News   Mar 28, 2024
 130     0 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.6K     1 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.2K     2 

TTC: Why was the upper half of the University Portion of the YUS line never relocated

denfromoakvillemilton

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
7,398
Reaction score
1,425
Location
Downtown Toronto, Ontario
I always hear that the upper west half of the YUS line has lower ridership because it runs in between the Allen Expressway. So why was that portion of the subway not relocated to Dufferin Street or a better route when the had the chance? Is or was there a better was to proceed north of Eglinton West? Obviously it's impossible now due to the Spadina extension, just wanted to hear some thoughts.
 
I always hear that the upper west half of the YUS line has lower ridership because it runs in between the Allen Expressway. So why was that portion of the subway not relocated to Dufferin Street or a better route when the had the chance? Is or was there a better was to proceed north of Eglinton West? Obviously it's impossible now due to the Spadina extension, just wanted to hear some thoughts.

"relocated"? You must mean, why was it not built along a street in the first place right?

If the question is why wasn't it built on Bathurst or Dufferin (which would have been better IMO), short answer because I believe it was planned with the Spadina Expressway which was a highway running down the ravine like the DVP does on the Don Valley ravine.

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/subway/5106.shtml

If I had a time machine and could influence the transit builders of previous generations, I would've probably put it on Bathurst just going up the street.
 
I've heard Adam Vaughan speak about this in the transit debates in Council. Apparently there were alternative options on the table that would have moved the Spadina Subway further west. I don't know if these options were proposals made before Spadina was built or at the same time. City Council (Metro Council?) actually came really close to building that subway, but politics killed it at the last minute.

I'm writing this all from memory and it's doubtful that everything I've said here is correct.

Edit: Found it!

[video=youtube;67PXgonA3K8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67PXgonA3K8[/video]
 
It gets good ridership, around 19,000 PPHD iirc.

The extension is expected to be around 7,500 PPHD as well.
 
If I had a time machine and could influence the transit builders of previous generations, I would've probably put it on Bathurst just going up the street.

I think Spadina is fine. The question is: would you rather have the current line up to Downsview, or a fully underground subway along Bathurst up to St. Clair.
Back in the day, the focus was to build things cost efficiently.
 
Bathurst is the route that makes more sense back in those days, though the Allen alignment offers advantages of it's own as well in the current context (Downsview, Yorkdale, Lawrence Heights)

AoD
 
I would disagree with the premise that the Allen road section is a "worse" route than an alternative like Dufferin or Bathurst. It's lower ridership than Yonge, for sure, but everywhere in Toronto is.

If you compare the Spadina line's underground stations (e.g. St.Clair West -> St. Andrew) to the Allen road sections (Wilson->Eglinton West), the difference in ridership between stations on the Yonge and Spadina lines is about the same regardless of whether you look at the Allen section.

Even on the Yonge line, and even in places like Yonge & Eglinton which seem very dense and urban, ridership is mostly a function of feeder buses. There's really no station outside of downtown which generates huge amounts of walk-in traffic. So, overall the Allen isn't as big of a hamper as some people think. Even as a pedestrian, the station and overpass design of the Allen is actually fairly decent.

I'd guess that, if the Allen had been built along Bathurst or Dufferin, you'd have seen <10% more ridership over what we have today. Maybe less, since stations like Glencairn wouldn't have been economical as underground stations (like on the Yonge line). The tradeoff for slightly lower ridership was a major reduction in costs.
 
Bathurst would have been far superior as the corridor. The whole street would have probably been built up like Yonge, which is almost entirely lined with dense buildings with storefronts meeting the street. It would have been better from a city building perspective. All you have around the Allen is sprawl that hasn't changed much since the 1970s. Ridership would have been higher. Anytime you build rapid transit in a transportation corridor, ridership is lower and neighbourhoods aren't that well served by the infrastructure because it's more isolated.
 
One can cover over the Allen Expressway and create a new street above it, and then that would make it more worthwhile!
 
Bathurst would have been far superior as the corridor. The whole street would have probably been built up like Yonge, which is almost entirely lined with dense buildings with storefronts meeting the street.

Maybe. Bloor-Danforth certainly didn't do that in most locations. Zoning is a block in a few places but not everywhere.

The amount of activity at intersections like Finch and Keele in 2020 will be telling.
 
Bathurst would have been far superior as the corridor. The whole street would have probably been built up like Yonge, which is almost entirely lined with dense buildings with storefronts meeting the street. It would have been better from a city building perspective. All you have around the Allen is sprawl that hasn't changed much since the 1970s. Ridership would have been higher. Anytime you build rapid transit in a transportation corridor, ridership is lower and neighbourhoods aren't that well served by the infrastructure because it's more isolated.

Most areas around subways haven't changed much since the subways came. Just about the entire Bloor-Danforth line has seen no development, either. Even where development does occur (e.g. Yonge between Sheppard and Finch), it's usually a lot more limited than it seems. You don't have to walk very far from Eglinton or Finch stations to get to single family homes, for instance.

You're overestimating the number of riders who come from local density. Chasing suburban density isn't a good model for rapid transit. Probably 90% of this city doesn't have the density of walk-ins to generate significant walk-ins, including much of pre-war Toronto.

Everyone denigrates stations like Glencairn for being underused, which is true enough, but forget that it's in the same range as stations like Summerhill or Rosedale or even Museum. The stations in Old Toronto are obviously in much denser areas and it really doesn't matter hugely.

Subway ridership in Toronto is all about feeder routes. We probably could have built the Yonge line on Bayview north of Eglinton and ended up with extremely similar ridership figures.
 
Yes we know that feeder routes are extremely important for subway ridership in our city. However, why wouldn't you prefer a subway to be directly under a more urban street with walkability and high density? You would still get the feeder routes going into it, why not also make it more convenient and closer to people's origins & destinations?

My other argument is this, although it applies mainly south of Bloor.

A. University and Yonge are simply too close together and it would have been better for transit access to move it further to either Spadina or Bathurst.

B. This is not a well researched argument, but anecdotally in my life and the people I know, I find that many destinations for transit downtown are near Spadina and Bathurst. Many workplaces are located along those streets, as well as restaurants, and when visiting people, I just find that west of Spadina is a very high percentage of transit destinations. I feel that having a subway on Spadina & Yonge or Bathurst & Yonge would've put more common destinations within a shorter walk than the current University & Yonge.


Anyways it's kind of funny that we're discussing this given that this subway opened 50 years ago :)
 
Yes we know that feeder routes are extremely important for subway ridership in our city. However, why wouldn't you prefer a subway to be directly under a more urban street with walkability and high density? You would still get the feeder routes going into it, why not also make it more convenient and closer to people's origins & destinations?

Yes, sure, but at what cost? Building in the Allen was substantially cheaper than the alternative of going underground. If you build something for half the price and get 90% of the ridership, why not?
 

Back
Top