I'm going to say it again... it may be feasible, but how expensive will it be? A lot of doubts were posted by other posters which I agree with, and this would be a possible project, but extremely expensive. It would also create narrow platforms for the new station, which would not be good for capacity due to space limitations. (See diagrams above)
I'm looking at plans right now for a station with perfectly reasonable platforms. Why do you think it would be extremely expensive? Do you think that you and other forumers know better than the teams of engineers who found that the Front Street alignment would be by far the cheapest of the options studied? It's quite simply an extremely easy project to build. There's a vast open space in the Union Station plaza. You just dig down, the same way they're doing to build the one extra platform. You just dig a little more and build another one. I mean, gut feelings on cost aside, how could it possibly cost more than building
two interchange stations under or over the existing subway on Queen or Adelaide or whatever.
I read that article and it's a bit out of date. Both for trip generators, and also for not recognizing recently planned and built LRT lines in the waterfront.
Yes, I know it's out of date when it comes to the latest trip generators but you were asking about the alignment. Presumably you already know the latest trip generators.
While possible, this entire exercise sounds extremely, extremely expensive and complicated to do. Money aside, I'm not convinced creating a mega-subway station at Union when it's already so busy is the best thing for commuters.
I can perfectly accept your second point, but I can't accept the first when it's based entirely on a gut feeling that contradicts a great deal of study.
The point of a DRL is to relieve workers from transferring from B-D to YUS right? So the stations you have listed are moot. If the DRL actually serves the 1/2 of the CBD that is much further away from Union, then a lot of people would naturally use it. If it ends up going to the same destination in the end, while workers by the convention centre would benefit, it would not really change commuting patterns nor make commuting much faster or much more efficient for the majority of workers, but in the end cram them back in that same cramped station they go to now.
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here... For one thing, I'd say there's more development and traffic in the Convention Centre area than around Queen and Bay. Secondly, the centre of gravity of the financial district is somewhere around Wellington which, neeedless to say, is closer to Front. When it comes to providing relief, the diversion potential of Front is far higher because it's within close walking distance of more employment and is much better connected to the PATH network. Equally important, passengers who decide to transfer from a Queen subway to go down to the Union area would be traveling in the peak direction, exactly what we're trying to avoid. Passengers from Union going up to Queen would be riding off-peak, which is much less problematic.
Riders are going to have to get off somewhere. If they get off at Queen and Osgoode, you can say that they're getting off at the same cramped stations there, too. The difference is the quality of the pedestrian linkages. Those stations have very poor connections to the PATH, while Union has the best possible connections. Now I completely understand the concern about concentrating so much at Union. Pedestrian congestion is definitely an issue, especially with GO growth, but the advantages of a station with the best possible connections in the heart of most existing and proposed development outweigh any disadvantages in my mind.
That is true I agree. But at the same time, there will be directly front door LRT service to the East Bayfront and the Portlands. As well, these stations are far too south to be serving the communities north of the railroad well. Instead of going in the middle of these communities, it is skimming the edge.
I'm not sure how that works... Front Street is the backbone of the West Don Lands, and it's much closer to the rail corridor than it is to Adelaide or Queen. Same with the Distillery and St. Lawrence.
1) If we build your DRL proposal, how many more years before overloaded Queen and King residents get good transit service? Meanwhile why are we giving even MORE great transit to the waterfront when they already have lots of projects planned?
I certainly wouldn't call transit on the waterfront "great", and the simple reality is that there are a lot more people in the planned waterfront developments than there are people who live on Queen east and west of downtown. We can't build a subway everywhere, so we may as well concentrate it where it can serve the most people. Like I said, there are losers in every scenario. It's just a matter of cost/benefit. Long distance riders on 501 will be able to ride the DRL, speeding up trips and freeing up space on the streetcars.
I'd also add that a lot of the problems on those streetcars, as Steve Munro has effectively shown, are fixable and have to do mostly with an unwillingness to manage the route. Remember that the current ridership on Queen is a fraction of what it was in the 70s.
2) Should a subway be built to stimulate development or should it be built to serve overloaded areas, particularly if the subway is built in the same general area but using a different alignment? Are current residents more important, or potential future residents?
Well it depends on how many of each there are. If developments are almost certain to be built, it makes sense to consider their future residents as equal to existing residents. When we compare Queen and the waterfront neighbourhoods, there are quite simply far more people who will live near the waterfront than in the mostly single family homes and townhouses along Queen.
There are also major advantages to building transit at the same time as a development because it will encourage transit-friendly built form and habits.
3) Does your proposal REALLY serve more CBD workers better (and thus do a better job at downtown relief?). The Transit Toronto article really doesn't go into any detail whatsoever about this, so I can't just flatly believe it. For instance, Metro Hall would be equally well served by an Adelaide/John station as compared to a Front/John station.
I feel like I've explained this pretty well with my list of developments, but here goes again. For one thing, an Adelaide/John station wouldn't be connected to the PATH network in the area, which is a significant disadvantage. Secondly, look at Adelaide near John--it's mostly low-rise warehouses, restaurants and nightclubs. Front Street is lined with towers. It doesn't take StatsCan to figure out that there are a lot more people along Front. Adelaide might do an okay but inferior job of serving Metro Hall, but it wouldn't effectively serve SkyDome, CN Tower, Cityplace the Convention Centre, or any number of other developments along Front.
Meanwhile the other half of the CBD north of King Street would definitively be better served by an Adelaide alignment then a Front/Railroad alignment.
But that's just it: it's way less than half, even though King is a bit of an arbitrary line. Major office developments north of King are the Eaton Centre, Bay/Adelaide, Scotia, Richmond Adelaide, and FCP. South of King are TD, Commerce Court, Royal Bank Plaza, BCE Place, Metro Hall, RBC/Ritz, Simcoe Place, Citibank, Telus, Great West Life, CBC. That's indisputably a lot more square footage. The advantage of the much better PATH network at Union also serves to extend its catchment area.
On top of that, there's a lot more residential in the Front corridor, with Cityplace and the railway lands plus a number of other condos. Queen east or west of the YUS loop is mostly low-rise and relatively low density. More importantly, they're neighbourhoods that we don't want to see redeveloped, unlike Front/Railway where we're trying to direct the city's future development.
4) If the idea is that 'we should be DRL, and then build Queen subway for Queen residents', why can't we turn the same argument around and say 'build the DRL on Adelaide for Queen/King residents, and if necessary build a waterfront subway if needed in the future'?
Because, for one thing, a Queen subway would be quite a bit more expensive with two interchange stations and tunneling all the way. Secondly, the main issue that you raise to justify the Queen subway is the overcrowded streetcar service. The real story of the Queen streetcar is the spectacular collapse in its ridership. The city moved far more people on that street in the 70s and the 50s than they do today. The solution to Queen overcrowding is decent route management, not a multi-billion dollar subway. That being said, I'd love to have both.
