CDL.TO said:
Bingo. Berlin spent billions centralizing things into the new Hauptbahnhof a few years ago. Madrid is spending billions to connect Chamartin to Atocha as we speak (and built tunnels to eliminate Principe Pio back in the 90s). Off the top of my head, there have also been projects in Antwerp, Malmo, Lyon, Brussels, and Oslo to centralize rail stations. Multiple stations is a historical error places are trying to fix, not an intentional
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think there should be several hubs within a city, and a couple just outside of downtown in order to facilitate transfers, but downtown should only have 1 major rail hub. For example, it would be a much better expense to build true hubs at Queen & Dundas (plethora of GO lines, Queen Streetcar (and possible future LRT), and potentially the DRL West), and in Riverdale (pretty much the same deal as Queen & Dufferin). Likewise, Agincourt and Black Creek/Mt. Dennis have a similar opportunity, as does Kennedy.

But Union should remain king, and all reasonable efforts to preserve the transit hub at Union (ie no decentralization) should be undertaken.
 
I've never been a huge supporter of Union if the line is to be buried. Union is already the best transit served centre in the country.
I have always thought Queen would be a better choice. Regardless of what happens in Southcore, CityPlace, Corktown, Bayfront etc etc, Queen will always be the main east/west drag south of Bloor. For people who think it should be along King for convenience of the King/Bay employment well anyone who is too lazy to walk from Queen to King wouldn't take transit regardless.

Of course when I stated Queen that was for a new underground subway line but of course Toronto doesn't have the money for such an endeavour and probably won't for 30 years if ever. Due to that fact I think Union for at grade subway using the GO corridors is an excellent idea. Ditch the entire UPX and transfer to electric to use EMU for Metro service at regular fares run by the TTC and continue the line to Kennedy.
 
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
I've always felt the DRL should serve Union Station.
Click to expand...

I see why people often think it is a good idea, I mean, it is the largest transit hub and it will help people get around. Then I remind myself how busy Union is, and how it would require a major detour from other ridership spots in the core to reach. I maintain that the best route is along with with double interchange stations at St. Andrew and King.
 
If you use Wellington as an alignment, you are practically having double interchange stations with St. Andrew and King while within walking distance to Union.

AoD
 
The only catch of course is that the interchange with St. Andrew and King is going to be inefficiently organized with a Wellington alignment (though conceivably cheaper), which is something to think about as well. I tend to favour efficient interchange with said stations more than distance to Union myself.

Another way to go about it might to build the station at Bay underneath King St. instead, and that could benefit from multiple PATH access points while connecting to both King and St. Andrew station at either end while saving the trouble of having to build two stations for such a short distance.

AoD
 
Last edited:
You have to remember that subway platforms are 150 meters long, but there are 600 meters between King and St. Andrew. I know I certainly wouldn't want to walk 225 meters to transfer. (Consider that the spadina station transfer is a 400 meter tunnel)

My preferred plan is to have the King stop on the DRL on the west side of the current King station, which would allow for an exit on Bay. The St. Andrew stop would also be on the west side, giving an exit on to David Pecaut Square.

A Good "Union transfer" would be St. Andrew as the new Western PATH extension leads right to it.
 
innsertnamehere said:
You have to remember that subway platforms are 150 meters long, but there are 600 meters between King and St. Andrew. I know I certainly wouldn't want to walk 225 meters to transfer. (Consider that the spadina station transfer is a 400 meter tunnel)
Click to expand...

There's an up to 750 metre transfer at Chatelet - Les Halles in Paris. I had to lead a group of jet-lagged first-time-to-Europe people through there to transfer from Metro 4 to 7 a few years back. It wasn't very fun.
 
innsertnamehere said:
You have to remember that subway platforms are 150 meters long, but there are 600 meters between King and St. Andrew. I know I certainly wouldn't want to walk 225 meters to transfer. (Consider that the spadina station transfer is a 400 meter tunnel)

My preferred plan is to have the King stop on the DRL on the west side of the current King station, which would allow for an exit on Bay. The St. Andrew stop would also be on the west side, giving an exit on to David Pecaut Square.

A Good "Union transfer" would be St. Andrew as the new Western PATH extension leads right to it.
Click to expand...

Not sure how a 225 metre walk from Bay/King to either Uni/King or Yonge/King is bad while the walk (just because the new path extension goes there....btw...only slightly more directly than the current path goes there) from St. Andrew to Union is a "good Union Transfer". It is slightly enhanced by the fact those incapable or walking the distance can transfer to a one stop subway ride but I far prefer Alvin's idea of a stop under Bay that would have direct path connections to King St., St. Andrew Station and Union Station....serving all three with one stop!
 
well then you have a long transfer from both the subway and union, while a King alignment keeps the pressure off of Union, and gives a direct transfer from the subway, which I'm guessing the majority of transfers will be coming from.
 
timio said:
There's an up to 750 metre transfer at Chatelet - Les Halles in Paris. I had to lead a group of jet-lagged first-time-to-Europe people through there to transfer from Metro 4 to 7 a few years back. It wasn't very fun.
Click to expand...

Haha I experienced this station first hand a month ago. I arrived in CDG and was meeting my brother at Gare Montparnasse. With two suitcases and endless staircases it was a nightmare.
 
On the other hand CDL Tokyo's circle of interconnected rail stations is perhaps the most brilliant transportation solution I have ever experienced (I'm a naive non-transit geek). I admit to being confused when I was there. Because of my subway bias I was always trying to take the subway to get to my destination which was a bad idea. Tokyo's subway system is non-sensical and a poster boy for arguments against privatization in my opinion. However, I guess in Tokyo they are dealing with people movements that dwarf anything we have to deal with here or in European cities for that matter.
 
innsertnamehere said:
well then you have a long transfer from both the subway and union, while a King alignment keeps the pressure off of Union, and gives a direct transfer from the subway, which I'm guessing the majority of transfers will be coming from.
Click to expand...

But if the main goal of this, or any, "relief" line is to move people in and out of downtown while taking the strain off of (ie relieving) the existing network, are we not better off with a station that draws people away from the existing lines totally?

So that station at Bay King with pedestrian/path access from all corners of that busy employment node could take people off of YUS via foot and whisk them E-NE or W-NW without them ever touching the other lines. I am not sure that you would lose many (any) riders from, say, King and Uni if they had to walk (above or below ground) to get to King and Bay...if that new subway could get them out to their destination area faster and with greater comfort.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top