WislaHD
Superstar
The sooner the DRL has shovels in the ground, the quicker we can get building on the Yonge North Extension.
Just get things moving.
Just get things moving.
Richmond Hill Yonge Line 1 North Subway Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
44 North
Senior Member
Not sure what the most recent modeling now states, but in the 00s the two options of a Line 2 extn and Line 3 upgrade were run together, and tho the subway did come out on top in terms of higher ridership, it was only marginally. In other words the transfer isn't really a huge deterrent.
The projections for Line 3 were always solid, and even today its ridership is still pretty good all things considered (i.e being forcibly capped by limited decrepit vehicles). Even when modeled among a built-out regional transportation plan its 100k daily avg trumped significantly costlier projects like YNSE and TYSSE. But yeah I agree something more could've been done...be it interline with Line 4 or 5, or branched service further east to Malvern or UTSC. The original optics were never good considering we fastracked Cadillac solutions elsewhere.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Haha! There are few things in life that make me affirm my sense of moral certainty about something than. TORONTO SUN editorial saying the opposite.
I love someone citing them as experts on transit, so I know with whom I'm dealing. They haven't been "bang on" on transportation issues since the invention of the steam engine.
My day is well in hand and I thank you for it.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Something's wrong at the Stun! They got something right, and Sue-Ann Levy yet...
Cobra
Senior Member
It's an editorial on politics, not transit planning. They are just pointing out the obvious
Also does someone have the project EA link? I'd like to read it again please
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
A Sun editorial on politics? By Sue Anne? Yeah, I'll double down on everything I said above.
The TPAP report is here.
Edit :does anyone know how this even came up? Was it just a (York Region?) reporter asking or did Tory actually raise it himself? If the former, there's rather little evidence anyone is trying to "muscle" the city.
Last edited:
WislaHD
Superstar
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
dowlingm
Senior Member
Except when Bombardier can't make trains stop where they are supposed to:
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...o-San-Jose-on-track-but-new-cars-11047689.php
rbt
Senior Member
Train control and signalling related issues on BART aren't just a Bombardier problem. They've had multi-year projects with Harmon ('97) and GE ('04?) in the past that both ended in complete failure and, I believe, a good chunk of the system is still under the control of the original installation from the 70's which is not an off-the-shelf system. BART intends to tender yet another resignalling/train control project in 2018, this time for a standardized CBTC system (they've got $915 million set aside for it).
Bombardier clearly needs to fix the issue but I wouldn't be surprised if they are BART specific issues that are impossible to reproduce outside of BART (in part because you can't exactly buy the 70's Westinghouse equipment to create a mini-BART in a lab).
When every company you hire to work on your system struggles, perhaps the issue isn't the companies being hired.
Last edited:
Cobra
Senior Member
The EA needs to be updated...before we do anything north of Steeles.
Where's the ridership between Richmond Hill Centre and Steeles? Someone help me find it if I'm wrong but it isn't there.
The best I could find in terms of forecast was this:
So where's the ridership forecast between Richmond Hill and Steeles? I'm pointing this out because we scrutinize the ridership between STC and Kennedy or Don Mills to STC to assess the viability of a subway extension, not just the overall ridership of the line only once said extension is built and throw an "20%" figure speculating that it's due to Richmond Hill. Where's the math?
This one raised a red flag for me
Well, Finch LRT no longer goes to Yonge and Sheppard East is a huge question mark. That further reinforces the need to update this.
Again... where does it says by how much of that growth is a result of the RHC-Steeles portion? Lots of focus on the ridership growth south of Bloor without answering the question of the ridership in Richmond Hill.
This gets clearer:
So, 20% of the highest projected ridership (42k) for the AM Peak Hour / Peak Direction Volumes and I repeat SOUTH OF BLOOR in 2031, means that they are projecting that 8400 is due to the Yonge extension. How much of that 20% is between Finch to Steeles and how much of that 20% is between Steeles and RHC.
That 8400 is in reality, less, between Steeles and Richmond Hill
Last time I checked we still used that model to determine the right mode to use right?
With Steeles Station designed to have the subway and an underground bus terminal, why can't we build an LRT on Yonge that could go underground at Steeles Station to meet the subway?
LRT can clearly execute it's mandate up to 14kppph at a fraction of the cost. Furthermore, if the same amount of cash was spent in York Region, why not build a comprehensive LRT network in York Region instead?
Most importantly, why is the ridership between RHC and Steeles is so well buried under this "sea of text, assumptions, rationale for subway"?
I've learned more about the ridership south of Steeles and all the ways to reduce it so that Richmond Hill can have a mean to create a downtown than the actual ridership within Richmond Hill.
Why wasn't LRT or Skytrain evaluated as well??? Is it because a certain Regional Municipality doesn't want to get stuck with:
- operating and maintaining a higher mode of transportation within it's borders
- having to carry a higher burden to come up with the capital cost of building that said line and/or network
- knowing the current political context of the province being "out" in terms of transit subsidies?
- Increase attractiveness of being part of the main Toronto subway?
I went to Washington DC, two weeks ago, I was surprised on how far the subway went, especially in neighboring cities outside of Washington DC. My friend was quick to point out that the subway falls under the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. This explained why the subway went so far beyond D.C city limits into Maryland and Virginia.
It's like the TTC being under Metrolinx. Until this happens for Toronto or the city gets similar compensations and subsidies like the STM does in Montreal, those extensions beyond city limits are highly unfair to Toronto and it's citizens. How on earth can you make Scarborough understand the "why" subway doesn't work when they see Vaughan and Richmond Hill getting subways in the middle of nowhere? You can't.
If the SSE will most likely cost above $5B for 1 station for 6.4km, no way this Richmond Hill Extension isn't more expensive...much more expensive!
