Transit Fantasy Maps

[gweed123]

Castle Frank is not a destination. It can never be a destination. It's surrounded by deep valleys, a huge cemetery, and some rich people mansions. Having it as terminus would be as hated as Kennedy.

Who said it would be a terminus? It would just be an interchange station. Interchange stations don't need to be a destination, they just have to be in a convenient location from a trip pattern perspective. The real terminus for the DRL would be at the Science Centre.

How are you getting down into the Don Valley? A gigantic viaduct that will make the abandoned CP Don Branch bridge look like a children's toy?

Going by Google Earth, you need to get down from an elevation of 376' to an elevation of 260'. How long a bridge is that going to be at a grade acceptable for subway trains (4 degrees)?

116 feet / sin(4) * sin(90) = 1662 feet or 506 metres

That's a lot of money that you are spending in order to not serve any riders at all.

The Millwood Road bridge is nearly the same length. Presumably a similar span would be required for a DRL crossing around that area. The engineering challenges would be about the same.

And I'd rather spend that than spend over a billion dollars tunnelling from Pape-Danforth to Millwood and only serving a relatively small number of riders.

And the Bloor-Danforth Subway crosses the Rosedale Valley as well. If it could be done in the 60s, why can't it be done now?

The following people will hate your plan:
- Regulars at the Evergreen Brickworks
- Drivers on Rosedale Valley Road
- Drivers on Bayview
- Cyclists on the Don Valley Trail
- Cyclists on the Park Drive Reservation Trail
- Cyclists on the Beltline Trail

The cyclists I can understand, but the drivers? Those roads would still remain open.

Parliament north of Cabbagetown is a historic district (or three). It can't be redeveloped. South of Cabbagetown, it's served perfectly well by a horizontal DRL.

Certain parts of it are, but there are a lot of parts that aren't, and have already started to see infill development. That wall of condos that is now firmly at Sherbourne is going to continue pushing east. Whatever isn't designated as a historic structure (and I'm sure even a couple that are) are going to follow the same pattern as similar properties between Sherbourne and Yonge.

1. Not a massive bridge. Don Valley is tiny between Gerard and Queen. The more south you are, the easier Don Valley is to cross.

I was talking about the required bridge in the Millwood area. No matter how you slice it, that's going to need to be a massive structure.

2. If you want more stops, put in more stops. Instead of Cosburn, do Mortimer and O'Connor. The station locations in the DRTES were for illustration purposes only, not binding.

I still don't think 2 stations that wouldn't be very heavily used between Thornecliffe Park and Bloor-Danforth is worth over a billion dollars in tunnelling.

 

[nfitz]

DRL from Union to Science Centre, via Front and Pape (aka traditional alignment): 10.75kms, all of which is either tunnelled or a bridge.

Front and Pape? The TTC's previously proposed alignment was Queen and Donlands. Recently it was King and Pape.

DRL from Union to Science Centre, via Front, Parliament, and the Don Valley: 10.3kms, 3kms of which is surface through the Don Valley

Which raises the other massive failing with this concept. How do you densify the Don Valley? And all this to save 450 metres ... which can also be saved by crossing under Riverdale at a bit of an angle - didn't the 1968 proposal do a bit of that?

I don't really think so. As long as it's before Bloor-Yonge, does it really make that much of a difference where the transfer point is?

It makes a difference. Presumably you need stations at a minimum at Carlton, Dundas and Queen to intesect the streetcars ... and another at Jarvis. So that's 4 stations minimum, plus 3 stations from Pape. 7 stations total. Compare to 5 stations in the recent TTC DRL study. And bit longer distance, given the roads. And that assumes you can build a Castle Frank station close to the existing platform.

You take away the time savings benefit of transferring.

The DRL isn't about time savings, it's about comfort and providing an alternative to being packed into a southbound Yonge train like a sardine. As long as the DRL is as fast or faster than the current setup, and less congested, it will be well used.

Your 100% missing the point. It's about giving the client time savings to encourage them to use a different route. You can't assume common sense here. Do they not teach planners the mathematics and concepts behind transport demand modelling?

