Notice the extra wide stop spacing east of Yonge compared to the west end. Why one area gets central Bloor-Danforth style spacing while the other gets Sheppard subway style spacing is beyond me. Only 3 stations between Yonge St and Pape Ave is atrocious. It has the density and future growth potential to accommodate four.

Just wait for the actual planning of the western section to start :) They will quickly slice off 2 or 3 stations and arrive to roughly same stop spacing they propose for the east now.

I expect each of the University, Spadina, and Bathurst stations to survive, for the sake of connections to those major N-S routes. Thus, the Yonge-to-Bathurst station will, in fact, get a Bloor-like spacing of 700 m.

But west of Bathurst, they won't build that many stations. The exact locations will depend on the route of course. If they take the Keele route, then the stations could be at Shaw, Dufferin, Roncesvalles, Howard Park (the #506 terminus), and Bloor. That's 1.3 km average between stations.

If they take the Dufferin route, then: Queen&Ossington, Dufferin&College, and Bloor. That's 1.5 km average.
 
Last edited:
Like I've said, if the only thing you are after is relatively long distance point A to B travel, use GO, not the subway. The whole point of subway in the core is relatively frequent stops to support intensive urban activity - particularly when it is acting like a network.

Didn't we try just that with RER / SmartTrack though? With very limited success ..

Toronto doesn't have it - and in fact I would argue the so called streetcar network as practiced in the city make people avoid using mass transit in the core where possible, period (due to convenience, speed and reliability issues)

In my observations, the Spadina and King routes run reasonably well. College and Bathurst are not too bad. The Queen and Dundas routes are the most problematic, but I think that they could be improved with some changes in the routing.

As to the willingness by the rest of the city - unlike SCC, I am fairly certain it would be relatively easy to recover at least some portion of adding one station through development charges. Only in Toronto will we drop stations where densification is the trend.

AoD

Good point. I certainly wouldn't disagree with that approach if the development charges cover a large portion of the extra station costs.
 
Didn't we try just that with RER / SmartTrack though? With very limited success ..
In my observations, the Spadina and King routes run reasonably well. College and Bathurst are not too bad. The Queen and Dundas routes are the most problematic, but I think that they could be improved with some changes in the routing.
Good point. I certainly wouldn't disagree with that approach if the development charges cover a large portion of the extra station costs.

Unless drastic measures on line management, traffic priority and street design are imposed, the streetcar network isn't going to get better - and certainly not better when it matters. At the rate the core is intensifying, it maybe time to accept the reality that the limits of that mode is at hand. We have all seen the frustration of riders just giving up and walk because it is actually faster.

As to additional stations - the intermediate stations may not need to run deep - that's the opportunity for cheap cut and cover tunneling and stations with minimal mezzanines and pavilion entrances. TTC should be looking at redevelopment opportunities with private sector partners as well - it is criminal to spend all the money to expropriate for exits and then do nothing else with the land.

AoD
 
Notice the extra wide stop spacing east of Yonge compared to the west end. Why one area gets central Bloor-Danforth style spacing while the other gets Sheppard subway style spacing is beyond me. Only 3 stations between Yonge St and Pape Ave is atrocious. It has the density and future growth potential to accommodate four.

At the very least, replacing Sherbourne for stations at Jarvis and Parliament makes sense to me.

The station at River no longer makes sense if you put a stop at Parliament. Jarvis is also too close to Yonge to have a stop... the distance between Yonge and Jarvis is even shorter than Bloor-Danforth spacing. As a result, Sherbourne is the appropriate place for a first stop after Yonge, and then the next has to be somewhere between Parliament and the Don, hence River.

The first justifiable stop after the Don is Broadview, which is roughly the location of the East Harbour stop. It does not make sense to have a stop between Broadview and Pape on Queen.

The station spacing, as proposed, is what it needs to be. Any further stations would be an unnecessary expense.
 
Last edited:
Like I've said, if the only thing you are after is relatively long distance point A to B travel, use GO, not the subway.

