Richmond Hill Yonge Line 1 North Subway Extension | Metrolinx

[Sandpit]

An extension to 16th won't be happening, and you can see why in the picture - There are several million dollars worth of BRT infastructure and stations already between Richmond Hill centre and 16th avenue which would be rendered redundant if the line extended to 16th - They didn`t continue that BRT south towards finch because they knew an extension to RHC would be coming

However, when they built the VIVA BRT they made sure the station size and bus lanes were large enough to support a potential future conversion to LRT so you can look forward to that if it ever happens - You could have a nice PATH inspired walkway between the TTC terminus and the YRT LRT and riders would be able to make a smooth transfer and go north up to Newmarket

In the long term, when the South Hill plaza is fully redeveloped and David Dunlap Observatory Park is transformed into a regional destination (complete with planetarium), it would be worth it to extend the subway slightly north. You'll notice that the rail alignment is well east of Yonge, so it would not be redundant with Viva.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Another YNSE deck posted here.

 

[Amare]

Absolute Insanity:

Good on Metrolinx and the Government of Ontario for needlessly pissing away tens of millions extra on the extra deep bore for the ~50 homeowners they are pandering to.

 

[crs1026]

Once you decide to bore, the TBM may not care much about how deep it goes - although shafts and stations will cost more the deeper you go.

I guess the built form up that way is too far along to make cut and cover viable.... but I really think we need to revisit the whole preference for TBM construction before planning any more underground transit,

A second question: When is long too long? There has to be an absolute length that Line 1 can be built out to before it can't go any further. Are we at that point? It's a lot of miles from Richmond Hill to Vaughan via Union Station - operating such a long line must be exponentially more challenging the further it is extended. The automated driver may not need a bathroom break, but the guard will. Bunching, turnbacks, need for layover yards, etc ......

- Paul

 

[PL1]

Once you decide to bore, the TBM may not care much about how deep it goes - although shafts and stations will cost more the deeper you go.

I guess the built form up that way is too far along to make cut and cover viable.... but I really think we need to revisit the whole preference for TBM construction before planning any more underground transit,

A second question: When is long too long? There has to be an absolute length that Line 1 can be built out to before it can't go any further. Are we at that point? It's a lot of miles from Richmond Hill to Vaughan via Union Station - operating such a long line must be exponentially more challenging the further it is extended. The automated driver may not need a bathroom break, but the guard will. Bunching, turnbacks, need for layover yards, etc ......

- Paul

Can the TTC operate the fully built out Line 1 as separate trains, e.g. Richmond hill to Union, and Union to VMC with separate operators? The passenger experience would be the same single ride, but the operators could break/switch directions. Not sure if that's useful or not

 

[generalcanada]

Once you decide to bore, the TBM may not care much about how deep it goes - although shafts and stations will cost more the deeper you go.

I guess the built form up that way is too far along to make cut and cover viable.... but I really think we need to revisit the whole preference for TBM construction before planning any more underground transit,

A second question: When is long too long? There has to be an absolute length that Line 1 can be built out to before it can't go any further. Are we at that point? It's a lot of miles from Richmond Hill to Vaughan via Union Station - operating such a long line must be exponentially more challenging the further it is extended. The automated driver may not need a bathroom break, but the guard will. Bunching, turnbacks, need for layover yards, etc ......

- Paul

There is no question that the subway cant expand northwards on either side. its just way too far. and not enough density least not for decades. What would be needed is some kind of express train ala NYC. thats the only option.
Again were talking 2050's here which is ambitious as it is

 

[cplchanb]

There is no question that the subway cant expand northwards on either side. its just way too far. and not enough density least not for decades. What would be needed is some kind of express train ala NYC. thats the only option.
Again were talking 2050's here which is ambitious as it is

well thats what the RH line is for.... now if they only have it 2way all day within our lifetimes...

