Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[WislaHD]

Yes, during the morning rush, 100 Flemingdon Park buses bound for Broadview Station are almost always standing room only by the time the first westbound stop in Thorncliffe Park is reached. 25 Don Mills buses are slightly better; 81 Thorncliffe Park buses are full upon leaving Thorncliffe as are 88B South Leaside buses; 88A South Leaside buses generally have space because that branch takes the long way back to St. Clair Station (through the Leaside Business Park).

Yes, the Flemingdon and Thorncliffe Stations were forecast as the lowest ridership stations. My guess, because I am not privy to their modeling assumptions, is that the results were partly to justify the mega terminal that will be built at Don Mills and Eglinton for the Crosstown LRT. That only addresses the routing of the 25 and the 100 though. That doesn't explain Thorncliffe. Maybe their notion was to "cheap out" and not build any sort of terminal facility to bring 81 and 88 riders into the station directly.

I wonder what ramifications this has once the Crosstown is complete regarding ridership pattern changes. If all those people commuting south by bus to the B-D line instead decide it is better to commute north to Laird or Don Mills station on the Crosstown, we could potentially be adding many more morning rush hour commuters to Yonge-Eglinton station and the Yonge line.

 

[WislaHD]

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

Hm, if feasible that would allow for a Sherbourne alignment DRL option too. Which wouldn't really provide much relief to the Yonge line being one station away from Yonge-Bloor but would do wonders for bringing the downtown core's intensification eastwards. (Too often people concentrate on the transit infrastructure aspect and forget the city-building aspect)

Another option would be forgetting about having the DRL ever reach Thorncliffe/Flemingdon/Don Mills and building a separate Don Mills LRT from Fairview Mall to Eglinton, then through Flemingdon and Overlea through the routing you suggested and bringing it down Sherbourne, St. Lawrence Market and onto Union, or some other downtown configuration. That is an idea for the Fantasy Map thread however.

 

[nfitz]

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.

Not insufferably. Montreal has many stations over 90 feet deep. And I doubt there'd be a station right near the river, so a fair distance to climb.

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.

Ah, I suppose so ... though none cross twice, so far down stream. And none other cross only to access a single existing station. That just blows my mind ... I fail to see why you wouldn't simply carry on up Broadview, or diagonally towards the Donlands/Pape, to hit high density both south and north of the Don River, but instead cross back to the west side of the Don, and then miss every high density location, before finally hitting the (then) existing station at Don Mills/Eglinton. There just won't be the traffic north of Danforth to justify subway with no density along the route.

 

[nfitz]

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.

Just looking at current transit along Overlea south to the Danforth subway in AM peak, you have the 25, 88, and 100, which together have 48 trips an hour along Overlea to the subway. That alone is about 2,500 passengers an hour - or half the ridership of the Sheppard subway. With a direct connection to downtown, presumably ridership would increase, and also there'd be demand from those changing from the Eglinton line, which are currently more likely taking the bus to Eglinton station.

 

[44 North]

@ehlow and whopchop.
I’m not writing-off Thorncliffe. There would be a station...it’s just that it would be located west of Overlea along the neighbourhood’s periphery. Although it’s currently predominantly manufacturing, it’s an area which can fit a sizable station, experience growth, rezoning, and a density increase. Why put a station in an already built-up area, and relegate future developments to be far from transit?

Flemingdon...yes a station at Don Mills/Eglinton is a bit far from most residents. But the point of my Don Line was to be affordable and direct. By adding a tunnelled beeline into Flemingdon (or into Thornfliffe) the line will become longer and costlier. And for how much added development/growth? Very little, if any.

And you’re correct that a lot of Thorncliffe and Flemingdon residents are low income and would benefit from transit. But it hasn’t always been like that, nor will it always be like that. In a couple decades the area may very well become middle income again, with or without transit. Unfortunately the very nature of Thorncliffe’s design was to create a remote suburban enclave. It’s naturally difficult to service, because it was planned to be.

Ah, I suppose so ... though none cross twice, so far down stream. And none other cross only to access a single existing station. That just blows my mind ... I fail to see why you wouldn't simply carry on up Broadview, or diagonally towards the Donlands/Pape, to hit high density both south and north of the Don River, but instead cross back to the west side of the Don, and then miss every high density location, before finally hitting the (then) existing station at Don Mills/Eglinton. There just won't be the traffic north of Danforth to justify subway with no density along the route.

