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

[nfitz]

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

I accept that if the current configuation (without the new platform was in place), there would be space to get in 2 more platforms and 2 more tracks - barely.

However the platform that is being constructed doesn't appear to be compatable with being a shared platform for two lines. The stairways aren't positioned in that manner, and there are lots of obstacles being constructed to the west. You'd pretty much have to trash most of the new southern platform that's just about to be constructed. And move the new sewer. So not impossible; but a lot of work.

What's the issue BTW with simply putting the new line on 2 layers, so it has a much narrow footprint; then you only need one platform and one track? Assuming there aren't other constraints.

 

[unimaginative2]

That's why I'd push to have the DRL project accelerated, or at least considered in the planning for this additional platform. It's unfortunate that it seems to take half a decade to design these things, and I can only imagine how long it would take them to tweak the design. Still, if the DRL is coming--and everyone tells us that it is--I wouldn't mind waiting an extra couple years for the second platform if it and the DRL could be combined into one project.

There's no inherent reason why stacking the tracks would be a problem other than that it seems to be an unnecessary inconvenience. They studied this in the 80s and found that the platforms they designed were sufficient. Remember, this was the era in which they designed Downsview station, so you can hardly accuse them of underbuilding.

 

[Epi]

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.

I read what you wrote, just that I like everyone else was just not convinced a 25 year old study is valid. And I guess even if they COULD fit it as you say, how expensive would it be to do and would it still be the best route? (see below)

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.

Half the CBD would be better served via a Adelaide alignment, and as such would serve as a good sorting mechanism for DRL... workers who work north of King would use the DRL, while everyone else would use Union. This would decrease walking times, and also make Union far less congested and spread about traffic a bit.

An Adelaide alignment would also fully serve the St. Lawrence neighbourhood, the West Donlands/Distillery in the east, and serve the new King West neighbourhood and Liberty Village in the west, while also relieving traffic on Queen.

While I agree that the original DRL alignment would serve those living south of the railway, it would do relatively poor job of serving both people living south of the railway as well as a relatively poor job people living north of the railway (rather than serving people north really well and south none at all). Considering there are already a lot of LRT projects planned for south of the railway (Waterfront LRT west/east lines), and also good connections via north-south routes for going north (Spadina streetcar, Bathurst streetcar, new planned Cherry St streetcar) and the travel times on these new lines are supposedly pretty good.

Overall, the conditions of 1985 are vastly different from 2009. If you had a report from professionals that said that the railroad route in 2009 was better, then I'd go for it.

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'm just somewhat confused at how it works that's all. I don't have this 1985 study handy. How does it go from above ground railroad, to underground adjacent to YUS line? And how accessible are these stations and friendly to use are they for the current built form?

 

[unimaginative2]

I read what you wrote, just that I like everyone else was just not convinced a 25 year old study is valid. And I guess even if they COULD fit it as you say, how expensive would it be to do and would it still be the best route? (see below)

As I said earlier, can you show me a single demonstrable difference at Union Station since 1985 that would make the designs invalid? The question was answered above. There aren't any.

I'm just somewhat confused at how it works that's all. I don't have this 1985 study handy. How does it go from above ground railroad, to underground adjacent to YUS line? And how accessible are these stations and friendly to use are they for the current built form?

It might be easier for you to just read the Transit Toronto article, but I should be working and I'm looking for excuses to procrastinate, so here goes. A very large team of engineers studied those very issues and came up with a detailed design. I think it's fair to accept that the design they created was feasible.

As I've described, the first phase runs underground from Spadina east to Union with an intermediate stop just east of John. The Union station is expanded to the south, under the moat, to add two additional platforms and two tracks to the existing arrangement. From there the tracks turn southeast to run under the railway tracks until they reach the south side of the rail corridor near Yonge. Their they rise to the surface to run in the existing rail corridor right of way, which is quite capacious.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by friendly to use for the existing built form, but these stations are as accessible as any others in the network. John and Spadina stations would be pretty standard underground stations along Front Street, similar to any of the existing downtown stations you might be familiar with. The stations in the rail corridor at Sherbourne and Cherry would be above ground and riders would simply descend a flight of stairs to reach the street. From there they could either walk north under the tracks to reach that part of the city or walk south and find themselves in the East Bayfront.

