Updated March 24 at 9:00 pm: Metrolinx has published the materials from the Open House. Of particular interest is the presentation which shows the proposed changes to the area around Bloor GO Station and Dundas West TTC Station.
In the first phase, the north sidewalk of Bloor Street would be redesigned to widen and otherwise beautify the access to the GO level from the sidewalk in the underpass. Also, a connection from Dundas West Station would be added at the east end of the platform. (Page 33 of the presentation shows details of the subway to GO link.)
In later phases, the streetcar loop at Dundas West would be redesigned so that all access was from Edna Avenue with traffic signals. This could be a mixed blessing given the level of transit service at this location.
Original post below:
Metrolinx has announced an open house for the Dundas West-Bloor Mobility Hub Study.
Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Time: 6 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Venue: Lithuanian House
1573 Bloor Street West
Further background can be found in The Star.
Dundas West Station was built before GO existed, much less had service on the Weston corridor, but a connection could be built from the east end of the platform to what is now Bloor Station on the rail line. However, a major development, the Crossways, was not on top of the subway when it opened in 1966, and any connection must deal with this building.
Steve Munro 
Ray Kennedy said: “If this is to be a big time “Mobility Hub” then it needs to be done right. ”
Frankly, with the potential for double ended operations with the new legacy system cars, I’m surprised that they are not considering a stub terminal in addition to the new streetcar loop. That is unless this is another one of those TTC “This is how things are done!” things.
Steve: The new streetcars are not double-ended.
LikeLike
Steve: There is never going to be a DRL on Roncesvalles. If there is a “DRL West”, it will follow the rail corridor, and won’t stop at almost every lamppost the way the 504 did before the street redesign.
I really wouldn’t be so confident that they won’t go down Roncesvalles. There is a lot to be said for a station at Roncesvalles and Queen, which would essentially replace any need for the WWLRT as a regional service. Not sure what the numbers would work out at, but there is certainly value in the service shifted west of the rail corridor, and the additional cost might be surprisingly low given the likelihood that even a rail corridor route would need to be tunneled.
As for the proposed redesign of Dundas West I really wouldn’t pay it that much attention. I really don’t see anything coming from the changes on the TTC side before the DRL goes in, between the cost, the TTC’s lack of appreciation for outside “interference” and the attitude of the current administration toward transit in general (and spending at large).
LikeLike
A couple things, first, I agree with the commenter on the fact there is no clear way for the buses to exit, second, what is the area next to the outer track on the design sketch.
Finally, how long has this project been talked about for? On the sketch it appears it was created in June of last year.
LikeLike
NCarlson says:
March 28, 2011 at 12:12 am
Steve: There is never going to be a DRL on Roncesvalles. If there is a “DRL West”, it will follow the rail corridor, and won’t stop at almost every lamppost the way the 504 did before the street redesign.
“I really wouldn’t be so confident that they won’t go down Roncesvalles. There is a lot to be said for a station at Roncesvalles and Queen, which would essentially replace any need for the WWLRT as a regional service. Not sure what the numbers would work out at, but there is certainly value in the service shifted west of the rail corridor, and the additional cost might be surprisingly low given the likelihood that even a rail corridor route would need to be tunneled.”
If the DRL goes down Roncesvalles to Queen Street it will have to go out into the bay to make the turn to head east into the Downtown. You have to remember that the new minimum turning radius for the subway is a lot more than what exists at Union Station. I agree with Steve that a west side DRL should go along the Weston Rail corridor. To act as an effective line and bleed off passengers from Yonge and Bloor it should have faster averages speeds and greater stop spacing than the existing lines. It can’t have a stop every 500 – 800 m.
I can see the rationale for reversing the direction of the street cars through Dundas west as it gives more storage room off Dundas. It would be helpful if the two tracks split just as they came of the side street to allow for more space for cars. It would also be nice if they could make the north bound tracks TTC vehicles only and put in a left turn phase.
I also assume that the buses would go North on Dorval and East on Edna. It would be interesting to see how long street car service would be screwed up by this construction. High Park would become a very busy spot if both Dundas and Carlton cars go there or would the TTC get imaginative and try operating Dundas cars with the King cars to provide a Broadview station to Broadview station service in two big loops. It would keep streetcars on part of Roncesvalles. It shall be interesting to watch.
