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

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

It's the same argument that is made against the Scarborough extension. Yes there will be good ridership at Yonge/Hwy7 (RHC) (much like at SCC), but between Steeles and RHC, the ridership will be very low, so we could do what we are doing in Scarborough and make the subway go express from Steeles to RHC, since Clark, and Longbridge stations will have very low ridership.

Apples and oranges and Longbridge will basically supplant Finch as the terminal parking lot.

Is it a priority for Toronto to support York Region's development plans? I don't think it is. Yes it's my personal opinion of course.

And mine is that proper development helps the entire Region, whether it's there or downtown or NYCC or Mississauga. Obviously bad development on the fringe creates problems for all, doesn't it?

course you are right that not everyone goes to Union, but you would be surprised at how many people stay on at least Bloor, because frankly, there aren't that many jobs at the other nodes like NYCC/Sheppard, or Eglinton or St. Clair.

It wouldn't surprise me but even Bloor is not Union, which is why RER provides a parallel service, not a replacement. Still, clearly the larger goal is to facilitate transit between all these centres, even if it seems improbable someone could want to travel from Eglinton to 7 to work.

Downtown will always be downtown and I'm not under the illusion RHC will become a massive jobs centre, especially overnight, but travel patterns are changing and will continue to do so.

The simple math for the landowners will be that they won't toss Home Depot and Cineplex from their leases and build condos just because there is a subway to Steeles. It will have to come into their site first, not the other way around . ("it " could be an LRT but they won't budge based on the status quo.)

I use the word dubious because I don't think we should be extending our subway lines out into the 905 area on principle.

I get that. Many here oppose it on principle though some pretend there's logic behind it too. I support it not on principle but based on my analysis of policy, the market and current and projected travel patterns. I see where other growth centres have failed and succeeded and draw conclusions accordingly. I don't oppose or support any project (not even the SSE) merely on principle.

The political winds of change are coming so we will likely see RHC funded to win 905 votes, where as the RL will be stalled indefinitely. This is the Toronto way and history will continue to repeat itself here.

Maybe. I don't guess where things will go anymore. It shouldn't be a zero sum game and if we're ranking political transit decisions it will be far from the worst (especially if paired with DRL) But I don't buy it's the same as SSE or even Sheppard. It's something that would be natural, obvious and overdue if Toronto had kept pace over the years and if the municipal border and/or funding for transit was other than the obsolete thing it is. IMHO.

 

[jys]

Quick question, is the Richmond Hill Line being used for freight traffic?

 

[WislaHD]

Why should the DRL go west from Don Mills/Leslie to Yonge? Wouldn't a true Relief Line go east to somewhere like Leslie/Highway 7 or Woodbine/Highway 7? This is assuming the YNSE gets to RHC. It makes no sense to have a "Relief Line" relief buses down Yonge and not a subway down Yonge.

What better way to provide maximum relief to the Yonge line than by intercepting most of the York Region riders heading to RHC? See attachment.



If the destination is the Financial District, the Relief Line would be quicker than Yonge. If the destination is Sheppard, Eglinton or St. Clair, than the Yonge Line is quicker. This scheme gives maximum options to York Region riders.

And of course, utilizing the RH corridor removes the need for costly tunneling to Leslie or Woodbine /Highway 7, as well as saves us the cost of upgrading the GO service to RER.

 

[minilude]

Richmond Hill Line's ridership is atrocious, even with it's exceedingly expensive upgrades to make it electrified.

I would use the RH-GO corridor to extend the DRL to Richmond Hill on the cheap, and scrap the service.

Viola, the ridership is low because most people that keyboard warriors think they should use the RH line find its way more practical to park at Finch Station and take the subway, that's why Finch Station is exploding. Reason being 1. it costs less to do so, 2. many many people do not go to Union Station, 3. the richmond hill line itself is too circuitous and does not provide any time saving even if you are going to Union.

 

[minilude]

Quick question, is the Richmond Hill Line being used for freight traffic?

yes, starting from somewhere north of Steeles is still freight track and the freight trains are quite frequent. CN has no plan to give up that stretch in the foreseeable future AFAIK

 

[WislaHD]

yes, starting from somewhere north of Steeles is still freight track and the freight trains are quite frequent. CN has no plan to give up that stretch in the foreseeable future AFAIK

I found this map: http://cnebusiness.geomapguide.ca/

 

[minilude]

I found this map: http://cnebusiness.geomapguide.ca/

theoretically it looks possible to merge the freights to CP's Mactier Sub but who knows... Would it be even more complicated than the "missing link" talk?

