The fact that they chose Kennedy as the split point is what makes me suspicious that it might not be in name only, since Guildwood GO arguably is a better fit since it could also act as the terminus of the Kingston Rd. car which is going to start construction soon on its extension to Scar. Village. Eglinton Crosstown at the start is going to have an interesting relationship at Kennedy because it is going to act as a terminus for that line; Eglinton is going to be completed and opened for service before Morningside, that's decided already by the funding arrangements and evaluations made so far. This may make Kennedy more of a mess than it already is. The point is, which I think you might have missed, is that big transfer points are bad; high levels of demand are good only to a point, if they go above a certain level, and Kennedy's is among the highest in the system (it is about equivalent to Yonge-Eglinton station and close to Union Subway's level as well), then it will cause problems. This is why it would help if an extension to take some of the feeders to another location.
An extension east to UTSC would cover all that. Every new bus terminal en route guarantees an extreme reduction in bus traffic into Kennedy. 34, 86 and 116- the heaviest used- would be ousted for sure. That only leaves minor routes which could easily be fed into peripheral termii at Brimley-Danforth and Markham Stns.
Where we're getting our wires crossed is that you're looking at E-C/S-M as LRT lines, while I'm not but rather seeing the practicality of a subway there.
You are not understanding what I am getting at; take a look at a map, you are talking about servicing a corridor that is sandwhiched between Highland Creek and the Lake, with an extremely small number of roads crossing Highland Creek. This is an extremely poor candidate for subway by geography alone. Besides, this area already enjoys GO Train service all day everyday and will be getting SuperGO in addition to LRT service. LRT is far better suited for this kind of geography and the demand levels that this geography will create. LRT will probably integrate better with the GO Train while being much easier to construct.
I'd contrast a subway through this topography to Montreal's Blue Line which partially runs through Mont Royal's backdrop. Ironically a secluded university campus there is also accessible by subway. And I'm not knocking what you're saying about LRT either, the overlap of HRT/LRT services between Eglinton and Lawrence can be accomodated if necessary. The important thing is that a subway reach as far east as Morningside to counter-balance westernly expansion which literally brims Mississauga already. And if you're to go as far as West Hill, why not go one stop more to ensure an additional 10,000+ students/some Malvern-Moningside Hts/sizable Durham customers daily have a guaranteed, rain or shine way to and from the city?
VIA is an extremely small fish for the TTC, it isn't really something that would be on their radar.
Regardless, being the only VIA stop between Union and Oshawa should tell you something about Guildwood's importance and relevancy to the network.
Some of the ridership sources you are citing are seasonal, most notably the Zoo, not a stable source of rides. The biggest factor here though is, like I said before, the geography. You could probably get enough feeders in this part of town, but there are other issues that make it grossly impractical.
You're right, traffic would be marginal, but as you've said, Kennedy shouldn't become overcapacitated with a zillion plus one interchanges. Diverting off some of that load to terminii farther east, is a good thing
.
No, you weren't reading anything I said, I said as part of a downtown relief loop; that means that it turns off VP at Eglinton and swings via OSC and Pape Ave., Kingston Sub before it touches Queen. You were talking about a separate 3-stop dinky subway terminating at VP/Danforth and VP/Queen with an intermediate stop at Gerrard. You said you were going to make it a transfer before, too, since we have both agreed that you cannot veer a subway up VP since the turn required is impossible.
But the tracks would be pointing northwards at Victoria Park Stn (BD). This always can open the possibility of extending the line nothwards, with kilometre-apart spacing (Dawes-St Clair, Oconnor-Eglinton, Lawrence, Ellesmere, Sheppard). Suddenly my dinky would then look extravagant :cheers:!
I don't see why you'd route your take on the DRL line so haphazardly though? These wild zig-zags it makes would frustrate more commuters then it'd help. What I was doing resembled a backwards L straight down VP, then west along Queen.
Wait until the price of gas doubles again from today's levels next summer. Park'n'ride will be as dead as the dodo.
:lol: So about 85% of the world's commuters will cease to commute then, seeing that railed public transit is a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things?
I thought you didn't care about NIMBY's, why the change of heart?
oke:
I don't usually, but burying the line makes absolute sense in this case. The Seaton Subdivision runs open trench north of McLevin. To operate the LRT line out of that trench, the line has to be below-grade for some time, starting from Markham Rd onwards. To swing it back into the Progress Ave alignment, it's easiest to veer at a diagonal southwest from Malvern Town Centre, with a mid-stop around Sheppard and Washburn. Now I know a guideway at-grade or elevated could not accomplish that, it being a residential area and all
.
