Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

The University Line from Osgoode to Museum was definitely bored, and certain points were through bedrock. And good point about the unique circular ceilings and design of St Patrick and QP’s platforms. The cross-section schematic below seems to support the idea that they had their platforms bored, and that it’s not merely some architectural flair. Smallspy may have jumped the gun in saying the TTC has never built stations in this way.

I'd left out St Patrick and Queen's Park stations because they were hybrids. They cut-and-cover the central 150-some-odd feet of the station - basically, the footprint of the concourse and below. From there, they mined north and south out to the ends of the platform length.

I'm not sure where the bedrock lies around those two stations, so I'm not sure if that was at least in part of the reasoning of building the stations in that manner. They are certainly deeper than the other stations on the University Line.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
As other Toronto projects like Theatre Park have shown us, this is what the Toronto solution will really look like:
What you are proposing is what the rest of the world calls a bait and switch.

Cool rendering. A couple points:
The sightlines from Riverdale West wouldn’t be that extreme. And a transparent sound barrier built onto a short concrete elevated section of track shouldn’t be all that complicated, costly, or likely to be ‘bait and switched’. Back in Sept/Oct I jumbled together photos of different techniques found worldwide. I’ll make another collage at some other time to give an idea of how the viaduct could look. This piece in Chicago quickly comes to mind for a cheap installation, and the image does a good job of showing an EL hidden amongst trees:
Illinois-Tech-story.jpg


I'd left out St Patrick and Queen's Park stations because they were hybrids. They cut-and-cover the central 150-some-odd feet of the station - basically, the footprint of the concourse and below. From there, they mined north and south out to the ends of the platform length.

I'm not sure where the bedrock lies around those two stations, so I'm not sure if that was at least in part of the reasoning of building the stations in that manner. They are certainly deeper than the other stations on the University Line.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Somewhat differs from yesterday’s doozy of a post:

I'm not sure where you think it's "common practice", but the construction for Finch West Station - as for every single other station ever built in Toronto in the past, and to happen in the foreseeable future - was most certainly totally opened to the surface. It can be decked over once excavated, which is what you see in that photo, but it needs to be opened up to the sky first before that happens.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

You’re preaching to the choir, Dan. And contrary to your unwarranted dismissal of my previous post, it is “common practice†for other cities to build a station in such a way; the TTC has built stations in such a way; and in the future the TTC will likely be building more stations in such a way. Too bad BackTrack wasn't a transit plan, otherwise you'd have it covered.:p
 

Attachments

  • Illinois-Tech-story.jpg
    Illinois-Tech-story.jpg
    150.4 KB · Views: 1,007
Somewhat differs from yesterday’s doozy of a post:

You’re preaching to the choir, Dan. And contrary to your unwarranted dismissal of my previous post, it is “common practice” for other cities to build a station in such a way; the TTC has built stations in such a way; and in the future the TTC will likely be building more stations in such a way. Too bad BackTrack wasn't a transit plan, otherwise you'd have it covered.:p

Even if they only used it for a third or so of the total length or excavation of the construction, they still had to use cut-and-cover for a significant proportion of the station. So yeah, I think that it is fair to say that it has been used at every single station thus far, and in the foreseeable future. Unless you know something that we don't, and that they aren't going to be using cut-and-cover to build the stations of the Eglinton Line.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
The sightlines from Riverdale West wouldn’t be that extreme. And a transparent sound barrier built onto a short concrete elevated section of track shouldn’t be all that complicated, costly, or likely to be ‘bait and switched’. Back in Sept/Oct I jumbled together photos of different techniques found worldwide. I’ll make another collage at some other time to give an idea of how the viaduct could look. This piece in Chicago quickly comes to mind for a cheap installation, and the image does a good job of showing an EL hidden amongst trees:
View attachment 40599

Did you know it's winter here for half of the year? A deciduous tree is a type of tree that sheds its leaves during the middle of the fall and only begins to regrow during the middle of spring. Show us the same picture in December or January please. The only things being hidden will be the footpaths, baseball fields, and running tracks, under a sea of dead leaves and detritus from October to December. I've also never seen a design of a footpath, baseball field or running track with trees planted in the middle of it. How does that work?
 
ugly looking

Yeah, well. Ugly or not, the good people of Toronto should probably start getting used to seeing noise barriers across the city if we expect to build high-frequency regional rail or SmartTrack.

Even if they only used it for a third or so of the total length or excavation of the construction, they still had to use cut-and-cover for a significant proportion of the station. So yeah, I think that it is fair to say that it has been used at every single station thus far, and in the foreseeable future. Unless you know something that we don't, and that they aren't going to be using cut-and-cover to build the stations of the Eglinton Line.

