Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

nfitz said:
Yeah, that's what I thought. Eglinton appears busier. That's 80,000 per platform at Eglinton compared to only 75,000 per platform at St. George. :)

Seriously though ... the problem at Eglinton is that in morning rush, almost everyone is at the southbound platform, compared to St. George, where it is distributed more evenly.

In shear numbers yes. In terms of how crowded the platform is waiting for a southbound train? It's second only to Bloor-Yonge in my observations southbound. (northbound in PM peak though, Dundas seems the worst, with some others close behind).

I'd think Bloor platform at Bloor-Yonge, Eglinton, and St. George are all candidates for additional platforms at some point. Though I'm not sure how possible St. George would be.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying. All these stations need attention.

However, in terms of potential economic expansion, number of effected riders and overcrowded surface routes relieved. I think it's important that we establish the DRL South of Bloor as Toronto's #1 transit priority.

Remember the Eglinton line will make it much easier for those coming from the east and west to bypass Eglinton for Eglinton West, giving riders options. Don't get me wrong, the line does need to get to Eglinton and Don Mills. But it's frustrating to see people defend an extension north of Bloor before we even complete a much more significant portion of the route south of it.

Hopefully we'll get a national transit strategy soon so all these essential routes can be built simultaneously. One can only hope.
 
Jaye101 said:
I understand what you're saying. All these stations need attention.

However, in terms of potential economic expansion, number of effected riders and overcrowded surface routes relieved. I think it's important that we establish the DRL South of Bloor as Toronto's #1 transit priority.

Remember the Eglinton line will make it much easier for those coming from the east and west to bypass Eglinton for Eglinton West, giving riders options. Don't get me wrong, the line does need to get to Eglinton and Don Mills. But it's frustrating to see people defend an extension north of Bloor before we even complete a much more significant portion of the route south of it.

Hopefully we'll get a national transit strategy soon so all these essential routes can be built simultaneously. One can only hope.
Click to expand...

This is Toronto we are talking about, it's going to be harder to sell it to the people if it is south of Bloor that is being built first.
 
A 3 platform solution at Eglinton would work very well. It would be easier to add 2 outside platforms, because it wouldn't be that big of a disruption at platform level. Concourse level would be a different story though.

I'd also like to see them shut down Pape or Donlands (whichever one it ends up being) and rebuild it from scratch as a proper transfer facility, including a 3 platform arrangement on the Bloor-Danforth line at least, if not the DRL as well.
 
Is Pape a dual platform currently? if it is, just keep it. if it is a centre platform, make it a triple. make the DRL a triple.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Is Pape a dual platform currently? if it is, just keep it. if it is a centre platform, make it a triple. make the DRL a triple.
Click to expand...
It's a shame there isn't a thread full of photos and plans of the Pape modernization photos ... http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/4332-Pape-Station-Renovation-(TTC-U-C)

Pape, like most Bloor-Danforth stations has 2 platforms. It's only the 3 central stations (St. George, Bay, Yonge) and the 2 outer stations at each end (Kipling, Islington, Warden, Kennedy) that have a single platform. These are the terminal stations and former terminal stations. Ironically, this means that generally the busier stations have a single platform, and the lesser used ones have double platforms.

Who is to say the DRL will cross at Pape? It's Donlands station that the TTC stopped modernization work at because of the upcoming DRL, while letting Pape continue. http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Projects/Station_Improvements/Donlands_Station/index.jsp
 
nfitz said:
Who is to say the DRL will cross at Pape? It's Donlands station that the TTC stopped modernization work at because of the upcoming DRL, while letting Pape continue. http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Projects/Station_Improvements/Donlands_Station/index.jsp
Click to expand...

Would using Donlands instead of Pape allow the TTC to use the Greenwood Yard for the DRL? Just curious. If capacity is an issue, I would suspect that it would be easier to find new yard space along an eastward or westward Bloor-Danforth extension than it would be for the DRL anywhere close to downtown.
 
gweed123 said:
Would using Donlands instead of Pape allow the TTC to use the Greenwood Yard for the DRL?
Click to expand...
Yes. If you look back at the 1960s plans for the DRL, it ran through Greenwood yard, then up under Donlands towards Eglinton/Don Mills.

gweed123 said:
If capacity is an issue, I would suspect that it would be easier to find new yard space along an eastward or westward Bloor-Danforth extension than it would be for the DRL anywhere close to downtown.
Click to expand...
Yes!
 
nfitz said:
Yes. If you look back at the 1960s plans for the DRL, it ran through Greenwood yard, then up under Donlands towards Eglinton/Don Mills.
Click to expand...