Half the CBD would be better served via a Adelaide alignment, and as such would serve as a good sorting mechanism for DRL... workers who work north of King would use the DRL, while everyone else would use Union. This would decrease walking times, and also make Union far less congested and spread about traffic a bit.

Yes, but workers north of Union already use King, Queen, Osgoode and St. Andrew. A DRL north of Front would also permanently preclude any rapid transit along Queen and decimate existing streetcar service.

An Adelaide alignment would also fully serve the St. Lawrence neighbourhood, the West Donlands/Distillery in the east, and serve the new King West neighbourhood and Liberty Village in the west, while also relieving traffic on Queen.

All of which would be served by the rail corridor alignment, in addition to the rapidly-development East Bayfront and Portlands, which would not be accessible to an Adelaide alignment.

I'm not sure what you mean by relieving the traffic on Queen. If you mean the streetcar, I think a rail corridor DRL would be just as effective at taking longer distance trips off the Queen streetcar, leaving it to serve local trips. Passengers from the Beach, for example, could transfer at Queen and Pape. An Adelaide subway would likely mean an evisceration of streetcar service along Queen, thus providing worse service to local riders within the downtown core.

While I agree that the original DRL alignment would serve those living south of the railway, it would do relatively poor job of serving both people living south of the railway as well as a relatively poor job people living north of the railway (rather than serving people north really well and south none at all). Considering there are already a lot of LRT projects planned for south of the railway (Waterfront LRT west/east lines), and also good connections via north-south routes for going north (Spadina streetcar, Bathurst streetcar, new planned Cherry St streetcar) and the travel times on these new lines are supposedly pretty good.

I don't see how it would do a relatively poor job of serving either. It would be two blocks from Front Street, the heart of the West Don Lands, it would be immediately adjacent to the Distillery, it would be one block from The Esplanade, the heart of St. Lawrence, and it would be one block from Queens Quay. That sounds like pretty good service to me.

The area near Adelaide is also very well served with existing streetcar service. The DRL is designed to serve longer distance trips and open up new areas of the waterfront for development. The whole point is that the area surrounding the rail corridor is a massive regeneration area that is going to be adding tens of thousands of new residents over the next few decades. The area along Adelaide Street and Queen Street is planned to see very little development and is intended to remain as a stable community.

Overall, the conditions of 1985 are vastly different from 2009. If you had a report from professionals that said that the railroad route in 2009 was better, then I'd go for it.

In what respect? There's more development around the rail corridor now than they could have ever anticipated in 1985. They could never have foreseen the redevelopment of the East Bayfront and they don't seem to have taken Ataratiri/West Don Lands into account either. The downtown has seen an enormous number of new buildings developed along Front, as I enumerated earlier (I know people don't like scrolling up, and I'm procrastinating here, so SkyDome, ACC, Simcoe Place, Metro Hall, Cityplace, BCE Place, Ernst & Young Tower, Telus Building, Great West Life, Maple Leaf Square, RBC/Ritz to name some), so if anything Front/Railway is a more attractive route than it was back in 1985. Queen has seen comparatively little development, and isn't planned to be redeveloped either. That's my biggest problem with the Queen. Why should we put a subway through a neighbourhood that we definitely don't want to see redeveloped?

 

[gweed123]

An Adelaide subway would likely mean an evisceration of streetcar service along Queen, thus providing worse service to local riders within the downtown core.

I would tend to disagree with you on this one. Although the frequency of service would decrease, I would think that the reduction in the number of people using it would offset that incovenience. I would rather wait 10 minutes for a streetcar and get a seat than wait 5 minutes and be packed in like a sardine, but that's just my personal feeling.

As you mentioned later on, the Queen line would in essence be divided up into 3 separate lines (Long Branch to West DRL, West DRL to East DRL via downtown, East DRL to Neville Park). This would allow much more flexibility when it comes to frequency, because of the shorter routes (it is likely that every 2nd or 3rd streetcar will be short-turned at the DRL).