In other words Dan, exactly what I wrote in my first post (the one you said was completely wrong). I never said there wouldn’t be disruption on the surface, in fact I explicitly stated otherwise. But a 50m trench is a helluva lot smaller than your adamant claim that every past and future station requires a mammoth hole several stories deep and the size of an entire station’s footprint. Re: bringing up the Crosstown - looks like you’re rerouting BackTrack onto the Diversion Track.

Did you know it's winter here for half of the year? A deciduous tree is a type of tree that sheds its leaves during the middle of the fall and only begins to regrow during the middle of spring. Show us the same picture in December or January please. The only things being hidden will be the footpaths, baseball fields, and running tracks, under a sea of dead leaves and detritus from October to December. I've also never seen a design of a footpath, baseball field or running track with trees planted in the middle of it. How does that work?

I’ll answer your questions if they’re genuine and not rude or purposefully silly.

***

If through the last century we followed the line of thinking of some posters (in the DRL thread of all places), Toronto would have: no Bloor Viaduct; very few or no bridges; no highways; no expressways; no rail corridors; no industry; and somehow our city would be a scattering of isolated mini Manhattans and Tokyos (minus the major above-ground transport infrastructure found in high-density dynamic cities).

Is that correct? Was the Bloor Viaduct a blunder? Was it an oversight to have open-air sections of subways? Was it an error that our enormous valleys were logically used as transport corridors? One baseball diamond is lost, another resituated, and a running track will have a small section of track above it...the horror!

Has anyone looked at the SmartTrack plan? Follow its route and see what will need to be built, and what will be lost. Double, triple, quad-tracking, bridge widening, new grade-separations, thousands of homes and tens of thousands of residents to deal with... And I see a few parks and diamonds that will be affected. If we can’t build one section of elevated rail along the periphery of a park several hundred metres from a few homes; then it’s safe to say that SmartTrack is out of the question. As is much of our future rapid transit expansion, LRT, DRL, and GO projects. We may as well start building mammoth bus facilities for our future transit needs. But I guess that would require expanding our roads and highways :confused:
 
In order for a transit line to be successful, it has to be where the people are, or where you can reasonably build spaces for people. You can't intensify on a floodplain, or a substation. Many of the places you have stations are either already built out, or will never be able to be intensified due to constraints in geography. If you're living in a ravine, a hydro corridor, or public park it probably means that something has gone wrong with your life to the extent you can't afford to take the subway.

I don't think people here are saying that the DRL is a bad idea. I think they are saying that your alignment through Riverdale Park, along the CP right-of-way, is a bad idea.

Some gripes with the alignment:
-It misses a very important transfer node at Pape/Gerrard.
-It misses areas with high development potential; parking lots and strip malls near East York Town Centre and brownfield in the West Don Lands and Portlands.
-No street network or development potential in the Gatineau Hydro ROW
 

That's better. Still needs a crossover and wye junction.


As for a switchover to B/D...I don’t want to get into that quite yet because I don’t know what vehicles I’d like to use. I’ve always been partial to LRT. Heck, I wouldn’t care all that much if it were recycled CLRVs coupled together. If you say the ridership will be so low, then surely an LRT solution can work. But long and short, I have thought about it. I’m just not fully decided yet.

An LRT has always been ruled out by the TTC. Some station locations are better than others, but no matter which route it takes through the downtown core, it will have more ridership than what an LRT can handle. Therefore LRT is out of the question. When I say your route will have low ridership, I'm talking about north of Danforth especially.


Bus routes can be altered. And I’ve already mentioned my (yet to be published) parallel fantasy idea about extending the 504/505 up Broadview and looping it back to service Pape Village and draw more riders to Broadview. It can work quite well, even if it involves single track sections. Transit City-lite, yo! Fact of the matter is that Broadview has more usage, and buses that otherwise go to Pape can be diverted to Broaview - thus bumping up the the ridership further. As for worrying about providing relief to B/D...I think SmartTrack has got that covered. IMO that line is more of a B/D relief than Yonge.

The reason why you chose Broadview has everything to do with putting the DRL in the Don Valley. Rearranging buses and streetcars to artificially inflate ridership at your preferred station is not how important decisions like this should be justified. How about I propose to reroute some those buses to Pape, and boom Pape now has higher ridership than Broadview, therefore Pape should be the interchange. As I've said, Broadview many not necessarily remain more used than Pape when the DRL is built. For one, the 100 Flemingdon Park bus would stop coming to Broadview, and would terminate at Thorncliffe or Flemingdon Park station.

