[ehlow]

I am afraid those stations don't have enough density to justify them. Honestly even Dupont station doesn't have enough density around it (hardly any midrises even, very odd indeed), not to mention Lawrence. Summerhill and Rosedale should have been one station too. The money should be spent on areas with high density but without rapid transit, not on nodes surrounded by single family homes. If we had a station at Blythwood, how many people would be within 10 minutes walking distance? Probably not many. As to Glen Echo, it feels like Niagara-on-the-lake, where 30 seconds into the side streets, it is all low rise homes. definitely doesn't remind me of a needed subway station.

Yonge south of Bloor does have a lot of overlapping, but when you consider how many people and business are located there, plus the future new residents attracted by quite a few towers within the next few years, that makes perfect sense.

If the criteria is "a subway station should not exist if it's close to large areas of low-rise single family homes", then by that logic 80-90% of our subway system should not exist

For example, the Bloor Danforth line. On the East on Danforth from Broadview to Main, get off at any station and you're immediately beside low rise single family housing, almost no high-rises. Same with most stops west of Bathurst.

On the University line, St Clair West to Lawrence West, it's surrounded by low-rise single family housing within a few minutes walk of each station.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Yes. The connecting bus routes are more relevant than the density in the area.

Btw ehlow, I'm 99.8% sure that there is no Lawrence West or St. Clair West stations on the University Subway. They're on the Spadina Subway. Not that it really matters. Just feel like nitpicking tonight

 

[ehlow]

Yes. The connecting bus routes are more relevant than the density in the area.

Btw ehlow, I'm 99.8% sure that there is no Lawrence West or St. Clair West stations on the University Subway. They're on the Spadina Subway. Not that it really matters. Just feel like nitpicking tonight

OK well let's call it the Allen Rd subway

 

[MrsNesbitt]

Maybe the "Spadina" moniker could be ditched once the north end of the western part of Line 1 extends to York University also, so we get "Yonge-University"?

But anyways, I can see the value of most of those stations. If GO REX will be taking people from far-flung destinations downtown instead of the subway, as it should be, then these areas could stand to reap good benefits.

Blythwood I can really get behind; same with Birchmount and likely Firvalley. The latter two would be great politicking: "Number of subway stations in Scarborough increasing from 3 to 5!"

 

[junctionist]

It should simply be Line 1 now. The TTC needs to get rid of all references to the old "Yonge-University-Spadina line" name, or line 1 might not gain mainstream acceptance. It's the way to go as the lines get extended and don't follow any one street.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I think that's what the TTC is doing.

For the first few weeks after Line 1, Line 2, Line 3 and Line 4 were introduced to the public, announcements on the intercom were something along the lines of, "Attention passengers on Line 1, Yonge-University-Spadina, we are currently experiencing a delay etc...".

After about a month the old name of the line was dropped. It's now just, " Attention passengers on Line 1, we are currently experiencing a delay etc..."

I've also noticed that the TTC has stopped apologizing for delays in their announcements.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

OK well let's call it the Allen Rd subway

That would be a logical name. I'd love to meet the genius who decided to name the subway after a road it follows for all of 700 meters. That's almost absurd as renaming the University Subway the "Front Subway".

As I write this I'm realizing that the name isn't as absurd as I thought. It's a relic from when Allen Road was the Spadina Expressway. I suppose there was no point in renaming it.

 

[Edward]

Just call it Line 1 as mentioned above. The easiest way to name it.

 

[AlbertHWagstaff]

I think that's what the TTC is doing.

For the first few weeks after Line 1, Line 2, Line 3 and Line 4 were introduced to the public, announcements on the intercom were something along the lines of, "Attention passengers on Line 1, Yonge-University-Spadina, we are currently experiencing a delay etc...".

After about a month the old name of the line was dropped. It's now just, " Attention passengers on Line 1, we are currently experiencing a delay etc..."

I've also noticed that the TTC has stopped apologizing for delays in their announcements.

No, neither of these observations are consistent. I have heard line names in all announcements and apologies for inconvenience in the past few days. It depends on who is writing the announcements. The names of the lines haven't gone away and likely won't for a long time. People still refer to bus and streetcar routes by the route names even though they've had numbers for decades.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

If the criteria is "a subway station should not exist if it's close to large areas of low-rise single family homes", then by that logic 80-90% of our subway system should not exist

For example, the Bloor Danforth line. On the East on Danforth from Broadview to Main, get off at any station and you're immediately beside low rise single family housing, almost no high-rises. Same with most stops west of Bathurst.

On the University line, St Clair West to Lawrence West, it's surrounded by low-rise single family housing within a few minutes walk of each station.

And look at that. The Bloor Danforth between Broadview and Main is not the most successful in fairness.

 

[AlbertHWagstaff]

And look at that. The Bloor Danforth between Broadview and Main is not the most successful in fairness.

