[EnviroTO]

That's the beauty of having a network in place. People can transfer.

Yes. In this case they can transfer in 3 places to three entirely different directions.

I would argue it makes more sense to relieve the Bloor-King segment, not the King-Union segment. This is best done via much more northerly alingnment than Wellington.

As few passengers as possible should be added to the Yonge-University line if the capacity is to be maximized. King is already very busy during rush hour... it doesn't need the additional load of a subway line dumping into it to go to Union. Union Station's load is expected to triple or more with all day GO services, Air Rail, and Waterfront East and West.

Admittedly, I'm a fan of a Queen or even Dundas alignment, where a third station in the middle would serve little purpose but to slow down the line.

At Queen there would be no point in a middle station. It only makes sense on Wellington where Yonge, University, and Railway/WLRT passengers can be segregated into streams.

 

[leopetr]

This map seems useful to keep in mind as a reference:

 

[dunkalunk]

If a single station is decided on, and there is space, could we not just construct the station layout like this?

[PLATFORM] westbound boarding
<==TRACK== westbound trains  
[PLATFORM] exit
==TRACK==> eastbound trains 
[PLATFORM] eastbound boarding

Yes, this layout would require additional elevators, but it would allow both train doors to be opened to allow for smoother boarding/unbording. whether or not this design is overbuilt is a matte of opinion, but if its a decision between one and three stations, i would choose one but with this setup.

 

[Inkarnate]

If a single station is decided on, and there is space, could we not just construct the station layout like this?

[PLATFORM] westbound boarding
<==TRACK== westbound trains  
[PLATFORM] exit
==TRACK==> eastbound trains 
[PLATFORM] eastbound boarding

Yes, this layout would require additional elevators, but it would allow both train doors to be opened to allow for smoother boarding/unbording. whether or not this design is overbuilt is a matte of opinion, but if its a decision between one and three stations, i would choose one but with this setup.

I believe that is supposed to be a future plan for Bloor Station on the Yonge line, and it's a good idea. I'm not sure how they would implement it, though... :/

 

[jwill]

I dont buy the Wellington argument. Yes, it makes for a shorter walk for anyone transferring to Union. But it also makes for a longer walk for anyone wanting to get to King/Queen or anywhere to the north.

Will there really be so many people transferring from GO to the DRL? This is a good question, and one I doubt anybody has the answer to but many people will claim to know for sure. Its entirely possible that the DRL could intersect with nearly every incoming GO line before it reaches Union, thus making transfers there far less important.

Lakeshore West - Roncy/Queen/King (probably too close to Exhib. for GO.)
Milton/Georgetown - Dundas West, and King/Queen/Dufferin area
Barrie - King/Queen/Dufferin
Richmond Hill - Queen at the Don River (not much space here for a station)
Stoufville/Lakeshore East (Gerrard/Pape, or Queen near Logan)

As for the waterfront streetcars, if coming from the west it would be easy to transfer at Spadina or Bathurst to get on the 510 or 511. I'm not sure about plans for the east, but we might end up with a queens quay east streetcar which comes cherry to king (more or less). People from the east could take that line to the waterfront. So again, transfers to Union are minimized. All due to an emerging network of real alternatives downtown.

 

[gweed123]

I dont buy the Wellington argument. Yes, it makes for a shorter walk for anyone transferring to Union. But it also makes for a longer walk for anyone wanting to get to King/Queen or anywhere to the north.

Will there really be so many people transferring from GO to the DRL? This is a good question, and one I doubt anybody has the answer to but many people will claim to know for sure. Its entirely possible that the DRL could intersect with nearly every incoming GO line before it reaches Union, thus making transfers there far less important.

Lakeshore West - Roncy/Queen/King (probably too close to Exhib. for GO.)
Milton/Georgetown - Dundas West, and King/Queen/Dufferin area
Barrie - King/Queen/Dufferin
Richmond Hill - Queen at the Don River (not much space here for a station)
Stoufville/Lakeshore East (Gerrard/Pape, or Queen near Logan)

As for the waterfront streetcars, if coming from the west it would be easy to transfer at Spadina or Bathurst to get on the 510 or 511. I'm not sure about plans for the east, but we might end up with a queens quay east streetcar which comes cherry to king (more or less). People from the east could take that line to the waterfront. So again, transfers to Union are minimized. All due to an emerging network of real alternatives downtown.

Three more advantages to Wellington:

1) Subway construction nearly always creates some disruption at street level. Building a subway underneath the street carrying the most used streetcar route in the entire city would create havoc on quite a few days at different points during the construction. By contrast, I would argue that Wellington is the least important E-W street in the CBD. It has no streetcar routes, and is not a major connection to the DVP as Richmond/Adelaide are. While taking it out of service would certainly cause a disruption in traffic, it would not be a show-stopper.