Oh ffs. You ridicule my idea because I didn’t include a heavy rail mass transit station at a remote section of a remote park (a Brickworks station, really?). Then you ridicule it because the line intersects with Castle Frank (which it doesn’t). Then you ridicule it because it crosses the Don twice (as does every DRL). Then ridicule it because it crosses the West Don (as does every DRL). Now you’re ridiculing it because it crosses the Don “so far down stream”; while questioning a key aspect of the line. I don’t know how many times I have to write it: my plan utilizes the abandoned and Metrolinx-owned Don Branch to cross the valley and to offer an alternative to the traditional DRL.

Considering all of your ridiculous rebuttals, it’s quite apparent you know little about this area and are simply being a contrarian troll. So if you want to criticize my map, write something smart. Or at the very least, something that isn’t utterly asinine.

 

[44 North]

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?

I don't think that idea works or makes much sense. It'd be a costly and lengthy tunnel all the way through Rosedale, with no stations along the way and no opportunity for growth. Those bridges to cross the valleys along the way (even if covered like the one west of Castle Frank) would be opposed by NIMBYs before the idea reaches the planning stages.

 

[WislaHD]

Given the nature of Flemingdon and Thorncliffe park, I highly doubt it will ever become middle income.

The current inhabitants of the area will likely progress into the middle income bracket and move out of the area, but they will be replaced by newer immigrant groups seeking low and affordable rents. My understanding of those Flemingdon and Thorncliffe apartment towers is that the turnover in those apartments are very very high, people are constantly moving in and out.

 

[BurlOak]

(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

A bridge is about $20M per lane km - so $40M for 2 tracks. Does not include tracks, signals, etc. - just the extra cost needed for the bridge. Bridges over high valleys, or bridges that require some sort of staging to keep train or car traffic open during construction are more.

Tunnelling is about $350M per km. The actual tunnelling is maybe $50M/km, but launch and extraction shafts, tracks, signals, ventilation and stations up to $150M or $200M a pop (depending on bus connections) bring the total up quickly.

 

[Towered]

So the environmental assessment that's well underway by the TTC is still ongoing right? SmartTrack seems to have stolen a significant amount of the DRL's thunder, even though both are necessary.

 

[44 North]

Given the nature of Flemingdon and Thorncliffe park, I highly doubt it will ever become middle income.

Sure it will. It was once before. And like virtually everywhere else radiating out from downtown, the area is only improving and increasing in value. Those towers are well-built with large units, ample parking, situated next to a confluence of three valleys, swaths of greenspace, and recreation trails which are expanding and improving. Not to mention the fact that Eglinton is u/c to become a transit corridor, and major redevelopment plans for nearby sites like Celestica are in the works. Flemingdon and Thorncliffe have a lot of potential...definitely more potential than many other decaying suburban communities elsewhere across Toronto and the GTA. Part of its allure is that it's close to the city, but secluded with few through-streets - just like many high value neighbourhoods along our valleys and ravines.

So the environmental assessment that's well underway by the TTC is still ongoing right? SmartTrack seems to have stolen a significant amount of the DRL's thunder, even though both are necessary.

A few years back I was under the impression there was a select group of elite City planners and engineers toiling away in a room somewhere designing our DRL. Now I believe it's been relegated to a coffee ring-stained folder lying under a stack of papers on some guy's desk.

 

[CapitalSeven]

The study has been underway for a couple of years, and the question it asks is not "where do we put the DRL" but rather "how do we increase transit capacity to the core most efficiently and effectively". That's not to say they'll answer that question - assessments in Toronto tend to come up with the answer the politicians want. But as noted well before the mayoral campaign, they were always looking at creative options involving the rail network as well as a subway line. They were more interested in the Richmond Hill line than the SmartTrack parts of the network, but that's what politicians want to talk about so they have likely turned a lot of attention to it.

It will be interesting to see whether the public servants have the guts to speak the truth about the cost vs benefit of building a heavy rail line along Eglinton through Etobicoke, or putting two transit lines in Scarborough much closer together than the Yonge and Spadina lines are in North York. These are not good days for honesty in politics, particularly in Scarborough, which has become a world-class centre of excellence in mendacity.