Regarding your proposed rerouting exercise:
- The TTC doesn't like to build streetcars in mixed traffic anymore, due to high cost for low benefit. These days, they demand a ROW for any streetcar expansion
- Splitting transit service on the same street at Pape village by extending the streetcar and having buses cover the rest is not an improvement over the existing bus route
- Pape Ave will still need bus service since there's not gonna be a subway under your plan, and you want to move it to Broadview where there's already four bus routes that overlap


Stupid or not, the Scarb Subway was voted on and supported by a majority at Council; plus the Prov and Feds. Even Tory recently said he prefers the 3.5km stop spacing. So it’s not really all that “unprecedented”. And 3.5km is still larger than my 3.1km, not to mention with an actual population bypassed in between. Unless you think a stop at Brickworks is logical, it should be pretty obvious why there’s such a la`rge gap between stops when crossing the valley at that point. And guess what, most cities build transit like I’ve proposed: more direct routes, use of greenspace, use of open air sections for a line, sacrifices for cost-savings. In case you weren’t aware, transit costs nowadays – but more specifically in TO – are absolutely astronomical. The Crosstown alone is up there with some of the world’s most expensive RT projects. Honestly, I think most cities building anything akin to the DRL, for such ridiculous costs, would avoid the disjointed “fair” approach of serving every neighbourhood along the way.

So council killed the LRT in favour of a subway that most transit planners strongly disagree with, and whose routing has not been finalized yet. Therefore it's ok to take inspiration from a bad decision. You should really be comparing the stop spacing seen in East York which averages about 600 m, not suburbia transit that serves a completely different buildform. Yes, it is very obvious why your line goes on for 3.1 km: because there is nothing there. Even where your subway finally comes to a stop, there is still almost nothing there. This is precisely the reason why I don't like this route.

As for the cost argument, there's over $15 billion dollars of rapid transit under construction or about to begin in Toronto and the GTA, with another $15 billion or so promised for the next wave of projects like GO RER, DRL, Yonge extension, and Hurontario LRT. So yes, money for transit is coming to Toronto, and when the time is right I believe that a proper DRL up to Eglinton is not unrealistic, and is something that we should start planning for today. If this city cannot find the money to invest in proper transit, then we are not worthy of our status as an alpha world city.


So on top of having SmartTrack with direct service to the core, the non-high density area around Pape from Queen to Gerrard will also have underground subway service. Does such a heavy investment there seem realistic? Meanwhile you write-off River St even when I pointed out that a tower project has been proposed to adjoin another tower project, all next to a huge area in the throes of higher density redevelopment.

You should really be arguing against the TTC and their decades of experience, not me. The BD line is very well used despite having both low density and frequent stop spacing. Let me say this again: subway station ridership comes from surface transit, not density. In addition, your line completely avoids having any interchanges with GO RER. The TTC is well known for ignoring GO transit, and yet even they seem to have a better grasp than you at the importance of integrating the subway with GO transit, which is a trend that is increasingly becoming the new normal. Downsview Park subway station, Caledonia crosstown station, and Mt Dennis crosstown station are just a few examples of what's to come.

16071466407_97ed2e898d_c.jpg


Gerrard Station: this will be a key interchange with two frequent GO lines akin to Bloor GO / Dundas West station. It connects with the 72 Pape bus that serve the future Portlands communities. It connects with the 506 streetcar, which is also wonderful because: Starting from Main St, the distance to the next subway station (currently Yonge & College) will be cut in half --> This will both shorten commute times for many existing 506 riders, while also attracting a number of new riders who currently prefer taking one of the many north-south bus routes to the BD line since it's currently a much faster way to get downtown than taking this streetcar. Your Oak station also connects to the 506, but it takes longer to get there.

These connections alone will ensure that this station will be well used. But as for development, there a lot of land ripe for development in the immediate vicinity. In fact there are very few plots of land south of Danforth with as much development potential as this one. I encourage you to check out google streetview on Carlaw street, from Gerrard to Queen. There's almost as much land to develop here as your Oak station. It doesn't matter whether it's 12 storeys or 30, it's still urban renewal, and walk-in traffic from pure residential development alone (both it's here and at River St) makes a minuscule contribution to station usage compared to the connecting transit routes. There will be more people coming in from the Portlands via the 72 Pape bus than from any of these condos.

16232018946_3c3717a0f0_z.jpg


^Note that I may have highlighted some land that has already been developed by now. If that's the cause, then great. Progress is already underway.


Queen East Station: Not as important as Gerrard, but is 1.2 km away from the next station at River St, which is already a lot more than the Danforth line stop spacing. It connects with the extremely busy 501 streetcar. And just like with the previous station, it will dramatically shorten access time to the subway from the east end, thus improving their commute times, and providing relief to a streetcar that's jam packed long before it even crosses the Don River. There is also massive development planned south of Eastern Ave and in the Portlands. While it's not in the immediate vicinity of Queen East, it's time to stop assuming that subway stations are only there to serve the front door of a few condos. The 72 Pape bus will be bringing tons of people from the Portlands to this station, and will also continue north to Gerrard Station for those who need to use GO.