And after reading the debate about the Union platforms, I still think the best option is Wellington. Regardless of where the subway is placed through the downtown core, it will either have to be deep tunnelled under buildings or have buildings demolished in order for it to reach the rail ROWs in both the east and west. And like I've said before, trenching Wellington street for a year or two is much less of a disruption than trenching Front. Having multiple transfer points is also very beneficial, I would think we would have learned that lesson from Bloor-Yonge a long time ago.

 

[Epi]

As I said earlier, can you show me a single demonstrable difference at Union Station since 1985 that would make the designs invalid? The question was answered above. There aren't any.

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)

It might be easier for you to just read the Transit Toronto article, but I should be working and I'm looking for excuses to procrastinate, so here goes. A very large team of engineers studied those very issues and came up with a detailed design. I think it's fair to accept that the design they created was feasible.

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.

The Union station is expanded to the south, under the moat, to add two additional platforms and two tracks to the existing arrangement. From there the tracks turn southeast to run under the railway tracks until they reach the south side of the rail corridor near Yonge. Their they rise to the surface to run in the existing rail corridor right of way, which is quite capacious.

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.

Yes, but workers north of Union already use King, Queen, Osgoode and St. Andrew. A DRL north of Front would also permanently preclude any rapid transit along Queen and decimate existing streetcar service.

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.

All of which would be served by the rail corridor alignment, in addition to the rapidly-development East Bayfront and Portlands, which would not be accessible to an Adelaide alignment.

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 what you mean by relieving the traffic on Queen. If you mean the streetcar, I think a rail corridor DRL would be just as effective at taking longer distance trips off the Queen streetcar, leaving it to serve local trips. Passengers from the Beach, for example, could transfer at Queen and Pape. An Adelaide subway would likely mean an evisceration of streetcar service along Queen, thus providing worse service to local riders within the downtown core.

The subway is an express service. The streetcar is a local service. Currently a lot of streetcar riders ride the streetcar not for local travel but for further travel. The subway would take care of these people along it's route, while the streetcar would serve another function.

Both Queen and King are extremely overloaded streetcar routes that could easily survive even if a lot of people stopped using it.

Queen has seen comparatively little development, and isn't planned to be redeveloped either. That's my biggest problem with the Queen. Why should we put a subway through a neighbourhood that we definitely don't want to see redeveloped?

I guess that's the philosophical difference between your DRL proposal and the one I'm advocating.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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'?

 

[gweed123]

Good points Epi. However, there is a bit of a contradiction in your statements. You say first that "The subway is an express service. The streetcar is a local service. Currently a lot of streetcar riders ride the streetcar not for local travel but for further travel. The subway would take care of these people along it's route, while the streetcar would serve another function". You then go on to say "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?".

Would the DRL not effectively increase the levels of service along King and Queen? It would eliminate the majority (if not all) of the "express users", leaving the lines open for more local trips. In this case, NOT giving them any new transit is possibly the best way of improving transit, as a subway on either King or Queen would largely serve an express function, with stations too far apart to effectively serve the "local trips" market.

And if you were to extend the East Bayfront LRT up Parliament to Castle Frank (in essence do the same thing in the east what happend with Spadina in the west), you would be even further increasing the level of local service to the area (as well as creating an effective incentive for further Regent Park revitalization). But that's another case all together.

 

[unimaginative2]

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.

 

[Dan416]

Unimaginitive, I agree with you 100% on the DRL. And on other things as well. I admit I don't think the DRL will be uber cheap, but I agree for sure that 1 transfer station instead of 2 is better. I really like the idea of Union having 4 lines radiating out of it: Yonge, University-Spadina, DRL East and DRL West. It just feels right. And I feel like it reduces the need for people to transfer between lines. Or at least makes it as painless as possible.

 

[nfitz]

The key criteria for the DRL is ... relieving Yonge-Bloor. Until there is a study that indicates which pairing of stations gives the most relief, then it's really quite premature.

