Richmond Hill Yonge Line 1 North Subway Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

Here is a stunning idea. Build them simultaneously. Even my little brain can wrap itself around this idea. Lordy. Walking and chewing gum.
 
steveintoronto said:
^ Previous reports from the agency suggested the Yonge North Extension could be built without overloading the TTC network, and that both the Yonge project and the relief line should proceed together “in an integrated way.”

https://www.yorkregion.com/news-sto...efore-yonge-north-subway-extension-metrolinx/

In the event, I don't think Metrolinx knew what they were talking about then (at lest the exec) and they still don't now. The exec is too busy putting 'escape clauses' in their reports for when they're proven wrong later.
Click to expand...

I dunno if you can have it both ways with Metrolinx (at least the actual people who work on this stuff behind the scenes).
Most of our transit plans are, to some degree, drawn on the back of a napkin. Toronto said they wouldn't extend Yonge until they built the DRL but they hadn't looked at it broadly, in any way. Pretty much every argument we're having now is because of the network analysis Metrolinx undertook then, the most significant of which is the DRL-north. You never heard this "has to go up to Sheppard" idea that's now a true religion, until Metrolinx raised it in 2009.

Capacity isn't an absolute anyway. They were likely right that IF you had started building the YNSE in 2009, it would not have single-handedly overwhelmed the system on Day 1. But they didn't, and all the little bits of capacity they "found" here and there, have been consumed over the course of time. I still think you could open the two lines virtually simultaneously and it doesn't really matter if YNSE happens to open 6 months before DRL or after but we have a lot to build anyway.

44 North said:
I don't really see the need to go frantic/manic. People have suggestions, and write them. Kinda the point of a forum. Also phasing projects is pretty commonplace, even here. RL is being phased, as was Line 1 and 2 extensions in the past. Opening YNSE to Steeles before continuing to the hinterland of the outer suburbs actually sounds like a reasonable compromise.
Click to expand...

Line 1 was built in phases in that various pieces were added over decades; but it wasn't phased in the way you describe, which is to know how far it's going and then only build some of it, just cuz. Anyway, the "hinterland" is (ironically?) the part where all the population that will overwhelm the system is. So, between that obvious fact and the level of development we're already seeing at Steeles, I don't see how it solves a single problem/concern being voiced here or at Toronto council. (Unless you count funding a cross-border operation, which is a political argument not an argument that is a "reasonable compromise" in any other way IMHO).

anyway, in the long term I have no problem with a DRL to Steeles - of course, at one point the Don Mills LRT was going north of Steeles. I simply don't see it as the sort of thing that needs to (or even can) happen for quite a while; and certainly not as a pre-requisite for YNSE. If we have the money and gumption to do it? By all means, let's get some stuff rolling. I'd love nothing more than seeing DRL-S open, then YNSE a few months later, then DRL-N a couple of years after that and then keep going.
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
Most of our transit plans are, to some degree, drawn on the back of a napkin.
Click to expand...

That's not really an issue. So were nearly all of Madrid's transit plans as their plans rest entirely in the hands of the mayor during the mayoral campaign. The big difference is their funding was NOT drawn on the back of a napkin, but ours largely is.
 
Last edited:
You're being generous about how we fund projects :)

But, yeah.
I was merely pointing out that the Metrolinx report upon which York Region keeps hanging its hat, was the first real look at the system-wide implications and approaches to the extension. It took a decades-old, virtually dormant idea and put it on the front burner AND looked at how far it would actually need to go to achieve the desired effect, also taking into account the likely impacts of ATC, RER implementation etc.
We should be doing more of that. It's "obsolete" now, because it's been so long, but they deserve the credit for the approach they took and for giving us ideas like the DRL-N to chew on.

(By contrast, see the Toronto council votes rejecting doing a proper business case comparison for the SSE and the 3-stop vs 1-stop debate, with no actual network analysis etc.)
 
Reecemartin said:
While I agree with what you've said the idea that the Crosstown uses larger bores than Crossrail (which you've said a few times has never made sense to me, the Crossrail trains are physically larger).

Turns out as I expected that's not the case: Eglinton has 5.7m diameter TBMs Crossrail has 7.1m diameter TBMs.

Source:
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/construction/tunnelling/meet-our-giant-tunnelling-machines/

http://www.thecrosstown.ca/the-project/fact-sheets/tbm
Click to expand...


All depends on the section. Crossrail is 6.2 metres and Crosstown is 5.75 metres, but don't forget to include the liners.
The Spadina tunnel will be 5.4 metres in diameter, compared with 5.2 metres on the Sheppard line, because of different curves on Spadina and to accommodate new fire rules requiring wider walkways.

The tunnels won’t be as wide, however, as the underground Eglinton light rail, which requires a 6.5-metre diameter to accommodate the overhead catenary.
Click to expand...
https://www.thestar.com/news/ttc/2011/06/16/supersized_tunneling_machines_ready_to_launch.html

The exact figure isn't the point. The cost of boring the tunnel is, and to increase a tunnel 20% in diameter is almost inconsequential in cost to the yield of doing so.

