Skip navigation

Union Station revitalization will be a marquee project

Globe and Mail Update

But infrastructure spending plan doesn't increase the amount municipalities will receive ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Darren in TO from Toronto, Canada writes: Union's subway station is being revamped wrong. Tey could have built the new platform to the north side vs the south side. The existing platforms would have served Yonge - bound. Beside the existing northern track they have built a new track and a new platform to serve Uni-bound. They would have built this under Front street, and ie less work, and the switch could have happened over night.

    This model woudl have had 3 tracks, ie exactly like Davisville but a mirror image of it. The current model calls for just the existing 2 tracks, ie no increase in volume or efficiency.
  2. Mariposa Belle from Leacockland, Canada writes: What about the infrastructure that brings the trains into the station. Nice place to get to, how do you do it with 40 year old stock and gawd-knows how old rails?
  3. G Custer from Edmonton, Canada writes: The people who run your cities are such dolts. Ontario you are getting a Quebec sized hand out, and you can figure out how to get the money!
  4. Chester Rockwell from Canada writes: Darren in TO from Toronto, Canada

    You do know that Davisville has no higher capacity than any other station right? The 3rd track is never used for revenue service and doesn't have any real point beyond letting the TTC hold trains there.

    The TTC component is already under Front. They had a choice of going under Union Station or the Royal York. Given that Union is supposed to go under it's own renovation and is a government building, they opted for it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frontstreetexcavation.jpg
  5. Darren in TO from Toronto, Canada writes: Chester Rockwell, I dont think you saw the logic behing my comment. The new platform would have been to the north, ie further under Front, instead of the new platform on the southside under the station itself. Davisville can hold two southbound trains at any given moment, so yes it does hold more volume. It's also more efficient as if one train is held up on a southbound platform due to passenger illness, soutbound trains can still stop there on the other platform . 3rd and 4th tracks are key to future expansion. Cities all around the world install them as a means of expanding their systems to accomodate more volume and potential express/local stops. They are installed either side by side, or 2 on top of 2 such as in NYC's Lexington line, and what Bay and St. George would have been. Union with a third platform outline in my example, would be able to house 2 train Yonge-bound trains after say the end of a major sports game and would quickly board one, it moves on, and the spill over boards the second train and then it qucikly moves on. Its also a means of introducing a deadhead train into the system. With just a third platform without a third track, then its merly the same train with both sides of it doors open, ie the same volume.
  6. Chester Rockwell from Canada writes: "The new platform would have been to the north, ie further under Front, instead of the new platform on the southside under the station itself."

    To the north of the current subway station is the Royal York... The station is currently under Front St. Not to mention the logistical nightmare of actually making tracks to this track, which would involve removing large chunks of the PATH network and smashing out the foundations of BCE place.

    "Davisville can hold two southbound trains at any given moment, so yes it does hold more volume. It's also more efficient as if one train is held up on a southbound platform due to passenger illness"

    No... it wouldn't. If you make a bypass track, all you would do is screw up headways. Headways when this project is completed is intended to be 90 seconds. That is pretty much the limit of signaling systems. In order to thread out every 2nd south bound train, and then thread it back into the main track, you would need to double headways to 180s. Otherwise, the train which opts for the bypass track will have no room to merge back into. That may theoretically increase capacity at Union, but it would completely screw up the rest of the line.

    "3rd and 4th tracks are key to future expansion. Cities all around the world install them as a means of expanding their systems to accomodate more volume and potential express/local stops."

    No they're not. NYC isn't with it's 2nd Avenue Subway. London isn't with Crossrail. Paris isn't. Tokyo isn't. Nobody is. You get infinitely more bang/buck by just building parallel subways as opposed to twinning an existing system (which costs significantly more than just building a new line).
  7. Darren in TO from Toronto, Canada writes: Chester why bring up 2nd Av? I've read up on 2nd Av well before construction was started, & I have personal friends in Strap Hangers who have long been involved in the lobbying that helped bring 2nd Ave to light. Once its completed it will be one of the few NYC subway lines not to have 4 tracks. So why you bring it up as an example is beyond me. Davisville can handle the extra volume if need be. Its Davisville not Union, ie why it hardly ever needs to utilize the third platform & third track. There were documented situations where a train incident happened by chance at Davisville. The announcement through the system is that "There is a delayed train southbound at Davisville, but due to the unique layout of the tracks, train service is continuing in that area" The 3rd track at Union would be just the same as Davisville; used in emergencies only & in rare occasions. Those headway times you gave have no bearing, as it won't be a regular occurrence & I dont think you understood the model Im trying to explain; The 2 existing tracks/platforms would serve Yongebound & all they need is a crossover between Union & Yonge, unless one already exists. They would also need minor signal work. The new platform would be to the North (granted under Front or under the northern curb & yes with PATH work construction), & there would be a new track in between the new platform & the existing northern track which currently serves Unibound. That new platform will then serve Uni. In my idea fewer changes need to happen to the existing infrastructure as the existing stairs, platform, & tracks will all serve Yongebound. And BTW, I dont know why you think doing work on PATH systems is a huge issue. PATH is always being modified. There is the work NW of Union going on right now. There soon will be the PATH under the Bay/Adelaide building that KPMG is building, and the TTC just last week proposed the start of the eastern half of the DRL, ie PATH work need at Queen and Yonge.
  8. Darren in TO from Toronto, Canada writes: Typo, the crossover reference was for the area between Union and King
  9. Darren in TO from Toronto, Canada writes: Ok, so here is more info on both Front street as well as the crossover.

    "Leaving the station eastbound, the Yonge leg of the line runs briefly under Front Street and turns 90 degrees north to run under Yonge Street; leaving westbound, the University leg also runs under Front Street, and eventually turns 90 degrees north to run under University Avenue.

    The station is also noted as being one of only two stations on the TTC where a signal light is publicly accessible. The signal is located on the east end of the platform. It is an Interlocking Signal that guards the crossover to the northbound Yonge Line and is only used during service disruptions that require trains be turned at Union."
  10. Darren in TO from Canada writes: Re: DRL
    http://www.thestar.com/article/578943
    http://www.thestar.com/article/578910
    http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=1230770

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top