Bayview-River St Station: Connects with the Richmond Hill GO line. The main problem with this line that causes low ridership today is that it doesn't have enough stations, partly because it's located in the valley. Hmmm, sounds familiar? A new GO station in downtown for the RH line that also interchanges with the DRL and two streetcar lines, will provide new options for those who's trip does not end at Union station, and thus a new alternative to the Yonge Line for some North York and 905 residents. Since the RH line will never connect with the BD subway for obvious reasons, this is the next best solution. To further improve the usefulness of the RH line, there should also be new stations at 16th Ave, John St, York Mills, Don Mills, Lawrence, and Eglinton Ave. Other than that, Bayview-River St station also connects with two of the busiest streetcar lines, and serves lots of new development in the area.

I don't have to talk about the remaining stations, as they do pretty much the same thing for the west end.


So on top of having SmartTrack with direct service to the core, the non-high density area around Pape from Queen to Gerrard will also have underground subway service. Does such a heavy investment there seem realistic? Meanwhile you write-off River St even when I pointed out that a tower project has been proposed to adjoin another tower project, all next to a huge area in the throes of higher density redevelopment.

Yes. That heavy investment for a key mobility hub will be absolutely worthwhile. No matter where the DRL gets built, there will always be a few highrise buildings somewhere that won't have a subway station at their front door. I can put a station at King & Spadina, which is a good location but some people will still believe that it should have been at City Place or Rogers Centre instead because there's more towers there.

This location is already well served by the 506 and 505 streetcars that provide access to the Yonge line within a few minutes. They also provide residents with direct access to many huge destinations such as Dundas Square, Eaton Centre, Ryerson, and U of T without having to take the stairs and use two subway lines. Both streetcars have plenty of capacity available to accommodate new development because:
- the 506 Carlton will have offloaded many passengers at Gerrard Square station before it gets to River St
- the 505 Dundas has only been en-route for 10 minutes from Broadview station by the time it gets here, and streetcar stops on Broadview are also shared by the King streetcar
- by the way, just 10 minutes to access either Danforth or Yonge line by streetcar, is a lot better than what can be said about much of the city's dense neighbourhoods, including the ones you've left behind

As I've said, Oak station relies on residential development that cannot happen at a large enough scale to get the same kind of high walk-in ridership like at Sherbourne station or North York Centre, because as i've said: to the north you have untouchable Cabbagetown, and to the east you have the Don River just one block away. You cite Regent Park which it's more mid-rise than high-rise, and those three ugly towers that are about to get a fourth one. Other than that, all this station does is connect with one streetcar line. I'm not trying to write off this area. I love Regent Park, but I believe it's already well served, and that there is a better opportunity at Gerrard Square to create a more useful station. A mobility hub whose benefits will extend much more far and wide than Oak station, whose ridership will be higher, and which would decrease commute times for more people. Not far south from here, there's already the planned Bayview-River St Station that serves a similar kind of area as Oak, except that it also connects to a GO line, two streetcars, and has more density planned here than Oak. Meanwhile, you yourself write off one of the densest neighbourhoods in Toronto:

"The stations aren’t close enough to Thorncliffe or Flemingdon. Big whoop. Those ‘tower in a park’ neighbourhoods are suburban by default, and have been proudly so for decades. They have ample parking and spacious tree-lined roadways. Why is it so necessary to spend $Billions – sacrificing other priorities or nearby development opportunities - just to place a station adjacent to a few 60s-era, auto-centric buildings that really aren’t all that high-density to begin with? And they still get service, in an area prime for development. So what if it’s slightly farther than some expected."

Needless to say, nobody agrees with you.


An extension of Redway Rd as part of its extension to Bayview isn’t unrealistic. With Thorncliffe Pk Drive connected and looped to Beth Nielson, I think a solid grid could be created. At the very least something to run buses into a bus bay built as part of the station. The greenspace below the hydro corridor can be used for surface or station parking...which isn’t anything new for the TTC (e.g Finch). As for redeveloping manufacturing and warehouses into some other use (which can still involve land zoned for employment), that’s up to the City’s planning department. It can be done, and it has been done. Comparing this site to Kipling is actually quite apt, considering their similarities. There are numerous other sprawling TTC stations I can compare it to, but Kipling fits well because it also has a freight corridor next to it.