The TTC is not designed to get people from suburb to suburb, the TTC is designed for getting you around from within Toronto to somewhere else within Toronto. If you want to go from suburb to suburb, maybe the 407 GO service is worth considering, or if you are coming from Brampton perhaps the York Mills bus via 401 and then Oshawa Hwy2 bus to SCC? GO is designed for navigating the suburbs. VIVA isn't either, but if coming from Brampton it is well situated if your destination is north-east Metro.
:hilarious Wow, all of the GTA plus Hamilton has fare integration between transit operators to make riding public transit more affordable over the price of gas and car maintenance, yet... let me get this straight... you expect me to fork out BT fare, $13.25 to GO
one-way only to SCC, then on top of that pay for a heavily regulated TTC pop :nuts:? No thanks. Man talk about discrimination by postal code :lol:!
This is too tight for a subway. If you want spacings that tight, LRT is better suited for it.
The spacing gaps for these stations are near double those for BD. Make the gaps any wider and we're doomed to replicate the folly of the "stubway" where a line runs beneath them but no one can find access to it!
Guildwood, maybe, but SGC? What makes you want to put a station there? Of all non-sensical places, this one is pretty shocking.
:lol: When I say Scarborough Golf Club, what do you think I'm implying? The station would be centered on Guildcrest with exits facing SGC and the Guildwood Pkwy. GP is bound to be the first logical stop should the line veer onto Kingston Rd. Kingston Rd LRT could better feed into a station here than at Markham Rd, where turning up the roadway will create bottlenecks down the road. Much like at Spadina or St Clair West the streetcar ROW dips underground north of the intersection with Eglinton right into the subway station. This is how I meet you half-way with your LRT advocacy. With the 86 and 116 shortened route frequncy will improve, as will the duration it takes someone from deep Scarborough to reach the subway. We're literally bringing it to them
.
The subway stop directly serving Guildwood GO/VIA stn would be on the north side of the rail underpass, 4102 Kingston Rd @Celeste.
Again, you have to stop treating VIA like it is going to be some big source of riders; it won't be. GO will already have been connected to at Eglinton GO; and this is part of the reason why LRT will be plenty for the Kingston Road portion; there isn't much point for the subway to duplicate GO to this degree. The DRL works because GO only connects with it once on route. You are now connecting to two consequetive GO Stations on the same line with the same subway. This creates a conflict. GO would raise a huge stink over this, and Metrolinx might be tempted to scoff at it as well.
Guildwood is a VIA station, Eglinton is not. Eglinton GO cannot possibly accomodate the extra ROW/land area required to host multi-nodal commuter rail traffic, the way Guildwood does. This is why the subway MUST veer onto Kingston, there's just too much potential demand you're overlooking by ending the line at Markham. Every stop east of there will range 5000-10,000 walk-ins per day easily, while 2 of the five could blossom into mini mega-terminals in their own right. It's perhaps Eglinton GO that you should overlook, it's a small fish in a big pond when contrasted with Guildwood. To reduce GO travel times it'll probably eventually be closed down once the subway's built past Bellamy/Eglinton, making a Guildwood subway station more relevant than ever :banana:.
I'd consider a lot more of the stations expendible; you have to get off of this idea that Kennedy isn't located at Kennedy/Eglinton; it is just as much as Kipling is located at Kipling/Dundas. You can't put a tight station spacing in an area with such low concentrated demand. Whatever the station this far out, it is going to be feeder-sustained. This is why LRT is a lot better for this part of town.
Eglinton East is one of the most heavily trafficked transit corridors in the city, from start to finish. I look at Kingston north of Eglinton, as it's extension and feeder. Lawrence could handle LRT, as could Kingston. The the overlap is marginal. At most only four stops would occur in the Kingston corridor and offer an effortless way to head westbound via Eglinton over southbound via Kingston. You agree that the subway should route to Scarborough Village. Guildwood/West Hill/UTSC is not much further but the difference is they'd capture more riders from more varied and dense catchments.
You can't justify the costs of super tight station spacing in Scarborough. This is very purpose driven, it goes to one of the higher conentrations of build-up along the this part of the corridor (Danfroth/McCowan), and creates a great connection to GO Train along with a great alternate point for a significant number of the feeders currently overloading Kennedy. Also, don't put words in my mouth please, I never said Bellamy, the GO Station would be accessed by a second exit in a station at McCowan, not Bellamy (Bellamy has no business getting a subway station).
