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

[Dan416]

It would be even better if they took this time to build a platform underneath the current Union subway station to be ready for a future DRL. Although I imagine the cost isn't worth it until the DRL and its route (e.g. whether it goes through Union at all) are finalized.

 

[reaperexpress]

It would be even better if they took this time to build a platform underneath the current Union subway station to be ready for a future DRL. Although I imagine the cost isn't worth it until the DRL and its route (e.g. whether it goes through Union at all) are finalized.

Or, along a similar lines, if they built a four-track double-centre-island station under the railway tracks for the Lakeshore line (which would have to be electrified, of course).

 

[slickpete83]

update slow progress from above + photos

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

 

[allabootmatt]

It would be even better if they took this time to build a platform underneath the current Union subway station to be ready for a future DRL. Although I imagine the cost isn't worth it until the DRL and its route (e.g. whether it goes through Union at all) are finalized.

Is that even possible? I have no special knowledge but it sounds like the underground geography there is already insanely complicated, and will only be more so once the current improvements are complete. Similarly, I wonder about the wisdom of putting so much infrastructure through a single point of potential failure if the DRL is constructed.

Something under say Wellington makes more sense to me. That is, unless you can bring it in on the surface to the existing Union shed, which would save everyone a lot of trouble. That GO claims Union's surface approaches are already at or near capacity always seemed odd to me, given the insane amount of traffic handled at, say, Friedrichstrasse station in Berlin, let alone what they probably do in Tokyo.

 

[Dan416]

Is that even possible? I have no special knowledge but it sounds like the underground geography there is already insanely complicated, and will only be more so once the current improvements are complete. Similarly, I wonder about the wisdom of putting so much infrastructure through a single point of potential failure if the DRL is constructed.

Something under say Wellington makes more sense to me. That is, unless you can bring it in on the surface to the existing Union shed, which would save everyone a lot of trouble. That GO claims Union's surface approaches are already at or near capacity always seemed odd to me, given the insane amount of traffic handled at, say, Friedrichstrasse station in Berlin, let alone what they probably do in Tokyo.

Which is why I said they should plan for it now, rather than try to fit it in after the improvements are done.

I fail to see why a major piece of downtown subway infrastructure would skip over a huge trip generator like Union. It just doesn't make sense to me. Should we avoid building subway interchanges because something might go wrong? That's ridiculous. I find the idea that Union can't support a second subway line simply inane.

 

[nfitz]

I fail to see why a major piece of downtown subway infrastructure would skip over a huge trip generator like Union. It just doesn't make sense to me. Should we avoid building subway interchanges because something might go wrong? That's ridiculous. I find the idea that Union can't support a second subway line simply inane.

The DRL's prime purpose isn't to serve Union ... it's to relieve the Yonge line, and particularly Bloor/Yonge station. Most people on the Yonge line are heading to points north of Union. Connecting the line into King/St. Andrew or Queen/Osgoode would serve more people. If they ran it down Wellington it could still serve King and St. Andrew ... and provide good walking connections to Union. It could also intersect the GO lines at other points, which would also serve to relieve some of the GO traffic into Union.

 

[Northern Magus]

Which is why I said they should plan for it now, rather than try to fit it in after the improvements are done.

I fail to see why a major piece of downtown subway infrastructure would skip over a huge trip generator like Union. It just doesn't make sense to me. Should we avoid building subway interchanges because something might go wrong? That's ridiculous. I find the idea that Union can't support a second subway line simply inane.

Union Station is a hub, not a destination. It doesn't generate trips: the business district does. Thousands of people per hour aren't going to travel into Union from the suburbs only to catch the GO train right back home.

Taking a myopic view of it is inane.

 

[EnviroTO]

I agree. Union station isn't what fills the subways on Yonge and really the Yonge line serves those who are switching between GO and subway well enough. If the relief line is to connect to GO it should do it where it provides a relief function, like Gerard and Pape or Altlantic Ave or Bloor and Dundas. A subway on King puts stations in the centre of where people are going. Queen is probably a bit north as I think many of the residential neighbourhoods west of McColl and north of Queen will probably be protected from large scale development for quite some time, whereas from Queen south to the waterfront seems to be development central.

 

[andrewpmk]

Wellington is probably the best place to put a DLR, not under Union Station. The major advantage that I see is that I think that there will be a lot of transfer traffic between the DLR and the Yonge line, and that putting a station under Union would overload Union subway station which has too little capacity (even with the expansion). A station near Bay/Wellington would be one block away from Union, King, and St. Andrew subway stations, and would probably be connected using the existing PATH tunnels (with the Presto card detecting transfers and automatically deducting the proper fare). Also, Wellington would do a better job of relieving the King/Queen streetcars than Front.

