Neutrino said:
As was already mentioned in this thread, given Union Station, I have no confidence this will be done in anything remotely resembling a reasonable timeline.
Click to expand...

Or like Union expansion acheive the stated benefits, if they are stated this time round. We've been rejigging and adding to stations in the core area since the sixties to improve pedestrian crowding and mobility. Real time to bite the bullet and plan a Queen Subway West to veer up and intercept on the west side as the current RL is to do on the east.
 
Neutrino said:
As was already mentioned in this thread, given Union Station, I have no confidence this will be done in anything remotely resembling a reasonable timeline.
Click to expand...

Worth noting here, that Union Station (the main terminal) is not a TTC project.

The subway station portion at Union wasn't all that delayed.

That's not to say TTC projects don't fall behind...........TYSSE, ATC and Vision would be among those that have not been delivered on time.
 
Towered said:
I thought the relief line would make this station upgrade unnecessary.
Click to expand...
I think the problem is that even with the relief line Yonge Line ridership is still growing and needs help dealing with the crowds. The train capacity can be provided with ATC but the platforms are too small to fit the passengers.

I believe the TTC is planning similar platform expansions at several other stations (King, Queen, Dundas, etc.) as well to deal with crowding. It's a $5.5 billion program, of which Bloor-Yonge is only $1.1.
 
I'm assuming the new platform will be a full 150m long. Has the TTC thought of adding a "half-car" to the existing trainsets to take advantage of the full platform length? Sort of what Vancouver plans with their Canada Line?
 
It seems to me that they need to do two things. Add a second platform for Line 2 to reduce the crowding issues - which is what this proposal addresses. But also to add a third (and possibly fourth) platform for Line 1 - deal with the dwell time issues.

This does nothing to address the Line 1 dwell time - which is likely why this is so cheap compared to the numbers we've heard knocked around for that project - some proposals include a new tunnel relocating one of the tracks completely.
 
nfitz said:
It seems to me that they need to do two things. Add a second platform for Line 2 to reduce the crowding issues - which is what this proposal addresses. But also to add a third (and possibly fourth) platform for Line 1 - deal with the dwell time issues.

This does nothing to address the Line 1 dwell time - which is likely why this is so cheap compared to the numbers we've heard knocked around for that project - some proposals include a new tunnel relocating one of the tracks completely.
Click to expand...

The older by-pass proposal and Spanish Solution proposal were ruled out a long time ago.

Both cost and in the case of the latter, the need for an extended full-station closure of Y-B made it unworkable.

This proposal is all that's on the table w/R-L providing additional relief.

Dwell times, as noted above, are addressed by load-shift on the platforms (more even distribution of passengers), and by the ATC/PED components (faster throughput should reduced passenger accumulation) but together they are inadequate without the R-L (long version)
 
Kyle Campbell said:
I'm assuming the new platform will be a full 150m long. Has the TTC thought of adding a "half-car" to the existing trainsets to take advantage of the full platform length? Sort of what Vancouver plans with their Canada Line?
Click to expand...

Yes. The TTC's plans for the next generation of Line 1 rolling stock call for a smaller 7th car. Adding that is dependent on ATC and likely PED being in place.

Originally, new rolling stock was in the fleet plans for the late 2020s, with existing Line 1 trains shifting to Line 2.

However, the most recent fleet plans have pushed that back by more than a decade, by proposing life-extension for the Line 2 trains (this will likely be revisited, but we shall see)
 
innsertnamehere said:
I think the problem is that even with the relief line Yonge Line ridership is still growing and needs help dealing with the crowds. The train capacity can be provided with ATC but the platforms are too small to fit the passengers.

I believe the TTC is planning similar platform expansions at several other stations (King, Queen, Dundas, etc.) as well to deal with crowding. It's a $5.5 billion program, of which Bloor-Yonge is only $1.1.
Click to expand...

No other stations have reached even conceptual design.

But from talking to folks, I don't expect to see any other stations, except St. George contemplated for new platforms.

I do expect additional exits and some very expensive renos to enlarge existing exits/mezzanines.

But St. George will the next big cost bomb, and it's probably worse than Bloor, there's a good chance its a new platform for each level.

Also, unlike Y-B, where much of the work can be conducted by opening up Bloor Street; the track platform/track position at St. George may require removal of very expensive buildings, where you go north or south of existing platform(s)

* A second exit at Wellesley should open shortly; a second exit at College is designed; elevators at King are in the final stages of detailed design.

Queen is slated for substantial expansion as part of the Relief Line, as is Osgoode. Those works are in the RL budget.

No work that I'm yet aware of on expanding capacity in any other way at King, Dundas or College.
 
 
This project seems inherently wasteful to me, unless it's a cynical ploy to show the costs associated with not building the DRL.

We would be spending about a billion dollars on a transportation project that moves no one anywhere faster. Bloor/Yonge is a very constrained station, retrofitting it will be expensive and complicated. For the amount of money they would be spending, that doesn't even include PSDs to prevent people from being pushed/jumping in front of the tracks and reduce dwell time.

The solution is to put that money towards building the relief line and offload the most congested part of line 1 and 2. Expanding the transit network provides much better value for money than spending a small fortune trying to safely cram more people into the same line.
 
aquateam said:
This project seems inherently wasteful to me, unless it's a cynical ploy to show the costs associated with not building the DRL.

We would be spending about a billion dollars on a transportation project that moves no one anywhere faster. Bloor/Yonge is a very constrained station, retrofitting it will be expensive and complicated. For the amount of money they would be spending, that doesn't even include PSDs to prevent people from being pushed/jumping in front of the tracks and reduce dwell time.

The solution is to put that money towards building the relief line and offload the most congested part of line 1 and 2. Expanding the transit network provides much better value for money than spending a small fortune trying to safely cram more people into the same line.
Click to expand...

With great respect, you haven't read the discussion here.

As noted, The Relief Line AND this project are both required.

It is not an either/or proposition.

No one believes this project is an alternative to the RL.

But nor does the RL draw away enough people to make Y-B function safely, never mind efficiently.

That's before contemplating the Yonge-North expansion.

That's also before contemplating any further growth of the Toronto or the GTA beyond what's already approved.
 
That's also before contemplating what Doug Ford's team has planned. Seems strange to be announcing plans when the city probably won't have control for much longer.
 
aquateam said:
This project seems inherently wasteful to me, unless it's a cynical ploy to show the costs associated with not building the DRL.

We would be spending about a billion dollars on a transportation project that moves no one anywhere faster. Bloor/Yonge is a very constrained station, retrofitting it will be expensive and complicated. For the amount of money they would be spending, that doesn't even include PSDs to prevent people from being pushed/jumping in front of the tracks and reduce dwell time.

The solution is to put that money towards building the relief line and offload the most congested part of line 1 and 2. Expanding the transit network provides much better value for money than spending a small fortune trying to safely cram more people into the same line.
Click to expand...
Looking at the attachment from Munro for the Yonge alignment - it is a bit hard to read the numbers, but it appears that the new South Bound Yonge tracks could go above the B-D.
Could Yonge be raised a couple of feet, if needed, to accomplish this?
Could passenger flow be accommodated under this line instead of above?
I tend to agree that likely what is being proposed is not enough, or possibly nothing should be done and the money spend on a DRL2 - maybe Avenue Road and Bay Street to join the Waterfront LRT's.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top