Compare if you want, but Kipling gets very high ridership because of it's many bus connections plus the GO station. Open up any transit map and just look at where all these buses are coming from. Finch, same thing: a high ridership station where trains arrive with standing room only, tons of bus routes serving a huge catchment area, and prime locations on Toronto's main street that have attracted office buildings in addition to lots of condos. Thorncliffe is at an awkward location that is difficult to reroute buses to in an elegant way, and you know it. Rezoning more employment lands so that more jobs can be lost to the 905 is not in the city's best interest, and is something that is routinely oppose everywhere else. I'm all for development and urban renewal, but this is not an appropriate development site, is not in the best location, is not high in demand like Finch, is not gonna attract enough development, and will hardly put a dent in ridership until the entire business park is razed for really large condos. I don't see that much demand here for so much development, nor do I expect an impoverished immigrant community to be driving their cars in droves to park at this station. At Finch and Kipling, the park & ride people are generally wealthier, and live in the 905 where transit is weaker and where the nearest subway transit station is too far to get to in a reasonable time. Contrary to what you said previously, Thorncliffe will not suddenly become middle class thanks to your DRL (or any), nor will it become desirable because of its seclusion. It hasn't happened to St James Town despite its downtown location, and I don't expect that to happen here either. Toronto's most sought after neighbourhoods are not ones that turn their backs to the city.


I don’t know about this “living next to a highway sucks” comment. There are people paying big money to live within spitting distance of the Gardiner, which is a proper expressway and is way worse than the Allen. I wouldn't do it personally, but others would. The Allen is just a short highway and hasn’t detracted from private interest. Like I’ve said, it’s local residents opposing development, not anything to do with the Allen itself. Or the odd station locations. As for the subway not travelling under Dufferin, sure it could’ve done that. But it would’ve been more expensive, and probably not have been built as a result. And even if it were, Dufferin may very well have remained as you describe it.

Downtown is downtown. People are moving there in droves, and are willing to live in the tiniest of condos located next to highways, busy rail corridors or wherever there's still room left to build, because the benefits of downtown living are totally worth it. My comments about Allen Road may not have been entirely accurate, but I think you know what I'm trying to say about building subway too cheaply. If you think Dufferin could have remained the same (and yes that was a possibility), then you should expect even less at your industrial park stations. Do you ever pause to think what would happen if development doesn't pan out has you're hoping? Just looks at Scarborough Centre, Warden, Kennedy, Downsview for example, all of which were more sensible development sites. And even the Sheppard subway, which did see development, has gained little if any ridership since it was built.


Never said Sheppard was successful. Merely that the Cdn Tire warehouse and ample land with “nothing there” is why the line got built. And nor am I saying that a Vaughan extension made sense, merely that it got built because ‘nothing was there’. I don’t agree with this method of building subways. But as history shows it’s how they get built in TO.

Although I’m not in any way against the traditional DRL alignment (contrary to how I’ve been labelled after posting my map), I will say with a straight face that development is a bigger driver of costly transit projects than simply building transit to existing neighbourhoods or current riders. Oftentimes it’s the swaths of greenfield, greyfield, and brownfield sites that are most attractive (i.e – what many here describe as “nothing”). As well, if there’s an opportunity to save $Billions of dollars at the expense of little ridership growth, most city’s would understandably take it. IMO existing riders simply switching from riding the Pape bus to walking into a future DRL station does not count as “growth”.

Vaughan and Sheppard has everything to do with politics and ego. Sheppard was approved with the help of unrealistic development projections in NYCC and STC that never materialized. Whatever was build to this day along Sheppard has done little if anything to increase ridership. At this point, Toronto is so far behind that we cannot keep building transit to empty fields that may or may not develop in the future, while dense neighbourhoods everywhere are left to fend for themselves. The DRL should have been built long ago at a time when there was actually "nothing there" outside the downtown core, but we've waited so long that those areas have been largely built out by now, and now it's time to serve them instead of focusing so much on the latest nowhere lands. Many of those "existing neighbourhoods" you speak of have lots more room to grow further or undergo badly needed urban renewal once planners are ready to stop ignoring them.


My focus is Phase I and III built in one shot.

Phase II should happen before phase III. It would divert more riders from Yonge & Bloor, serve more development happening there today than what your industrial park stations will ever get, bring enhanced access to GO RER in the west end, and provide relief to the streetcars. At least that's what the TTC thinks. To continue what I was saying above, the King streetcar situation is a perfect example of those "current riders" coming from "existing neighbourhoods" such as Liberty village. They have been ignored for far too long thanks to your preferred style of transit planning, to great detriment for quality of life. Fortunately the DRL is a solution that can remedy this particular example. A solution that you prefer to leave for last.


Not trying to sound cocky, deluded, or trolling. But I believe in this proposal more now than I did before. I think it can be well argued that my Don Line proposal:

-relieves Yonge more than the conventional DRL
-has greater potential for large-scale, high-density development than the conventional DRL
-consequently has greater potential for new ridership growth than the conventional DRL
-provides a faster/shorter trip than the conventional DRL
-costs at least two billion dollars less than the conventional DRL