 

[rbt]

Who do we have to kill to get those prices?

That's just tunnel right? We did about 10km on Eglinton for $600M. I think that included the pits around Line 1 (both of them) too.

Engineering, stations, emergency exits, track, signals, etc. aren't included.

 

[steveintoronto]

If only there were some kind of heavily studied rapid transit line to downtown currently in design that would off-load the Yonge line, providing "Relief" to it...

You missed the gist. Mark's question was in regard to the Midtown Line and the loading problem at Summerhill. How is the Relief Line going to help that or the Dupont Station at Spadina for distributing Midtown train crush loading?

The Relief Line is no magic solution to the Yonge and Spadina lines operating beyond capacity in a little over ten years. The Relief Line is designed to lessen the symptom, not address the roots of it. Some other major trunk must collect a lot of that flow and deliver it to destination without that flow going on any of the subways. Extending the Yonge, Spadina and Bloor lines is just inviting further saturation until another collector of greater capacity if built, and it has to be more than just subway to have the capacity to do it.

From the City's own report (Metrolinx makes it even more profoundly in their reports)
"The need for the Relief Line and its critical significance in the transit network cannot be overstated. Other important additions to the transit network, such as the extension of Line 1
(Yonge) north, will rely on the implementation of alternative routes into and out of the downtown core."
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-94624.pdf

Obviously relief for the eastern flank is needed. The Relief Line as proposed it going to be insufficient even for the task described. It will help, it won't suffice to address the need completely, not even close. Other ways are going to have to be available to address some of the catchment, and Midtown will do that.

If Midtown and other conduits are going to do it, then best plan for a much heavier rail solution than subway before the tunneling begins, or four tunnels instead of two. The larger twin tunnels will be by far the most cost effective, if not one large twin heavy rail tunnel, as most of the bore will be through stable rock which renders a larger single bore much easier and cheaper.

 

[aquateam]

You missed the gist. Mark's question was in regard to the Midtown Line and the loading problem at Summerhill. How is the Relief Line going to help that or the Dupont Station at Spadina for distributing Midtown train crush loading?

The Relief Line is no magic solution to the Yonge and Spadina lines operating beyond capacity in a little over ten years. The Relief Line is designed to lessen the symptom, not address the roots of it. Some other major trunk must collect a lot of that flow and deliver it to destination without that flow going on any of the subways. Extending the Yonge, Spadina and Bloor lines is just inviting further saturation until another collector of greater capacity if built, and it has to be more than just subway to have the capacity to do it.

From the City's own report (Metrolinx makes it even more profoundly in their reports)
"The need for the Relief Line and its critical significance in the transit network cannot be overstated. Other important additions to the transit network, such as the extension of Line 1
(Yonge) north, will rely on the implementation of alternative routes into and out of the downtown core."
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-94624.pdf

Obviously relief for the eastern flank is needed. The Relief Line as proposed it going to be insufficient even for the task described. It will help, it won't suffice to address the need completely, not even close. Other ways are going to have to be available to address some of the catchment, and Midtown will do that.

If Midtown and other conduits are going to do it, then best plan for a much heavier rail solution than subway before the tunneling begins, or four tunnels instead of two. The larger twin tunnels will be by far the most cost effective, if not one large twin heavy rail tunnel, as most of the bore will be through stable rock which renders a larger single bore much easier and cheaper.

You missed the gist that you and Mark were talking about resurrecting several long-dead slow-moving mixed-traffic surface routes to relieve the additional paltry load (1200 pph) at Summerhill of an unfunded crosstown GO line which may or may not operate in the distant future, when a much more effective long-term solution to Yonge capacity issues is in the works which reduces crush-hour loading by over a third (12 000 pph).

You also seem to be missing the gist of the fact that the same studies you cite show that RER has no impact on Yonge demand, given that the nearest GO line is a meandering, isolated, single-tracked freight line that runs through flood-prone ravines and does not connect well to any point along the Yonge corridor that isn't Union station, and is not even part of the Province's RER plan for those reasons.

I also find it strange that you say that the "Relief line is no magic solution" to every problem in the transit system, but then offer RER as a panacea. The "root cause" of Yonge overcrowding is that it is the only North/South transit route into downtown for half the city. Building a high capacity (yes, standard grade-separated third-rail TTC-gauge subway counts as high capacity, and it is higher capacity than any current GO line) route that intercepts passengers east of Yonge and offers them a faster route into downtown does address that root cause.

