Alternatives to Transit City, the Spadina Extension, Yonge Extension, Etc.

[unimaginative2]

It would be extremely expensive to dig under Union to create another subway station, and likely the station would be at odd angles.

Epi, did you read what I just wrote? They studied it and found that a DRL station could fit directly south of the existing station on the same level at no odd angles.

A street like Adelaide is simply too far north, and the connections to the PATH are comparatively poor. Obviously there are advantages to both routes. People from Eaton Centre aren't going to walk south to Union and people from the ACC aren't going to walk north to Adelaide. The advantage of Union is that it would be a hub, it has good connections to the PATH, it serves the railway lands, and it serves many more development sites east and west of downtown than a northern route.

As for serving the people living around the rail lines, I'm not sure how you're proposing the subway stations will be built. Under the rail line? Over it? Any sort of option in this super busy stretch is going to be extremely disruptive to train traffic. As well, the waterfront is already going to get a lot of investment in transit with the new LRT lines.

What stretch are you talking about? If you're talking about the TTR corridor between Yonge and the Don, we've shown about a hundred times--as has the DRL study--that there is more than enough room to fit the subway in the existing rail corridor, stations included, on land that isn't being used.

It's better to create a DRL which also ends up serving the super overtaxed Queen and King corridors by putting it inbetween on Adelaide and Richmond, and which also ends up putting CBD commuters right in the middle of the CBD instead of even further south which makes it a much less attractive option then the current arrangement and thus will do even less 'downtown relief' due to longer walk times.

Well, they studied it in great detail and found that the most relief was provided with a southern route. A route near Queen was found to be the least effective. This was a very detailed and comprehensive study done by professionals, so I'd give it a fair bit of respect. The Queen and King streetcars serve completely different markets from the DRL, and they're busy because they're there. If the King streetcar were on Wellington or Front, it would be just as busy.

 

[Paleo]

No one has ever proposed that the DRL go directly under Union. It was proposed to go underneath Front Street.

And, yes, Front Street is north of Union.

Really? Because the existing subway and platforms are already directly underneath the middle of Front Street. Planning on digging a station underneath the current tracks? Good luck.

Epi, did you read what I just wrote? They studied it and found that a DRL station could fit directly south of the existing station on the same level at no odd angles.

What stretch are you talking about? If you're talking about the TTR corridor between Yonge and the Don, we've shown about a hundred times--as has the DRL study--that there is more than enough room to fit the subway in the existing rail corridor, stations included, on land that isn't being used.

I suspect a lot of your information is out of date. For one thing, the only way that you can fit more things directly south of the existing station at the same level is if you ignored the presence of the streetcar loop that has been constructed there and the future Yonge northbound platform. (oh and the sewer)

Building connections to the rest of the station would be an even bigger adventure.

 

[xtremesniper]

I've stated before and I'll state it again. I think the DRL has to run through Union. It provides an idea point to transfer to either the Yonge line or the University-Spadina line and vice-versa. I don't like the idea of splitting the transfer to two different stations. It seems to me that that would make things more difficult. I realize that the TTC isn't GO Transit and Union Station isn't the TTC's hub, but it is Union Station! I don't see how you can have a DRL that fails to serve a place like Union, especially when it'll very likely be running at least partially in the rail corridor.

Agreed. If I lived in the east end and wanted to go home after a game at the ACC, I wouldn't want to take three different lines (yonge to wellington (for example), then DRL to pape, then bloor east). I can see why some people might be thinking that it would be better to have the line cut through an area closer to King/Queen, but I think that would prove to be pointless once the new streetcar system is put into place. Front street has no (zero) transit service. It's about time it gets something, aside from being an obvious choice in terms of connectivity convenience.

 

[Jonny5]

Really? Because the existing subway and platforms are already directly underneath the middle of Front Street. Planning on digging a station underneath the current tracks? Good luck.



I suspect a lot of your information is out of date. For one thing, the only way that you can fit more things directly south of the existing station at the same level is if you ignored the presence of the streetcar loop that has been constructed there and the future Yonge northbound platform. (oh and the sewer)

Building connections to the rest of the station would be an even bigger adventure.

Isn't the whole sub-surface area in the vicinity of Union Station completely full with completed or approved projects now?
I don't have drawings of the sub-surface available, but I don't think there is any sub-surface space for a DRL routed through here, without removing something or going below what is already constructed.

