need to attend this meeting and fill out the comment form; this design is in need of serious refinement!
Renderings are up on the TTC website, under Station Modernization, Pape Station (March'08)
http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/pdf/pape_open_house_presentation_mar08.pdf
I have to say, I'm not a fan of the proposed look.
Pape, IMHO is in desparate need of a makeover, by my preliminary impression of the finishes is not a good one.
Creamy looking pseudo-stone with blue concrete ceilings? One word: Ewww
I can't figure out how to cut the images out of the .pdf, perhaps someelse can do that.
But in addition to the aesthetic dubiousness....
They now propose the second exits from the platform to go east into the middle of a parking lot, right beside the station!
Huh?
Those parking lots are not TTC lots and are not used by passengers by and large.
So they're going to make area residents exit into the middle of parking lot instead of to the nearest real street! Same obiviously for would entrants from the neighbourhood, first walk across a parking lot to get to the new entrance!
Call to arms! Members of urban toronto need to attend this meeting and fill out the comment form; this design is in need of serious refinement!
dowlingm
Senior Member
I have no problem being insensitive to people who should be on a GO Train...
There should be some kind of rule of thumb that if your ride is more than x stops there should be a better alternative. Unfortunately people south of Steeles can't get on TTC because of Major Mackers and can't get on GO because it won't pick them up.