[salsa]

Bathurst would have been far superior as the corridor. The whole street would have probably been built up like Yonge, which is almost entirely lined with dense buildings with storefronts meeting the street. It would have been better from a city building perspective. All you have around the Allen is sprawl that hasn't changed much since the 1970s. Ridership would have been higher. Anytime you build rapid transit in a transportation corridor, ridership is lower and neighbourhoods aren't that well served by the infrastructure because it's more isolated.

Totally agree, although I think Dufferin would be better than Bathurst since it's not as close to the Yonge line, would serve Yorkdale mall, and is easier to extend to York University. Bathurst is already quite urban without the subway, but imagine if Dufferin could have been lined with dense buildings and their storefronts. Instead, it's one of the ugliest streets in this city, with notoriously bad bus service.

Here are some hypothetical alignments of the two options

 

[Johnny Au]

The current alignment is good.

Glencairn station can get busy at times. Yes, I do use Glencairn station. Glencairn station is used as a selling point for the McMansions in the area. The current alignment is good for those who live in the apartment towers on Marlee. The current alignment also serves Lawrence Square and requires the fewest expropriations (especially given that the Allen was already built).

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

The current alignment is good.

Glencairn station can get busy at times. Yes, I do use Glencairn station. Glencairn station is used as a selling point for the McMansions in the area. The current alignment is good for those who live in the apartment towers on Marlee. The current alignment also serves Lawrence Square and requires the fewest expropriations (especially given that the Allen was already built).

I actually think Lawrence West station is really nice for some reason.

 

[ShonTron]

Bathurst would have been far superior as the corridor. The whole street would have probably been built up like Yonge, which is almost entirely lined with dense buildings with storefronts meeting the street. It would have been better from a city building perspective. All you have around the Allen is sprawl that hasn't changed much since the 1970s. Ridership would have been higher. Anytime you build rapid transit in a transportation corridor, ridership is lower and neighbourhoods aren't that well served by the infrastructure because it's more isolated.

I doubt that Bathurst would have been built up like Yonge had the subway ran under it instead of in the Allen Road median. Look at Danforth Avenue, or Bloor west of Keele.
Most of even the Yonge Line's ridership is fed by surface routes. I don't think ridership would have been significantly higher had it gone under Dufferin or Bathurst. Anyway, the route was expropriated in York and North York already for a freeway - that had a median subway (like those in Chicago) already planned back then.

 

[W. K. Lis]

If you look where the Montréal Metro lines run (see link and click on several of the stations and download the neighbourhood map PDF), they don't generally follow the roads. They do however locate the stations at the major roads.

 

[BurlOak]

If you look where the Montréal Metro lines run (see link and click on several of the stations and download the neighbourhood map PDF), they don't generally follow the roads. They do however locate the stations at the major roads.

Montreal's Metro is not a fair comparison.

First, it was built during the Worlds Fair and Olympics era, when money was flowing.
Then, Quebec always gets lots of money because they are Quebec.
Third, We had Quebec born PM's at that time, so even more money than usual was sent to Quebec.

For Toronto, if we would have chosen the much more expensive underground construction, we would be lucky if it currently reached Eglinton.

 

[ksun]

My other argument is this, although it applies mainly south of Bloor.

A. University and Yonge are simply too close together and it would have been better for transit access to move it further to either Spadina or Bathurst.

B. This is not a well researched argument, but anecdotally in my life and the people I know, I find that many destinations for transit downtown are near Spadina and Bathurst. Many workplaces are located along those streets, as well as restaurants, and when visiting people, I just find that west of Spadina is a very high percentage of transit destinations. I feel that having a subway on Spadina & Yonge or Bathurst & Yonge would've put more common destinations within a shorter walk than the current University & Yonge.

A: many people don't like to admit: it is a mistake (or a very inefficient way of spending money) to have the west branch being under university downtown. Spadina would make 10X more sense. University is what, like 650 meters from Yonge, and we need parallel subways? The subway under University and the 510 on Spadina probably should switch place. We designed it that way probably out of the assumption that our downtown will not grow? I don't know.

I have never seen a city with such limited subway lines yet being so close to each other.

B: totally agree. Yonge and Spadina/Bathurst will definitely serve more transit riders. Instead, we have a few people who work/live near Yonge/University having double options while Chinatown and Kensington market are left out, in additional hot nodes such as King/Queen and Spadina. Harbord/Spadina will make more sense than Museum, which I don't know serves whom.

 

[nfitz]

Montreal's Metro is not a fair comparison.

First, it was built during the Worlds Fair and Olympics era, when money was flowing.
Then, Quebec always gets lots of money because they are Quebec.
Third, We had Quebec born PM's at that time, so even more money than usual was sent to Quebec.