Yeah, the more problems we point out, the more cocky you get. You're entitled to your own opinion, but it's quite obvious by now that your priorities are a little different than that of the TTC and Metrolinx, and your transit line is the product of your way of thinking:
- Bringing transit to empty sites are a higher priority than quelling un-met transit demand in places that already exist, along transit corridors that have high ridership today let alone tomorrow. Painful lessons learned from many failed development nodes are to be ignored.
- Having stronger links to transit routes that connect people from far and wide is not necessary because there happens to be less density, but Thorncliffe and Flemingdon Park are not worthy of a station. Accordingly, your line completely avoids GO, while other transit lines planned or under construction are doing the opposite.
- Saving about two extra minutes for people coming from Don Mills and Eglinton is considered a benefit, when far more people in other areas will face longer commute times than the conventional DRL.
- At a time when transit investment has never been higher, it's more important to save money today than to make sure that the most important transit line in the entire Big Move is built in a way that benefits the most people, and brings the most benefits for the city
- Somehow, a line with less ridership that provides less relief to the BD line, will provide more relief to the Yonge line and Bloor/Yonge station than the conventional DRL.
- The criteria for choosing the all important interchange location with the BD line to build phase III as part of phase I as cheaply as possible, rather than to provide the most relief as originally intended. It's the job of Smart Track pick up the slack. Whether that will be good enough to provide enough capacity to accommodate decades of future growth and decreasing car usage is uncertain, but that concern takes a back seat to putting the DRL in the Don Valley, and leaving phase II for last.


I will eat my words if your alignment gets short listed during the EA process currently underway, but I don't expect that to happen.
 
Last edited:
Kudos to Salsa for such a patient and detailed review of the proposal. They have vocalized the issues with the proposal fare more eloquently that I had the patience to!
 
Follow its route and see what will need to be built, and what will be lost. Double, triple, quad-tracking, bridge widening, new grade-separations
That's already done in the Georgetown corridor. The old Google Satellite views doesn't show the billion dollar spent in this corridor because of UPX. The right of way for SmartTrack is already fully grade separated west of Union. They've already done big feats such as redoing this massive railroad interchange (now built), for example -- and now grade separation is done, SmartTrack can easily run most of west of Union.

The eastern right of way is genuinely trickier (as is the Eglington spur), so I'll let others dissect that. They'll need to pull off a second GTS (Georgetown South) megaproject east of Union, to make SmartTrack possible, with a few trenches, tunnels, and maybe raised rail... But they can reduce that need by more efficiently utilizing the corridor capacity to only need perhaps one additional track (plus two only in certain sections).

I do hope that since Metrolinx declares SmartTrack being under the GO RER umbrella, the province might insist on full sized electricified GO RER trains (like the Paris RER, they use a mix of single levels and bilevels running subway-style frequencies) to make efficient use of corridor capacity. That way, they can safely substitute some of the existing local GO service with SmartTrack, reducing need for extra trackage (separation of GO/SmartTrack). The province, who is funding a 'share' of the construction, can theoretically withhold until the SmartTrack specs satisfactorily meets GO RER criteria, using huge Paris-style electric MMU trains rather than tiny UPX-style trains.

----

Addendum:
A new service plan could occur, forced by EA realities. In theory, they can discontinue diesel GOtrain service on the Stoufville line south of Unionville. That means a transfer at Unionville between diesel vs electric GOTrains, but would eliminate the need for extra trackage south of Unionville, and still allow for a faster commute. Or, Metrolinx may decide to electricify the whole Stoufville line (but not grade-separating it north of Unionville, and running trains more infrequently north of Unionville) -- if the math shows that running only SmartTrack trains on the Stoufville line, is cheaper. There is enough overlap between Tory's 7-year goal and Metrolinx's 10-year goal, to simply merge the SmartTrack / Stoufville GO RER initiative, to simplify logistics and optimize track capacity. Remember, SmartTrack IS essentially Stoufville GO RER. If you save a billion by not needing build extra track by completely discontinuing diesel GOtrains on Stoufville line -- this may even fund installation of electricification for the remainder of the whole Stoufville line (even if not grade-separating or extra-tracking north of Unionville), maybe even paid for by the Metrolinx pre-existing GO RER initiative. Therefore, I expect some interesting plan changes in store, some good, some bad, when EA's complete and SmartTrack accelerated construction is greenlighted.
 
Last edited:
In order for a transit line to be successful, it has to be where the people are, or where you can reasonably build spaces for people. You can't intensify on a floodplain, or a substation.

Never planned on it. Whether the DRL crosses the valley underground or above ground - at Queen, at Gerrard, or near Leaside Bridge – there wouldn’t be stations along the crossing point. It should be pretty obvious why. Very few planners would push for nodal development based around stretches of track without a station. Nor would they consider station-less sections of track to be part of a line’s catchment - particularly when in an unbuildable area such as a floodplain, or 60ft underground.

Many of the places you have stations are either already built out, or will never be able to be intensified due to constraints in geography.

On the contrary. I’ve actually explained why in previous posts. The traditional DRL puts the line where density already is (to some extent...some of those sites aren’t all that “high-densityâ€, nor will they ever be). Whereas my Don Line puts stations where intensification is going to be, and could logically be. The Coca Cola site alone could theoretically be a mammoth development.

