Toronto Bloor-Yonge Station Capacity Enhancement | ?m | ?s | TTC | AECOM

nfitz said:
I'd think the best way to deal with Line 1 Bloor station, ultimately, would be to build a completely new southbound single track tunnel and station (with 2 platforms) under Yonge at Bloor. And then convert the existing station to northbound only.

It would only require minor construction work at the existing Line 1 platforms (probably more impact to the Line 2 platforms). We saw with the recent addition of a tunnel junction on the southbound Line 1 between Sheppard West and Wilson stations, only required limited closures.

There's no operational reason that the northbound and southbound tracks need to be anywhere near each other.

I'd think the biggest challenge would be trying to get the southbound tracks back to the existing alignment before Wellesley station.
Click to expand...
Bilevel was presented as an option in the 1988 Yonge Headway study: https://stevemunro.ca/2008/11/03/yonge-subway-headway-study-1988-part-7/ One hopes that means getting the tracks back together before Wellesley is a possibility.

I agree with you that NB & SB tracks don't have a reason to be near each other, so I always favoured the Divided Station Yonge Option as it seems like it would be simpler to construct. The major downside compared to bilevel is that at rush hour if you want to go against the main direction of travel, it's not going to be fun. However, I wonder if the tunnels they'd have to build to get over to Yonge are even still possible with the developments that have taken place.
 
max said:
Bilevel was presented as an option in the 1988 Yonge Headway study: https://stevemunro.ca/2008/11/03/yonge-subway-headway-study-1988-part-7/ One hopes that means getting the tracks back together before Wellesley is a possibility.

I agree with you that NB & SB tracks don't have a reason to be near each other, so I always favoured the Divided Station Yonge Option as it seems like it would be simpler to construct. The major downside compared to bilevel is that at rush hour if you want to go against the main direction of travel, it's not going to be fun. However, I wonder if the tunnels they'd have to build to get over to Yonge are even still possible with the developments that have taken place.
Click to expand...
The southbound would enter the Yonge St tunnel just south of Rosedale station. Would not try to connect to Wellesley, but would connect at College St since it closer to Yonge in the first place.

Build 2 connecting tunnels from the existing Wellesley station to the new southbound platform. This would require new entrances on Yonge for the station's.

The Clover, 19 Duncan St, and The Ivy will have an impact on the Yonge line trying to connect before Wellesley.

Depending on when 2 Carlton and 475 Yonge get underway, the new southbound tunnel could be built for the new connection during the construction of the 2 sites.

The bilevel has a lot of issues compare to the Yonge line and may require a longer closure than the Yonge Line connections, Doing the Yonge Line from Rosedale to Carlton would allow both Bloor and Wellesley stations to have platforms on both sides of the northbound line as well the southbound.
 
at some point there is only so much capacity, surely, that can be poured into the 1/ Yonge side line. Even if a stretch of double deck track can be created it would create havoc while constructed and could be taken down by disruption or power issues at either end.

My thought is that there are people travelling the Yonge line who are taking that route because they must, not because they wish to. Presto data should be giving at least some insight into commute/return trips. The Ontario Line will help but not solve - we are already so late with downtown relief it is time to get moving on downtown relief part 2. Bidirectional service on Richmond Hill GO, including an additional station or two and at least as far north as Steeles (short of the Diamond) and now the river spillway is near completion, would be something that could be delivered with a large sum of money - but quickly, and not at all a large sum compared to schemes like tearing up Rosedale (and College, again) when we can see at Yonge and Eglinton and Eglinton/Allen what such projects impacting existing infra require in effort and disruption.
 
Kill two birds with one stone. OL part 2 as a northwest expansion on Jane Street. No need to build a Jane LRT if it's a Jane OL! Learn from Vancouver and go elevated wherever possible.

One option would be to follow the Kitchener line up to Jane St just before Weston. Should be wide enough most of the way north to do elevated. This would be cheap but you're not really getting much of Jane. You could also follow the KI and then Milton line to Jane. Jane Street is also more SFH in this area which might make it quite difficult to elevate, requiring tunnels. I know Jane St is a busy bus route, that is why the Jane LRT was proposed in the first place. What I don't know is how busy it is below Dundas St W. (What I mean is how busy WOULD it be if an OL took you through The Junction, to Dundas West/Bloor GO, and then to downtown. Of course, if you built the LRT if planned it would be busy bellow Dundas St W because people want to transfer to Line 2 at Jane Station.)

Using the GO corridors would also be layering services. This could be viewed as either a good thing or a bad thing. A good thing because you are created a high-capacity transit corridor, but a bad thing because maybe you should have built an extension somewhere else to have more coverage. Using the corridors would (theoretically) make an extension cheaper, rather than trying to force your way through Swansea and Runnymede somehow.

