Hopkins123
Senior Member
You forgot to place an infill station at Willowdale, but other than that good list.
|
|
|
- Thread starter unimaginative2
- Start date
You forgot to place an infill station at Willowdale, but other than that good list.
Cobra
Senior Member
I was under the impression that locals at Willowdale didnt want a station
Hopkins123
Senior Member
Population demographics change all the time. Who knows how many of those NIMBYs from circa 1995, when the subway was first being built, still even live in that neighbourhood. And it's not like transit options are even all that great in that area anyway with most people having to walk a kilometre in either direction to get to the nearest reliable transit because the 85A and 98 are so infrequent. It'd probably be looked at as a godsend by the younger, working age commuter crowd percentage of the locals to open up a new subway stop there.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
With the Sheppard Line's ridership expected to drop significantly with the introduction of the Relief Line, I'm not interested in spending any more money on Sheppard Line, and certainly not to add low ridership infill stations.
Second of all, how much would adding this station cost? A normal station usually costs around $200 to $300 Million. We're probably looking at least twice that cost to add Willowdale, since it's being retrofitted in. Think of all the transit we could buy for $400 Million to $600 Million - that's half of the Crosstown West/East LRTs, maybe a kilometre or two of subway, or several dozens of LRVs that (which the TTC needs to meet an expanding network and growing demand). Willowdale is the absolute last place we should be spending that money.
Second of all, how much would adding this station cost? A normal station usually costs around $200 to $300 Million. We're probably looking at least twice that cost to add Willowdale, since it's being retrofitted in. Think of all the transit we could buy for $400 Million to $600 Million - that's half of the Crosstown West/East LRTs, maybe a kilometre or two of subway, or several dozens of LRVs that (which the TTC needs to meet an expanding network and growing demand). Willowdale is the absolute last place we should be spending that money.
I bet you'd get the same at Senlac. Can't build a transit system that way.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
The proposed changes to the OMB - specifically the ban on OMB challenges within 500m of transit stops will make station location even more contentious.
AoD
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Toronto's street network was built with Yonge as the central "spine" of the network and each (major) street that came off Yonge was given an East or West designation. As the subway was built and the Spadina line extended Northward, the W designation was as much a practice of naming the subway station after the cross street as it was a differentiation between duplicate station names.
On the N/S axis there isn't a central street as we have with Yonge. The closest we have are the Lower "X" street names where a street has been extended South of Front on the infill land, and those streets do not have subway service.
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
Just call Bloor-Danforth the "central" E/W street as it is the first rapid transit (subway) to go E/W. I know the TTC and Metrolinx will never do this, but Bloor can keep being the "central" N/S designation, Sheppard can be North and Queen can be South (as they are both subways). Another way is to have completely unique station/stop names, where the only way to know where you are is to know your geography well, or just memorize the map/name to intersection/poi location. Having some unique station names while others are street/intersection-based is confusing to "the average GTA citizen", but IMO is the best way. Just don't have 4+ word long station names (Vaughan Metropolitan Centre Station is OK and Aga Khan Park & Museum Stop is too much).
44 North
Senior Member
I think that's a bit backards. Queen was the baseline from which the grid system was laid.
11th
Senior Member
By that logic, I guess line 5 between Don Mills and Yonge, and line 2 between Pape and Yonge will also see ridership dropped significantly.
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
But that logic is sound, but probably in different magnitudes of ridership loss.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
They would - the line 2 drop has long been part of the assumption of the DRL.
And it should push the peak-point on Line 2 from west of Sherbourne, to east of Pape. However, if you look at the current ridership, Line 2 east of Pape is still overloaded at times.
On Line 5 the 2013 modelling showed that for the full line (to Pearson), the peak-point in AM was westbound between Mount Pleasant and Yonge, at 6,000 passengers per hour. However not far behind is eastbound between Oakwood and Eglinton West, which is 5,750. So at worst, the peak-point ridership would drop by 250.
drum118
Superstar
That is why I have never supported the DRL for Pape and it should go north on Coxwell or about to connect to Don Mills as a straight line. Its is also why I don't support the DRL going to Dundas West Station, but to Jane and then north on Jane.
Regardless where they connect to line 2, ridership will increase to where it is today over time since not everyone want to go to the core of the city in the first place.
Dan416
Senior Member
I'd prefer either have multiple stations with the same name or hyphenate, like they already did for Bloor-Yonge and Sheppard-Yonge.
Still drives me crazy that they aren't renaming Eglinton to Eglinton-Yonge with the Crosstown under construction.
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
There is even talk of building a new francophone university in the East Bayfront now.