[44 North]

Again, not suggesting the DRL is unnecessary or not a pre-requisite to what I'm thinking of here lol My reasoning is based on the recent history of Y-B as I understand it. Basically there were plans in the 80s to upgrade the station but the 90s recession and Harris years cut transit ridership such that it became unnecessary, right? Until it became necessary again. So my thinking is, even with a DRL Long and two western relief points (St. George and Dundas West), Y-B could get overcapacity again. Presumably a lot of the problem here is that Y-B is poorly designed as a transfer point so why not upgrade it? Especially once it becomes redundant so we can close the station and make the upgrades quickly.

I'm wondering if it may've gotten buried under the many, many reports over the last couple years. But has there been a definitive report on B-Y redesign released in the last few years? And cost estimates? I'd like to know if this isn't so much a single large-scale capital project, but rather a few separate and/or phased projects.

No question Bloor-Yonge is a nightmare. And no question this upgrade (or series of upgrades) will cost a king's ransom. Not to mention further cripple the disjointed mess during the years of construction and hoarding (see: Union). But it also seems pretty clear (to me at least) that any and all funds that could otherwise go to upgrading B-Y should go to the Relief Line. Western extension, northern extension, King alignment, triple track. Whatever. As it stands B-Y can wait. DRL can't.

 

[MisterF]

I'm wondering if it may've gotten buried under the many, many reports over the last couple years. But has there been a definitive report on B-Y redesign released in the last few years? And cost estimates? I'd like to know if this isn't so much a single large-scale capital project, but rather a few separate and/or phased projects.

No question Bloor-Yonge is a nightmare. And no question this upgrade (or series of upgrades) will cost a king's ransom. Not to mention further cripple the disjointed mess during the years of construction and hoarding (see: Union). But it also seems pretty clear (to me at least) that any and all funds that could otherwise go to upgrading B-Y should go to the Relief Line. Western extension, northern extension, King alignment, triple track. Whatever. As it stands B-Y can wait. DRL can't.

Agreed. And there's a practical reason to wait until the DRL is finished from the west end to Sheppard. It adds redundancy to the system and gives people an alternative to using the Yonge-Bloor interchange. Waiting until the line is done makes sure that the maximum number of people can avoid Yonge-Bloor.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Again, not suggesting the DRL is unnecessary or not a pre-requisite to what I'm thinking of here lol My reasoning is based on the recent history of Y-B as I understand it. Basically there were plans in the 80s to upgrade the station but the 90s recession and Harris years cut transit ridership such that it became unnecessary, right? Until it became necessary again. So my thinking is, even with a DRL Long and two western relief points (St. George and Dundas West), Y-B could get overcapacity again. Presumably a lot of the problem here is that Y-B is poorly designed as a transfer point so why not upgrade it? Especially once it becomes redundant so we can close the station and make the upgrades quickly.

Don't forget that when the original Yonge subway was first designed and built, the Queen Subway (using the streetcars at the time) was to have been the next rapid transit line to be built. Bloor streetcars used a street-level platform transfer to the Yonge subway, while Queen was to use an underground transfer.

Then they changed their minds and decided that Bloor and Danforth would have the next rapid transit line, with a Y connection via University with the Yonge line, at the time.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Presumably a lot of the problem here is that Y-B is poorly designed as a transfer point so why not upgrade it?

Again, my point was that initial Relief Line-LONG estimates have Yonge line ridership down to 57%. Without serious crushing, I think I can live with a poorly designed Y-B, and use that money elsewhere.

 

[gweed123]

Again, my point was that initial Relief Line-LONG estimates have Yonge line ridership down to 57%. Without serious crushing, I think I can live with a poorly designed Y-B, and use that money elsewhere.

I don't think the design of Bloor-Yonge itself is the issue. The design of Bloor-Yonge to accommodate as many transfers as it is today is the issue. Reduce the number of transfers, and the design would work a lot better. There's nothing inherently flawed in the design of the station, other than the location of the Yonge platform relative to the Bloor platform. And even then, that's only a problem because of the crowding at the north end of the Bloor platform. Reduce the volumes and that crowding issue goes away.

 

[nfitz]

I'd say the 1960s design was fatally flawed. The guy who designed it said he'd have done it differently if he'd have thought it would have been as major a transfer point.

For starters, there should have been at least 2 side platforms on the Bloor line. And the Yonge line platforms were much too narrow, and should have been widened when the Bloor line was constructed in the 1960s.