LikeLike
Or how about moving the station to the other side of the street? The available land is greater than the existing station. The more I think about it the more sense it makes.
Overall I was a bit underwhelmed by this proposal. I can forgive them for some sloppy work (mislabeling zoning areas) but I am not so sure that this helps the situation on Dundas and like other posters I wonder where the backed up streetcars will go. Edna already has a streetcar track and it (with buses) really creates traffic snarls as it is a somewhat blind corner. Car traffic already backs up in both directions and nothing I see here will change that. I would add that there is also an existing set of lights half a block north of Enda and Dundas and calls for a set of lights to help people get in and out of the mall south of Bloor. Sounds like gridlock to me. The only benefit I can see is that people will not have to worry about being run over on the sidewalk or having the sidewalk completely blocked by streetcars.
I can’t see the people at the corner of Edna and Dorval liking this plan as it will bring noise and traffic and a four way stop to their front door. Having street cars turn at Dorval could be tricky as you are now introducing big streetcars and buses to a small sidestreet environment. The urban park in the middle makes me laugh. Nobody will sit there and breath in bus fumes and try to talk over the sound of streetcars wheels.
In terms the on Bloor station the pictures paint a far more pleasurable image than what actually exists there and you wonder did anybody actually visit the site. It’s really loud and dirty due to traffic so its not going to end up as nice looking or as wide open as the pictures imply. There are trees where there is no possible way to plant trees and there is no mention of possible pollution and noise mitigation walls that may be needed because of diesel trains (a deliberate omission?). And what about the existing entrance to the station from Railpath? And what about security in all these tunnels and the Bloor station?
Hmmmm. I think I would move the station across the street.
LikeLike
What is Tim Hudak (CON), Andrea Horwath (NDP) and Mike Schreiner (GRE) are all saying about this project? Just in case Dalton does not make it.
Dundas West-Dundas GO are in two municipal wards.
Dundas West subway station in completely in Gord Perks side.
Dundas GO station is literally on the border, west half belongs to Gord Perks ward and the east side goes to Ana Bailão.
What is Gord and Ana saying about this connection?
In fact do you know what is Rob Ford’s (if any) thoughts on this?
So many transit projects are pure political decisions and not what might be needed.
LikeLike
What about burying the streetcar loop, a la Spadina and Bloor? Expensive, but consider King, our busiest streetcar, Dundas and sometimes College all use Dundas West.
Steve: You would have to start the ramp somewhere south of Bloor to get down low enough for an underground loop (the way Spadina Station works). However, building the new loop would take a rather long time during which the station would probably be closed as you would be completely replacing the existing mezzanine level. The buses, of course, would have to stay on the surface. We need to focus on getting better service on the streetcar lines before we start building grade separations for their terminals.
LikeLike
“If the DRL goes down Roncesvalles to Queen Street it will have to go out into the bay to make the turn to head east into the Downtown. You have to remember that the new minimum turning radius for the subway is a lot more than what exists at Union Station.”
I’ve heard this argument before, and frankly it just doesn’t hold water. If the subway tries to turn to Queen street it is completely true, but a turn to either the Lakshore corridor or King street has lots of room. I haven’t heard much in the way of realistic arguments for putting the line directly on Queen as of late…
LikeLike
NCarlson says:
March 28, 2011 at 10:28 pm
“If the DRL goes down Roncesvalles to Queen Street it will have to go out into the bay to make the turn to head east into the Downtown. You have to remember that the new minimum turning radius for the subway is a lot more than what exists at Union Station.”
”I’ve heard this argument before, and frankly it just doesn’t hold water. If the subway tries to turn to Queen street it is completely true, but a turn to either the Lakshore corridor or King street has lots of room. I haven’t heard much in the way of realistic arguments for putting the line directly on Queen as of late…”
What is the purpose of a DRL? is it not to get people off the Bloor Danforth line and off Yonge-university? In order to do this it should provide faster service to the downtown to entice people to make an extra transfer. Running it down Roncesvalles does none of these It adds extra stops and distance that makes the line slower.
Where is the passenger demand for this line along Roncesvalles? The current loading does not come anywhere near the demand levels. Most of the loading on King comes from east of Roncesvalles. The transfer traffic from Queen would be light also.