All I'm saying, is that a new EA would be in order to apply the same criteria we use for subways on the Richmond Hill project. Feel free to point out where I'm wrong or misreading or want to debate this, respectfully of course.
Last edited:
minilude
Active Member
why not include Steeles to Finch? It's one project, not two projects (i.e. Finch to Steeles and then Steeles to further north).
The debate of BRT LRT Subway has been on-going for 300ish pages, I suggest you going back and take a look. History usually tells the story and does not need much rationale - Just look at where the Vaughan subway ends you will find your answer - no matter how unreasonable that would be.
The debate of BRT LRT Subway has been on-going for 300ish pages, I suggest you going back and take a look. History usually tells the story and does not need much rationale - Just look at where the Vaughan subway ends you will find your answer - no matter how unreasonable that would be.
Cobra
Senior Member
The Toronto subway is well, Toronto's. The city clearly wants those vehicles off the road north of Finch and feels the subway to Steeles is the best way to achieve that. I'd support the city building that stretch on their own with no stations in between.
But you don't seem to understand that it isn't Toronto's mandate to fix York Region's traffic nor ensure the development of their city centre. Also, you clearly dismissed the fiscal reality of my opposition to the subway going out of the city and you clearly dismissed the conditions needed for me to support it.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Such narrow thinking persists. A car traveling on Yonge doesn't disappear once it hits steeles. Not if it's going north. Not if it's going south. They're the same cars and you just remove origin-destination from the equation as if steeles means anything to anyone except tax collectors.
This notion is as meaningless and absurd as having different cruise ships on either side of the equator.
But continue to labour under the delusion Toronto and York have separate traffic problems. It's all good, as long as you're not seeking work in the transportation planning field. Luckily, good enough to sit on city council, though.
Given the fundamental misunderstanding of how traffic is works, I'm not going to waste time addressing all the EA questions. I'll leave it to a bored engineer.
I'll only say, regarding your questions about the corridor north of steeles, that the current secondary plans allow for something like 50k new residents. That's just along Yonge, and excluding the Growth centre. SSE, by contrast has ZERO housing units planned and it will ALWAYS have zero units planned because there is no corridor there to develop.
I'll also mention how amusingly you spin the 20 per cent thing, actually. Becuase what it actually shows, despite the hysteria here and from Tory, is that the extension isn't going to singlehandedly overwhelm the system. As it stands, there is FAR more development earmarked north of Steeles than south and, as we know, a redistribution of existing ridership.
Also, obviously, the delay means the costs have gone up but it doesn't have the engineering challenges (ie depth of tunnel) SSE does, so you can't compare.
I would agree that obviously a 10 year old EA should be updated. Who knows, after all, how many more times Toronto will change it's transit priorities by the time there ready. And I certainly emphatically believe this project hilights how and why we need a regional transit authority.
Beyond that, I'm no more interested in meeting conditions than I am thinking Sue Anne Levy hit upon some choice piece of wisdom. Everyone's entitled to opinions after all. Just not their own facts.
'it's not Toronto's job to fix York Region's traffic.' man, that's a good one! You should have told it to Johnny Tory when he thought 905 residents should pay tolls on Toronto's highways. Musta thought they had something to do with Toronto's traffic?
This notion is as meaningless and absurd as having different cruise ships on either side of the equator.
But continue to labour under the delusion Toronto and York have separate traffic problems. It's all good, as long as you're not seeking work in the transportation planning field. Luckily, good enough to sit on city council, though.
Given the fundamental misunderstanding of how traffic is works, I'm not going to waste time addressing all the EA questions. I'll leave it to a bored engineer.
I'll only say, regarding your questions about the corridor north of steeles, that the current secondary plans allow for something like 50k new residents. That's just along Yonge, and excluding the Growth centre. SSE, by contrast has ZERO housing units planned and it will ALWAYS have zero units planned because there is no corridor there to develop.
I'll also mention how amusingly you spin the 20 per cent thing, actually. Becuase what it actually shows, despite the hysteria here and from Tory, is that the extension isn't going to singlehandedly overwhelm the system. As it stands, there is FAR more development earmarked north of Steeles than south and, as we know, a redistribution of existing ridership.
Also, obviously, the delay means the costs have gone up but it doesn't have the engineering challenges (ie depth of tunnel) SSE does, so you can't compare.
I would agree that obviously a 10 year old EA should be updated. Who knows, after all, how many more times Toronto will change it's transit priorities by the time there ready. And I certainly emphatically believe this project hilights how and why we need a regional transit authority.
Beyond that, I'm no more interested in meeting conditions than I am thinking Sue Anne Levy hit upon some choice piece of wisdom. Everyone's entitled to opinions after all. Just not their own facts.
'it's not Toronto's job to fix York Region's traffic.' man, that's a good one! You should have told it to Johnny Tory when he thought 905 residents should pay tolls on Toronto's highways. Musta thought they had something to do with Toronto's traffic?
Last edited:
Cobra
Senior Member
You're too smart to play this dumb.
I know you get my point...you just won't admit it.
Perhaps but as of today, your 50k new residents aren't there. It's York Region job to figure out how to move these people, not Toronto.
Then build your own subway like the New Jersey Path to Steeles. If it was this viable, York wouldn't need Toronto but York knows full well that Richmond Hill Centre to Steeles doesn't warrants the billions required to build it.
They were dumped on us by the province who won't help fix them. Then you have the 905 using them. If you're unhappy with the tolls, then stay home. However cities around the world who installed them haven't really saw a decrease in car traffic.
Young Stats
New Member
Would it be more expensive if they extend the subway north of finch at grade (on surface) rather than extending it underground?