 

[Epi]

I'm looking at plans right now for a station with perfectly reasonable platforms. Why do you think it would be extremely expensive?

The part where you move the sewer again, build the station by Union, then tunnel under a bunch of stuff to rise up again above grade to the rail embankment to the east.

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.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating a Queen subway. I'm advocating an Adelaide alignment, as this street is inbetween King and Queen, which are both overloaded. Liberty Village for instance is well served by this alignment. As well, Adelaide west of Spadina has massive redevelopment potential (actually it is already being filled with new buildings). Sure it's not Cityplace, but there's going to be a LRT running in the MIDDLE of Cityplace which will take <5 minutes to get to Union, just as there's going to be LRT running in the middle of East Bayfront going to Union.

And while Wellington is where the biggest mass of CBD is, it will be well served by Union already, and thus that's fine. You are correct though that stuff like CBC, Convention Centre and the new RBC and one or two other buildings will be a bit better served by your alignment, but that's about it. Telus, 18 York, MLS stuff like that is irrelevant for the commuters who need DRL, as riders can just ride the current YUS line to get there.

Either way, we're both just arguing from gut feeling. Travel patterns from 25 years ago don't reflect today. And while you can say 'well look at where the new buildings are!' it's still gut feeling, as we don't have absolute numbers to compare both.

 

[kEiThZ]

The key criteria for the DRL is ... relieving Yonge-Bloor. Until there is a study that indicates which pairing of stations gives the most relief, then it's really quite premature.

+1

This is a complete re-hash of the DRL alignment thread all over again. nfitz is right. The key criteria is the relief of Yonge-Bloor. Not provision of new services along Queen or to new neighbourhoods along the Waterfront (those are secondary concerns). If we fail to build this right, Y/B will be choking again a few years after the DRL opens.

For my money, I think the alignment will have to end up south of King (I'd prefer Wellington) because that's where I think the relief to Y/B will be maximized. We aren't trying to remove all transfers at Y/B just some. The DRL will still have folks due for Queen and points north transferring at Y/B. Anyway, we'll need more detailed study when the time comes to see how much all the development since 1985 and all the proposed development will impact the city. But as it stands, it seems to me that city centre's centre of gravity is shifting southward. Designating good chunks of Queen as stable neighbourhoods, not open to development is not going to help it's case either.

 

[lead82]

If an alignment is chosen along Queen or Adelaide or even Wellington, I'd prefer that only one station be built to connect with the YUS line, somewhere around Bay St. There is no point in building two interchanges so close together. It's a complete waste of money. Just have the station in the middle with the west exist connecting with St. Andrew/Osgoode and the east entrance connecting with Queen/King, depending on alignment.

In any case, even if Front street alignment is chosen, I would suggest a brand new station, rather than getting trains to share Union. Even with two platforms, it would not be able to accommodate 2 lines given today's train frequencies.

 

[unimaginative2]

I agree, nfitz and Keithz, though I've been trying to make a case that the old study has quite a bit of validity since travel patterns really haven't changed that much since the 80s and, if anything, the financial district's centre of gravity has shifted southward.

The part where you move the sewer again, build the station by Union, then tunnel under a bunch of stuff to rise up again above grade to the rail embankment to the east.

Okay, first of all, moving the sewer is an incredibly minor job that they've already done once. Do you really think they won't have to move utilities to build a station under Adelaide or Queen? I don't quite understand how tunneling under a bunch of stuff and then rising above grade would be more expensive than tunneling under a bunch of stuff on Adelaide only to...tunnel under another bunch of stuff.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating a Queen subway. I'm advocating an Adelaide alignment, as this street is inbetween King and Queen, which are both overloaded. Liberty Village for instance is well served by this alignment. As well, Adelaide west of Spadina has massive redevelopment potential (actually it is already being filled with new buildings). Sure it's not Cityplace, but there's going to be a LRT running in the MIDDLE of Cityplace which will take <5 minutes to get to Union, just as there's going to be LRT running in the middle of East Bayfront going to Union.

