Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

Union subway station itself (ie, the everything but the trains) is overcrowded only due to its horrendous design. The staircases are unusually narrow, many of the turnstiles are bi-directional, and the concourse level is shared with the busiest section of the PATH. All of the above should be solved completely by the renovations.

When it comes to actual train capacity, Union is arguably the least crowded station in the system, regardless of how many people actually board there. Being at the bottom of the YUS line, Union is possibly the only subway station in the entire TTC where it is possible to get a seat in any direction at any time of the day, even during the height of rush hour. No matter how many people are actually waiting on the platform, they are always boarding a mostly empty train.

In terms of train capacity, Union could definitely handle the DRL. In fact, it could probably handle two DRLs and a doubling of GO ridership. However, I still think that the DRL should run along Queen for numerous other reasons.
 
Why is it when I criticized Steve Munro and his views on transit, I got squashed by the Moderator, but Coruscanti Cognoscente gets off?

It's funny how the internet blogsphere regards him as some kind of Transit Deity/know-it-all, but the powers-that-be have continuously excluded him from participating in any advisory committees. You don't suppose it could have something to do with his views and overly critical attitude do you?
 
It seems to me that Munro's objectivity could be called into question. He does seem to have quite a bias against subway, even in applications where it quite easily could make more sense than other modes than LRT.
 
LowerBay said:
Why is it when I criticized Steve Munro and his views on transit, I got squashed by the Moderator, but Coruscanti Cognoscente gets off?

It's funny how the internet blogsphere regards him as some kind of Transit Deity/know-it-all, but the powers-that-be have continuously excluded him from participating in any advisory committees. You don't suppose it could have something to do with his views and overly critical attitude do you?
Click to expand...

I am always surprised that there are never any critical comments about his views in the comment section on his blog. My guess would be that he weeds them out. No idea if that's the case though. Maybe people who don't agree with him (such as myself) don't read his blog (me usually) or don't bother to make comments there.

I think Munro gets props for "saving" the Toronto streetcar network, which is a good thing for sure, but the city's newfound obsession with LRT is just not healthy either.

As in life, a balanced approach is needed. I've already stated many times that I have no problem with LRT where it's appropriate. I think Hurontario is an excellent candidate for LRT. I think Finch would be good too (but on both sides, east and west). I think Sheppard is a terrible choice, because it already has a subway. I think replacing Scarborough is an awful choice, because you could just extend the subway two stops and serve STC, which is a perfect place to put a terminal. Sure you might run some LRT from there to UTSC or so, but replacing the SRT with LRT or even just keeping the SRT at all is particularly silliness.

Eglinton is a different can of worms. I'm on the fence with it because the tunnelled portion of the LRT would be very beneficial, with Bloor-Danforth spacing, and subway speed underground. It's the effects of the street-level LRT that concern me. Which is also why I think the tunnel could just have been built as subway. But it is being built to be able to upgrade it to subway in the future, so in 100 years we'll be happy we had the foresight to do that.

So I'm not really attacking Steve Munro, I'm just critical of his whole viewpoint and LRT fanboyism. As I said before, we need to have a balanced approach, a rational approach, a network approach. Take a look at the ridiculous number of random different lines in Scarborough and you'll see my point.
 
afransen said:
He does seem to have quite a bias against subway, even in applications where it quite easily could make more sense than other modes than LRT.
Click to expand...
Where did you get that one? He's spoken favourable of both the DRL and the Yonge extension (at least in terms of it needing subway ... rather than the impact on the existing service). And he was instrumental in pushing TTC and the City into increasing the priority on the DRL.
 
afransen said:
It seems to me that Munro's objectivity could be called into question. He does seem to have quite a bias against subway, even in applications where it quite easily could make more sense than other modes than LRT.
Click to expand...

Which must be why he is calling for the Don Mills LRT south of eglinton to be built as part of the DRL subway, and not as LRT....
 
Voltz said:
Which must be why he is calling for the Don Mills LRT south of eglinton to be built as part of the DRL subway, and not as LRT....
Click to expand...

He not against taking the subway up to Sheppard and see the DRL as a subway in the east 100%.

In my presentation to TTC early this year, I call for subway 100% for the Don Mills line from Sheppard to Queen St straight down Coxwell. Taking it west of Bay St, I see it as part of the Jane Line forming a U.

This would pull 15,000 (opening day)-25,000 (2031) peak riders off Yonge, freeing up space on it.
 
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
I am always surprised that there are never any critical comments about his views in the comment section on his blog. My guess would be that he weeds them out.
Click to expand...

There used to be. All of those people just got fed up of being belittled and went away. The only ones left are the "LRT fanboys".

I always thought it was fairly obvious and transparent that Steve's transit advocacy grew out of railfanism. I have challenged him many times on the fact that he needs to drive a car himself all over the GTA on the 400 series highways during rush hours to understand the severity of the problem, and how Transit City won't solve it.

Unfortunately, his views are what I call downtown elitist and out of touch. He is focused on local transit to the exclusion of all regional long-haul trips. Why? ... because he has never had to do a long haul himself. He has never driven a car, and in my opinion, this diminishes his credibility. We need to address long-haul patterns and solve gridlock, and we can't throw it all at GO's feet. All of those cars on the 400, 401, and DVP are not exactly heading to Union Stn., and his friendly neighbourhood holly trolley on Sheppard Av. isn't going to solve the chaos on those roads each and every morning.
 
LowerBay said:
There used to be. All of those people just got fed up of being belittled and went away. The only ones left are the "LRT fanboys".