 

[gweed123]

The advantage with doing Wellington is that a station placed between Wellington & Bay and Wellington & York is that it's only 1 block (less than 50m) from the existing Union station. Also, by doing Wellington, you create 3 transfer points with the YUS, not just 1, reducing the transfer strain on Union (King, Union, St. Andrew). It also means you don't have to shut down Union for virtually the entire length of construction. That concourse is a mess as-is, adding another platform there would make it a complete maze, unless you shut the entire thing down and rebuilt from scratch.

And as for the Sheppard example of why it could work, completely different scenario. Sheppard is a deep station, therefore placing a platform above the existing one wasn't that big of an issue. All of the stations in downtown (particularly on the original Yonge line) are very shallow by comparison. So if you were to go above the existing Union tracks, you'd end up with a Dundas-like station, which would turn that concourse into a complete quagmire. A Spadina-like walkway directly linking the platform under Front to the platform under Wellington is the best (and least disruptive to existing subway, vehicular, and pedestrian commuting patterns) option.

 

[unimaginative2]

I suspect a lot of your information is out of date. For one thing, the only way that you can fit more things directly south of the existing station at the same level is if you ignored the presence of the streetcar loop that has been constructed there and the future Yonge northbound platform. (oh and the sewer)

Building connections to the rest of the station would be an even bigger adventure.

No, my information is not out of date. What`s a slight bit frustrating is having to explain this over, and over, and over again. The original planning was done to accommodate the streetcar loop, which was in planning at the time. The sewer is already being relocated, though it may have to be relocated further. That's why planning for this should start now so we don't have to do the same work twice. The planning was done for two additional platforms, not one, so the new Yonge platform is already included.

Isn't the whole sub-surface area in the vicinity of Union Station completely full with completed or approved projects now?
I don't have drawings of the sub-surface available, but I don't think there is any sub-surface space for a DRL routed through here, without removing something or going below what is already constructed.

To repeat, no, it's not. I even got up to go get the plans so I'm looking at them right now. The additional platforms would be built partially under the existing moat of Union Station (that's the uncovered below-grade pedestrian passage that you cross when walking from the GO concourse to the subway station). It would be built on the same level as the existing subway station, level 71.2. The mezzanine would be expanded to the south on the same level, level 74.4. This will not be affected by the Union Station Revitalization project to lower the GO concourse level, since that will only lower the level of the moat to the level of the existing mezzanine.

The advantage with doing Wellington is that a station placed between Wellington & Bay and Wellington & York is that it's only 1 block (less than 50m) from the existing Union station. Also, by doing Wellington, you create 3 transfer points with the YUS, not just 1, reducing the transfer strain on Union (King, Union, St. Andrew). It also means you don't have to shut down Union for virtually the entire length of construction. That concourse is a mess as-is, adding another platform there would make it a complete maze, unless you shut the entire thing down and rebuilt from scratch.

I agree, there are advantages to Wellington as well, but as I've explained earlier, the

And as for the Sheppard example of why it could work, completely different scenario. Sheppard is a deep station, therefore placing a platform above the existing one wasn't that big of an issue. All of the stations in downtown (particularly on the original Yonge line) are very shallow by comparison. So if you were to go above the existing Union tracks, you'd end up with a Dundas-like station, which would turn that concourse into a complete quagmire. A Spadina-like walkway directly linking the platform under Front to the platform under Wellington is the best (and least disruptive to existing subway, vehicular, and pedestrian commuting patterns) option.

Just to reinforce, there is absolutely no reason why Union would have to be shut down for the duration of this work, or even shut down at all. The new tracks and platforms being added are south of the existing tracks and would not affect the existing tracks any more than the current new Yonge platform project. I mentioned Sheppard as an example of how very complex station construction can be carried out without needing to shut down the line or station for any significant length of time.

 

[gweed123]

I'm not saying that it CAN'T be done, I'm just saying that it would be much more complex of an engineering project, with very little extra benefit. Having only 1 transfer point could turn Union into another Bloor-Yonge, where we need to continually expand the platforms every couple of decades to keep up with increasing demand. Having 3 transfer points will reduce the possibility of this scenario.