The line could not make a curve onto King unless it swung way out over Lakeshore then back north over the Gardiner. To make the king onto King directly it would need to start well west or Roncesvalles and tunnel under a lot of houses and a car barn, This would make for a deep costly station. The DRL is not meant to provide quick service to downtown for people on Roncesvalles. A WWLRT line would do a better job of this for less than the cost of the Queen Roncesvalles Station.
I have not heard any realistic arguments for a subway line along King or the Lakeshore recently either. There is no current or future load demand that would justify the expense. We have a finite supply of money with which to build rapid transit. Let’s not waste it building stupid lines like the Sheppard Stubway or the Roncesvalles DRL. The suburbs control city council and they will not spend money so that people can get from Sunnyside to downtown 5 minutes faster unless it will help out their constituents also.
LikeLike
It would probably be technically easier to run it out to Parkside, bend it around inside the Park and then up to Keele. I imagine there might be the odd objection though, even if TBM not C&C 🙂
LikeLike
I hold the opposite view; I think it would be a waste of money to build a DRL subway through the core without stations closely spaced. That said, I don’t really see a need for a DRL connection to Bloor West, as the University subway acts as the western alleviator for Yonge already and still has a good amount of capacity to spare (about 25% capacity to spare on current signal technology, and over 40% capacity to spare with post-2017 signal technology… in theory).
If the money on an eastern relief line subway were to be spent (or spent on any other line with a high ridership projection for that matter), the subway needs to provide the biggest bang for its many bucks; That would mean retiring at least one of the streetcar services currently running through downtown (presumably King (excluding the Ronces and Broadview legs) as it is under the most stress), much like the original Yonge and Bloor lines did with their streetcar predecessors. That can only happen, however, with closely spaced stations to provide a reasonable degree of access to the service, particularly for the locals who rely on the King car today. It’s very wasteful to serve one corridor with two modes, in my view.
A transit line’s usage is influenced to a significant degree by its ability to serve a wide array of origin-destination pairs conveniently. The fewer such pairs a subway line can conveniently serve, the lower its ridership will be. People ultimately want as close to door-to-door service as possible, moreso, I’d argue, than a warp-speed trip to Yonge St that is inconvenient to access. I would consider it inappropriate for the DRL to be an expensive underground duplication of GO rail lines with vast distances between stations (Toronto has enough of that problem along Yonge North, and in Scarborough along the Danforth Subway). A DRL should be a functional part of the network that connects with the north-south lines passing through downtown to maximize origin-destination pairs.
Any subway line needs to be local to generate the highest ridership, particularly healthy levels of off-peak ridership, otherwise I don’t think the cost of underground infrastructure is worth the investment.
LikeLike
It would be interesting to compare the volume transfers between Bloor/Yonge station and TTC Union/GO Union stations. Advantage B/Y is simplicity and disadvantage Union TTC/GO, bottleneck complexity.
Bloor/Main Street could work if well designed.
LikeLike
Karl Junkin says:
March 29, 2011 at 8:00 pm
To act as an effective line and bleed off passengers from Yonge and Bloor it should have faster averages speeds and greater stop spacing than the existing lines. It can’t have a stop every 500 – 800 m.
“I hold the opposite view; I think it would be a waste of money to build a DRL subway through the core without stations closely spaced. That said, I don’t really see a need for a DRL connection to Bloor West, as the University subway acts as the western alleviator for Yonge already and still has a good amount of capacity to spare (about 25% capacity to spare on current signal technology, and over 40% capacity to spare with post-2017 signal technology… in theory).”
I was not too clear. I have no problems with close stop spacing in the core; but I do not consider 500 m stop spacing on Roncesvalles and King/Queen making for an effective DRL. I also believe that in the East end it needs to have wide stop spacing outside the core, 1 – 2 km, in order to make it time competitive.
LikeLike
Both the Bloor/Danforth subway interchanges with the Yonge/University(s)/Spadina line at Bloor/Yonge and St George are packed at rush hours. As new Rocket Trains will increase throughput and thus subway line transfers, both locations will become even worse, slower and less safe, in the future. Thus the DRL becomes more important as time goes on, to make the subway system efficient and pleasing to use.
LikeLike
I’m not going to believe any announcements or news that come out on April 1st, April Fool’s Day. I can wait till the next day.
LikeLike