I would argue the so called streetcar network as practiced in the city make people avoid using mass transit in the core where possible, period (due to convenience, speed and reliability issues
Which raises the possibility of the DRL being approached in a radically different way: Done as a part of the GO network, not TTC, with run through at each end onto already extant GO corridors, and relieving the saturation on the Union section by running under Queen Street, Stations would be much further spaced than a TTC subway. This would be a Crossrail/East Side Access standard gauge heavy rail type of project, in an engineering sense, not the station showcase that Crossrail is.

Deeper tunnelling would also be more practicable due to the cost of stations being more distributed to only major passenger transfer interchanges.

Edit to Add: My Crossrail idea is not unique, some other posters have alluded to similar, but it is 'abstract' in this debate. So I thought I'd just Google to see what shows for "Toronto Crossrail"...and other than Tory's penis tunnel envy manifest in LessSmartTrack, some journalists have already written on this, and there's an org in Chicago proposing exactly this for Chicago:
A vision to create a high-capacity, multi-purpose passenger rail corridor through Chicago and Cook County by upgrading existing assets.
CrossRail could be the highest impact transportation project in the Midwest, serving high-frequency local commuter trains, dedicated airport express trains, and high-speed intercity trains.

A unified, cross-jurisdictional planning effort is needed to create the core of metro-Chicago's transit system and the heart of a re-energized Midwest passenger rail network. [...]
http://crossrailchicago.org/

Ironically, they have a page on Toronto's UPX.

London Crossrail shows the better way for Toronto: Hume
By Christopher HumeUrban Issues
Wed., Nov. 5, 2014

For Toronto, the lessons of Crossrail are less about why, when and even what, but how.

All transit is politics. And all politics is local. The result, as Torontonians know only too well, can be a constantly shifting landscape of schemes and dreams that go nowhere, slowly.

The record is clear: Three mayors, three transit plans. David Miller, Rob Ford and now John Tory all arrived at city hall with their own version of the truth and how to achieve it.

Meanwhile, the real decisions get made by the provincial government, which is every bit as prone to extreme mood swings, arbitrary mind changes and bouts of idiopathic indecision as any municipal regime.

So when Martin Buck, senior executive with London’s much-heralded Crossrail line, came to town recently, the questions he faced weren’t just about why, when or even what, but how.

The huge $28-billion project, which will run 118 kilometres through the heart of London and beyond, uses existing railway lines outside the city and a 42-kilometre tunnel extending beneath it.

Crossrail was launched more than a decade ago, when Ken (Red Ken) Livingstone was mayor of London. It continues under his successor, Boris Johnson, who hopes to be the UK’s next Conservative prime minister. During the same period, the British central government changed several times, like the city, shifting from left to right.

Through it all, Crossrail prevails. In addition to its innovative financing methods and clever accounting practices, the organization has a governance structure that provides the space and distance needed to fend off meddling politicians convinced they know better.

Balancing the demands of accountability and autonomy is a skill this province and city need to learn. The Toronto Syndrome, the inability to draw up a plan and stick to it, is pathological.

Who could forget that time when ex-premier Mike Harris ordered the filling-in of the new subway tunnel when he cancelled the Eglinton subway in 1995? That $50-million reversal came barely a year after his predecessor, NDP premier Bob Rae, had launched it.

As the provincial finance minister of the day, Ernie Eves, said, “We will proceed with transit projects in a phased approach, beginning with the Sheppard line in Toronto. We are deferring the Eglinton West project until the province and Metro Toronto have sufficient funding to proceed.”

The Sheppard line made no sense but for the fact it was preferred by former mayor Mel Lastman, who, like Harris, was a Conservative. It was left to the Liberals to resuscitate the Eglinton line, now called the Crosstown, this time as an underground LRT.

By contrast, Crossrail has remained immune to crass political interference of that kind and managed to remain focused on getting on with it regardless.

“The project has tremendous stability,” says Buck. “It is reasonably autonomous.” As he explains it, the key is a “sponsor board” to which both central and London governments appoint members. The sponsor board in turn names the chair of the Crossrail board.

As well as being able to fend off grasping political fingers, the corporation also enjoys the support of business lobby group London First, and of much of the population. It has managed to raise commercial property tax rates as much as 2 per cent and impose a surcharge on anyone who owns property within a kilometre of the line.

