Cobra
Senior Member
- The rationale is to stop Yonge at Steeles (Yonge can't take anymore capacity)
- the DRL go past Sheppard to Steeles and curve to Richmond Hill as an express service I guess. (could be above ground to save cost)
Richmond Hill Yonge Line 1 North Subway Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Riiight. And how is spending money to bring the subway to steeles creating capacity? I mean, I already know but I'm asking for an engineer friend...
(my plan is similar but instead of taking the DRL to Steeles I'd have everyone get off at Sheppard, cross to Fairview Mall and transfer onto unicorns to Steeles.)
(oh, darn, no. Unicorns would get stuck in mixed traffic. I meant a Pegasus, obviously. Since this is becoming a fantasy thread. )
I think you're expanding the usual use of the word "rationale. "
But I love how there's a lengthy justification for this uber DRL that never once addresses existing travel patterns, development potential, RER on the Stouffville line etc. It's more like you took the limits off on the settings of SimCity. And don't get me wrong, it's more fun that way.
Bah, I'm just feeling snippy tonight. In the fullness of time it might be an idea but given where things are at now and the GO service there and to the east I don't really see the market or other use for a long time.
Last edited:
GenerationW
Senior Member
The province and the feds won't fund Yonge unless it goes into York Region, which means Toronto would have to pay for an extension to Steeles all on its own. Good luck ever seeing that happen.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
You're totally right. Everyone here knows it, though some have trouble accepting it.
(I'm pretty sure the people who keep talking about the subway stopping at Steeles are the same ones who call Bob McCown to explain how the Blue Jays can win the World Series by trading Ryan Goins for Mike Trout. )
I'm still waiting for his explanation of how building to steeles preserves capacity. I'm assuming the answer involves military checkpoints and/ or carpet bombing of South York Region.
Last edited:
W. K. Lis
Superstar
How far north should it go?
Rainforest
Senior Member
The extention to Steeles would bring in some extra riders but not nearly as many as the extention to RHC. The existing fare structure ensures that with greater efficiency than any military checkpoints.
I would support the extention to Steeles only in Phase 1, as a way to deal with the huge number of buses running on Yonge between Finch and Steeles.
However, one issue makes it impractical: short extentions results in dispoportionally high per-km costs. A lot of money will be wasted on the project startup and wind-down, if we have to do it once to reach Steeles and then again to reach RHC.
Therefore, it is preferable to tolerate the buses on Yonge for a few more years, solve the problem with DRL funding, and then once it comes to Yonge North, go to RHC in one shot.
jaycola
Active Member
It's important to note that the Yonge corridor between Hwy 7 and Finch is a key development node for the GTA and is the densest, most transit oriented part of York region's master plan. The population forecast for people living within 500m of a subway station between Finch and RHC in 2031 is 160,000 residents and 68,000 jobs. Without this extension York region will be unable to fulfill the Provincial government requirement for municipalities to have 60% of their development in transit oriented developments.
For those decrying 2 transit lines to RHC, and claiming the Richmond Hill line Go line is sufficient, the attached document shows (pg 26) that only 16% of riders have Union as their destination while 77% of those riders will pass through Bloor station. Obviously the vast majority of transit users will be traveling into Toronto but for most of them Union Station is not a suitable end point.
Any transit improvements made by York region in the Yonge corridor will put additional pressure on the Yonge line. If we started building the Yonge LRT from RHC to Finch today and it proved to be the most successful LRT line in the GTA, would that even be seen as a success? I expect not.
http://www.vivanext.com/files/EnvironmentalAssessments/YongeExtension/Conceptual Design Report/3277670 Conceptual Design Report Appendix A.pdf
For those decrying 2 transit lines to RHC, and claiming the Richmond Hill line Go line is sufficient, the attached document shows (pg 26) that only 16% of riders have Union as their destination while 77% of those riders will pass through Bloor station. Obviously the vast majority of transit users will be traveling into Toronto but for most of them Union Station is not a suitable end point.
