Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[crs1026]

If there was a convenient transer a lot would. But I don't enough. But how long would it take someone to get from Castle Frank, down the escarpment to this proposed station in the Don Valley?

The Washington Metro has the continent's longest escalator, with a rise of 110 feet. The travel time is 2:45, less if you walk as well. The Prince Edward Viaduct is 130 feet tall, so if we built a connection to the floor of the Don we'd take bragging rights away from DC

Seriously, while technically possible, a routing higher up,would be better. The attraction of the west side routing is that you are tunnelling under Rosedale, where the are likely very few underground sewers or pilings to contend with.

- Paul

 

[44 North]

I'm miffed, because it's simply a horrid idea for a DRL, that does little to relieve Bloor-Yonge, or provide service to the dense areas that have been identified as needing service.

Adding a station at Brickworks wouldn't do anything to make this function as a DRL!

“horrid”, “hard to imagine a worse DRL alignment”? Come on, man. Really? How is it as bad as you say? It performs all the functions of the original DRL: provides N/S service to relieve Yonge, connects to Don Mills/Eglinton, and offers E/W service through the core. My proposal exactly matches the original DRL proposal, but for less than half the cost.

All of your specific problems with the line have been addressed by me months ago:

-Bypasses Cosburn/Pape. So what, it saves SEVERAL BILLION DOLLARS in the process.

-Bypasses Brickworks. Frankly, I don’t think anyone aside from you believes it wise to spend +$100M to put a station on an 80ft-high narrow uninhabited ridge, just to give a few dozen dog walkers subway service.

-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.

Doesn’t provide relief to Yonge. Of course it does! It intersects with the Crosstown at Don Mills; and one level below Broadview on Line 2. Broadview is a great station for a DRL – and it draws riders from a huge area north and east of the station.

Compared with some fantasy routings that have a DRL doing a 90deg turn while miraculously ascending/descending 120ft, or placing stations in a floodplain with 400m long escalators adhered to the side of a bridge, I think my proposal is fairly decent and realistic. St Andrew to Don Mills/Eglinton (10km), for $3bn, with no tangible design flaw - is pretty good.

 

[mdrejhon]

The Washington Metro has the continent's longest escalator, with a rise of 110 feet. The travel time is 2:45, less if you walk as well. The Prince Edward Viaduct is 130 feet tall, so if we built a connection to the floor of the Don we'd take bragging rights away from DC

Another idea is a gondola to deal with the elevation change. Some cities have done this.

 

[nfitz]

“horridâ€, “hard to imagine a worse DRL alignmentâ€? Come on, man. Really? How is it as bad as you say?

Well, it's not quite as horrid as the alignment that misses Thorncliffe and Flemingdon entirely. But put a subway under the street that only needs 3 buses an hour in AM peak? Run an alignment the same length as the current alignment, so not much time saving. And build a very complex transfer at Castle Frank?

It performs all the functions of the original DRL: provides N/S service to relieve Yonge, connects to Don Mills/Eglinton, and offers E/W service through the core.

Well, it does the latter. Connecting at Castle Frank provides little incentive to switch. It misses all the population north of Danforth, and instead runs along a corridor north of Danforth that generates no traffic.

My proposal exactly matches the original DRL proposal, but for less than half the cost.

Billions spent with few benefits.

This idea is so bad, it won't even appear in the list of alternatives in the EA!

 

[44 North]

My 'Don Line' DRL intersects with Broadview, not Castle Frank. I'm very much aware of Castle Frank's issues, and that it's uniquely situated on a narrow ridge and tucked away from high density areas. I would never propose an idea using that station. In fact, IIRC the impetus for my creating the Don Line proposal was to refute an idea from a Beaches-area ward candidate who proposed a (very silly) Castle Frank DRL route, and the discussions in this thread which followed that (very silly) idea.

 

[nfitz]

My 'Don Line' DRL intersects with Broadview, not Castle Frank.

Ah, I'm getting them mixed up. But wait, that means your plan also misses Thorncliffe and Flemingdon Park, and destroys both Riverdale West and Riverdale East park! It might a bit better in relieving Bloor-Yonge than Wisla's Parliament plan.

But crossing the Don River twice? And to do so to only bit Broadview station already served by subway? Now if it carried on under Broadview up to near Pape/Donlands and then followed the original 1960s TTC DRL plan to Eglinton/Don Mills, it might make more sense.

 

[44 North]

Ah, I'm getting them mixed up. But wait, that means your plan also misses Thorncliffe and Flemingdon Park, and destroys both Riverdale West and Riverdale East park! It might a bit better in relieving Bloor-Yonge than Wisla's Parliament plan.