I don't think people here are saying that the DRL is a bad idea. I think they are saying that your alignment through Riverdale Park, along the CP right-of-way, is a bad idea.

Fair enough. I’m simply willing to argue as to why it’s not a “bad ideaâ€. And whereas some other posters I’ve been debating with like to use fallacies, rudeness, or simply unwavering beliefs as arguing points - I prefer to use facts and evidence.

Some gripes with the alignment:
-It misses a very important transfer node at Pape/Gerrard.

I think I covered Pape/Gerrard yesterday. It arguably has mediocre growth potential, it will already be served by SmrtTrack, and my proposal intercepts Gerrard at River St. And last I checked, Gerrard Square was already developed not too long ago. Now has a Walmart and Home Depot, and still has ample parking.

-It misses areas with high development potential; parking lots and strip malls near East York Town Centre and brownfield in the West Don Lands and Portlands.

Au contraire. My proposal allows for large-scale development - at least significantly larger than the traditional DRL alignment. If anything that the last few decades of rapid transit expansion in Toronto has shown us, it’s that greenfield, greyfield, and brownfield sites (i.e “nothingâ€) are a big factor in getting subways built. My Don Line acknowledges this more than the traditional DRL. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the owner of the old Coke plant had been donating generously to area politicians for some kind of opportunity to rezone and upzone. And similarly, the remote Redway Rd Loblaws has all the makings to become a very affluent residential enclave.

And perhaps you’re not familiar with my alignment and map, but it serves WDL quite well. As for the Port Lands, I’ve actually offered alternate proposals in another thread. But I honestly don’t think it can be logically served with a rapid transit line that has to relieve Yonge. It’s just too far south. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see heavy investment for grade-separate light RT in the Port Lands, Lower Don Lands, East Bayfront, and Keating Precinct. I just don’t think it can be done with the DRL (either traditional, or miscellaneous).

-No street network or development potential in the Gatineau Hydro ROW

An extension of Redway Road can easily be accomplished with this plan. A southward extension to Bayview has been planned for ages; and a northward extension can very much fit in with that. Secondary streets connecting to this arterial (e.g Thorncliffe Park Dr, Beth Nielson) would logically be part of such extension. As well, the hydro corridor is a natural fit for surface station parking (which wouldn’t be anything new for TTC or Metrolinx).

I’m very much on board with the notion that Toronto is a dynamic city in its infancy. While other posters act as if new additions to our surface transportation network reached their maximum +20 years ago, I’m quite open to expansion and improvement of roads, expressways, and surface rapid transit. Even the 30yo Network 2011 DRL proposal that had elevated sections of track above Overlea or Eastern Ave...I’d support that if I thought it was more realistic than what I’m proposing. But I’ll acknowledge that such a considerable proposal is almost impossible in this part of the city nowadays.

***

In a similar situation where a city were determining the fate of a key rapid transit line, where cost is the biggest determining factor in whether the line gets built, and where development dollars and political interest are focused on areas 20km away - I very much believe an alignment similar to mine would be proposed. And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if such a city were to be even thriftier by subsequently reducing the elevated parkland segment to be run on the surface; bisecting the valley further, and literally taking and destroying parkland.

Does anyone recall TC Phase II – Don Mills LRT? I think my proposal makes a lot more sense than having a trolley trundling along Overlea and Pape; or descending 150ft to the valley floor, meandering beside a river, then somehow abruptly ending at Castle Frank and having passengers connect to B/D via a 120ft-high and 500ft-long escalator tube. That was a bad idea for a relief line.

The Don Line is not some dinky doodle. I systematically deduced that my route is a logical one, and through knowledge of the area gained over many years, have reinforced my conclusions. I will question TTC or Metrolinx’s acumen and fortitude if they don’t conclude that a DRL solution which intersects with Broadview Stn - and uses the abandoned Don Branch and Half Mile Bridge to link up with Eglinton – is at least a reasonable alternative to the traditional and costly DRL with its disjointed and tunnelled route. Or whatever the heck the Don Mills LRT was supposed to be.

***

Another pseudo-rant:
Regarding the commenters denouncing elevated rail; have you ever been to the quadrant of Old Toronto south of the Danorth? Almost the entire Stouffville/Lakeshore East/future-SmrtTrack corridor between the Don River and Woodbine is elevated – at least on one side of the line. Between Pape and the Don the whole thing is most definitely raised up. Sure, it’s not all that high, and it’s an earthen embankment instead of a concrete or steel viaduct. But for all intents and purposes it is very much a man-made raised section of track. And if you support SmrtTrack or RER, then you support ‘surface subways’ running on said elevated track. Not to mention elevated stations at Gerrard, Queen, and Unilever. If we can’t build a short section of viaduct in a park’s periphery in a floodplain, then I think we can rule out the 150m long platforms cantilevered above the street - complete with elevators and flights of stairs. All alongside century-old single family homes that won’t be going anywhere any time soon.

