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

TOareaFan said:
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!
Click to expand...

PATH isn't that far away in the CBC Centre at Front and John. If the station were at Spadina I think a natural extension of the PATH network to there would mitigate the effect of being an "auxiliary station". Much more than being at Bathurst which is quite a hike just to get into the edges of downtown.
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
PATH isn't that far away in the CBC Centre at Front and John. If the station were at Spadina I think a natural extension of the PATH network to there would mitigate the effect of being an "auxiliary station". Much more than being at Bathurst which is quite a hike just to get into the edges of downtown.
Click to expand...

Both the Toronto Convention Centre and the hotel next to it are for sale. Buy and demolish them, widen the tracks into that area with platforms, and build a new convention centre overtop of tracks and new station (roughly John to Simcoe) as they exist today. Might need to take a chunk of the office building west of John too or hover over-top of Station St (behind 151 Front).

Based on the cost of Vancouvers new convention centre which is mostly hovering over water, it would probably be about $1B to do (slightly cheaper than the Lake Shore tunnel).

The station would terminate overtop of Simcoe which is very close to downtown and the skywalk would essentially run directly through it.

The time frame would be long because the Convention Centre is booked and the replacement would need to be built before the original bunker on Front could be demolished.

So, for $1.5B we get a new convention centre, much nicer building along Front, necessary train capacity very close to downtown, and the Bathurst Yard can remain (helps keep operating costs down).
 
Last edited:
rbt said:
Both the Toronto Convention Centre and the hotel next to it are for sale. Buy and demolish them, widen the tracks into that area with platforms, and build a new convention centre overtop of tracks and new station (roughly John to Simcoe) as they exist today. Might need to take a chunk of the office building west of John too or hover over-top of Station St (behind 151 Front).

Based on the cost of Vancouvers new convention centre which is mostly hovering over water, it would probably be about $1B to do (slightly cheaper than the Lake Shore tunnel).
Click to expand...

Maybe we don't even need to replace the convention centre? According to this WSJ columnist there is already an over-supply of convention space and the demand for space has fallen every year for the past 20 years. The figures are US numbers, would there be a difference here?
 
Jonny5 said:
Maybe we don't even need to replace the convention centre? According to this WSJ columnist there is already an over-supply of convention space and the demand for space has fallen every year for the past 20 years. The figures are US numbers, would there be a difference here?
Click to expand...

I suspect that the problem in US (and Canada?) is that far too many suburban convention centres were built and every small town now seems to have one too. I bet the big City ones are doing OK. From their website the MTCC were

"Voted the #1 convention destination in North America* for "Superior Convention Services". Top-of-class service award. First-class venue. World-class, fun-loving city. And yes, the only facility that has hosted both a G20 and a G7. Plenty of great hotels and shopping nearby too. We've certainly got it all – but what we really want is you." Their calendar of events looks pretty full to.
 
Automation Gallery said:
They are:confused:..i thought Oxford bought it over a year ago and have plans for a future development.
Click to expand...

Ahh, wasn't aware it had been sold.

I had not seen a followup to the press release indicating that was for sale. In fact, i believed it was still primarily government owned during the G20. Did it happen shortly after that?
 
I think our convention center does very well ... but I'm not sure about the space in the EX, the direct energy center and the automotive one now.

In the west of the GTA there are 2 large ones, one in the 416 and one in the 905. They're fairly close to each other, not sure how they both do.


I'd wager a guess that the GTA has a lot less large scale convention space them American counterparts.
 
Looks like the Panorama Lounge is close to opening delivering the first piece of the revitalization project. I'm seriously hoping the sign they have put up outside the front door of the lounge is a temporary measure.
 
Is it expectated the convention centre and hotel would be demolished as part of this development? I hope so, its a modern eyesore.
 
Union Station has the same number of platform tracks as Shinjuku. Shinjuku Station serves 1.5 million passengers a day. Yes, Union could use re-worked approach trackage and wider platforms along with far more exit staircases, but I think it's more than capable of handling any potential traffic. The study operates under the assumption that it's impossible to run trains on a track at a frequency of less than every 10 minutes. That's where we can look to solve the problem, whether it's with more exits, more doors on rail cars, and/or smaller and more frequent trains. There are large numbers of stations with the same or fewer tracks that handle far more passengers than Union ever will. If we can't figure out how they do it, why don't we ask them?

Though I'm thrilled with the idea of building the DRL and integrating GO and TTC fares, not running the Georgetown and Milton trains to Union is absolutely ludicrous. First of all, anyone connecting from the Milton to the Lakshore line--something we will hopefully see much more of with decent off-peak frequencies--would have to get on the DRL, ride it up to the University line, and transfer to the University line to get down to Union. Same for anybody going to the Air Canada Centre or the many new office buildings being built along Bremner.

The shame is that we didn't think out of the box or think comprehensively when we were doing all this. I have a study from the 1980s talking about how it would be feasible to bury the tracks through the city centre. Now, yes, it would be an expensive project, but we're already digging out under Union for the shopping mall, and we're going to have to figure out the approach track issues somehow. Moreover, burying the tracks would allow us to start anew and build nice wide regional rail platforms with lots of exits. Combine the cost, both financial and operational, of kicking Milton and Georgetown out of Union, re-doing the approach tracks, retaining the narrow platforms, and potentially tunneling new platforms under the existing station. That makes the idea of just burying it all and getting it over with seem much less unreasonable. You'd also get immense benefits in terms of connecting the city to the lake plus a large amount of valuable developable land.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top