And really ... how can you densify the Don Valley. I'm horrified that someone would suggest moving transit away from where people live, to the middle of nowhere. It's not the 1960s any more.

I still don't think 2 stations that wouldn't be very heavily used between Thornecliffe Park and Bloor-Danforth is worth over a billion dollars in tunnelling.

It's not about those stations. The alignment you've proposed would be a colossal white elephant, and would fail to shift enough riders from the YUS. Great for people in Thorncliffe perhaps ...

 

[gweed123]

Front and Pape? The TTC's previously proposed alignment was Queen and Donlands. Recently it was King and Pape.

In this case where it intersects downtown is irrelevant, because it's east of downtown that matters in this discussion. I used used that for common measurement. The downtown section is identical regardless of which alignment east of downtown is chosen.

Which raises the other massive failing with this concept. How do you densify the Don Valley? And all this to save 450 metres ... which can also be saved by crossing under Riverdale at a bit of an angle - didn't the 1968 proposal do a bit of that?

It's not saving 450m, it's saving over a billion dollars in tunnelling costs. By going through the Don Valley between Castle Frank and Thornecliffe Park, you lose a total of ONE, count 'em, ONE, station across that length. Is spending that much money really worth it for one station that even won't see that heavy of a usage?

It makes a difference. Presumably you need stations at a minimum at Carlton, Dundas and Queen to intesect the streetcars ... and another at Jarvis. So that's 4 stations minimum, plus 3 stations from Pape. 7 stations total. Compare to 5 stations in the recent TTC DRL study. And bit longer distance, given the roads. And that assumes you can build a Castle Frank station close to the existing platform.

You take away the time savings benefit of transferring.

Wait a second, aren't you the same guy who also advocates for running the DRL along Queen? That alignment would require a lot of stations, due to the very nature of the street. Why is a couple extra stations along Parliament a time-savings disaster, but a few extra stations along Queen an acceptable trade-off?

But I digress. In any case, it's 2 extra stations in very busy areas that would see enormous amounts of walk-in traffic. In my opinion, that makes the added minute or so in travel time compared to a Pape DRL worth it.

Your 100% missing the point. It's about giving the client time savings to encourage them to use a different route. You can't assume common sense here. Do they not teach planners the mathematics and concepts behind transport demand modelling?

Those 2 extra stations compared to the Pape alignment are still less than the current BD-YUS trip. There would still be a time savings. And again, you need to factor the "avoiding the clusterfuck" benefit.

And really ... how can you densify the Don Valley. I'm horrified that someone would suggest moving transit away from where people live, to the middle of nowhere. It's not the 1960s any more.

Again, it's about saving over a billion dollars in tunnelling costs, an eliminating a grand total of one station in the process.

It's not about those stations. The alignment you've proposed would be a colossal white elephant, and would fail to shift enough riders from the YUS. Great for people in Thorncliffe perhaps ...

It adds 2 stations below Danforth (more people within walking distance of the stations), and eliminates only 1 station north of Danforth. It saves over a billion dollars in tunnelling costs. It still intercepts riders from Bloor-Danforth. Not exactly a white elephant.

 

[leopetr]

Here's an illustration of Gweed's Parliament route and one that I think is more reasonable:

 

[nfitz]

In this case where it intersects downtown is irrelevant, because it's east of downtown that matters in this discussion. I used used that for common measurement. The downtown section is identical regardless of which alignment east of downtown is chosen.

Not it isn't. Danforth/Parliament/Front is longer than Pape/CNR/Queen/King/(however you get to Front).

It's not saving 450m, it's saving over a billion dollars in tunnelling costs. By going through the Don Valley between Castle Frank and Thornecliffe Park, you lose a total of ONE, count 'em, ONE, station across that length. Is spending that much money really worth it for one station that even won't see that heavy of a usage?

How can building mass transit through a park, instead of a relatively dense urban area that is currently undergoing densification possibly be good urban planning?

Wait a second, aren't you the same guy who also advocates for running the DRL along Queen? That alignment would require a lot of stations, due to the very nature of the street. Why is a couple extra stations along Parliament a time-savings disaster, but a few extra stations along Queen an acceptable trade-off?

