Toronto Union Station Revitalization | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto | NORR

junctionist said:
Serving the west and east ends is also of critical importance. The urban west and east ends are dense and full of businesses and institutions and seeing more development, but getting around them is very time-consuming by transit. The system is too reliant on buses and streetcars in these areas. I live in The Junction and getting downtown is important, but I regularly travel to places like Roncesvalles, Parkdale, Trinity-Bellwoods, and King West, and transit can be double or even triple the amount of time compared with cycling and driving. Some armchair planners think that all-day GO service on the Georgetown corridor will be a panacea, but even a regional train every twenty minutes stopping at a limited number of stations en route to Union simply isn't a very useful alternative to local rapid transit.
Click to expand...

The problem is that, with only a few exceptions like the 47 Lansdowne, 63 Ossington and 29 Dufferin, most north-south TTC surface routes terminate on the Bloor Danforth subway line, and don't continue either north or south. Someone traveling south on Bathurst from Dupont to College, for example, might be better off walking when the transfer at Bathurst subway station is factored in. In many cases, we don't even need more rapid transit - we just need to reconfigure certain surface routes.
 
Some of the first steel pillars for the glass atrium are installed:

6371965769_9751ca906c_b.jpg


6371963231_97f8d78906_b.jpg
 
Pretty interesting report about Union capacity at Metrolinx's next meeting.
As far as Union itself is concerned, the conclusions seems to be that even with double berthing the platforms, a new underground level of platforms is required, as has been much discussed - although there's clearly very major challenges with that.

Not clear if that upgrade is an either/or with the second rail station options also discussed - but I'd imagine those would be easier.
 
Interesting that North Toronto Station was eliminated as "solving a different need" Could/Would Via consider moving to North Toronto to allow GO full access? Seems to me that an passenger railway would be less affected by such a move than a regional commuter railway.

Bottom line seems to be that a DRL is needed to absorb some of the passengers at the east and west end of the city, and that the satellite stations (I like the new Union #2 proposal but Bathurst station would encourage growth in the west) are needed by 2050.
 
A DRL combined with a Yonge Extension would pretty much eliminate the need for the Richmond Hill GO line. The RH line has little potential anyway, due to its space constraints, indirect route and very sharp corners which limit speed.

Eliminating the RH line and all its associated potential demand could free up a fair bit of capacity at union, but an underground terminal might still be needed.
 
reaperexpress said:
A DRL combined with a Yonge Extension would pretty much eliminate the need for the Richmond Hill GO line. The RH line has little potential anyway, due to its space constraints, indirect route and very sharp corners which limit speed.

Eliminating the RH line and all its associated potential demand could free up a fair bit of capacity at union, but an underground terminal might still be needed.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're being very forward thinking here. By the time a DRL is built and changes like extending the Yonge line could be completed, the areas served by the RH line and its already planned extensions will see massive growth. Extending the Yonge line 8km to handle a very narrow peak demand isn't a wise use of money when the RH line isn't actually using up that much capacity at Union at all. The fare structures of GO and the TTC will also almost certainly have changed to be more aligned, removing the incentive to use the subway. A new underground terminal will be needed to serve other lines already, the RH line isn't driving it.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure Barrie and Georgetown Line passengers will love the forced transfer at Bathurst or Spadina to a DRL. That idea stinks from a network perspective (say connecting between GO trains). I doubt, for some reason, that the coveted suits riding the premium airport trains will have to transfer, though.
 
ShonTron said:
I'm sure Barrie and Georgetown Line passengers will love the forced transfer at Bathurst or Spadina to a DRL. That idea stinks from a network perspective (say connecting between GO trains). I doubt, for some reason, that the coveted suits riding the premium airport trains will have to transfer, though.
Click to expand...
Yeah... I prefer the Queen tunnel or just double decking USGC. The good thing about the Queen tunnel is that it splits the traffic between two downtown stations and doesn't require crossing city blocks like 6A. There also seems to be a good bit of space around Osgoode Station under University, Campbell House, the courts and even NPS if needed. It's also more or less at the center of employment for downtown.

The Lakeshore GO tunnel is ok, but it's about an 8 minute walk further from the financial district than Union Station and lacks the transit connections that exist further North. I'm also not sure how much space there is (especially if the 1 Yonge parking lot is developed too soon) or how it would work for the sections of Lakeshore under the Gardiner. Maybe if it goes along Queen's Quay and Harbour? The Lakeshore GO tunnel might make more sense depending on the amount of new waterfront employment though.
 
Application: Building Additions/Alterations Status: Not Started

Location: 61 FRONT ST W
TORONTO M5J 1E5

Ward 28: Toronto Centre-Rosedale

Application#: 11 326106 BLD 00 BA Accepted Date: Dec 14, 2011

Project: Transit Station,Subway, Bus Terminal Interior Alterations

Description: WP4D - Great Hall Renovation and Restoration. Union Station.
 
They added one section of steel beam across the top of two sets of the stilts/pillars for the new atrium of the train shed last night It's looking very tall
 
ShonTron said:
I'm sure Barrie and Georgetown Line passengers will love the forced transfer at Bathurst or Spadina to a DRL. That idea stinks from a network perspective (say connecting between GO trains). I doubt, for some reason, that the coveted suits riding the premium airport trains will have to transfer, though.
Click to expand...

From the available options....it is pretty logical that they end up only further considering 4B and 6B.

As one GT line rider, I wouldn't mind being dumped off at Bathurst/Spadina as long as the link included a PATH connection giving the walking option. That, of course, is probably skewed by my end location (King and University) being a relatively short walk and one that I do fairly regularly anyway and not too much longer than the walk from Union (further, yes, but manageable). I don't interline that often (and I am not sure how many GO train riders do).

That said, from an overall system impact point of view, the 6B option seems to make the most sense. The potential new station for the exclusive use of the Lakeshore Line(s) is only just east of Union (around Yonge I think they said) and would be linked to Union by a tunnel...so that wold allow some interlining and the new secondary location seems better than what 4B offers. It also provides greater relief to Union at 40% rather than 35%.

So should we launch a lobby group now? "6B by '33" has a nice ring to it!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top