If Toronto transit had the same level of independence — and civic support — the city might well have an Eglinton subway by now. It might also have built the Downtown Relief Line, first proposed in 1910.

As it is, we start from scratch with every new regime — provincial or civic — if not every election. Welcome to Groundhog City, where there’s always tomorrow.

Christopher Hume can be reached at chume@thestar.ca
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...il_shows_the_better_way_for_toronto_hume.html

London Crossrail


London’s Crossrail: A Case Study in Transit Investment
Posted on October 22nd, by Move the GTHA in Map. No Comments
Date: October 30, 2013

Time: 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Location:
Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance
George Ignatieff Theatre, University of Toronto
15 Devonshire Pl
Toronto, ON M5S 2E2

About:

The Crossrail is a transformative transit investment that will traverse London.

Read More...



 
Last edited:
The station at River no longer makes sense if you put a stop at Parliament. Jarvis is also too close to Yonge to have a stop... the distance between Yonge and Jarvis is even shorter than Bloor-Danforth spacing. As a result, Sherbourne is the appropriate place for a first stop after Yonge, and then the next has to be somewhere between Parliament and the Don, hence River.

The first justifiable stop after the Don is Broadview, which is roughly the location of the East Harbour stop. It does not make sense to have a stop between Broadview and Pape on Queen.

The station spacing, as proposed, is what it needs to be. Any further stations would be an unnecessary expense.

Ok then, let's compare the most closely spaced stations in the system's daily ridership:

2015 stats
Yonge - 183,238
Bay - 30,858
(396 metres apart)

St Andrew - 56,116
Osgoode - 22,488
(363 metres apart)

As you can see the "minor" station still accounts for one-sixth the total ridership of Yonge, and in the other couplet the lesser stop meets almost half the total ridership of St Andrew. Without the secondary station to take off some of the pressure in terms of passenger load, overcrowding would be an even bigger issue today than it already is.

And it should be obvious why Jarvis, Parliament and River make more sense than Sherbourne and Sumach.

Distance from Yonge to Jarvis is just over 500 metres, which is in line with the Bay to Yonge spacing on the BD line. Jarvis has more destinations than Sherbourne (Ryerson, George Brown and St Lawrence to name a few). The 75 could be realigned to serve this station, meaning there's no net loss by not having the station at Sherbourne.

Distance from Jarvis to Parliament is 718 metres. This more than justifies having a station at Parliament. Parliament again has more destinations the DRL as proposed completely ignores. It's the best stop location to serve Regent Park, for instance. The walk from Queen and Parliament to the heart of Regent Park is only 449 metres compared to 885 metres from the proposed Sumach station. This matters to the infirm and the elderly. The 65 could also be rerouted to serve the Distillery District directly, making the Parliament Stn all the more important.

Have the third station route directly into the West Don Lands. We can have a walking transfer to/from the 514 Cherry to the station pavilion, which ought to be shifted east. The western exit can be Percy St, a block east of King/Sumach but the eastern exit should be at Eastern and St Lawrence St, a block west of River. This way the one stop adequately serves both Corktown and the WDLs. That spaces the stop 600 metres southeast of Parliament. Over to the next station at Broadview would be 781 metres.

These are more than reasonable spacing distances for a bustling downtown core.
 
Ok then, let's compare the most closely spaced stations in the system's daily ridership:

2015 stats
Yonge - 183,238
Bay - 30,858
(396 metres apart)

St Andrew - 56,116
Osgoode - 22,488
(363 metres apart)

As you can see the "minor" station still accounts for one-sixth the total ridership of Yonge, and in the other couplet the lesser stop meets almost half the total ridership of St Andrew. Without the secondary station to take off some of the pressure in terms of passenger load, overcrowding would be an even bigger issue today than it already is.

And it should be obvious why Jarvis, Parliament and River make more sense than Sherbourne and Sumach.

Distance from Yonge to Jarvis is just over 500 metres, which is in line with the Bay to Yonge spacing on the BD line. Jarvis has more destinations than Sherbourne (Ryerson, George Brown and St Lawrence to name a few). The 75 could be realigned to serve this station, meaning there's no net loss by not having the station at Sherbourne.

