Toronto Spadina Subway Extension Emergency Exits | ?m | 1s | TTC | IBI Group

my question is when they extend the line, what becomes of the massive parking lots and facilitates when the station becomes less used.

Like the city could make a lot selling the parking lots near Finch station on Yonge.
 
scarberiankhatru said:
Connecting a random list of downtown spots would take one line so meandering it'd be almost useless. If you were driving from Calgary to Regina, would you be fond of a highway that goes through Edmonton and Saskatoon on the way or a highway that goes straight there?
Click to expand...

If you think about it, an inner-city loop line would function in the exact same manner as the DRL. It'd come in from the outlying areas, hit the CBD area then head back up again. The only difference it'd hit arterials in areas already suitable for subways, not ones that'd rely on new developments to flourish. Minus Gerrard Square, nowhere along the immediate railway lands has long established urban density.

Calgary to Regina... you may as well say Kennedy to Yonge-Eglinton or NYCC which has to involve a circuitous subway rides to Bloor-Yonge or Scarborough Centre, when an Eglinton Line could serve customers directly. No, I think taking people to actual points-of-interest over getting dumped out into vacant lots and hydro corridors should be a priority. Several metros know this, why are we always playing catch up? If our underground bisected two major cross streets at diagonals, it'd be that the 505 for instance gets four subway stops along its downtown section, ditto the 506, 501, 504. Not everywhere gets a stop, but everywhere's within a 4-5 block radius of a station.

Sheppard doesn't really look like a bunker
Click to expand...

I like the aquatic motif used in Don Mills and the pastoral aesethetic at Sheppard Yonge. I think the stations were excessively over-built though especially considering how little trafficked they are.
 
DENTROBATE54 said:
I think the stations were excessively over-built though especially considering how little trafficked they are.
Click to expand...
well at least in 50 or so years the TTC won't have to worry about overcrowding like they are now at some stations.
 
Which is exactly my point. The Bloor-Danforth line could've ran in a straight line, met up with the Kingston Rd corridor and routed up into deep Scarborough. However it doesn't and veers in at the earliest vantage point to hit SCC from the southwest. If we don't make future subways flexible and practical like this then what is the point? Why not monumentally cheaper BRT networks instead? A downtown subway hitting downtown nodes as numerous as technically possible, benefits the most people.

For instance, someone might not want Queen West directly but will much appreciate exiting a station and being smack in the middle of Chinatown (the biggest destination for the 505/510 streetcars). These are conveniences the current system nor even a DRL could ever allot as Bremmer/Spadina is just as far away from Dundas as the BD line.
 
scarberiankhatru said:
Connecting a random list of downtown spots would take one line so meandering it'd be almost useless. If you were driving from Calgary to Regina, would you be fond of a highway that goes through Edmonton and Saskatoon on the way or a highway that goes straight there?
Click to expand...

Have you been on any other subway system? Or even seen what they might look like on even google earth? Meandering is never useless on some of the most successful subway systems in the world.

Maybe in your analogy above it makes no sense to drive through Edmonton and Saskatoon, but have you been on the highways in Niagara? the only connection between Buffalo and Toronto isn't a straight path through the Niagara Region on to Hamilton. It makes sure that it goes through St Catharines and Niagara Falls first. Only some 80 years later will they rectify that with the mid-peninsula corridor (if its ever built, which hopefully it won't).
 
There's a big difference between bending a route slightly to serve an important destination, and having a line that turns north, then south, then north again, then south again every block.
 
Most cities in the world do not have a grid of streets like Toronto, so of course their subway lines are not straight either. The top 3 subway systems in North America are New York, Toronto, and Montreal - all have a street grid and the subway lines tend be straight.
 
^ very true. But that doesn't mean that having a subway line that breaks the grid would be a detriment to a system.

unimaginative2 said:
There's a big difference between bending a route slightly to serve an important destination, and having a line that turns north, then south, then north again, then south again every block.
Click to expand...

ya that would be a waste. I don't recall ever saying I wanted that. But I think there are optimal routes that could cut travel times downtown in half while serving many areas by breaking the grid.
 
Our subway lines already break from the grid...just look at the Danforth line east of Main Street (which will be even less grid-confined if extended to STC) or the entire Spadina line north of St. George. But while they had good reason to shift off the grid, there's pretty much no benefit in shifting away from Yonge or Eglinton for lines along these roads.
 
scarberian-> I agree. However, I think my thoughts are being a bit misunderstood. What I mean by breaking from the grid is placing stations at various intersections, without following anything at street level. There's no reason to break from the grid in the case of Yonge or Eglinton, but why not drop a piece of spaghetti on the floor and have a line run from Bathurst/Bloor, then Spadina/College, then Queen/university, Bay and Adelaide, then Union, then wherever. (please don't assume I'm proposing such an exact line. I'm just using it to clarify my point) It could take pressure off of streetcar lines if the stations are positioned well, and provide quicker service for people, thereby making the TTC far more attractive.

doady said:
It wouldn't necessarily be a benefit either.
Click to expand...

nope it might not. I'd wager there are more benefits but that's subjective. I just fail to understand what is so absurd about my thought. I mean, haven't you ever found yourself anywhere (downtown especially) and having to transfer twice just to get somewhere that's maybe not walkable but close enough that you shouldn't spend more time transferring and waiting for trains/streetcars than actually riding? Where I live, right downtown, I have to transfer twice if I'm not doing something directly on Yonge or University. Obviously, I'm not suggesting that I have a subway stop at my apartment that will then take me where I need to go (even if my area might benefit from such a stop), but its like this for many people who live in greatly populated areas that don't happen to be located on Bloor or Yonge.
 
Your thoughts weren't misunderstood...you were proposing meandering lines for the sake of meandering lines because London has no street grid.
 
jn_12 said:
scarberian-> I agree. However, I think my thoughts are being a bit misunderstood. What I mean by breaking from the grid is placing stations at various intersections, without following anything at street level. There's no reason to break from the grid in the case of Yonge or Eglinton, but why not drop a piece of spaghetti on the floor and have a line run from Bathurst/Bloor, then Spadina/College, then Queen/university, Bay and Adelaide, then Union, then wherever. (please don't assume I'm proposing such an exact line. I'm just using it to clarify my point) It could take pressure off of streetcar lines if the stations are positioned well, and provide quicker service for people, thereby making the TTC far more attractive.
Click to expand...

It seems we're on similar brainwaves with this point. The fallacy of Toronto's subway system is that in its conception, not enough effort or thought was put into where people actually want to go within the downtown core. The assumption that life begins and ends along Bloor or Yonge Streets has led to decades of mismanagement to the point businesses have to move to the 905 areas just to get reasonable transit.

Your suggestion, as is mine, is truly what should be considered a downtown relief line. Not for newbies on the waterfront, but rather for long-time residents and businesses and tourist spots that have paid their dues and deserve an upgrade in service. Why give subways to big-box hellholes (VCC, RHC) when the original urban centre has to subsist with go-slow streetcars forever :rolleyes:?

The insipidness of the totalitarian-ran sTTingy C and its drove of blinded fanboys never ceases to amaze.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top