Ontario Line North of Eglinton (was Relief Line North) (Speculation)

[WislaHD]

I agree with that completely. Going to Steeles makes sense, if nothing else to create a proper transfer complex with shorter connection times between everything. I'm just saying that if a surface subway along the RH corridor is built to RHC, then taking the tunnelled Yonge Subway all the way to RHC doesn't make much sense, at least for a significant period of time.

I'd contend that even in that circumstance, connecting Yonge all the way to RHC would still not be the worst thing.

As agreed, going to Steeles is a no-brainer. The political buy-in to fund the extension to Steeles will require taking it all the way to RHC, as that is just how our political system works. York Region has important seats both federally and provincially.

For purposes of connectivity and network redundancy (important factors that we tend to forget about in Toronto, since we focus so much on ridership), connecting Steeles to RHC makes a lot of sense. Lots of riders in York Region are heading to Sheppard+Yonge, not downtown. Metrolinx and York Region is determined to make RHC the mobility hub of the north.

In terms of ridership, the section in between Steeles and RHC would not be the worst subway extension in Toronto history, and has lots of potential for growth.

I agree wholeheartedly that the section in between Steeles and RHC definitely becomes less of a priority if we surface subwayed up the RH corridor to RHC. I would prioritize Relief Line West over it, for sure, but even then, it is far from a 'bad' extension idea.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I think a Dundas West to Don Mills Phase 1 and the RHC extension would quiet everyone. Also the Sheppard East Subway.

 

[WislaHD]

I think a Dundas West to Don Mills Phase 1 and the RHC extension would quiet everyone. Also the Sheppard East Subway.

For the short-term, it might be worth to seeing what those lines (minus Sheppard East, which isn't really on the radar), plus the Crosstown and GO-RER, does for regional commuting patterns, before planning next steps.

Also the subway to STC, since that is likely to be built under present governments.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

For purposes of connectivity and network redundancy (important factors that we tend to forget about in Toronto, since we focus so much on ridership), connecting Steeles to RHC makes a lot of sense. Lots of riders in York Region are heading to Sheppard+Yonge, not downtown. Metrolinx and York Region is determined to make RHC the mobility hub of the north.

I don't dispute the politics of it all but let's be fair: the mobility hub isn't some York Region fantasy. It's a designated Urban Growth Centre, under Provincial law, i.e. the Places to Grow Act (OK, technically just the Growth Plan). Between that and Metrolinx - again, not York Region - designating it as an "anchor mobility hub," even with politics out of the equation, it would be absurd for the province to spend money to extend a subway to just short of what its own agencies and ministries have designated a TOD intensification node.

They've decided, at a regional planning level, that's where the subway should go. Over the years we've lost our ability to coordinate growth and infrastructure planning but this is actually a good thing and (fully aware I'm repeating myself) I remain convinced that if Highway 7 was the municipal border, no one would bat an eye or say, "It has to at least go to Steeles." The distinction is entirely in one's head.

I don't think a "surface subway" makes sense anywhere on Yonge Street - even in the suburbs - and they've already made that determination via the TPAP (though, sure, it could change). But I think at a certain point you have step back and accept that the basic layout and route of that extension is long since set in stone.

 

[44 North]

Remember, the same can be said for the Crosstown, carrying nearly the same volume of traffic as Line 2 (per kilometer) by 2030, the Sheppard Subway, which is "grossly underutilized" (it's underutilized, but much of that is by design) while having ridership averages higher than the Spadina line, the Scarborough Debacle, where 7,500 PPHPD is considered perfectly optimal for day one LRT usage, and all the major surface routes in this city, where 40K PPD is considered "Normal" for buses.

Our city just has a perspective problem. If it's not 85-100% full, it's a boondoggle that no one uses, and if it's at 101+% capacity, then it's "Bursting at the seams, a hazard to riders, etc"

This is not to say that Yonge isn't bursting at the seams, but we have a high tolerance with regards to what should be deemed acceptable for public transit usage.