Eglinton GO station (and all its entrance points) is located directly at the intersection of Bellamy/Eglinton. There is no way to publically access the GO stn from Eglinton @McCowan as tracks face southwesternly, running at an 60° diagonal and also the station platform ends well in advance of McCowan anyway. Bellamy Stn's platforms couldn't possibly extend all the way back to McCowan, they'd end at 150m around Torrance Rd, across from the Home Depot. Furthermore of what use to anyone is a McCowan station, that retirement village condo? No use to GO customers, they'll want direct access to the existing station infrastructures and ticket counter that a Bellamy Stn would provide.
"Danfroth" (sic) would be at the easternly exit of the Brimley station, which just like Bellamy, would be reasonable walking distance to McCowan Rd from stations in those locations.
Super-tight? All I said was Midland, Brimley-Danforth and Bellamy. Beyond there Markham, SGC, Guildwood-Celeste, [Galloway], Morningside, UTSC. That's it, I'd cap off the tail-tracks myself at Military Trail to guarantee it. 8-9 new stations east of Kennedy is not unreasonable, given how far west by contrast the BD line goes. Morningside/Ellesmere is still a ways away from Durham, yet close enough, unlike Kennedy or even SCC or Malvern to route viable local/express routes to/from Pickering-Ajax out of this terminal. Weren't you the one who stressed the importance of networking :naughty:?
That depends on how the relationships between bus and TC lines are handled. Unfortunately information on this hasn't really been provided.
Hopefully Eglinton-Crosstown will be a subway through Scarborough and take the load off BD. After BD, I envision bus terminals at Brimley-Danforth, Markham Road, Morningside and UTSC. With them routes 12b, 21, 16, 102, 116, 133, 38, and 86 could all see reassignments.
You should know by now that you cannot possibly run a subway through the SRT's Kennedy curve, even the MkII cars can't negotiate it.
hno: Besides, this is one of the most hated transfers in the network; why would anybody ever argue to preserve this transfer?:hm:
Apart of the SRT upgrade involves moving the interchange down to the mezzanine level of Kennedy Stn, one level up from the subway platform. This leaves things up in the air for usages of the abandoned Upper Kennedy. Perhaps a bus bay area for Kennedy's many routes :dunno:?
Here's how Eglinton can interline with B-D to allow B-D to go up to SCC while Eglinton continues along Eglinton. These turning radii should be realistic, but it is still on the tight side.
So not only have you failed to recognize the sprawling distance between the Kennedy/Eglinton intersection and the subway station, but instead of correcting that and have Kennedy Stn. on the Eglinton Line bridge the gap between the two points, you've decided to bypass the intersection altogether :|?
Using your image for reference though, 2380 Eglinton Ave E (the building on the southeast corner) would be the easternmost part of the Eglinton stop's platform. As you can see this is not far off from the westernmost end of Kennedy on the BD line. What I recommend is putting additional stairwells facing west at the end of BD's platform. At one level up, would be the same level as Eglinton's platform. This is why I suggested a Midland/Eglinton station which would allot just as adequate access to Kennedy Go as the current subway stop does.
The same Beaches residents that aren't worth streetcar service?
oke:
Can't we all just get along? I was just beginning to forget our little spat, and you bring this up? Remember I was always for a full subway line along Queen-Lakeshore replacing the streetcar service completely. It would act as a local service line with stops occuring at every bi- or tripartitie split of a concession, much like BD. I mentioned turning the 143 bus into a local service once the line's built out to Coxwell to ensure a steady, reliable feeder to Neville Park. I didn't think a streetcar ROW for a paisley two kilometres made much sense. I didn't think, as you've thought, that residents would object to a more frequently routed bus service. That was the mindset I had. You've shown me otherwise. Take solace in that, and lets move on shall we :cheers:!?!
Do you know where Danforth GO is located? Most likely you don't. I used to live right in front of it, I can assure you, it is directly across from Main Street Station, not Victoria Park. Please do your homework if you actually want to discuss these things intelligently.
The GO station can be relocated. It's presently a 300m walk from the westernmost exit to the subway. Wow, convenient
hno:! All this and you knock a sensible suggestion to create a subway station specifically catered to handle the GO interchange. Back to a earlier post, Gerrard station would be located around Musgrave, north of Gerrard to allot direct access to Shoppers World Danforth and Victoria Terrace (those malls you thought no one knew about!). Taking the easternmost limts of the present GO station as a marker, we begin the new station from that point extending eastwards til it almost hits VP. Thus your interchange capabilities are seamless.