And yes, I realize that Union and Bloor-Yonge serve 2 different functions in the system. However, those who work around Queen will likely transfer from the DRL to YUS, thus creating a large transfer crowd. Also, it is presumed that the Wellington DRL would have it's own separate entrances as well, thus people from the Business District could access the DRL directly, as opposed to having to follow the hord of people flocking to Union every afternoon, which would be the case if the DRL platform was immediately adjacent (or beneath) to the YUS platform.

 

[nfitz]

Epi, did you read what I just wrote? They studied it and found that a DRL station could fit directly south of the existing station on the same level at no odd angles.

That study was a quarter century ago. Given that they are currently building the second platform south of the existing station, and have also built the streetcar loop on the same level as the subway, you can see there is no longer easy space.

Given the whole DRL thing is coming up, it's a shame that wasn't figured out, before the Union second platform construction started; because really what would make sense is double-deckering them ... and that would be a lot easier to do before the second platform is constructed.

Though personally, I think the demand from Queen and/or King to Pape is more than Union to Pape.

 

[unimaginative2]

I'm not sure how that image you posted proves that it can't be done, or that anything has changed since the 1980s. I'm looking at a design drawing right now that proves that it can be done. I'm glad you posted that, though, because at least now people can see that there's plenty of room between the north edge of the streetcar track

I guess you didn't read my above posts, but as I mentioned, the design includes two new platforms--for a total of three platforms, four tracks--so the additional Yonge platform is not an issue.

Gweed, what I'm saying is that it would not be any more complex than building it on Wellington. At Union, we're already doing the same kind of construction that would be needed to add the additional tracks and platforms, and there's a lot of open space available to easily dig down. A route on Wellington or any other east-west street would need to cross the YUS line twice at a different grade level and would require complete reconstruction of the University Avenue parking garage. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but it would likely be a lot more complex than a station at Union.

Though personally, I think the demand from Queen and/or King to Pape is more than Union to Pape.

That's one opinion, though a comprehensive demand study says otherwise. Of course one can say that the study is old, but the amount of employment downtown hasn't changed significantly since 1985 and simple observation would show that there has been a lot more development around Front Street than around Queen Street since 1985. Canada Life building, Eaton Centre tower and Bay-Adelaide vs. Metro Hall, Simcoe Place, Ritz/RBC, Citibank building, BCE Place, ACC, SkyDome, Cityplace, Ernst and Young tower, Telus, and Great West Life.

 

[gweed123]

A route on Wellington or any other east-west street would need to cross the YUS line twice at a different grade level and would require complete reconstruction of the University Avenue parking garage. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but it would likely be a lot more complex than a station at Union.

Do you happen to have any plans of the parking garage and surrounding area? I'd be interested to see if there would be any way of squeezing it in there, because I know that the St. Andrew platform extends as far down as Wellington, so it would be interesting to see how it is already.

 

[nfitz]

I'm not sure how that image you posted proves that it can't be done, or that anything has changed since the 1980s. I'm looking at a design drawing right now that proves that it can be done. I'm glad you posted that, though, because at least now people can see that there's plenty of room between the north edge of the streetcar track

The edge of the streetcar track isn't the issue, you also need the space for the platforms ... and I'm assuming you need two good size platforms. And most importantly, if you look on the cross-section, the foundations of Union Station also get in the way.

Now you might be able to squeeze it in, if you double-decker the new line through Union. And you also have that big huge sewer that they spent a fortune moving ... now in your way:

 

[unimaginative2]

This is getting a little ridiculous. Nfitz, the foundations of Union Station haven't moved since the 80s. And as I keep having to say, the plans that were drawn up for a station whose circumstances haven't changed.

What baffles me the most is that the very images you helpfully post to show how it is impossible end up showing people exactly how the additional tracks would be built. There's clearly more than enough space there between the foundations of Union Station and the Yonge platform for two tracks and a third platform.

I agree that it will be a nuisance to have to move the sewer again. That's why we have to get this started ASAP so we don't have to do any more work twice.

 

[nfitz]

This is getting a little ridiculous.

Why the rudeness? It seems completely unnecessary. Please edit your post accordingly.

Nfitz, the foundations of Union Station haven't moved since the 80s. And as I keep having to say, the plans that were drawn up for a station whose circumstances haven't changed.