 

[Rainforest]

Can the TTC operate the fully built out Line 1 as separate trains, e.g. Richmond hill to Union, and Union to VMC with separate operators? The passenger experience would be the same single ride, but the operators could break/switch directions. Not sure if that's useful or not

Probably not at Union. A terminal station needs more tracks than a through station. As it stands, Union only has 2 tracks. Would have to allocate 1 track for each of the separate branches, which means, no room for delays at all.

Could try to run two overlapping services, something like one from Richmond Hill to Sheppard West, the other from Vaughan to Finch. Not sure if that will give any operational advantage.

Or, I've seen proposals to disconnect the halves of Line 1, and build a new "Union" station for one of them. Not cheap or easy, but can potentially improve the throughput.

 

[PL1]

Probably not at Union. A terminal station needs more tracks than a through station. As it stands, Union only has 2 tracks. Would have to allocate 1 track for each of the separate branches, which means, no room for delays at all.

Could try to run two overlapping services, something like one from Richmond Hill to Sheppard West, the other from Vaughan to Finch. Not sure if that will give any operational advantage.

Or, I've seen proposals to disconnect the halves of Line 1, and build a new "Union" station for one of them. Not cheap or easy, but can potentially improve the throughput.

I don't mean turn backs; just crew change. The train would run the whole line, the crews would only do part of a line. Line 2 uses Coxwell for crew changes, but as far as I know the crews rest and then continue eastbound and do operate the trains on the entire line.

Anyway, just thinking aloud (or on forum)

 

[nfitz]

I don't mean turn backs; just crew change. The train would run the whole line, the crews would only do part of a line. Line 2 uses Coxwell for crew changes, but as far as I know the crews rest and then continue eastbound and do operate the trains on the entire line.

It depends whether it's lunch or end of shift or something. We see similar on GO Trains and TTC streetcars - though I can't say I've noticed mid-route on buses. And it certainly doesn't have to be at Union.

I'm not sure what you are proposing really, compared to what is done now; as I assume you aren't suggesting we distinguish the services publicy.

 

[Amare]

I've been a fan of having an impenetrable wall be built at both ends of the YUS line for quite some time, one that would make it so cost-prohibitive that future extensions wouldn't be considered. Vaughan Metropolitan should be the absolute last stop on the western leg, and the current Yonge North extension should be the absolute last on the eastern leg.

Especially with the idiocy that goes on in Ontario transit planning, governments have absolutely no shame in proposing extensions that make absolutely no sense into far reaching places.

 

[81-717]

Vaughan Metropolitan should be the absolute last stop on the western leg

I still say give Wonderland a chance (move your hypothetical wall up to there).

and the current Yonge North extension should be the absolute last on the eastern leg

Which one? The one currently in the planning phase? Or the one that opened in 1974? If the latter, at least let the goalpost be Steeles not Finch.

 

[Amare]

I still say give Wonderland a chance (move your hypothetical wall up to there).

To serve a seasonal amusement park that's closed for essentially almost half the year? That's just a recipe for bleeding money. Let YRT run a competent service up there if they want to fulfill that service gap.

Which one? The one currently in the planning phase? Or the one that opened in 1974? If the latter, at least let the goalpost be Steeles not Finch.

There's no point turning back time, the current extension should be the absolute last one.

 

[81-717]

To serve a seasonal amusement park that's closed for essentially almost half the year? That's just a recipe for bleeding money. Let YRT run a competent service up there if they want to fulfill that service gap.

The notion that it's seasonal only is also up for debate. See:

Canadas wonderland is developing a winter attraction events / hotels. maybe not in the next year but within the next 5-15 years

But even so, I'm sure it's a pretty important destination hub (or will be in the future) even aside from Wonderland.

There's no point turning back time, the current extension should be the absolute last one.

Part of me thought you might've been advocating for cancelling the YNSE and leaving it at Finch. Glad that's not the case.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I've lost track - over the nearly 600 pages here, does anyone know how many times this exact discussion about 16th and Major Mac and "what about this idea of mine...." has happened before?

I'm setting the Over/Under at 8.5 and taking a Same Day Parlay on how many trains will turn back at Steeles and what year the line will open.