Meantime:
History
The Great Northern & City Railway (GN&CR) was planned to allow electrified trains to run from the Great Northern Railway (GNR, now the East Coast Main Line) at Finsbury Park to the City of London at Moorgate. Despite being built using similar methods to the tube network then under construction, the tunnels were built large enough to take a main-line train, with an internal diameter of 16 feet (4.9 m), compared with those of the Central London Railway with a diameter less than 12 feet (3.7 m). However, the GNR eventually opposed the scheme and cancelled its electrification plans, and the line opened in 1904 with the northern terminus in tunnels underneath Finsbury Park GNR station. It was originally electrified using an unusual fourth-rail system with a conductor rail outside both running rails.[9]
[...]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_City_Line

The Class 717[6] is an electric multiple unit now in use with Govia Thameslink Railway, on their Great Northern routes. They are manufactured by German rolling stock manufacturer Siemens, mainly for services from Moorgate station, in London. A total of 25 six-car units are to be built. As of 21 January 2019, they have entered limited service between Moorgate and Gordon Hill.[7]
[...]
Upon winning the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise, Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) announced that it would seek to replace the existing Class 313 units (which were 40 years old by 2016) operating on services to and from Moorgate, with up to 25 six-car units intended to be procured.[8] In December 2015, GTR announced that it had selected Siemens to provide this new fleet as a follow-on order from the main Class 700order, with entry into service expected from the start of 2019.[9] The order was finalised in February 2016.[10][11]

A significant difference between Class 717s and the earlier Class 700s is the provision of emergency end doors. These are required for evacuation of passengers[6] while in the Moorgate tunnels.[12]

Siemens began testing the Class 717 units in Germany during June 2018.[13] The first unit entered preview service in September 2018 and are scheduled to enter passenger service in early 2019, with all 25 units in service by spring 2019.[7] [...]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_717

And here it is hosting mainline 750VDC and 25kVAC dual mode state of the art Siemens Desiro family hybrids:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=class+717+trains

I've made the case in these strings many times before. It stands more than ever.
1549296726534.png
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
rbt said:
That's not really an issue. So were nearly all of Madrid's transit plans as their plans rest entirely in the hands of the mayor during the mayoral campaign. The big difference is their funding was NOT drawn on the back of a napkin, but ours largely is.
Click to expand...

But, of course our plans are written on the back of a napkin, as our politicans just fight to cut taxes!
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
I dunno if you can have it both ways with Metrolinx (at least the actual people who work on this stuff behind the scenes).
Most of our transit plans are, to some degree, drawn on the back of a napkin. Toronto said they wouldn't extend Yonge until they built the DRL but they hadn't looked at it broadly, in any way. Pretty much every argument we're having now is because of the network analysis Metrolinx undertook then, the most significant of which is the DRL-north. You never heard this "has to go up to Sheppard" idea that's now a true religion, until Metrolinx raised it in 2009.
Click to expand...

Metrolinx raised a RL to Sheppard idea in 2009? That's not accurate. Also how is it you claim TTC hadn't looked at RL "broadly, in any way" when back in 2012 they modeled and presented RL to Eglinton, and GO improvements as a means to offset Line 1. This is literally what Metrolinx's YRNS (and later RL Long) was based off 3-4yrs later. It just added 6km from Eg to Shep and included some of the 2014 RER vision.

Slightly expanding the scope and including new info is certainly helpful, and sort of what a regional transit agency is supposed to do. But the way you're spinning things and making stuff up certainly doesn't make sense.

TJ O'Pootertoot said:
Line 1 was built in phases in that various pieces were added over decades; but it wasn't phased in the way you describe, which is to know how far it's going and then only build some of it, just cuz. Anyway, the "hinterland" is (ironically?) the part where all the population that will overwhelm the system is. So, between that obvious fact and the level of development we're already seeing at Steeles, I don't see how it solves a single problem/concern being voiced here or at Toronto council. (Unless you count funding a cross-border operation, which is a political argument not an argument that is a "reasonable compromise" in any other way IMHO).
Click to expand...

Except for the parts that were phased in and not added over decades. No reason it can't be done again, and may make a reasonable compromise.
 
44 North said:
Metrolinx raised a RL to Sheppard idea in 2009? That's not accurate.
Click to expand...

Yeah - you're correct. I mushed the dates in my head together as I was typing and that obviously makes no sense as the TPAP for YNSE was done in 2009. The network report was 2015.

Except for the parts that were phased in and not added over decades. No reason it can't be done again, and may make a reasonable compromise.
Click to expand...

As I explained, I think there are multiple obvious reasons it couldn't possibly be worth the effort to extend the line from Finch to Steeles, including that it accomplishes pretty much zero and is basically a political non-starter. The only benefits I can see are getting some buses off Yonge, from Finch to Steeles. You don't even get cars off the road, since the parking lot is still at Finch. If you believe it makes sense, go for it. But I don't see the economy of scale or political feasibility on any level.[/QUOTE]

narduch said:
Wait til he finds out Ford will fund neither
Click to expand...

Well, not until after the one to Pickering...

And re: the Scarpitti thing above, he's essentially arguing that he's privy to internal numbers that are different from what's presented on that slide. Perhaps Metrolinx was prepared to elaborate on what he sees as a difference between this Jan. 21, 2019 model and what they ended up with at their presentation but the main source of annoyance seems to be with internal mixed messages.

What I find most interesting, personally, is the modelling (allegedly) showing 80% of riders would be getting off north of Bloor, which puts a number no something I've been saying all along, even while many continue to argue, in the abstract, that all these riders would actually be better served by a GO train. Apparently, only a tiny minority would be. Regardless of the numbers, seems to me it's hard to argue with his conclusion we need to work on fare integration, promoting off-peak travel etc. But people will get in a tizzy anyway.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top