 

[steveintoronto]

You missed the gist that you and Mark were talking about resurrecting several long-dead slow-moving mixed-traffic surface routes to relieve the additional paltry load at Summerhill of an unfunded crosstown GO line which may or may not operate in the distant future, when a much more effective long-term solution to Yonge capacity issues is in the works which reduces crush-hour loading by over a third (12 000 pph).

It's termed Midtown, it's not "long-dead" and Mark and I had discussed it being contingent on the Missing Link, the completion time of which could be much sooner than that of the Relief Line (formerly DRL). Perhaps you could explain why Metrolinx is rebuilding the spur from the east down to the Don Valley at this time if it is "long dead"? Please, I'd love to know. It's far from being "long dead", it's waiting for CP to rationalize freight operations out of Toronto's core, something the City is pushing as well as the Province. Any studies on Midtown traffic is dated and will be revisited, as will all RER schedules, traffic and funding.

You also seem to be missing the gist of the fact that the same studies you cite show that RER has no impact on Yonge demand, given that the nearest GO line is a circuitous, isolated, single-tracked freight line that runs through flood-prone ravines and does not connect well to any point along the Yonge corridor that isn't Union station, and is not even part of the Province's RER plan for those reasons.

"No impact on the Yonge Corridor"....the one that Metrolinx and City themselves agree that will *still be beyond capacity with the DRL" by 2030? What I had proposed was *avoiding Yonge/Spadina* to "distribute" the crush loadings at Summerhill and/or Dupont/Spadina, by using streetcar extensions from Bathurst and possibly Spadina to avoid subway use, and distribute loadings south from there *whether there's a Relief Line or not*. Someone had suggested not unloading at Summerhill for the Midtown, and doing so at Spadina, to which 42 had replied: (gist) "Also packed". Without a major new north-south trunk serving the upper core, overcrowding is inevitable. In lieu of not having a major new conduit, crush loading must be distributed to destination, not concentrated.

I also find it strange that you say that the "Relief line is no magic solution" to every problem in the transit system, but then offer RER as a panacea. The "root cause" of Yonge overcrowding is that it is the only North/South transit route into downtown for half the city. Building a high capacity (yes, standard grade-separated third-rail TTC-gauge subway counts as high capacity, and it is higher capacity than any current GO line) route that intercepts passengers east of Yonge and offers them a faster route into downtown does address that root cause.

"I also find it strange that you say that the "Relief line is no magic solution" to every problem in the transit system, but then offer RER as a panacea." That's because you misread. It's going to take *many* solutions to address the demand. Relief Line *alone* can only buy time. It's right in the Metrolinx and City reports!

You're the one, and others, buying into thinking the Relief Line is the panacea for the problem. It isn't, not oven close, save for a stop-gap measure, and to serve the local along Pape. If that corridor is to be served, then do it right, not the capacity being touted, as it too will be beyond capacity soon after being built. And at what cost? Be prepared to build something ore substantial OR other lines that will also relieve the crush. And RER does that in many other "World Cities"...why can't it in Toronto? I'm not touting RER alone, far from it, the present subway works very well, so leave it and address the cause of the flow with the presently limited budget by utilizing other corridors to collect and deliver.

Maybe the reason you can't get ten people in your car is the fact that it is just not built for the task? Try a minibus.
"(yes, standard grade-separated third-rail TTC-gauge subway counts as high capacity, and it is higher capacity than any current GO line)"

You know, I was discussing this with a transportation expert just last week, he was in town on business, discussing exactly this with persons in Toronto in the biz. I knew the throughput of Union Station was a fraction of equivalent stations elsewhere with the same number of tracks and platforms, what I didn't realize fully is the *degree of the problem*. Union is *magnitudes* less efficient than World Leading Cities. Why? Mostly because signalling and train control is from almost a century ago.

Just because GO sucks at train control (in all fairness, much of this is inherited, and they know it's grossly inadequate), it doesn't then follow that in general, subways carry more traffic than RERs, far from it, as any World Class City's experience shows. In Toronto's case? You have a point.

"Use international best-
practices in evaluating alternatives"
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...rdMtg_Relief_Line_Network_Study_Update_EN.pdf

I rest my case.

 

[salsa]

@steveintoronto can you provide a map of your proposed alternative to the relief line?

 

[steveintoronto]

@steveintoronto can you provide a map of your proposed alternative to the relief line?

Which one?
This isn't about the route, it's about the *delivery*! Four car subway trains?