Any transit improvements made by York region in the Yonge corridor will put additional pressure on the Yonge line. If we started building the Yonge LRT from RHC to Finch today and it proved to be the most successful LRT line in the GTA, would that even be seen as a success? I expect not.
http://www.vivanext.com/files/EnvironmentalAssessments/YongeExtension/Conceptual Design Report/3277670 Conceptual Design Report Appendix A.pdf
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Rainforest makes a fair point about doing it all at once; but I don't think you can wait TOO long for the DRL and I still think you could get YNE rolling so long as DRL is directly behind. A 5-7 year gap in openings should not cause any major capacity issues as new development north of Steeles won't materialize overnight.
the alternative is to wait "a few more years," but what is that? 10? 15? 20? that's a generation of development the market is ready to build that you are stifling. As always, I say that respecting the capacity issues but I think the main effect of opening Yonge first would be keeping buses and drivers away from Finch, spreading out the loads at what is now the terminal between several stations to the north. all the new riders would come after.
Jaycola repeats some stuff BMO posted several pages back and it should be pinned here. It won't sway people who can't understand why improved GO service doesn't negate the need for a subway but, as I said a few posts back, you can't talk about this stuff in a vacuum. People - human beings - actually go to certain places. A DRL out of Yonge/7 would probably help almost none of them. I mean, maybe some who work in the biz park around 404/401 or in the east end. But to get to Union? That's a LOT of effort to help 16% of people, many of whom are already content on GO. Every time I see that 16% I grit my teeth, thinking of the people who insist people north of Steeles should get off their subway and onto GO.
Facts, people.
the alternative is to wait "a few more years," but what is that? 10? 15? 20? that's a generation of development the market is ready to build that you are stifling. As always, I say that respecting the capacity issues but I think the main effect of opening Yonge first would be keeping buses and drivers away from Finch, spreading out the loads at what is now the terminal between several stations to the north. all the new riders would come after.
Jaycola repeats some stuff BMO posted several pages back and it should be pinned here. It won't sway people who can't understand why improved GO service doesn't negate the need for a subway but, as I said a few posts back, you can't talk about this stuff in a vacuum. People - human beings - actually go to certain places. A DRL out of Yonge/7 would probably help almost none of them. I mean, maybe some who work in the biz park around 404/401 or in the east end. But to get to Union? That's a LOT of effort to help 16% of people, many of whom are already content on GO. Every time I see that 16% I grit my teeth, thinking of the people who insist people north of Steeles should get off their subway and onto GO.
Facts, people.
WislaHD
Superstar
16% of people go to Union, that is why GO-RER is insufficient. But how many people go to the Yonge/Dundas or to the Financial District?
The DRL to RH would be a quicker trip to those destinations than the Yonge Subway, in addition to serving the 16% of riders that go to Union.
We are talking about a much larger number of riders than 16%. Additionally, the benefits of connectivity for those with destinations east of Yonge shouldn't be discounted either. If York Region is to have massive surge in population and job density in the next 30 years, so will the Don Mills/Relief Line corridor. (Like Unilever)
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Somewhere in the TTS is the answer to that; it's a fair question.
And also how many to go to North York Centre or Yonge/Eg or, really, anywhere other than the CBD. The Yonge line provides full connectivity, through the entire corridor. The GO line (though 44North has posited some not entirely unreasonable variables) will probably always largely be a Union Express route, because of the Don Valley.
An extended DRL could bridge that gap somewhat. I just think that there's little evidence now that it's necessary and less that that we can build it in a reasonable time frame. If there's GO (especially RER) and a Yonge subway, the value-added from a DRL that far north would be very small. But if the population keeps growing, maybe an extended DRL serves the whole employment corridor along the 404 (ie Consumers Road, Gordon Baker, Beaver Creek). I just think that even if it makes sense, it's well behind the other things. I'll be amazed if they get it up to Sheppard before I retire.
WislaHD
Superstar
In the map I posted, I had the YNSE included. I am sure many have North York, Midtown or Uptown destinations, and that the Yonge Line would be quicker, more direct service than the 'full' DRL route. If there is cause to bring the DRL that far north, then I definitely see the YNSE having been already built.
It was others who have posited that a DRL to RH would allow us to have a Steeles terminus for the Yonge line, which might have some merits but ultimately, seems illogical to end a transit corridor 4km short of York Region's major transit hub.