***

And now I see Salsa’s attempt at refutation. Y’know what, I may have to take a break from posting in this thread. Obviously the onslaught and attempts at ridiculing this proposal won’t cease any time soon. I’ve only skimmed over your argument, Salsa. Needless to say, it won’t be very hard to refute. I may take my time in doing it, but it will be a cakewalk.
 
Never planned on it. Whether the DRL crosses the valley underground or above ground - at Queen, at Gerrard, or near Leaside Bridge – there wouldn’t be stations along the crossing point. It should be pretty obvious why. Very few planners would push for nodal development based around stretches of track without a station. Nor would they consider station-less sections of track to be part of a line’s catchment - particularly when in an unbuildable area such as a floodplain, or 60ft underground.

I'm specifically referring to your alignment near Thorncliffe Park, which has the DRL running in the middle of a hydro ROW and adjacent to a CP switching yard. This is a lost opportunity compared to running the line under Overlea. Redway Drive also sandwiched between a rail corridor and a ravine with a hydro station to the northwest. You're not going to see any significant development here.

I think I covered Pape/Gerrard yesterday. It arguably has mediocre growth potential, it will already be served by SmrtTrack, and my proposal intercepts Gerrard at River St. And last I checked, Gerrard Square was already developed not too long ago. Now has a Walmart and Home Depot, and still has ample parking.

Mediocre growth potential compared to what? It's certainly better than your station at Oak St.

There's nothing currently serving Gerrard Square to warrant more intensive usage. Counting Walmart and Home depot as recent redevelopment is a red herring. It's not the best use of that space, particularly if a rapid transit station were there.

Au contraire. My proposal allows for large-scale development - at least significantly larger than the traditional DRL alignment. If anything that the last few decades of rapid transit expansion in Toronto has shown us, it’s that greenfield, greyfield, and brownfield sites (i.e “nothing”) are a big factor in getting subways built. My Don Line acknowledges this more than the traditional DRL. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the owner of the old Coke plant had been donating generously to area politicians for some kind of opportunity to rezone and upzone. And similarly, the remote Redway Rd Loblaws has all the makings to become a very affluent residential enclave.

You don't have a station within walking distance of Loblaws.

And perhaps you’re not familiar with my alignment and map, but it serves WDL quite well. As for the Port Lands, I’ve actually offered alternate proposals in another thread. But I honestly don’t think it can be logically served with a rapid transit line that has to relieve Yonge. It’s just too far south. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see heavy investment for grade-separate light RT in the Port Lands, Lower Don Lands, East Bayfront, and Keating Precinct. I just don’t think it can be done with the DRL (either traditional, or miscellaneous).

Trust me, I've looked at your map. I'm familiar with it. Your station is in Corktown (King and River) not in the West Don Lands (South of Eastern Ave).

Being too far south is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that you can serve the Portlands (or maybe more accurately, the Studio District/Unilever Site) with a DRL, in addition to some dedicated streetcar tracks ans still have effective relief of Bloor-Yonge.

NcOs7xx.png
 
And now I see Salsa’s attempt at refutation. Y’know what, I may have to take a break from posting in this thread. Obviously the onslaught and attempts at ridiculing this proposal won’t cease any time soon. I’ve only skimmed over your argument, Salsa. Needless to say, it won’t be very hard to refute. I may take my time in doing it, but it will be a cakewalk.

44North: In your repeated attempts to get the most bang for your buck with your DRL alignment, I'm afraid to say, as have many others in far greater detail, your proposal fails to see the forest for the trees.
 
And now I see Salsa’s attempt at refutation. Y’know what, I may have to take a break from posting in this thread. Obviously the onslaught and attempts at ridiculing this proposal won’t cease any time soon. I’ve only skimmed over your argument, Salsa. Needless to say, it won’t be very hard to refute. I may take my time in doing it, but it will be a cakewalk.

And while you're at it, you can also refute this finding from the TTC's Downotown Rapid Transit Study:

An initial phase of the project extending from the University Subway line in the downtown (St Andrews or Osgoode Station) easterly to connect with the Danforth Subway at Pape Station provides the greatest and most immediate benefit to relieving overcrowding on the Yonge Subway.

Or is that also too easy to refute? Maybe I can take a break too, because now there's a coalition of other posters chiming in to say what I said.
 
Last edited:
Why isn't a station at Queen and Broadview considered?

It seems like it has great redevelopment potential in all directions from the intersection, is in proximity of the Unilever site, has access to Broadview and Queen streetcars, and is considerable walking distance to both Queen East and River stations.
 

Back
Top