Distance from Jarvis to Parliament is 718 metres. This more than justifies having a station at Parliament. Parliament again has more destinations the DRL as proposed completely ignores. It's the best stop location to serve Regent Park, for instance. The walk from Queen and Parliament to the heart of Regent Park is only 449 metres compared to 885 metres from the proposed Sumach station. This matters to the infirm and the elderly. The 65 could also be rerouted to serve the Distillery District directly, making the Parliament Stn all the more important.

Have the third station route directly into the West Don Lands. We can have a walking transfer to/from the 514 Cherry to the station pavilion, which ought to be shifted east. The western exit can be Percy St, a block east of King/Sumach but the eastern exit should be at Eastern and St Lawrence St, a block west of River. This way the one stop adequately serves both Corktown and the WDLs. That spaces the stop 600 metres southeast of Parliament. Over to the next station at Broadview would be 781 metres.

These are more than reasonable spacing distances for a bustling downtown core.

All this talk about serving destinations makes me lament even more about how much better the King alignment would have been for doing exactly that.
 
Forgotten, you can only rant about Queen Street and Smarttrack so much before it becomes white noise and people stop reading your posts, let alone responding. Do you ever post about anything else?

Perhaps you'd like to hear my views on the development forum's fervour for urban renewal? Urban renewal; not what it's cracked up to be. There's nothing wrong with admitting John Tory was full of hot air. Most reasonable people already knew pre-2014. But for reals, going into radio silence is nothing new. That's happened each time someone parroted a planning talking point to which I post a screengrab from official documents which put said talking point to bed.

As to additional stations - the intermediate stations may not need to run deep - that's the opportunity for cheap cut and cover tunneling and stations with minimal mezzanines and pavilion entrances.

The city staff have explicitly said they were going to dig the tunnel in bedrock layers and were avoiding King Street and the alleged dips and rises of the layer there. The truth of their words is up to interpretation. They really won't like your idea of having sine wave tunnel profiles.
 
Unless drastic measures on line management, traffic priority and street design are imposed, the streetcar network isn't going to get better - and certainly not better when it matters. At the rate the core is intensifying, it maybe time to accept the reality that the limits of that mode is at hand. We have all seen the frustration of riders just giving up and walk because it is actually faster.

But even if we build a closely-spaced subway line and completely replace one of four downtown E-W streetcar lines, we have nothing at hand to replace the other three lines.

I'd like to hope that some improvements in the streetcar operations can be achieved by affordable changes. Transit malls where possible, splitting long routes if that can help, and perhaps building new on-street loops in selected spots to run short-turn branches that can cover long service gaps.
 
The planned station spacing is fine if we keep the existing streetcar infrastructure with some service modifications. I still think Adelaide Richmond is a better alignment for CBD and entertainment/retail coverage (King and Queen respectively). We could also have a funding tool with an underground toll highway in the same corridors. I realize this is too out of the box for the planning department and many on here to process, but we better find a creative way to fund the DRL, especially with the reduced federal budget, if you'd like to use this subway in your working lifetimes.
 
With regard to stations west of Osgoode, I agree that Bathurst, Dufferin (to meet RER and the neighbourhoods straddling the tracks (Parkdale and Gladstone), and minimally, one intermediate station with entrances touching Trinity-Bellwoods and Ossington (centred at Shaw), are the essential next phase. I think the natural basis for the north-south branch is the old Garrison creek route. Use brains and pay for it by combining the dig with an Allen Expressway underground toll extension. The north south branch really becomes a separate line, intersecting Shaw through Trinity-Bellwoods and running south to the new RER station at Bathurst and Front, so that the east-west line can continue west beyond Dufferin.
 
It don't really care about half baked approvals. For this line toll tunnels are the answer. I've already done this kind of planning with success in the past. The Greenbelt seemed radical when I proposed it to governments in 1998. It's reshaped planning in Southern Ontario and garnered awards. It's time to think differently and on a macro scale again.
 

Back
Top