2) Having it along Wellington balances the interests of Union and the Financial district. It's the only place we can put the line where it's an equally short walk for both. Also, it is debatably the only bi-connection alignment (using Union being a mono-connection alignment) that does not exclude the possibility of a Queen streetcar subway at some point in the future.

3) Using King would mean a sharper dip down to the rail corridor in the west. Using Wellington allows for a gradual curve down west of the CBD.

 

[jwill]

1. I think its strange to say that King cant be disrupted because it has a heavy streetcar route. Seems like a good reason to put a subway under there. It will need to be bored downtown, because it needs to be deep enough to get under the YUS line. Its worth a few years of disruption for decades of having a subway under the street. (See Yonge, Bloor, etc.)

2. the southern end of the financial district around Union is already extremely well served. And as I said earlier I dont buy the need for transfers from DRL to Union. The financial district also isn't the only ridership draw in the area.

3. Why would you need a sharp dip down to the rail corridor in the west? Why can't it just stay on King. It could be a simple straight line. If the goal is to serve the exhibition, King still does pretty well. I used to live in the area, and there are always TFC crowds walking to King to catch the streetcar, and the whole area is packed during the Ex. Afterall, its in the summer, and if people cant walk from King to the Exhibition grounds, then they probably wouldn't go the the ex in the first place.

4. I agree that a King alignment almost definitely precludes a Queen Subway in the future. But I dont believe in sacrificing the alignment for this line on the off chance we will get a second downtown line in the next century.

 

[Second_in_pie]

1. I think its strange to say that King cant be disrupted because it has a heavy streetcar route. Seems like a good reason to put a subway under there. It will need to be bored downtown, because it needs to be deep enough to get under the YUS line. Its worth a few years of disruption for decades of having a subway under the street. (See Yonge, Bloor, etc.)

2. the southern end of the financial district around Union is already extremely well served. And as I said earlier I dont buy the need for transfers from DRL to Union. The financial district also isn't the only ridership draw in the area.

3. Why would you need a sharp dip down to the rail corridor in the west? Why can't it just stay on King. It could be a simple straight line. If the goal is to serve the exhibition, King still does pretty well. I used to live in the area, and there are always TFC crowds walking to King to catch the streetcar, and the whole area is packed during the Ex. Afterall, its in the summer, and if people cant walk from King to the Exhibition grounds, then they probably wouldn't go the the ex in the first place.

4. I agree that a King alignment almost definitely precludes a Queen Subway in the future. But I dont believe in sacrificing the alignment for this line on the off chance we will get a second downtown line in the next century.

1. The DRL would intercept a large part of the King ridership regardless of whether it's on Front, Wellington, or King. So why would you allow excess disruption when it's almost entirely unnecessary?

2. You might be saying the Financial District is well served now (actually, I wouldn't,) but what will that be like if the TTC's ridership even increases by a meager 20 or 30%? Just having 2 or 3 stations in the financial district (all on the same subway line,) will show a real bottleneck in the system in the future. The connection with Union is important to better connect the entire South of Bloor/Danforth district with the station, which in turn connects those areas with the rest of the city and even other cities when rail gets improved. Also, if the Financial District is already "well served," what other place in downtown is not well served that would need another subway line more? The Financial District has a very, very slight edge on routes like Queen or Dundas in terms of subway coverage (3 stations instead of 2,) but has a much, much higher need.

3. Cost savings. Using the rail corridor would save a bundle, and serves CityPlace, the CN Tower and Skydome, and hits the Ex straight on. I can tell you, coming from a hardcore TFC fan, I would be quite disinclined to go to the Ex from King. I once went to a Marlies game from a restaurant in Liberty Village (already well past King,) and it took quite a long time. If you want people to have transit integrated into their lives, a station at Exhibition loop to get people going to the Ex, Marlies, Ontario Place and TFC (and whatever else they cram into that area in the future,) is a good way to start.
From there, I personally would start heading back up to King, stopping at Liberty and Dufferin, Parkdale and Roncesvales. But wherever you want to go a rail alignment is important, at least until the Ex.

4. Obviously not, it was a little point. But remember that with a southern alignment DRL, an Eglinton-style Queen LRT should still very much be in the books.