 

[gweed123]

I'd say the 1960s design was fatally flawed. The guy who designed it said he'd have done it differently if he'd have thought it would have been as major a transfer point.

For starters, there should have been at least 2 side platforms on the Bloor line. And the Yonge line platforms were much too narrow, and should have been widened when the Bloor line was constructed in the 1960s.

Yes, but all of the flaws you mention relate back to volume. Divert more people away from Bloor-Yonge, and the lack of platform space ceases to really become an issue. This isn't a situation like Dundas West, where the connection between the subway platform and the GO platform doesn't even exist. The infrastructure is there, it just wasn't designed to handle the volume.

It's a lot like the DVP in a sense. There's nothing wrong with the design of the DVP, and it would function quite well if it was carrying what it was designed to handle. But since it's carrying far more, the design is seen as inadequate.

 

[nfitz]

Yes, but all of the flaws you mention relate back to volume. Divert more people away from Bloor-Yonge, and the lack of platform space ceases to really become an issue.

This problem was recognized as early as the late 1960s. Yes, it's volume related, but the assumption was that most people heading downtown (to Queen, King, and Union) wouldn't change at Yonge-Bloor, but instead stay on the same train, and go through Lower Bay, Museum, and around that way.

The fatal flaw was that the station was designed based on that assumption, rather than being a major interchange point.

My recollection is that the person who did the design did admit it was a fatal flaw - and people were fired, back in the 1960s - perhaps someone who was more familiar with it at the time can comment.

We do planning now based on estimated volumes about 25 years in the future. If it wasn't a fatal flaw, they wouldn't have done that huge rebuild when the station was only 20 years old.

 

[gweed123]

This problem was recognized as early as the late 1960s. Yes, it's volume related, but the assumption was that most people heading downtown (to Queen, King, and Union) wouldn't change at Yonge-Bloor, but instead stay on the same train, and go through Lower Bay, Museum, and around that way.

The fatal flaw was that the station was designed based on that assumption, rather than being a major interchange point.

My recollection is that the person who did the design did admit it was a fatal flaw - and people were fired, back in the 1960s - perhaps someone who was more familiar with it at the time can comment.

We do planning now based on estimated volumes about 25 years in the future. If it wasn't a fatal flaw, they wouldn't have done that huge rebuild when the station was only 20 years old.

Valid points. It seems like it was designed around the premise of the interline, which was abandoned 6 months after it was introduced. Had the interline have remained, I don't think we would be seeing nearly the same kind of capacity issue at Bloor-Yonge that we're seeing today. It would likely have created choke points elsewhere on the network though. Unfortunately, the existence of the Spadina Subway means we'll never find out, haha.

The DRL would, in effect, mimic the travel pattern that interlining was supposed to do, at least as far as Bloor-Yonge is concerned. By that I mean a reduction in transfers at Bloor-Yonge, in favour of an alternate access point. In the interlining scenario, it was the St. George wye to access University. In the DRL scenario, it's transferring at Pape instead.

 

[Markster]

Valid points. It seems like it was designed around the premise of the interline, which was abandoned 6 months after it was introduced. Had the interline have remained, I don't think we would be seeing nearly the same kind of capacity issue at Bloor-Yonge that we're seeing today.

One wonders how long the interline would have lasted if they'd designed the track configurations at Bay and St George so that all trains going one direction were on the upper level, and all trains going the other were on the lower level.

 

[nfitz]

Perhaps that was the fatal flaw!

 

[WislaHD]

My understanding is that the interline option was something imposed by the province and that the TTC never desired to commit to. So the TTC didn't bother implementing it properly and were eager to set it aside after the experimental phase.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

My understanding is that the interline option was something imposed by the province and that the TTC never desired to commit to. So the TTC didn't bother implementing it properly and were eager to set it aside after the experimental phase.

Never heard of that. Why would the province impose interlining?

 

[Tuck]

Presumably a lot of the problem here is that Y-B is poorly designed as a transfer point so why not upgrade it?

Especially once it becomes redundant so we can close the station and make the upgrades quickly.

Could be wrong, but I think they'd need to close it for years. I'm pretty sure fixing it would be a fairly complicated engineering endeavour.

 

[crs1026]

The interline was a bit ahead of its time technically. It might work better now that we have digital technology, but that's a moot point now. It would just move the problem elsewhere. Imagine the crowding at Queens Park or Union if people had to wait for one or two trains before the right one came along. Yonge-Bloor and St George might be less congested, and reopening lower Bay might help the transfer too, but the other downtown stations would all be affected.

- Paul