You are right, we do not even have the DRL short funded at the moment. I am mostly presenting a possible vision for transit in York Region/GTA for the future, one that I think addresses the issues with the RH-GO line, is smart transit planning for York Region commuters, scores highly in network connectivity, and is plausible and affordable through existing infrastructure once the DRL to Sheppard is complete (fingers crossed).
sixrings
Senior Member
I'm not sure if people in Richmond hill would be happy if they lost their GO line. Although a second subway drl would offer higher frequency, access to more areas and cheaper transit fares it would not be luxurious. Some markets simply would prefer to pay more for comfort and Richmond hill of all areas would fit this description.
44 North
Senior Member
From that report it seems the job and pop. numbers are within the traffic zones, not within 500m of a station. And these traffic zones are up to 2km away from the extension. Within 500m of stations what's projected is 58k ppl and 29k jobs (still ambitious, but def not 160k and 68k). Keep in mind this is projected development, and statistically/historically projections for suburban development have been way off the mark. Specific to Langstaff, the 500m point is an important one since the site is almost 2km long - with seemingly no transit plan to bring future residents beyond walking distance to their station. The visionary who designed it spoke of a pod system, and YR proclaims a +60% transit mode share - but there's obviously something to question there.
The other point about how without a subway York Region can't attain the projected development, or the usual argument about how a subway is the only way to carry the projected demand... that's not really true. And the chart on p.24 of that doc about mode/capacity is a bit flawed. It shows LRT and SRT maxing out above 10k (but below 15k). However when YR presented their study of transit modes for Yonge north of 7 they were much more holistic in their approach (this is something not seen often, and I commend them for it). On p.56 of their EA they showed "Advanced Light Rail Transit" (i.e a slightly smaller subway), and acknowledged its capacity of 15-25k pphpd. In other words we know for a fact there are rapid transit options that can carry above and beyond the best case scenario for YNSE ridership, that can allow for above and beyond the TOD proposed, and which is more affordable, flexible, and would have higher frequency than a 6-car heavy rail subway w/ every 2nd train turned back. Yet it hasn't been looked at.
Important info no doubt. I think people should read this chart and the paragraphs below it. Though for your own argument's sake it's probably better to use the more recent 2013 BCA (but this report is still good). On the page you mention it says that in 2031 the speed of the RH line will be circa ~2000-era, that there will be no fare integration, and that service in 2031 will be 15mins max. Also that a significant number of riders could be attracted from the Yonge Subway extension to a GO Richmond Hill service with sufficient improvements to its speed, frequency and fares.
Believe it or not the RH line is seeing some mild improvements at its southern end today (which theoretically will bump its speed, albeit marginally), that newer rolling stock and cab cars are being rolled out (more marginal speed improvements), that 15min peak has been promised by 2021 (a decade before 2031), that GO-TTC fare integration is to be in place soonish (and is being used in DRL and SSE modeling), and that according to the regional RTP by 2031 the line will be vastly improved vs today (not surprising since it had a great BCA).
So if 77% of YNSE's riders are headed downtown, and at RHC there's an alternative providing a significantly faster trip on an integrated service (30min vs 50min), GO's 15% mode share allocation will rise substantially. Or rather, YNSE's ridership will drop substantially. By how much? It's hard to tell, and the 2013 BCA which presented different scenarios failed to do a side-by-side comparison of any GO improvements alongside a Line 1 extension to RHC. Sure a subway to RHC is a nice-to-have, but it doesn't seem necessary. And just like we're scrutinizing the DRL and SSE to look for affordable alternatives and find ways to lower ridership, I think the public deserves to see the same for YNSE.
BMO
Senior Member
the most logical reply I've seen for the DRL camp in this entire thread.
Cobra
Senior Member
No, no, no...Why are you hating on reports??? They all say that Yonge can't take it.
No, no, no...Why are you hating on reports??? They all say that Yonge can't take it.
Are you telling me that suburban York residents are that lazy??? If they must go to a destination on Yonge street...The Sheppard Subway, The Crosstown and The Bloor-Danforth line transfer is not good enough for them? Stop talking for all of them. A DRL line goes to Richmond Hill and they will all use it and transfer regardless of what you say. It gets them downtown faster as the trains can operate faster