 

[EnviroTO]

The largest motivator for the DRL is dealing with the busiest station in the network.
#1 Bloor (Yonge-University-Spadina) - 191,800
#2 Yonge (Bloor-Danforth) - 188,600
#3 St. George (Bloor-Danforth) - 122,000
#4 St. George (Yonge-University-Spadina) - 121,100
#5 Union - 95,300

The Union railway station ridership is going to skyrocket once all of GO's improvements are in place. All the people coming off GO's more than 10 platforms in Union will only be served by two subway platforms. A route on Wellington would allow that load to be distributed more. I would support either a Wellington or a Queen routing. A Queen routing would need likely need to be coupled with greater GO-TTC connectivity east and west of downtown to try and lure people off the GO before Union Station. A Wellington route would probably be able to handle the increased capacity of Union by itself.

 

[nfitz]

The biggest motivator for the DRL is relieving Yonge-Bloor. Which station pairs would relieve Yonge-Bloor the most?

I doubt the DRL itself would alleviate much traffic at Union ... as I wouldn't think much of the traffic at Union is coming from east of Pape.

Clearly what is needed is a demand study. Which I'm sure TTC will do in due course. Probably best to wait 3-4 years until it comes out ...

 

[jwill]

This is all conjecture. Sure we can put another platform at Union to handle all the extra GO passengers, but will the DRL take them where they are going? Thats a big question, because there's no point serving it if nobody needs to go east or west of the core. And, as I said before, a lot of that GO traffic can transfer to the DRL before it even reaches Union.

Also, how does a King alignment not serve the financial district? Isn't King St. in the financial district? We're talking about a couple minutes walking between King and Wellington.

The big problem about the southern alignment for me is the relative lack of density. First, there aren't as many jobs once you leave the core, mostly just condos (with their parking spaces). Secondly, a big chunk of the walkable area around stations near the rail corridor are going to be taken up by the corridor itself (meaning less walk-in opportunities), and connections to the south aren't ideal because the corridor acts as a barrier.

King street is pretty central to the band of high and medium density residential and commercial buildings extending east and west from downtown. It is walkable to Queen, as well as to the rail corridor.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Also, how does a King alignment not serve the financial district? Isn't King St. in the financial district? We're talking about a couple minutes walking between King and Wellington.

More like a minute

 

[EnviroTO]

This is all conjecture. Sure we can put another platform at Union to handle all the extra GO passengers, but will the DRL take them where they are going?

No, the DRL will take them to some of the places they might be going. The DRL will provide a East North East path and West path to compliment the Waterfront, North, and North West paths already provided. Working together the services would provide all options to people transiting through Union.

Also, how does a King alignment not serve the financial district? Isn't King St. in the financial district? We're talking about a couple minutes walking between King and Wellington.

Anywhere from Queen to Front would serve the Financial District. If the future of Toronto is people commuting to the Financial District in the morning and away from the Financial District in the evening then any street in the core will do.

The big problem about the southern alignment for me is the relative lack of density. First, there aren't as many jobs once you leave the core, mostly just condos (with their parking spaces).....

King street is pretty central to the band of high and medium density residential and commercial buildings extending east and west from downtown.

Wellington is less than about a subway platform in length from King. Wellington is about midway between the Waterfront destinations and Queen. From Wellington people can walk to Queen West, Eaton Centre, SkyDome, the ACC, and Harbourfront about the same amount. About half of the new office space being built downtown is being built south of Wellington (18 York, Telus, NE corner Bay-Lakeshore, RBC Dexia, BCE 3, and the 151 Front Station Street tower are all south of Wellington.

 

[Chuck]

The Union railway station ridership is going to skyrocket once all of GO's improvements are in place. All the people coming off GO's more than 10 platforms in Union will only be served by two subway platforms. A route on Wellington would allow that load to be distributed more.

Union Station will not become the next Yonge and Bloor. Inbound subway commuters have almost entirely alighted from the subway by the time the train pulls into Union, which means that GO riders are not competing with the rest of the city for space on the subway. Even in the height of the morning rush hour, GO commuters transferring to the subway have an excellent chance of getting a seat heading northbound out of Union. Crowding at Union subway station is entirely due to poor station design, and has nothing to do with actual train capacity.

If the DRL is going to run so far south, then fine. Just don't do this to "relieve" Union Station. Fact of the matter is that Union is the only station in the system where you can get a seat in rush hour no matter which way you're going.

 

[EnviroTO]

Trends are towards greater residential populations in the core and greater employment spread into the GTA. If (this is a big if) transit to employment areas in the outer suburbs from GO stations improves to create a usable system that you don't waste hours of your day on then the trends towards reverse flow visible currently on the Gardiner and DVP will also occur on GO. Also I am hopeful that eventually there will be a decent inter-city system hubbed at Union. There is enough people using Union's subway platforms that it is the only station in the whole system currently getting a platform expansion.