 

[Palma]

The study has been underway for a couple of years, and the question it asks is not "where do we put the DRL" but rather "how do we increase transit capacity to the core most efficiently and effectively". That's not to say they'll answer that question - assessments in Toronto tend to come up with the answer the politicians want. But as noted well before the mayoral campaign, they were always looking at creative options involving the rail network as well as a subway line. They were more interested in the Richmond Hill line than the SmartTrack parts of the network, but that's what politicians want to talk about so they have likely turned a lot of attention to it.

It will be interesting to see whether the public servants have the guts to speak the truth about the cost vs benefit of building a heavy rail line along Eglinton through Etobicoke, or putting two transit lines in Scarborough much closer together than the Yonge and Spadina lines are in North York. These are not good days for honesty in politics, particularly in Scarborough, which has become a world-class centre of excellence in mendacity.

Well, the city is going to have to come up with their portion towards SamrtTack so by cancelling Scarborough and putting the money towards SmartTrack they will have come up with their portion. They sell it to the residents by "would you want a subway with 7 stops in Scarborough (SmarTTrack) or one with 4 steps (Scarborough replacement) - but not both as they are too close together (even closer than Yonge and Spadina), I think it will sell especially if perhaps the bad news comes from Metrolinx

 

[MisterF]

There's essentially no valley where Queen Street crosses the Don - the river is almost at street level. The depth of stations in that area is a complete non-issue.

 

[nfitz]

Oh ffs.

I really don't think swearing at people simply because they disagree with you is acceptable.

You ridicule my idea because I didn’t include a heavy rail mass transit station at a remote section of a remote park (a Brickworks station, really?).

I don't recall anyone mentioning a station at Brickworks in this thread except for you. I ridicule the idea of using your alignment as a DRL because it is ridiculous. You miss all the population centres between Dundas and Eglinton, other than at the existing Broadview station.

Sometime last year in a previous discussion I made an idle comment that if your going to run surface rail right beside the Brickworks, you might as well include a stop at the Brickworks; but I'd never have dreamed that such a route would be considered a replacement for the DRL subway!

The bottom line is your route fails miserably to provide any transit between Danforth and Eglinton, and unnecessarily destroys two city parks. Why you don't provide any defence for this I don't know - rather than throwing up all these strawmen arguments.

 

[44 North]

I really don't think swearing at people simply because they disagree with you is acceptable.

This isn’t about a simple disagreement. This is about your string of insults of my proposal (“hard to imagine a worse DRL alignment!!!”, “it's simply a horrid”). Not to mention your false, fallacious, and petty claims about my proposal. Persistently saying it has an excess amount of valley crossings when it clearly doesn't? C'mon. No other poster has gone so far out of their way in attempting to ridicule this idea of mine, nor have they so rudely criticized it. And you’re continuing with these sweeping statements even in your last post by saying my plan “destroys two parks”, “misses all the population centres”, “fails miserably to provide any transit between Danforth and Eglinton”.

Sometime last year in a previous discussion I made an idle comment that if your going to run surface rail right beside the Brickworks, you might as well include a stop at the Brickworks

2014-Sep-16, 23:38 #3969
A subway to the Brickworks. That's a first. But not stop ... oops.
2014-Sep-18, 09:47 #3573
You finally solve the long-standing problem of how to deal with the transit issue to the Brickworks by running an above-ground subway right next to it - allowing for the construction of a very cheap stop. But then you fail to include it on your map, instead creating the longest piece of subway in Toronto without a stop?
2014-Sep-18, 17:48 #3580
I can't believe you'd run right past it above ground, and not put a stop somewhere.
2014-Sep-18, 20:36 #3583
Putting a station to access it, where the line crosses it, seems like a great idea. Sure, it won't get much peak usage. But if it could done cheaply, it would enhance the city.

I'd never have dreamed that such a route would be considered a replacement for the DRL subway!

The bottom line is your route fails miserably to provide any transit between Danforth and Eglinton, and unnecessarily destroys two city parks. Why you don't provide any defence for this I don't know - rather than throwing up all these strawmen arguments.

You’re acting as if my idea is new, and you were unaware that it was meant to be a DRL. I don’t know how that’s possible, considering you and I had multiple debates about it in the two threads I posted it in (one of which is the DRL thread). You were quite aware that it was an alternative proposal. I’ve defended my plan, answered your questions, and acknowledged your qualms on multiple occasions; so don’t try and discredit me by saying I haven't answered your ninny questions. I have.