I've made the point on which route, which is pretty much the same as the now proposed one, save that the RL I'd consider being a branch off of the Don Valley RER line for the "city loop", and the express ones straight down to Union with a stop at the King/Queen bridge to allow transfer to the King/Queen streetcars as the existing RH line now does, save that there's no Queen/King stop.

I don't quibble with the route chosen for RL other than it slowing down those headed to Union, who can choose the express (the extant route) which by-passes all those stops if the RL is built to RER gauge and connects to the Richmond Hill line in the Don Valley. If there's sufficient demand still after the southern loop to Osgoode is completed, then it could still be connected by going back into tunnel as a spur northwards terminating at Don Mills, with express still running down from Richmond Hill by-passing the northern spur in tunnel, but allowing a change to the "City Loop" at a station in the valley where both lines intersect.. This would be roughly the same degree of tunneling as is planned for subway, but a slightly larger bore. There would be connecting chords where the RL meets the RH line, both for the initial stage one, and later for the northern extension in tunnel to Don Mills, so that stock can be moved on existing lines to servicing and yards.

If the Relief Line is built, then build something that can handle far more than overhead traffic and tapping off some of the traffic headed to YUS. Build something that can bring people in from the northern proposed section, and more. A lot of this comes down to a provincial responsibility, not City. And the Province should build it accordingly to circumvent the flow onto the subway from outlying regions to begin with. And do it with a greater running and build speed. And be run by Metrolinx/GO, and financed directly from the Province.

Here is a map for the "Midtown RER":

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/regional/2106.shtml

To re-iterate: The Missing Link will be a prerequisite to the Midtown Line being possible, but I suspect we're about to hear a big announcement on that shortly.

Edit to Clarify: The "Don Mills Station" on the map and referred to in this post is now changed to "Science Centre".

 

[aquateam]

It's termed Midtown, it's not "long-dead" and Mark and I had discussed it being contingent on the Missing Link, the completion time of which could be much sooner than that of the Relief Line (formerly DRL). Perhaps you could explain why Metrolinx is rebuilding the spur from the east down to the Don Valley at this time if it is "long dead"? Please, I'd love to know. It's far from being "long dead", it's waiting for CP to rationalize freight operations out of Toronto's core, something the City is pushing as well as the Province. Any studies on Midtown traffic is dated and will be revisited, as will all RER schedules, traffic and funding.

"Long-dead" refers to the Church, Bay, and Yonge streetcar routes that you were talking about resurrecting and directing to Summerhill, which is the context of your post. Please try to keep up.

"No impact on the Yonge Corridor"....the one that Metrolinx and City themselves agree that will *still be beyond capacity with the DRL" by 2030? What I had proposed was *avoiding Yonge/Spadina* to "distribute" the crush loadings at Summerhill and/or Dupont/Spadina, by using streetcar extensions from Bathurst and possibly Spadina to avoid subway use, and distribute loadings south from there *whether there's a Relief Line or not*. Someone had suggested not unloading at Summerhill for the Midtown, and doing so at Spadina, to which 42 had replied: (gist) "Also packed". Without a major new north-south trunk serving the upper core, overcrowding is inevitable. In lieu of not having a major new conduit, crush loading must be distributed to destination, not concentrated.

Where are you getting "still beyond capacity with the DRL" from? Maybe you're talking about DRL-short to Pape but the full DRL definitely resolves any capacity issues. With the Richmond hill Yonge extension, the new terminus of Yonge can be configured to allow faster turnaround time for trains (and with ATC) so you'd get both a reduction in demand due to DRL and a capacity increase from improved terminal geometry.

As I said, the demand from midtown is paltry. According to the study I linked to, the peak hour demand of midtown is low because it doesn't go to Union or downtown, which is closer to more jobs. You're talking about creating 3 new streetcar lines in areas that already have excellent subway coverage to handle less demand than many bus routes.

"I also find it strange that you say that the "Relief line is no magic solution" to every problem in the transit system, but then offer RER as a panacea." That's because you misread. It's going to take *many* solutions to address the demand. Relief Line *alone* can only buy time. It's right in the Metrolinx and City reports!

I sense a lot of misreading, but not from this end.

You're the one, and others, buying into thinking the Relief Line is the panacea for the problem. It isn't, not oven close, save for a stop-gap measure, and to serve the local along Pape. If that corridor is to be served, then do it right, not the capacity being touted, as it too will be beyond capacity soon after being built. And at what cost? Be prepared to build something ore substantial OR other lines that will also relieve the crush. And RER does that in many other "World Cities"...why can't it in Toronto? I'm not touting RER alone, far from it, the present subway works very well, so leave it and address the cause of the flow with the presently limited budget by utilizing other corridors to collect and deliver.