??? The circumstances HAVE changed. A quarter-century ago, you could have squeezed 2 platforms between the south edge of the existing tracks, and the edge of the foundations existing building (south edge of the moat). As you can see on the cross-section I posted, two things have been (or are being) constructed in this location. The first (in blue) is the new south platform. The second is the sewer that was relocated (from where the new south platform is being constructed). It's pretty clear that there is no longer room for 2 tracks and 2 platforms. You might be able to squeeze in a centre-platform station - but that was the problem with the existing station. Or you could stack the tracks; either way you'd have to move the sewer ... which isn't a show-stopper.

What baffles me the most is that the very images you helpfully post to show how it is impossible end up showing people exactly how the additional tracks would be built.

Well, I admit the first is misleading, and does suggest that one could do that, given it doesn't show the footprint of the station. But the second one is pretty clear that there is no longer the space.

There's clearly more than enough space there between the foundations of Union Station and the Yonge platform for two tracks and a third platform.

Barely, perhaps. But I'd think they'd want 2 platforms to avoid the problems that already were taking place, so I think this option is out. Those kind of very narrow platforms are not safe.

 

[unimaginative2]

Why the rudeness? It seems completely unnecessary. Please edit your post accordingly.

I wasn't simply referring to you, but a very large number of people have a rather frustrating tendency to respond without reading what other people have written.

??? The circumstances HAVE changed. A quarter-century ago, you could have squeezed 2 platforms between the south edge of the existing tracks, and the edge of the foundations existing building (south edge of the moat). As you can see on the cross-section I posted, two things have been (or are being) constructed in this location. The first (in blue) is the new south platform. The second is the sewer that was relocated (from where the new south platform is being constructed). It's pretty clear that there is no longer room for 2 tracks and 2 platforms. You might be able to squeeze in a centre-platform station - but that was the problem with the existing station. Or you could stack the tracks; either way you'd have to move the sewer ... which isn't a show-stopper.

I cannot fathom how it's clear that there is no room for an additional two tracks and a platform, in addition to the south platform. If you transpose the two tracks and platform of the existing station west of the south platform, it fits comfortably in the white space between the new platform and the founudations of Union Station.

As I mentioned above, repeatedly, the DRL plans were for three--that's 3--platforms at Union. That includes the south platform they are now building, and an additional platform for the DRL only.

Look, I'm looking at detailed plans right now and they show very clearly that it's entirely possible to build--on the same level--four tracks and three platforms in the space between the existing northern edge of the station and the northern edge of Union Station. The only change would be an extension of the station mezzanine south into (or under, if the moat isn't lowered) the moat area.

As I mentioned just above, it's a shame that the sewer was just relocated and it would have to be relocated again, but it's quite obvious that if the sewer was relocated once, it can be relocated again.

edit--I'm going to try and make this even clearer. I have plans here prepared by a team of engineers at the TTC and consulting firms that looked at the situation as it existed in 1985. I think we can all agree that the foundations of Union Station have not moved. As you mention, nfitz, there are two circumstances that have changed in the area. One is the new sewer pipe that was moved into the area that would be used for a DRL station. It would have to be moved again, and we both agree that is not a show-stopper. The second circumstance you mentioned is the planning for the south platform. They were already looking at that idea in the 80s, and that's why the planning that they did included three platforms. One platform would be the existing platform, one platform would be dedicated to the DRL, and one platform would be for the Yonge line and possibly shared with the westbound DRL to facilitate transfers and reduce crowding. What I'm trying to explain here is that they studied this issue in the 1980s, nothing about the circumstances has changed in a way that would preclude the implementation of the old plans, and none of the plans involve anything like stacking the tracks and platforms or anything of that nature.

Barely, perhaps. But I'd think they'd want 2 platforms to avoid the problems that already were taking place, so I think this option is out. Those kind of very narrow platforms are not safe.

Nfitz, they realized that having just two platforms for the two lines would be too crowded. That's why they planned for three platforms.

 

[gweed123]

Regardless of whether or not it CAN fit (which I agree it can) it would not be an optimal design because of the width restrictions. If it were built at Union, it would be the only transfer to YUS, and that alone would doom it to be over capacity within a day of opening. A station like that needs wider than normal platforms. If it were to be a centre platform, it would need to be at least the width of a Sheppard subway platform, not the width of a current Union platform.

Again, I have no doubt that it could fit, but I also have no doubt that it would not be the best suited design for the projected ridership.