Only 23% of transit users in the Kingston Road corridor are heading downtown actually; more head for B-D and are not heading into the core but head north of B-D according to EA data for the Kingston Road streetcar extension to Scar. Village. Besdies, this corridor suffers from similar geography issues that Kingston Road suffers from between northeast of Markham Road; it's not apporpriate for a subway. LRT is coming here, and it will look after the corridor well since it will be a ROW.
Kingston transit users wanting northwards and BD would be served mighty well by the Eglinton Line. Some of those people are probably forced to use BD against the flow of their desired commuter travel patterns due to the contrivances of bus routes through SW Scarborough (12 Kingston for instance, down VP, only goes as far as Midland, sometimes Brimley, then veers up and heads back west... route patternings like that deserve their very own :wtf
Development around Midland and Danforth is actually pretty good already today, that's one of the things that justify it.
And running the SRT adjacent to Stoufville GO would only see more condominioums and perhaps office clusters emerge within a decades time.
kay:
You're saying you don't like ICTS, yet at the same time you say you think it should be used... you really sound like you can't get off the fence here. Contrary to what you might think, there's a lot more to LRVs than the fact that they've been here for over a century. This is why I suggest you do some research before you post.Try a decade... since that's the story according to TTC engineers... don't take it personally if I decide to believe TTC engineers instead of you when it comes to how long it would take to convert the SRT to subway. Except that as LRT it would actually be cheaper to extend it... including the costs to convert it to LRT; an 8-month project IIRC. Which isn't compatible with TTC policy on service reductions (assuming the Danforth-McCowan routing propsed a few years back).
Does it really matter who's guesstimate on the duration of time it'll take to refurbish the SRT comes closest? You've actually boostered the point I was trying to make. Thank you
! This is why we don't convert to subway, not in the forseeable future anyhow. People need to get out of this resistance to LRT in Scarborough. Only Eglinton-Kingston North has the immediate density to handle subway traffic; but a lattice of interlocking LRT/BRT can improve overall waittimes for tens of 000s everyday in the far reaches of the former municipality.
The ITCS is outmoded I agree, however we're stuck with it, just like how we're stuck with a $3 billion Sheppard "stubway" which can't cover its own operation costs and worn down streetcar lanes that constantly need repairs. Forward thinking could of prevented all this, but it is what it is!
200,000 ppd for the entire Lakeshore-Queen-Kingston run is pretty sad. What if King had a route that long and kept the same levels it does along King itself? It'd hit 200,000 too! Proof that the WWLRT is just what the doctor ordered. A subway of such a long length should be carrying at least 350,000. I'm projecting a little less than 300,000 for the DRL, but it is much shorter.But it will be of far more beneift to the system as well as the people if it is integrated into what may become a Relief Loop.
I was being modest. In reality more people would ride the Queen-Lakeshore subway line then they do todays BD. So it'd be rivalling the Yonge Line for most used subway line. King and Queen share the same catchment area and if routed right a Queen subway line would be mutually beneficial to both corridors. All you're doing here is splitting hairs :yes:. WW LRT will not improve frequency west of Roncesvalles. By contrast the Queen Line would operate trains at intervals of every 2-3 minutes, and provides a more direct route into the downtown core. If people living along Lakeshore really wanted Union Stn as a destination that badly, they'd ride the GO from Port Credit, Long Branch or Mimico.
Grade changes are manageable. The street is not too narrow, that is one of the easiest roads to expand it is a joke to suggest otherwise.
How do you suppose we run a streetcar line down the median at Morningside Park bridge? Or up that steep, sharp incline just north of Ellesmere? Or over the 401? What happens to transit service south of Kingston Rd? Do you plan on splitting up the 116 into mutliple routes
hno:?
Except the TTC is dead set on converting it to MkII... not LRT
I will only give up all hope that it can't be done, once the extension built and it's obvious to me that's there's no provisions for LRT. The SRT will become as usless as the "stubway" if limited to Mk IIs. It might take a few years off the grid to get the SRT corridor with the times but this is a worthwhile sacrifice. This is why we must push forward subway along Eglinton, LRT along Sheppard and BRT along Finch/Finch Hydro Corridor ASAP to fill the void that'd be created by an absense of the SRT for some time.
Say what? Where did you hear that? SOURCE!!!
If ever there is to be interlining between the SRT corridor and anything Transit City (the wave of the future) they'll make the new extension
forwards compatible.