Good point! I only remember the yard location in the 80s plan that had it along Eastern just west of Leslie. Obviously that location is much more desirable for pretty much anything other than a subway yard than it was in the 1980s.

If they have to build a new Bloor-Danforth yard, I would put forward a one-stop westward extension to the site of Honeydale Mall and the adjacent Food Basics. Not only would it be an inexpensive extension (could be done almost entirely at-grade), it would dramatically increase subway accessibility for MiWay buses. By my calculation, it would be an additional 1.2km of track, most of which would be running parallel to the rail corridor. I would imagine the station itself would need to be underground though, because an at-grade terminus would preclude any western extension.

It would also make an excellent site for a terminus/yard/redevelopment above the yard. The site is drastically under-utilized now, and is pretty much the poster child for a 1950s suburban wasteland. If it can be done as an integrated site plan, I think it could work really well. Heck, they could even finance some of the new terminus construction by selling off the massive Islington bus bay and opening it up to redevelopment, since it would be mostly redundant with the new terminus opening up.

ADDITION: I should also add that such an extension leaves the Bloor-Danforth subway terminus less than 1km from the Mississauga border, meaning that any future extension would be almost exclusively in the hands of the City of Mississauga and Peel Region (and Metrolinx to a certain extent). Any future westward extension would be nearly completely divorced from the politics of Toronto transit planning.

I know Mississauga doesn't want a subway right now, but if you leave a subway terminus literally right at their doorstep, it may make them think twice, especially if when a few years down the road the Dundas BRT turns out to be more successful than originally thought, and is in need of some relief.
 
Last edited:
BurlOak said:
I like the second option better. Think about the Yonge line and what we wished they would have done.

  1. Yonge-Bloor Station 8 cars long (Maybe Union, Eglinton and Sheppard too) - every other station 6 cars long.
  2. Yonge-Bloor Station 6 cars long with 3 platforms (Maybe Union, Eglinton and Sheppard too) - every other station as is - either centre or side platform.
  3. All stations on the Yonge line with 7 car long stations.

I would say that the third option would have been the highest cost and the lowest capacity.
Click to expand...

Yeah but this line is for suburbanites more than one stop hops. People who get on these trains are probably going north of Eglinton. This makes sense to design the platforms long instead of ready to accomodate floods of people getting on/off.

gweed123 said:
Good point! I only remember the yard location in the 80s plan that had it along Eastern just west of Leslie. Obviously that location is much more desirable for pretty much anything other than a subway yard than it was in the 1980s.

If they have to build a new Bloor-Danforth yard, I would put forward a one-stop westward extension to the site of Honeydale Mall and the adjacent Food Basics. Not only would it be an inexpensive extension (could be done almost entirely at-grade), it would dramatically increase subway accessibility for MiWay buses. By my calculation, it would be an additional 1.2km of track, most of which would be running parallel to the rail corridor. I would imagine the station itself would need to be underground though, because an at-grade terminus would preclude any western extension.
Click to expand...

A BD west extension has been on the books since 1991. Heck I went to the reference library and took pictures of the massive binder of the EA. It's planned all the way out to Dixie and Dundas (though obviously it would have to be amended since Sherway's expanding and there's a Walmart smack dab where Dixie station would have gone.

It's so sad. Literally an entire bookcase of failed transit. Eg West. SRT extension. Sheppard. WWLRT. You name it.
 
One thing I think is imperative is too build the stations atleast 200 meters in length and make sure that all trains have leather bucket seats and at least one of the movie channels on big screen TVs so as to enhance everyone's travel experience.

A bit over the top? perhaps, but then the chances of Toronto getting any DRL built by 2050 are between zero and nil so if you are going to dream then you might as well dream big.
 
nfitz said:
Yes. If you look back at the 1960s plans for the DRL, it ran through Greenwood yard, then up under Donlands towards Eglinton/Don Mills.

Yes!
Click to expand...

Yes, but that was back in the days when people understood a subway could run in the open air, and still be a "subway". Nowadays, we tunnel under suburban waste grounds, hydro corridors, rail corridors, you name it. To do otherwise would be second class transit!

No benefit to routing through Greenwood Yard.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top