Yes, but what about people from Cityplace that aren't going to Union? It just makes the most sense to serve the most people possible, at the lowest cost possible. Building a line all in tunnel would cost far, far more than a Front-Railway route, which could return to the rail corridor west of Spadina. The area north of Front is just as well-suited to redevelopment as Adelaide. In fact, quite a bit more so since much of Adelaide west of Spadina runs through stable, protected neighbourhoods. When you say Queen and King are overloaded, are you talking about the streetcar? Remember that the Queen car is only moving a fraction of the traffic it moved in the 70s. There's no reason, other than the TTC's route management, why it can't comfortably move far more people than it does today. Building a multi-billion dollar subway just because the TTC can't bother to have its streetcars leave their terminals on a regular headway seems like a bit of overkill.

Sure, Liberty Village is served from Adelaide reasonably well (though less well than from the rail corridor), but the Fort York neighbourhood and the Exhibition are not. It's a matter of trade-offs, but I'd say that the latter two are bigger trip generators than the low rise stable neighbourhood residential along that stretch of Adelaide.

And while Wellington is where the biggest mass of CBD is, it will be well served by Union already, and thus that's fine. You are correct though that stuff like CBC, Convention Centre and the new RBC and one or two other buildings will be a bit better served by your alignment, but that's about it. Telus, 18 York, MLS stuff like that is irrelevant for the commuters who need DRL, as riders can just ride the current YUS line to get there.

What do you mean well-served by Union already? The whole point here is to get people off the YUS line. The Adelaide area is well-served by King-Queen-St. Andrew-Osgoode. They can just ride the current YUS line as well. Don't you see the issue with your argument here?

Heh heh. One or two other buildings like the 18 buildings at Cityplace, the SkyDome, the CN Tower, Metro Hall, Simcoe Place, the old RBC, 300 Front West, Infinity, etc. etc.

Either way, we're both just arguing from gut feeling. Travel patterns from 25 years ago don't reflect today. And while you can say 'well look at where the new buildings are!' it's still gut feeling, as we don't have absolute numbers to compare both.

Employment levels in the downtown core haven't changed significantly since the 1980s. Pretty much all of the office developments that are in place today south of Queen were either built or in the planning stages in 1985. I'm not sure what that tells us about our city, but that's a fact. There are more condos now than they expected, but most of those are indisputably closer to Front (or the waterfront) than they are to Queen, which runs through stable neighbourhoods.

That's what this comes down to. Do we want to run a new subway through stable, low-rise residential areas that are zoned to never see redevelopment, or through the neighbourhoods that are already densely developed with high rises and are the city's number one priority for development?

If an alignment is chosen along Queen or Adelaide or even Wellington, I'd prefer that only one station be built to connect with the YUS line, somewhere around Bay St. There is no point in building two interchanges so close together. It's a complete waste of money. Just have the station in the middle with the west exist connecting with St. Andrew/Osgoode and the east entrance connecting with Queen/King, depending on alignment.

It's hardly a waste of money, and subway stations aren't four blocks long. That seems to be a common misapprehension. If a station were built at Bay, it could not reasonably be used for transfers to University. It would also be quite expensive to build a dedicated, multi-block tunnel above or around the new subway tracks, without affecting the wide variety of utilities and PATH tunnels in the area.

In any case, even if Front street alignment is chosen, I would suggest a brand new station, rather than getting trains to share Union. Even with two platforms, it would not be able to accommodate 2 lines given today's train frequencies.

Three (3, III) platforms were planned for Union Station in the DRL study. That's three, because they recognized that there would be overcrowding if there were only two platforms. Where would you build a brand new station? The whole point is being able to interchange with the existing subway and GO/VIA network.

 

[nfitz]

I agree, nfitz and Keithz, though I've been trying to make a case that the old study has quite a bit of validity since travel patterns really haven't changed that much since the 80s and, if anything, the financial district's centre of gravity has shifted southward.

Hmm ... interesting point; though Ryerson has grown; though so too would have GO traffic through Union. And I must confess I haven't seen the predicted demands for various options in the original study. Is that available somewhere? What methodology did they use?