But the same *can't* be said about Crosstown or Sheppard. I'm certainly not disputing their avg daily ridership numbers or saying they aren't high. But you're obviously overlooking peak constraints, and those two are nowhere even remotely approaching capacity like we have with Line 2 from Broadview to Ossington, or the 25% of surface routes in the city that are full.

 

[gweed123]

I'd contend that even in that circumstance, connecting Yonge all the way to RHC would still not be the worst thing.

As agreed, going to Steeles is a no-brainer. The political buy-in to fund the extension to Steeles will require taking it all the way to RHC, as that is just how our political system works. York Region has important seats both federally and provincially.

For purposes of connectivity and network redundancy (important factors that we tend to forget about in Toronto, since we focus so much on ridership), connecting Steeles to RHC makes a lot of sense. Lots of riders in York Region are heading to Sheppard+Yonge, not downtown. Metrolinx and York Region is determined to make RHC the mobility hub of the north.

In terms of ridership, the section in between Steeles and RHC would not be the worst subway extension in Toronto history, and has lots of potential for growth.

I agree wholeheartedly that the section in between Steeles and RHC definitely becomes less of a priority if we surface subwayed up the RH corridor to RHC. I would prioritize Relief Line West over it, for sure, but even then, it is far from a 'bad' extension idea.

I'm not saying it would be a bad thing to extend it to RHC, I'm just saying that if you can accomplish similar goals for less money, then it's worth taking a look at. What I'm basically proposing is this:

Option A: RL Surface subway extension along the RH Corridor to RHC + Yonge Subway extension to Steeles + Rapidway from Steeles to RHC
Option B: Yonge Subway extension to RHC

With Option A, you have more area served (since the Rapidway is still serving the same corridor that the subway would be), and you have greater diversion away from the Yonge Line, since riders getting on at RHC won't even be touching the Yonge Line. It also means that the Richmond Hill GO line can either be chopped at RHC and turned into an O-Train-style shuttle, or can run completely express south of RHC, since the subway will cover that corridor.

 

[Streety McCarface]

But the same *can't* be said about Crosstown or Sheppard. I'm certainly not disputing their avg daily ridership numbers or saying they aren't high. But you're obviously overlooking peak constraints, and those two are nowhere even remotely approaching capacity like we have with Line 2 from Broadview to Ossington, or the 25% of surface routes in the city that are full.

They're obviously different scenarios, my point is that we as Torontonians have a very small margin with regards to what is deemed "acceptable" in terms of ridership levels, and how the slightest change can be the difference between adequate ridership and underutilization/over-utilization. I believe it's important that we adjust and expand the range of what we deem acceptable so we aren't in the same mess we currently are with transit ever again.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Well put. I think it is pretty interesting state of affairs where the Dufferin bus (clocking in at 44,000 daily users, and this is before several mega-development projects along the corridor) is seen as a total non-concern on our transit radar to the point that using Dufferin as the western corridor for the Relief Line is a minority position on here. Many rapid transit lines in the United States have less daily ridership than Dufferin. (To not even speak about our streetcar lines...)

The Spadina leg of the Line 1 subway is projected to have present-day Yonge Line ridership numbers by 2031/2041.

I am sure that many people reading this thread are aware of the task that is before us in this City. We are massively behind in our transportation infrastructure, yet the city continues to grow at a phenomenal pace. Even if we were to one day wake up with the political willingness and funds to build all the transit infrastructure that we need to build, we would still be faced with a labour shortage in the trades and general labour.

It's a huge problem that's not being addressed. Other surface corridors are doomed to the same fate as Dufferin, Jane, Finch, Steeles, etc, and no one seems to really care, and when they do, they tend to choose the wrong technology for the job (the pushing of a Finch Subway, or keeping buses on the majority of these routes).

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

For the short-term, it might be worth to seeing what those lines (minus Sheppard East, which isn't really on the radar), plus the Crosstown and GO-RER, does for regional commuting patterns, before planning next steps.