I simply advocate studying each alignment properly, with the alignment being based on maximizing the reduction of transfers at Bloor-Yonge. I'm not sure why there'd be any more stations on Queen than on Queen/King.

But I digress. In any case, it's 2 extra stations in very busy areas that would see enormous amounts of walk-in traffic. In my opinion, that makes the added minute or so in travel time compared to a Pape DRL worth it.

Not if the result is a significant reduction in people transferring at Bloor-Yonge. And let's be honest ... most people will base their transfer decision on how it appears on the subway map. We've seen this time and time again in London.

 

[44 North]

I don't know how viable it is to run it through the valley considering it's a floodplain. But I guess if GO can get away with it...

And yeah, the image still doesn't show for me. Even though it has the added "_small", it appears to be the same size (18000 x 24000). But I guess it's just something funky with my computer since everyone else can see it.

 

[gweed123]

Like leopetr did, here's a quick map of what I'm talking about.

I did some quick measurements and detailed what each section is. A couple important things to note:

1) Having the transfer point closer to Bloor-Yonge doesn't make it worse. St. George does just fine, and it's even closer to Bloor-Yonge than Castle Frank is. As long as the passenger flow within the station complex is good, it'll do just fine.

2) Even with the Don Valley alignment, there are the same number of stations between Bloor-Danforth and Eglinton on the DRL branch as their are on the Spadina Subway for the equivalent stretch. Even the longest stretch between stations is only 1.3km more than between St. Clair West and Eglinton West (which also runs through a valley/park by the way).

3) From where the routes diverge at Front & Sherbourne to where they join up again in Thornecliffe Park, the amount of tunnelling required for the Parliament alignment is less than half of what is required for the "traditional" DRL alignment. That's a significant cost savings, no matter how you slice it.

4) Only 1 station north of Bloor-Danforth is lost with this new alignment. ONE. With one station gained south of Bloor. This means that everyone from Spadina to the lake to the Don Valley to just north of Bloor is within a 5-7 minute walk of a subway station.

Overall, I think the 'traditional' DRL alignment is an enormous tunnelling expense, with only moderate benefits over other alternatives that would accomplish many, if not all, of the same goals.

Yes, the Don Valley alignment skips the northern part of East York. But what is the added expense of serving this area with 1 station and 2km of tunnel? Could that potentially $1 billion not be spent more effectively in other places (granted, the cost difference between the two options is probably $600 million)? Wouldn't it be more effective to spend that $600 million on finishing the FWLRT? Wouldn't that not be of much greater benefit to the City than building 1 subway station that will serve a few thousand people a day? Could it not be spent on extending the Eglinton LRT into Etobicoke, or the Scarborough LRT into Malvern? I would argue that all of those are more worthwhile projects than a single mid-route subway station with only a moderate usage potential.

The Don Valley alignment is significantly less expensive, and it still gets the subway into Thornecliffe Park, and even on to connecting with the Eglinton-Scarborough LRT at the Science Centre. THAT is the primary purpose of the northern extension of the DRL (northern meaning past Bloor-Danforth): connecting with the ESLRT.

 

[nfitz]

1) Having the transfer point closer to Bloor-Yonge doesn't make it worse. St. George does just fine, and it's even closer to Bloor-Yonge than Castle Frank is. As long as the passenger flow within the station complex is good, it'll do just fine.

Hey, if you can figure out a way for the subway to go down Parliament, hit Union, and then run up Yonge Street (or heck, Bay street), I'll concede the point ...

 

[gweed123]

Hey, if you can figure out a way for the subway to go down Parliament, hit Union, and then run up Yonge Street (or heck, Bay street), I'll concede the point ...

Well, University is pretty close to Yonge or Bay . The DRL would hook into the University-Spadina Subway.

 

[innsertnamehere]

And splitting those two lines would just eat up all your cost davings from running it up the don valley, thus defeating the purpose. The splitting of the lines would likely rack upwards of $500,000,000. I have mentioned this before, but I love the idea of splitting the lines. I just have problems with the huge logistical nightmare it would be on top of absurd costs for minimal gain.