How are you measuring "successful"? Based on walk-in traffic? Redevelopment? Passenger volumes?

Certainly from a feeder bus route point of view, Broadview, Pape, Coxwell and Main have high passenger volumes.

From a redevelopment point of view, the experience of the High Park area in the late 1960s kind of put a stop to wholesale demolition of streets of single family homes for high rises and has generally resulted in much of the Bloor-Danforth subway corridor remaining largely untouched.

 

[gweed123]

If the criteria is "a subway station should not exist if it's close to large areas of low-rise single family homes", then by that logic 80-90% of our subway system should not exist

For example, the Bloor Danforth line. On the East on Danforth from Broadview to Main, get off at any station and you're immediately beside low rise single family housing, almost no high-rises. Same with most stops west of Bathurst.

On the University line, St Clair West to Lawrence West, it's surrounded by low-rise single family housing within a few minutes walk of each station.

Very good point. Potential stations should be evaluated on surface connectivity, as well as the density within walking distance.

Maybe the "Spadina" moniker could be ditched once the north end of the western part of Line 1 extends to York University also, so we get "Yonge-University"?

But anyways, I can see the value of most of those stations. If GO REX will be taking people from far-flung destinations downtown instead of the subway, as it should be, then these areas could stand to reap good benefits.

Blythwood I can really get behind; same with Birchmount and likely Firvalley. The latter two would be great politicking: "Number of subway stations in Scarborough increasing from 3 to 5!"

Very true. When you look at the structure of most of the systems in Europe, looking specifically at Berlin, the S-Bahns and the U-Bahns play very specific roles. U-Bahns cover the city and the inner suburbs with a fairly dense stop spacing, while the S-Bahns cover the outer suburbs and key nodes within the inner suburbs and city, with subway-like spacing in very high traffic areas.

Because Toronto has a lack of true S-Bahn, the subway system has had to cover both roles, leading to some inefficiency for local connectivity, and inefficiency in terms of speed.

The City is also going to be adding a boatload of density in the coming decades. Creating new subway stations on existing lines may create new opportunities for density nodes, or allow existing nodes (Yonge-Eglinton is a perfect example) to extend beyond their current boundaries, since the density is largely based around walkability to the subway. I think we'll see this in practice on E-Y's east-west axis when the Crosstown opens. A station at Blythwood could do the same for the north-south axis.

 

[ehlow]

The City is also going to be adding a boatload of density in the coming decades. Creating new subway stations on existing lines may create new opportunities for density nodes, or allow existing nodes (Yonge-Eglinton is a perfect example) to extend beyond their current boundaries, since the density is largely based around walkability to the subway. I think we'll see this in practice on E-Y's east-west axis when the Crosstown opens. A station at Blythwood could do the same for the north-south axis.

It's basically the same situation as North York Centre station, which was added after the line was built. Finch to Sheppard was 2km, NYC station was built after the fact halfway between after office & condo buildings started popping up in North York. Blythwood could be similar with regards to Lawrence & Eglinton being 2km apart.

Having said that, density is important for these stations because there aren't connecting bus routes (I was just pointing out that it isn't the only consideration in all cases in my previous post), and I agree that Blythwood probably doesn't justify the money spent on a station at this point, and the extra travel time that would cause to those further north. I could imagine it sometime in the future though like NYC station, if more development happened along Yonge between Eg & Lawrence. Having said that it's very possible that little or no development will happen due to the lack of parking lots or easy developable areas there.

 

[gweed123]

It's basically the same situation as North York Centre station, which was added after the line was built. Finch to Sheppard was 2km, NYC station was built after the fact halfway between after office & condo buildings started popping up in North York. Blythwood could be similar with regards to Lawrence & Eglinton being 2km apart.

Having said that, density is important for these stations because there aren't connecting bus routes (I was just pointing out that it isn't the only consideration in all cases in my previous post), and I agree that Blythwood probably doesn't justify the money spent on a station at this point, and the extra travel time that would cause to those further north. I could imagine it sometime in the future though like NYC station, if more development happened along Yonge between Eg & Lawrence. Having said that it's very possible that little or no development will happen due to the lack of parking lots or easy developable areas there.

NYCC Station is a great example. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's the only "infill" station on the TTC thus far.

Perhaps the solution would be to do a Secondary Plan for the neighbourhood surrounding the future stations, so that development is coordinated. Ottawa is taking this approach for several of the new LRT stations: http://ottawa.ca/en/official-plan-0...plans/bayview-station-district-secondary-plan (Bayview just being one example, but I believe they are doing them for Hurdman, St. Laurent, Cyrville, and there was already ones underway for Tunney's and LeBreton).

That way, you can rezone properly in advance of the station being built, and guide redevelopment in a coordinated way instead of being ad hoc rezonings.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

gweed:

Not a bad idea at all, though politically injecting rezoning into the already volatile transit debate could be a potential disaster in terms of trying to get any kind of consensus at the community level.

AoD