I've never said the DRL is a panacea, although it does provide network benefits beyond its service area. But for the specific issue of relieving Yonge, yes, believe it or not, building a parallel subway into downtown 5 km east of Yonge seems to resolve the issue according to the bundles of reports that you manage to cite ad nauseum without absorbing.

Maybe the reason you can't get ten people in your car is the fact that it is just not built for the task? Try a minibus.
"(yes, standard grade-separated third-rail TTC-gauge subway counts as high capacity, and it is higher capacity than any current GO line)"

You know, I was discussing this with a transportation expert just last week, he was in town on business, discussing exactly this with persons in Toronto in the biz. I knew the throughput of Union Station was a fraction of equivalent stations elsewhere with the same number of tracks and platforms, what I didn't realize fully is the *degree of the problem*. Union is *magnitudes* less efficient than World Leading Cities. Why? Mostly because signalling and train control is from almost a century ago.

Just because GO sucks at train control (in all fairness, much of this is inherited, and they know it's grossly inadequate), it doesn't then follow that in general, subways carry more traffic than RERs, far from it, as any World Class City's experience shows. In Toronto's case? You have a point.

"Use international best-
practices in evaluating alternatives"
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...rdMtg_Relief_Line_Network_Study_Update_EN.pdf

I rest my case.

If you're going to rest your case on the Yonge relief study, you could at least look at the results of the study and not the framing for the study that you've cited. Here's a quick summary:

 

[steveintoronto]

I also find it strange that you say that the "Relief line is no magic solution" to every problem in the transit system, but then offer RER as a panacea. The "root cause" of Yonge overcrowding is that it is the only North/South transit route into downtown for half the city. Building a high capacity (yes, standard grade-separated third-rail TTC-gauge subway counts as high capacity, and it is higher capacity than any current GO line) route that intercepts passengers east of Yonge and offers them a faster route into downtown does address that root cause.

I think you'd best re-read what you wrote.
I didn't and don't "offer RER as a panacea". Those words are yours. It's going to take a multi-faceted approach, and the more the load is taken off the subway as is, the better.

And I wasn't touting three streetcar routes, I was examining possibilities in lieu of the obvious one for addressing crush loading at Summerhill stations when and if the Midtown becomes extant, and that's one already existent: Bathurst. I also considered the Spadina streetcar being extended, but it would be more problematic. As stated, Bathurst alone won't take the crush, even servicing, as I projected, both Summerhill and Spadina stations on the Midtown line. Some other form of distribution of load south from there is needed. Contrary to your claims, the Yonge and University subways will be beyond capacity by 2031 to doing so *even with RL as projected*. I'm not touting not building RL, just building it with enough capacity to handle further loading when the inevitable extension is needed.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-94624.pdf

Four car subway trains running south from Pape aren't going to do it.

yes, standard grade-separated third-rail TTC-gauge subway counts as high capacity, and it is higher capacity than any current GO line

Your term "capacity" is undefined.

GO EMUs could be running on 2.5 minute headways if they used state of the art signalling and control systems. Paris RER Line A in 2012, can carry up to 1,725 passengers in just five carriages.
Line A in Paris now carries more than 60 000 passengers per hour in the morning peak on each track
[...]
The maximum speed of Line A rolling stock is 120 km/h, with an average commercial speed in the city centre of 49 km/h. Maximum station dwell time in the centre is 50 sec. This and other design targets have been achieved through careful matching of the rolling stock and signalling. Sacem is able to achieve 2 min headways between trains, allowing operators to provide a consistent level of service at 27 trains an hour. Without Sacem, the interval between trains would be 2½ min.
[...]
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...Ms-cross-city-line-follows-the-rer-model.html

See also: https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1249603

Sacem:
[Abstract
The authors give an overview of the SACEM system which controls the train movements on RER A in Paris, which transports daily one million passengers. The various aspects of the dependability of the system are described, including the techniques aimed at insuring safety (online error detection, software validation). Fault tolerance of the onboard-ground compound system is emphasized]

SACEM: A fault tolerant system for train speed control. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/public...fault_tolerant_system_for_train_speed_control [accessed Apr 16, 2017].
https://www.researchgate.net/public...fault_tolerant_system_for_train_speed_control