Toronto Bloor-Yonge Station Capacity Enhancement | ?m | ?s | TTC | AECOM

aquateam said:
I'm surprised this is going forward. One of the benefit line items for the DRL/OL is that you get to avoid doing this work. $1 billion dollars gets you half of Vancouver's Canada line: we're spending that to get a couple staircases and not improve rapid transit coverage by 1 meter. Why not put that money towards extending the OL to Sheppard and shave off another couple thousand pphpd on Yonge traffic?

Notice that the new platform opens 2 years after the planned opening of the OL, which means it won't come until after much of the transfer traffic has been diverted.

Also, I find it ridiculous that they spend $1 billion on safety upgrades to this station and don't include PSDs??? If you're spending the better part of a decade and a billion dollars rebuilding this interchange for safety reasons, then I would expect barriers to the tracks to be part of the scope. Unless they're planning to shut down Yonge-Bloor again just a few years later. Line 2 is supposed to be done resignalling for ATC by 2029 since the SSE will be ATC-only.
Click to expand...

They have no choice - OL won't change the fact that the Yonge Line extension will bring in more riders.

(I see @Northern Light had just said the same thing)

AoD
 
Northern Light said:
Somewhere around here, I already hinted at that.............hmmmmm

Right, full credit to @DSC for first spotting this report:


I then investigated further over a few posts, beginning here:

TTC: Other Items (catch all)

Some questions about the transit signals on the St. Clair and Spadina streetcar rights-of-way: 2- The vast majority of signals have 3 aspects. Red on top, amber in middle and green up-facing arrow on bottom. I believe that these mean the same as the automobile traffic signals mean for autos...
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca
Click to expand...
This has piqued my ears in a bigger way than any rumour has in years.. Hopefully it doesn't die the same fate as the Yorkville village proposal across the street a few years ago. That's a project for the books that almost nobody even knows existed. I wonder how many things like that come and go without every entering the public eye sometimes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Northern Light said:
Your assertions here are not correct.

The report itself notes, and it is not the first; that a Relief Line/OL is insufficient to relieve congestion at Bloor-Yonge.

At best, if it arrived first, it defers slightly the point of terminal congestion.
Click to expand...

Yes, the report says "Even with the implementation of the Ontario Line, capacity improvement is required before the Line 1 extension to Richmond Hill is in service" but it doesn't provide any justification for that statement.

The city did a full study on what the impact of the Relief Line would be on Yonge traffic, and found it would siphon off a third of the Yonge line's peak ridership.

1602869428641.png


They also found that the Yonge line could handle the Yonge North extension without a relief line (which is questionable), given that it would only increase peak ridership by 2400 pphpd (being mostly existing ridership.)

It is still a big about-face for the city to go from saying - yes we have capacity for Yonge north even without the RL to no, we need to spend a billion on this even with a full relief line reducing transfers by 12 000/hour.

1602869920928.png


Northern Light said:
However, where do you get the idea that the O/L will be up first?

I find it highly unlikely the O/L (should that go forward) will be up and running before 2030.
Click to expand...

I also don't believe that the O/L will be up by 2027 (although the REM's progress gives me hope), I'm just pointing out that the official delivery date for Yonge-Bloor rebuild is 2029 whereas for the OL it's 2027. The Yonge-Bloor rebuild can also take longer than projected, if Union station is any example. But we will be dealing with reduced capacity from the construction up until the same time frame that the Relief Line opens.

Northern Light said:
Finally, how do you know that Platform Edge Doors are not part of the design?
Click to expand...

They could be, but I don't see any mention of them in your post or in the report. They seem like significant enough of a feature (which could also make the structural engineering a bit simpler) that they would warrant mention in the scope.
 
aquateam said:
Yes, the report says "Even with the implementation of the Ontario Line, capacity improvement is required before the Line 1 extension to Richmond Hill is in service" but it doesn't provide any justification for that statement.