But crossing the Don River twice? And to do so to only bit Broadview station already served by subway? Now if it carried on under Broadview up to near Pape/Donlands and then followed the original 1960s TTC DRL plan to Eglinton/Don Mills, it might make more sense.

Another reason why I created my Don Line proposal was to show an above-ground alternative for the challenge of crossing under the Don River that almost every amateur DRL plan seems to gloss over. You wanna talk about “complex transfers”? Well how about the +100-ft deep cavernous stations on either side of the Don River required for basically every DRL plan out there. That is complex.

In the study of the Yonge North subway extension, the conclusion for crossing the West Don at Yonge was to build a bridge (it’s less complex, more affordable, and more realistic). I simply carried over those findings. But since it’s safe to say that it’s now 100% impossible to build a bridge at/near Queen for a traditional DRL, I offered an alternative location 1km north at Riverdale Park.

And every DRL plan has the line cross the Don twice. It’s impossible not to. And yes, you’re right that it makes sense to follow Pape/Donlands through south EY. But a) it will cost $Billions to do so, and b) we have an abandoned rail corridor (owned by Metrolinx) which offers an affordable alternative.

 

[nfitz]

Well how about the +100-ft deep cavernous stations on either side of the Don River required for basically every DRL plan out there. That is complex.

Why would you need 100 feet deep cavernous stations if crossing at King/Queen? There's not that much relief down there.

And every DRL plan has the line cross the Don twice. It’s impossible not to.

But your's crosses 3 times!

 

[BurlOak]

But your's crosses 3 times!

Does West Don Count as another crossing - I think all/most proposals have that as a 3rd crossing.

 

[44 North]

Why would you need 100 feet deep cavernous stations if crossing at King/Queen? There's not that much relief down there.

Perhaps 100ft is an exaggeration, but there’s no denying that stations located on either side of the Don at Queen/River and Queen/Broadview will be deep.

But your's crosses 3 times!

No, it crosses the Don twice (just like every other DRL plan), and crosses the West Don once (just like every DRL plan). Again, it's impossible for any Don Mills/Eglinton->downtown DRL not to.

I wouldn't have spent hours working on that route/map if it included glaring glitches for some cynical sleuth to uncover. It's merely an alternative to the traditional DRL, end of story. Clearly you're now grasping in your attempts to find fault with my plan.

 

[Mr.Tang]

Do plans typically include an assessment of the transit rider catchment area expected to fill the seats? A few of the plans seem to snake along the DVP - but few people really live right beside it. This reminds me of the stretch of the Spadina line along the Allen which is pretty underutilized.

 

[wopchop]

-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.
.

This is a pretty ignorant response to a great criticism. Thorncliffe Park houses around 30,000 people and Flemingdon Park around 22,000. A huge percentage of these people are low-income immigrants, and very likely transit users. Putting the transit station as close as possible to them is probably a good idea (I also forget where your proposed stop would be, is it at Millwood / the Don Branch corridor?).

Writing the area off because you feel it is a "auto-centric" area is a a pretty big bias on your part, and a mistake IMO, as transit usage in the area is high. The amount of space in these neighbourhoods also makes them likely candidates for redevelopment.

 

[ehlow]

Thorncliffe and Flemington are very dense. Look at the density map from 2006. A subway would get a significant ridership boost from them and likely spur improvement to those areas. It does matter to put transit where people live. There is office space in that area as well which could experience a renaissance supported by new transit.

 

[WislaHD]

Judging by the Flemingdon Park bus, a significant amount of people from the area are already commuting via bus to Yonge-Eglinton station, and I am sure more are commuting the other way to the Bloor-Danforth line by bus.

The last time the corridor was researched though, I remember it finding that Flemingdon and Thorncliffe stations would be among the lowest ridership stations. I think this is primarily due to the lack of connecting bus routes to those stations rather than due to "auto-centric" environment or low surrounding density.

 

[crs1026]

What would be wrong with coming down Don Mills from Eglinton (Crosstown transfer station), turning right at Overlea, ducking around the filtration plant, station at Bayview (beside the CP right of way) and then tunnel/bridge down Governor's Road and Glen Road to Parliament? Some smaller bridges, off set by the ability to build on the surface for part of the way? That gets you both Flemindon and Thorncrest on the way down, and tempts Leasiders to not use the Yonge line.

(Admitting my ignorance) Just how much does a two-track railway bridge cost, anyways? How does that compare to a tunnelled segment of equal length?

- Paul