 

[Translude15]

Aligning the DRL along Parliament eliminates the intended transfer points with GO at Bayview and Gerrard as per the TTC study nfitz posted. Aside from alleviating Yonge-Bloor, the DRL would serve to alleviate the projected overcrowding of Union Station as well.

In a perfect world, two DRL lines would be built, with the current proposal serving as an "outer" ring, and the second DRL serving as an "inner" ring beyond the YUS line, perhaps following gweed's Parliament alignment. But of course, dat transit money don't grow on trees.

 

[bleu]

Aligning the DRL along Parliament eliminates the intended transfer points with GO at Bayview and Gerrard as per the TTC study nfitz posted. Aside from alleviating Yonge-Bloor, the DRL would serve to alleviate the projected overcrowding of Union Station as well.

let's not kid ourselves. Nobody will get off at Bayview/Gerrard and then take the DRL to the core, instead of arriving at Union directly with the ability to walking in the PATH to their office.

 

[gweed123]

And splitting those two lines would just eat up all your cost davings from running it up the don valley, thus defeating the purpose. The splitting of the lines would likely rack upwards of $500,000,000. I have mentioned this before, but I love the idea of splitting the lines. I just have problems with the huge logistical nightmare it would be on top of absurd costs for minimal gain.

I think splitting them up would actually be less expensive than building a separate line. A separate line would require either 2 platforms added to existing stations (most likely King Stn stretching eastbound to just short of Church, and St. Andrew stretching eastbound to about York, or both flipped in the other direction), or require 1 massive new station right in the middle of the CBD. Either way, maaaassive undertaking.

A separate DRL would also require a separate yard, because connections with YUS would be extremely difficult to build, and Greenwood is pretty full as-is, with minimal opportunity for expansion.

A 'split' DRL would require only 1 new station, which would be built underneath the rail corridor and Union Bus Loop, a far easier undertaking than building right in the middle of the Financial District. Heck, they're doing pretty much the same thing right now on an even larger scale a block away (Union GO Concourse reconstruction). This station would be connected to the existing Union Subway Station via the streetcar loop.

Besides that minor modification to Union, no other downtown stations would need to be changed at all. That's a huge plus, because any separate DRL proposal that doesn't involve a massive new station in the heart of the CBD would involve a substantial reconstruction of at least 2 stations in the CBD area. That isn't going to come cheap, or without a significant headache.

During construction, the Yonge line can short-turn at King (there's a set of cross-overs just north of King), and University-Spadina can short-turn at Union. Not ideal, but at least the stations themselves remain in full working order. Once the wye is completed, normal service can resume until the rest of the DRL is open. Who knows, during certain stages of wye construction they may even be able to keep the full service operational. The wye would maintain the current EB-NB and SB-WB flows, as well as the two straight-through flows required by the separated lines.

A split DRL would also be able to use Wilson as it's primary yard, so that's a big plus. If Yonge requires a new yard beyond that, it can be added to the North Yonge extension. Certainly less expensive to build a yard in suburbia than it is in the old City of Toronto. But with the Union wye in place, trains can be transferred between all 3.5 subway lines (Sheppard being the half), something that would be significantly more difficult if the DRL was a separate line.

No doubt that any DRL proposal for anything in downtown is going to have a massive price tag attached to it, but I honestly think the split proposal would come out as one of the most cost-effective options, mainly for the reasons I mentioned above.

Aligning the DRL along Parliament eliminates the intended transfer points with GO at Bayview and Gerrard as per the TTC study nfitz posted. Aside from alleviating Yonge-Bloor, the DRL would serve to alleviate the projected overcrowding of Union Station as well.

In a perfect world, two DRL lines would be built, with the current proposal serving as an "outer" ring, and the second DRL serving as an "inner" ring beyond the YUS line, perhaps following gweed's Parliament alignment. But of course, dat transit money don't grow on trees.

A GO station at Bayview and Gerrard would only serve the Richmond Hill line. Do you mean Gerrard in the Riverdale area?

And the alleviating of Union can happen with a new transfer station between Sherbourne and Parliament. DRL would be under either Front or the Esplanade, with a GO station between Sherbourne and Parliament.