The city did a full study on what the impact of the Relief Line would be on Yonge traffic, and found it would siphon off a third of the Yonge line's peak ridership.

They also found that the Yonge line could handle the Yonge North extension without a relief line (which is questionable), given that it would only increase peak ridership by 2400 pphpd (being mostly existing ridership.)

It is still a big about-face for the city to go from saying - yes we have capacity for Yonge north even without the RL to no, we need to spend a billion on this even with a full relief line reducing transfers by 12 000/hour.
Click to expand...

The assumptions made in the study you cited were problematic; the baseline data has also changed (pre-Covid) (growth assumptions have been bumped)

I also don't believe that the O/L will be up by 2027 (although the REM's progress gives me hope), I'm just pointing out that the official delivery date for Yonge-Bloor rebuild is 2029 whereas for the OL it's 2027. The Yonge-Bloor rebuild can also take longer than projected, if Union station is any example. But we will be dealing with reduced capacity from the construction up until the same time frame that the Relief Line opens.
Click to expand...

I would be profoundly surprised to see any R/L or Ontario Line arrive that soon.

They could be, but I don't see any mention of them in your post or in the report. They seem like significant enough of a feature (which could also make the structural engineering a bit simpler) that they would warrant mention in the scope.
Click to expand...

The report does not make mention of it, that's correct.

I think all I can say here is that I have reason to believe that it is under consideration.
 
I really don't buy this logic that we can't start constructing the Yonge line extension to Richmond Hill because the relief line is not build.

Given how long it takes to build these capital projects, why not get started on this.

Another way to provide relief to Yonge line is to extend Sheppard Line westward to downsview.

So people who live in North York and work on University avenue can take the subway to Sheppard, trasfer on Sheppard line to university and take that subway down.
 
Mercenary said:
Given how long it takes to build these capital projects, why not get started on this.
Click to expand...

Fear of manpower issues is the big one Metrolinx is bringing forward. Even with infinity dollars, we simply don't have the people to build it. Just doing the Ontario Line and GO Expansion simultaneously is going to be a struggle unless residential construction tanks.

Fun fact, Ottawa has complained a few times that Eglinton Line construction directly caused delays to their phase 1 opening due to staff shifts. Same companies built both.
 
Mercenary said:
I really don't buy this logic that we can't start constructing the Yonge line extension to Richmond Hill because the relief line is not build.

Given how long it takes to build these capital projects, why not get started on this.
Click to expand...

There really is no room (pre-Covid) available.

Now, if you reduced the extension to Cummer or possibly Steeles, with any eye to creating to discrete turn-backs in service; there just might be.

Whether that's sufficient to justify action I leave to others.

I've long been an advocate, where practical, of building new/extended lines in sections; and doing 'continuous build'. But the TTC has not seemed impressed by the idea, thus far.

Another way to provide relief to Yonge line is to extend Sheppard Line westward to downsview.

So people who live in North York and work on University avenue can take the subway to Sheppard, trasfer on Sheppard line to university and take that subway down.
Click to expand...

Travel time from Sheppard West (formerly Downsview) to St. Patrick station is 23M

Travel time from Sheppard-Yonge to Dundas is 21M.

So there is no time savings in this move, even before factoring in the travel time from Yonge-Sheppard to Sheppard West which would add ~6M.

It's unlikely many people would aim to add fully 8M to their travel time. I would not expect any material relief benefit from the Sheppard West subway.

There are arguments in favour of that extension (notably around subway car movements); that's just not one of them.

 
Northern Light said:
The assumptions made in the study you cited were problematic; the baseline data has also changed (pre-Covid) (growth assumptions have been bumped)
Click to expand...

Is growth really so significant that siphoning off a third of peak ridership and increasing train frequency isn't enough to handle all the new riders?