Also the subway to STC, since that is likely to be built under present governments.

I think it should reduce ridership on Yonge at least north of Eglinton.

 

[WislaHD]

It's a huge problem that's not being addressed. Other surface corridors are doomed to the same fate as Dufferin, Jane, Finch, Steeles, etc, and no one seems to really care, and when they do, they tend to choose the wrong technology for the job (the pushing of a Finch Subway, or keeping buses on the majority of these routes).

Well, I also don't understand why we aren't using BRTs on basically every major arterial road in the city outside of the downtown core.

The capacity of our bus routes can be greatly expanded by not having them muck around in mixed traffic. General traffic circulation throughout the City would greatly improve too, with bunched buses not weaving in and out of the traffic lanes.

 

[Filip]

Well, I also don't understand why we aren't using BRTs on basically every major arterial road in the city outside of the downtown core.

The capacity of our bus routes can be greatly expanded by not having them muck around in mixed traffic. General traffic circulation throughout the City would greatly improve too, with bunched buses not weaving in and out of the traffic lanes.

Because the TTC's head has been too big for its body from about 1970-onwards and the 'experts' working in that institution think they have all the answers.
Half of their problems can be fixed by heading down the 401 and checking out Montreal.. The other half by flying to any mid sized European city and doing the same. But no, this is Toronto and everything is 'unique' and 'special' and we've got 'high watertables'.

Guess what.. It's not 1985 anymore.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Well, I also don't understand why we aren't using BRTs on basically every major arterial road in the city outside of the downtown core.

The capacity of our bus routes can be greatly expanded by not having them muck around in mixed traffic. General traffic circulation throughout the City would greatly improve too, with bunched buses not weaving in and out of the traffic lanes.

The problem is that we have politicians (Councilors, Mayors, MPPs, and Premier) who don't want to take priority away from the automobile, especially the single-occupant automobile.

 

[Streety McCarface]

The problem is that we have politicians (Councilors, Mayors, MPPs, and Premier) who don't want to take priority away from the automobile, especially the single-occupant automobile.

We area also unwilling to spend money to expand the capacity of these corridors. It's not just speed that needs to increase.

 

[BurlOak]

I'm not saying it would be a bad thing to extend it to RHC, I'm just saying that if you can accomplish similar goals for less money, then it's worth taking a look at. What I'm basically proposing is this:

Option A: RL Surface subway extension along the RH Corridor to RHC + Yonge Subway extension to Steeles + Rapidway from Steeles to RHC
Option B: Yonge Subway extension to RHC

With Option A, you have more area served (since the Rapidway is still serving the same corridor that the subway would be), and you have greater diversion away from the Yonge Line, since riders getting on at RHC won't even be touching the Yonge Line. It also means that the Richmond Hill GO line can either be chopped at RHC and turned into an O-Train-style shuttle, or can run completely express south of RHC, since the subway will cover that corridor.

Option C: DRL up Don Mills to Seneca (and maybe highway 7) and improvements to Richmond Hill GO.

 

[micheal_can]

I'm not saying it would be a bad thing to extend it to RHC, I'm just saying that if you can accomplish similar goals for less money, then it's worth taking a look at. What I'm basically proposing is this:

Option A: RL Surface subway extension along the RH Corridor to RHC + Yonge Subway extension to Steeles + Rapidway from Steeles to RHC
Option B: Yonge Subway extension to RHC

With Option A, you have more area served (since the Rapidway is still serving the same corridor that the subway would be), and you have greater diversion away from the Yonge Line, since riders getting on at RHC won't even be touching the Yonge Line. It also means that the Richmond Hill GO line can either be chopped at RHC and turned into an O-Train-style shuttle, or can run completely express south of RHC, since the subway will cover that corridor.

How are you going to convince CN to give up their access from the west to their second largest yard? If you have no idea what I am talking about, then you do not know what you are talking about and should investigate it further.