And yes, I do think the two 'rings' you mention are needed. I just think that at this point, the ring along Parliament makes more sense from a densification and cost-effectiveness perspective.

 

[nfitz]

let's not kid ourselves. Nobody will get off at Bayview/Gerrard and then take the DRL to the core, instead of arriving at Union directly with the ability to walking in the PATH to their office.

Depends on where there office is and DRL is, surely. That's two different GO stations BTW, Bayview/Queen and Gerrard Square. Sure, if you work at Front and Bay, you wouldn't change. If you work at City Hall and they build the DRL on Queen you'd change. If you work at the new Coca Cola HQ and they build the DRL on King you'd change (or heck, just walk from the Bayview/Queen station if you take the Richmond Hill train.

Heck, even if you work at Yonge/King ... the TTC report indicates it would be an 8-minute trip from Gerrard Square to King station on the DRL. It's a 7 to 9 minute walk from Yonge/King to the Union Station tracks (and often very crowded in rush hour). And then there's the travel time on GO from Gerrard Square to Union isn't particularly fast, as it slows down as it crosses Queen Street, and crawls into Union. I bet many in this situation would take the subway to Gerrard Square.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I think splitting them up would actually be less expensive than building a separate line. A separate line would require either 2 platforms added to existing stations (most likely King Stn stretching eastbound to just short of Church, and St. Andrew stretching eastbound to about York, or both flipped in the other direction), or require 1 massive new station right in the middle of the CBD. Either way, maaaassive undertaking.

A separate DRL would also require a separate yard, because connections with YUS would be extremely difficult to build, and Greenwood is pretty full as-is, with minimal opportunity for expansion.

A 'split' DRL would require only 1 new station, which would be built underneath the rail corridor and Union Bus Loop, a far easier undertaking than building right in the middle of the Financial District. Heck, they're doing pretty much the same thing right now on an even larger scale a block away (Union GO Concourse reconstruction). This station would be connected to the existing Union Subway Station via the streetcar loop.

Besides that minor modification to Union, no other downtown stations would need to be changed at all. That's a huge plus, because any separate DRL proposal that doesn't involve a massive new station in the heart of the CBD would involve a substantial reconstruction of at least 2 stations in the CBD area. That isn't going to come cheap, or without a significant headache.

During construction, the Yonge line can short-turn at King (there's a set of cross-overs just north of King), and University-Spadina can short-turn at Union. Not ideal, but at least the stations themselves remain in full working order. Once the wye is completed, normal service can resume until the rest of the DRL is open. Who knows, during certain stages of wye construction they may even be able to keep the full service operational. The wye would maintain the current EB-NB and SB-WB flows, as well as the two straight-through flows required by the separated lines.

A split DRL would also be able to use Wilson as it's primary yard, so that's a big plus. If Yonge requires a new yard beyond that, it can be added to the North Yonge extension. Certainly less expensive to build a yard in suburbia than it is in the old City of Toronto. But with the Union wye in place, trains can be transferred between all 3.5 subway lines (Sheppard being the half), something that would be significantly more difficult if the DRL was a separate line.

No doubt that any DRL proposal for anything in downtown is going to have a massive price tag attached to it, but I honestly think the split proposal would come out as one of the most cost-effective options, mainly for the reasons I mentioned above.

If you look at the DRL study the TTC released last year it stated that no new yard would be needed for the DRL if it was build just st. Andrew to Pape. 4 storage tracks if the the East and West portions were built, and 7 storage tracks if the East line and the extension to Eglinton was built. The only time it would need an actual new yard would be if all 3 parts were constructed. This could easily be achievable under the powerlines in Flemingdon park.

as for the stop, are you thinking something along these lines?

If so I find it quite counter-intuitive. The subway at the corner of Front and Yonge is very shallow. (the whole 1954 yonge line is) you would only really have about 150 meters to drop the needed 10-11 meters to build the station. That is about a 7% grade, something that subways simply can't handle. Not to mention the fact that it would be cutting right through the the foundation of the historic dominion public building. Then there is the fact that you would be building the stop underneath of 14 active rail tracks, instead of a closable king street.