Before the pandemic, the vast majority of North American transit systems (with the rare exceptions of Seattle and Vancouver) were seeing decreases in ridership. Even before the pandemic TTC ridership was decreasing. While Line 1 might be different from the network as a whole, maybe the assumptions of explosive ridership growth need to be looked at in the context of ridesharing, autonomous vehicles, COVID, telecommuting, and other headwinds.

The SmartTrack Relief Study also showed an impact (17% reduction on Yonge at Bloor) from RER-ifying the Stouffville line. The point is that a significant portion, if not the majority, of Yonge line ridership is from transfers. Offering faster alternative north/south routes is a more effective way of offering relief at Yonge/Bloor than expensive retrofits that provide no travel time benefit to riders.

Bloor-Yonge is a perfectly adequate, even if not ideal, interchange. Before spending $1.1 billion on excavating the TTC's busiest interchange while still operating, pinned in between Canada's largest buildings, you could spend that money more effectively by building the OL.
  • If that isn't enough, instead of spending $1.5 billion on a few escalators extend the OL north from Eglinton to Sheppard
  • If that isn't enough, instead of spending $1.5 billion on a few escalators extend the OL north from Sheppard to Steeles
  • If that isn't enough, instead of spending $1.5 billion on a few escalators extend the OL northwest from Exhibition to intercept Line 2
  • If that isn't enough, instead of spending $1.5 billion on a few escalators electrify and RER-ify the Stouffville line
  • If that isn't enough, instead of spending $1.5 billion on a few escalators electrify and RER-ify the Richmond Hill line
If you've done that and Yonge is still at capacity, then I'll concede that this is needed. But I think we need to step back and ask whether this is really providing value or if there are more effective ways to accomplish the same thing.

Northern Light said:
The report does not make mention of it, that's correct.

I think all I can say here is that I have reason to believe that it is under consideration.
Click to expand...

The renderings in the report also show platforms without any PEDs and lists PEDs as a separate line item. So it looks extremely doubtful that it is part of the scope. Projects like this normally get de-scoped to stay in budget, they don't get useful add-ons.

1602883556520.png


1602885701767.png

I.e. for the cost of these escalators ($1.1 billion), we could retrofit almost the entire system with PEDs ($1.3 billion) and see an actual safety/capacity/reliability improvement.
 
Last edited:
aquateam said:
Is growth really so significant that siphoning off a third of peak ridership and increasing train frequency isn't enough to handle all the new riders?

Before the pandemic, the vast majority of North American transit systems (with the rare exceptions of Seattle and Vancouver) were seeing decreases in ridership. Even before the pandemic TTC ridership was decreasing. While Line 1 might be different from the network as a whole, maybe the assumptions of explosive ridership growth need to be looked at in the context of ridesharing, autonomous vehicles, COVID, telecommuting, and other headwinds.

The SmartTrack Relief Study also showed an impact (17% reduction on Yonge at Bloor) from RER-ifying the Stouffville line. The point is that a significant portion, if not the majority, of Yonge line ridership is from transfers. Offering faster alternative north/south routes is a more effective way of offering relief at Yonge/Bloor than expensive retrofits that provide no travel time benefit to riders.

Bloor-Yonge is a perfectly adequate, even if not ideal, interchange. Before spending $1.1 billion on excavating the TTC's busiest interchange while still operating, pinned in between Canada's largest buildings, you could spend that money more effectively by building the OL.
  • If that isn't enough, instead of spending $1.1 billion on a few escalators extend the OL north from Eglinton to Sheppard
  • If that isn't enough, instead of spending $1.1 billion on a few escalators extend the OL north from Sheppard to Steeles
  • If that isn't enough, instead of spending $1.1 billion on a few escalators extend the OL northwest from Exhibition to intercept Line 2
  • If that isn't enough, instead of spending $1.1 billion on a few escalators electrify and RER-ify the Stouffville line
  • If that isn't enough, instead of spending $1.1 billion on a few escalators electrify and RER-ify the Richmond Hill line
If you've done that and Yonge is still at capacity, then I'll concede that this is needed. But I think we need to step back and ask whether this is really providing value or if there are more effective ways to accomplish the same thing.