 

[Dan416]

Well we've already had this DRL through Union discussion a hundred times. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Or at the very least, see what the DRL study says.

 

[MisterF]

Once the GO lines are electrified, trains upgraded to frequent all day service, and fares integrated with the TTC, a subway line along the rail corridor would be redundant. It would make more sense a few blocks to the north. That's likely why the Metrolinx maps show the DRL along Queen.

Most big cities don't have all their transit lines meeting at one place. They have multiple transfer points all over the central part of the city. Someone mentioned Berlin, which is a good example of this. Same with London, Chicago, and Prague. It allows for network redundancy and better coverage, plus it spreads out the crowds. Downtown Toronto is big enough that all the subway and regional trains meeting at one place doesn't make sense.

The DRL's prime purpose isn't to serve Union ... it's to relieve the Yonge line, and particularly Bloor/Yonge station.

An equally important purpose, imo, is to provide rapid transit to the neighbourhoods to the east and west of the financial district. These are some of the densest and fastest growing parts of the city and the streetcars are hopelessly inadequate.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I do agree that it was shortsighted to not include more platforms (underground) but not for a Subway DRL, for the expanding GO network. GO already takes up, what, 80% of the available platform space at Union? If we could move a majority of that underground at the expense of perhaps a lower ceilinged new concourse would work wonders for the station. Instead we had a retail focused improvement plan that did little to increase capacity (to my knowledge) of it.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Moving it underground would entail significantly more work than just the platforms - the approach and departure tracks will have to be lowered accordingly, which will push the project cost to the multi-billion range. What's regrettable is that the current plan doesn't include a rearrangement of the tracks and platforms that would facilitate rapid passenger movements in the eventual transition to an electrified system, which taken together will provide far greater benefit.

AoD

 

[gweed123]

I do agree that it was shortsighted to not include more platforms (underground) but not for a Subway DRL, for the expanding GO network. GO already takes up, what, 80% of the available platform space at Union? If we could move a majority of that underground at the expense of perhaps a lower ceilinged new concourse would work wonders for the station. Instead we had a retail focused improvement plan that did little to increase capacity (to my knowledge) of it.

The capacity constraints are due to the trains themselves, not the station. Those bi-levels take forever to load and unload, which is why the station feels more full than it actually is. And given the frequency (or lack theirof), you get a mad rush every time a train pops up as 'arrived' because people know it'll be an hour before the next one comes.

Smaller, more flow-efficient trains that run much shorter headways will go a long way to improving the flow at Union.

I envision that platform layout working like this (note, these do not correspond to the current platform numbers. In these numbers, each platform is physically a separate island):

1: Lakeshore westbound exit platform
2: Lakeshore westbound entrance platform
3: Lakeshore eastbound entrance platform
4: Lakeshore westbound exit platform

5: Milton-Stouffville westbound exit platform
6: Milton-Stouffville westbound entrance platform
7: Milton-Stouffville eastbound entrance platform
8: Milton-Stouffville eastbound exit platform

9: Georgetown-Richmond Hill westbound exit platform
10: Georgetown-Richmond Hill westbound entrance platform
11: Georgetown-Richmond Hill eastbound entrance platform
12: Georgetown-Richmond Hill eastbound exit platform

13: Barrie exit platform
14: Barrie entrance platform

Note that there is a standard here: enter on the left side of the train, exit on the right side. The enter and exit platforms would also be physically separate platforms, so the stairs up and down would be one-ways. Achieving a good passenger flow isn't impossible to do, you just have to segregate the movements of people accordingly.

Also, by having consistent platforms for each of the trains, people wouldn't need to wait in the concourse for their train, they would automatically know which platform they had to go to. And because the frequency would be much higher, they wouldn't be waiting very long on the platform either.

EDIT: Re-thinking about it, I suppose the exit platforms could be shared platforms (ie platforms 4 and 5 be the same physical platform, because they are both exit platforms). Entrance platforms I'm more inclined to keep separate, because those will need to be larger.

 

[junctionist]

An equally important purpose, imo, is to provide rapid transit to the neighbourhoods to the east and west of the financial district. These are some of the densest and fastest growing parts of the city and the streetcars are hopelessly inadequate.

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.