I always thought it was fairly obvious and transparent that Steve's transit advocacy grew out of railfanism. I have challenged him many times on the fact that he needs to drive a car himself all over the GTA on the 400 series highways during rush hours to understand the severity of the problem, and how Transit City won't solve it.

Unfortunately, his views are what I call downtown elitist and out of touch. He is focused on local transit to the exclusion of all regional long-haul trips. Why? ... because he has never had to do a long haul himself. He has never driven a car, and in my opinion, this diminishes his credibility. We need to address long-haul patterns and solve gridlock, and we can't throw it all at GO's feet. All of those cars on the 400, 401, and DVP are not exactly heading to Union Stn., and his friendly neighbourhood holly trolley on Sheppard Av. isn't going to solve the chaos on those roads each and every morning.
Click to expand...

Even the entire Metrolinx RTP will not solve gridlock, why should you expect Transit City to?

You think Steve Munro has never advocated for long haul trips? I very much disagree, and he has taken such trips.

And why do you seem to think the main purpose of transit investments is solve gridlock, why can't it just be to provide better transit service?
 
Last edited:
Voltz said:
Even the entire Metrolinx RTP will not solve gridlock, why should you expect Transit City to?

You think Steve Munro has never advocated for long haul trips? I very much disagree, and he has taken such trips.

And why do you seem to think the main purpose of transit investments is solve gridlock, why can't it just be to provide better transit service?
Click to expand...

Then why are we doing it? It is not exactly costing chump change. When Eglinton was pegged by Metrolinx as a regional line, Steve got all bent out of shape ... local local local local.
 
drum118 said:
He not against taking the subway up to Sheppard and see the DRL as a subway in the east 100%.

In my presentation to TTC early this year, I call for subway 100% for the Don Mills line from Sheppard to Queen St straight down Coxwell. Taking it west of Bay St, I see it as part of the Jane Line forming a U.

This would pull 15,000 (opening day)-25,000 (2031) peak riders off Yonge, freeing up space on it.
Click to expand...

This might well be a very good idea ... but do not scare the planners off with the cost of such undertaking, before the project even starts.

Strategically, it might be better to get Phase 1 (downtown to Eglinton / Don Mills) committed and funded first. While its is being designed and built, there will be plenty of time to discuss the most appropriate transit technology for Don Mills north of Eglinton.
 
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
As in life, a balanced approach is needed. I've already stated many times that I have no problem with LRT where it's appropriate. I think Hurontario is an excellent candidate for LRT. I think Finch would be good too (but on both sides, east and west). I think Sheppard is a terrible choice, because it already has a subway. I think replacing Scarborough is an awful choice, because you could just extend the subway two stops and serve STC, which is a perfect place to put a terminal. Sure you might run some LRT from there to UTSC or so, but replacing the SRT with LRT or even just keeping the SRT at all is particularly silliness.
Click to expand...
I agree totally. Just as too much LRT is a bad thing, too much subway is a bad thing too. But we're not getting too much subway. We're definitely getting undercut in the subway department, and we're getting LRT shoved down our throats to the point that it stops being yummy and delicious and instead a big stomach ache.

I agree with you that Finch is a good candidate for LRT and that the Sheppard LRT/crosstown route and SRT business is all totally stupid. However, I would rather have an express hydro corridor route in before a LRT on Finch. Somebody needs to revive Go ALRT, and in terms of Finch, the line that would inevitably run across the hydro corridor would definitely take in a lot of long-haul trips from Finch East and West.
However, I believe that Hurontario needs Subway, even more than Eglinton does. It's an important route that should to provide a fast NS connection through Brampton and Mississauga, which a LRT will definitely not provide. If it doesn't get subway, it should get true metro LRT, with no level crossings.

Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
Eglinton is a different can of worms. I'm on the fence with it because the tunnelled portion of the LRT would be very beneficial, with Bloor-Danforth spacing, and subway speed underground. It's the effects of the street-level LRT that concern me. Which is also why I think the tunnel could just have been built as subway. But it is being built to be able to upgrade it to subway in the future, so in 100 years we'll be happy we had the foresight to do that.
Click to expand...
I don't think being built to convert to subway will cut it. If we build Eglinton as it is now, we'll be getting good service between Keele and Laird, but pretty useless service elsewhere. Maybe in 100 years, we'll convert the central portion of Eglinton to subway, which will really only help with capacity, not speed, and add an extra transfer like Sheppard.
If we build the central portion of Eglinton as subway with no LRT, by the time that it's finished, there are going to be proposals to expand it both ways.
 
Second_in_pie said:
I don't think being built to convert to subway will cut it. If we build Eglinton as it is now, we'll be getting good service between Keele and Laird, but pretty useless service elsewhere. Maybe in 100 years, we'll convert the central portion of Eglinton to subway, which will really only help with capacity, not speed, and add an extra transfer like Sheppard.
Click to expand...

Well, "pretty useless service elsewhere" is a big stetch. Currently, the traffic congestion in the central parts of Eglinton hinders the bus service over its whole length. Say, if one wants to get from Etobicoke to Spadina subway or to Yonge during the peak hours, the bus might run reasonably well west of Jane, but then will crawl to reach the subway. Therefore, the LRT built as planned will be a major improvement over the existing bus service, even though it won't be as fast a subway.

Regarding the possible future upgrade, it can potentially apply both to the tunneled section and to the outer sections (in the latter case, new tunnel built, surface tracks removed or used for local service). However, it might be difficult to close the line for upgrade, because the existing riders will have to be serviced somehow during the closure.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top