The renderings in the report also show platforms without any PEDs and lists PEDs as a separate line item. So it looks extremely doubtful that it is part of the scope. Projects like this normally get de-scoped to stay in budget, they don't get useful add-ons.

View attachment 277115

View attachment 277117
I.e. for the cost of these escalators ($1.1 billion), we could retrofit almost the entire system with PEDs ($1.3 billion) and see an actual safety/capacity/reliability improvement.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that you have a strong opinion here.

I happen to disagree.

I feel the facts; both those public and the things I know about, justify that position; you are, of course, welcome to differ.

I won't address your alternative spending proposals; as with great respect, most are far more than 1.1B; and several aren't even remotely on the table.
 
I have stated since day one well over 10 years ago that when the DRL made its way to Finch, prefer Steeles, the Yonge line would loose 35% of the current ridership to the DRL. That would be only short live as that lost ridership would be replace by new riders a new development is built on Yonge and within a mile of the line. Some of the DRL riders will use the Y/B station as their needs maybe are only 1 or 2 station from it.

It would be a good idea to tear down the 2 towers over the station that been talked about for some time to rebuilt the whole complex right and build new development on top of it.

With the Bay in a poor position these days and talk of closing Bloor store as well tearing it down would benefit everyone in the end.

At the end of the day, we will be back to where we are today come 2040-50 when the new rebuilt station will not handle the ridership until a 2nd Yonge/Bay line is built.
 
drum118 said:
I have stated since day one well over 10 years ago that when the DRL made its way to Finch, prefer Steeles, the Yonge line would loose 35% of the current ridership to the DRL. That would be only short live as that lost ridership would be replace by new riders a new development is built on Yonge and within a mile of the line. Some of the DRL riders will use the Y/B station as their needs maybe are only 1 or 2 station from it.

It would be a good idea to tear down the 2 towers over the station that been talked about for some time to rebuilt the whole complex right and build new development on top of it.

With the Bay in a poor position these days and talk of closing Bloor store as well tearing it down would benefit everyone in the end.

At the end of the day, we will be back to where we are today come 2040-50 when the new rebuilt station will not handle the ridership until a 2nd Yonge/Bay line is built.
Click to expand...

And it's back to...
1602893095464.png

See link. I would include transfer stations at Bloor, Eglinton, Sheppard, and Finch.
 
W. K. Lis said:
And it's back to...
View attachment 277138
See link. I would include transfer stations at Bloor, Eglinton, Sheppard, and Finch.
Click to expand...
The 2nd line would have to use Bay St south of Eglinton as none of the stations south of St Clair can support 2 stations. Eglinton will become Young/Bloor current problem then. The current Bay Station will connect to the new Yonge/Bay Line
 
Northern Light said:
There really is no room (pre-Covid) available.

Now, if you reduced the extension to Cummer or possibly Steeles, with any eye to creating to discrete turn-backs in service; there just might be.

Whether that's sufficient to justify action I leave to others.

I've long been an advocate, where practical, of building new/extended lines in sections; and doing 'continuous build'. But the TTC has not seemed impressed by the idea, thus far.



Travel time from Sheppard West (formerly Downsview) to St. Patrick station is 23M

Travel time from Sheppard-Yonge to Dundas is 21M.

So there is no time savings in this move, even before factoring in the travel time from Yonge-Sheppard to Sheppard West which would add ~6M.

It's unlikely many people would aim to add fully 8M to their travel time. I would not expect any material relief benefit from the Sheppard West subway.

There are arguments in favour of that extension (notably around subway car movements); that's just not one of them.

Click to expand...
Possibility of a seat vs. possibility of not getting on train. Is that reason to go an extra 8 minutes?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top