For Toronto, if we would have chosen the much more expensive underground construction, we would be lucky if it currently reached Eglinton.

This post is so utterly wrong and prejudiced, in so many ways.

Unlike Toronto, Vancouver, and Ottawa, there's never been a federal contribution to construction of the Montreal Metro. It's been funded by Quebec and Montreal.

The Metro has about 68 stations, of which near half (33) opened after the Worlds Fair/Olympics.

They don't follow the streets because the geology is different. The bedrock is very shallow in many places, and you can tunnel between houses a lot cheaper than you can in Toronto.

I don't see the need to turn a simple discussion into some kind of prejudiced rant.

 

[junctionist]

I doubt that Bathurst would have been built up like Yonge had the subway ran under it instead of in the Allen Road median. Look at Danforth Avenue, or Bloor west of Keele.
Most of even the Yonge Line's ridership is fed by surface routes. I don't think ridership would have been significantly higher had it gone under Dufferin or Bathurst. Anyway, the route was expropriated in York and North York already for a freeway - that had a median subway (like those in Chicago) already planned back then.

Bloor and Danforth are walkable urban streets lined with mixed-use urban buildings. So what if the subway didn't change them? They didn't need to be changed. There have been some major high-density transformations, though: Main Square, the towers of High Park, Etobicoke City Centre, Crescent Town and around Old Mill. The subway would have probably led to enough infill development to change Bathurst from its suburban mish mash of apartments and strip plazas to a consistently urban street. Increased property values and prominence would have probably encouraged business owners to clean up and invest more into the street.

Over time, ridership is always higher where rapid transit is integrated into the hearts of neighbourhoods. The quality of transit is better when you can step out of a station in the middle of a neighbourhood rather than on the edge. If your system makes it as easy and comfortable as possible to get your destination, it will be used by more people. Is it more expensive? Probably--spend the money to build the highest value system possible for riders, and your system will be most successful.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

A: many people don't like to admit: it is a mistake (or a very inefficient way of spending money) to have the west branch being under university downtown. Spadina would make 10X more sense. University is what, like 650 meters from Yonge, and we need parallel subways? The subway under University and the 510 on Spadina probably should switch place. We designed it that way probably out of the assumption that our downtown will not grow? I don't know.

I have never seen a city with such limited subway lines yet being so close to each other.

B: totally agree. Yonge and Spadina/Bathurst will definitely serve more transit riders. Instead, we have a few people who work/live near Yonge/University having double options while Chinatown and Kensington market are left out, in additional hot nodes such as King/Queen and Spadina. Harbord/Spadina will make more sense than Museum, which I don't know serves whom.

Hopefully the DRL can solve this. Don't forget these people also have the street cars as well.

 

[salsa]

A: many people don't like to admit: it is a mistake (or a very inefficient way of spending money) to have the west branch being under university downtown. Spadina would make 10X more sense. University is what, like 650 meters from Yonge, and we need parallel subways? The subway under University and the 510 on Spadina probably should switch place. We designed it that way probably out of the assumption that our downtown will not grow? I don't know.

Most rush hour commuters are not going to Spadina Ave. University is very well used, and serves the financial district, U of T, hospitals, and research facilities. At the time when the subway was built, there was hardly anything around Spadina, but even today I think the alignment makes sense.

 

[nfitz]

Most rush hour commuters are not going to Spadina Ave. University is very well used, and serves the financial district, U of T, hospitals, and research facilities. At the time when the subway was built, there was hardly anything around Spadina, but even today I think the alignment makes sense.

At the same time though, the current streetcar ridership on Spadina is very high. It's one of the busiest lines in the city, and far shorter. I expect once the double-length streetcars are in, ridership will increase.

Quite frankly, I think the line needs to be subway. Though that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a subway on University too.

 

[salsa]

Eventually Spadina will be intercepted by the DRL, so maybe the current travel patterns will change somewhat.

 

[diminutive]

At the same time though, the current streetcar ridership on Spadina is very high. It's one of the busiest lines in the city, and far shorter. I expect one the double-length streetcars are in, ridership will increase.

Quite frankly, I think the line needs to be subway. Though that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a subway on University too.

If Toronto ever gets some kind of GO-RER network, to ameliorate congestion at Union and provide alternative routes into the core, I could see a kind of wishbone line running down Spadina, splitting around King or Queen with branches intersecting the GO lines at stations in the West (Fort York?) and East (somewhere near the Don?)

something like:

 

[Rainforest]

One oft-overlooked reason for the Spadina's ridership being less than Yonge's is the structure of E-W bus routes. Almost all western bus routes connect to both Spadina and Yonge lines, whereas all routes going to Yonge from the east terminate there without connecting to Spadina.

That factor probably has greater effect on the ridership than the local density around the stations.