Next question is where you go North? Follow Jane all the way? Go to the airport? Branch?
 
max said:
Bilevel was presented as an option in the 1988 Yonge Headway study: https://stevemunro.ca/2008/11/03/yonge-subway-headway-study-1988-part-7/ One hopes that means getting the tracks back together before Wellesley is a possibility.
Click to expand...
If bi-level works, then great! Anything to avoid trying to wedge a tiny platform between the two tracks in the current station!

And Drum makes a valid point - the solution at Wellesley could be to keep the tunnel under Yonge, and add a new platform there as well.

I'm sure one day, probably long after our time, they'll have to do something or another.
 
LemonCondo said:
Kill two birds with one stone. OL part 2 as a northwest expansion on Jane Street. No need to build a Jane LRT if it's a Jane OL! Learn from Vancouver and go elevated wherever possible.

One option would be to follow the Kitchener line up to Jane St just before Weston. Should be wide enough most of the way north to do elevated. This would be cheap but you're not really getting much of Jane. You could also follow the KI and then Milton line to Jane. Jane Street is also more SFH in this area which might make it quite difficult to elevate, requiring tunnels. I know Jane St is a busy bus route, that is why the Jane LRT was proposed in the first place. What I don't know is how busy it is below Dundas St W. (What I mean is how busy WOULD it be if an OL took you through The Junction, to Dundas West/Bloor GO, and then to downtown. Of course, if you built the LRT if planned it would be busy bellow Dundas St W because people want to transfer to Line 2 at Jane Station.)

Using the GO corridors would also be layering services. This could be viewed as either a good thing or a bad thing. A good thing because you are created a high-capacity transit corridor, but a bad thing because maybe you should have built an extension somewhere else to have more coverage. Using the corridors would (theoretically) make an extension cheaper, rather than trying to force your way through Swansea and Runnymede somehow.

Next question is where you go North? Follow Jane all the way? Go to the airport? Branch?
Click to expand...
I've thought about this as well. Going along the Kitchener line would certainly be great cost savings, but then you do miss so much of lower Jane. I know some on this forum are of the opinion that an LRT on Jane is physically/politically impossible as the RoW is so narrow you'd have to make it a one way in order to fit station platforms at some points. Having the LRT itself become a one way could be a solution, and headways could still probably be as often as every 5 minutes with clever time tabling but it could become a problem for capacity at a certain point. The question then becomes, is it worth it to avoid Jane if we're going to need RT on the corridor in the next 50 years anyway? Probably not.

It's a shame, anywhere else besides North America they'd just build cut and cover on this corridor...
Screenshot 2022-10-08 232339.png


Anywho, to get back to the topic at hand, I think hitting lower Jane would be more effective at relieving Yonge & Bloor
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dkt
M II A II R II K said:
$1.5 billion. For that price they may as well build a new Bay Street line.
Click to expand...

You do realize that creating an interchange station at Bay Street would be every bit as expensive, if not moreso, given that the station is already 2 levels, but the lower platform would not work for a Bay Street line, this means you'd have to build under the lowest platform, presumably situating the new platform to either the north or the south in order to create new connections to said platform, I'd wager a solid 2B for Bay-Bloor station alone.
 
Northern Light said:
You do realize that creating an interchange station at Bay Street would be every bit as expensive, if not moreso, given that the station is already 2 levels, but the lower platform would not work for a Bay Street line, this means you'd have to build under the lowest platform, presumably situating the new platform to either the north or the south in order to create new connections to said platform, I'd wager a solid 2B for Bay-Bloor station alone.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that building an entirely new subway line (even for 5 stops) would cost far more than 1.5 Billion because not only would you need to work around issues at Bay-Bloor you would need to work around issues at Union as well given the ground water and streetcars.

It would be cheaper to extend the Spadina Subway south than it would be to build on Bay.
 
Richard White said:
Not to mention the fact that building an entirely new subway line (even for 5 stops) would cost far more than 1.5 Billion because not only would you need to work around issues at Bay-Bloor you would need to work around issues at Union as well given the ground water and streetcars.

It would be cheaper to extend the Spadina Subway south than it would be to build on Bay.
Click to expand...

Which wouldn 't alleviate crowding at Y-B, since most people going south into downtown coming from the west would head south currently at St. George.

Breaking the Y-U.S. loop in that scenario is also problematic.
 
Northern Light said:
Which wouldn 't alleviate crowding at Y-B, since most people going south into downtown coming from the west would head south currently at St. George.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Keep in mind though, Spadina is building itself up and a connection down that way may not be entirely without merit. It is not like it was 30 years ago, there is alot of development around Spadina and Bathurst now.

Also note that as much as it is a pipe dream, you could not build a subway on bay with all the office towers and condos. You would hit a parking garage every 5 minutes unless you build the deepest subway this city has even seen.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top