Toronto Spadina Subway Extension Emergency Exits | ?m | 1s | TTC | IBI Group

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I originally thought it wise to have Yonge terminate at RH when I made this map, but then figured it may not be all that smart. Not so much because it's "Toronto's subway", but rather a RH/DRL may be an alternative to Yonge riders - and that a Yonge 'light' RT may work as part of a combined system with RTs along the 407 Transitway and up Jane. For the costs of extending the subway to VMC and RH, York Region and the GTA in general can get a much better investment by going with a light mode. Not to mention reaching a larger number of people and their own future growth centres.

It's a good looking map! I've said this 20X over on the Yonge thread so just to brief on the subway there:
-If you put an LRT there, you are asking people to take a subway to Steeles, LRT to 7 and then the BRT north from there. That's just obviously nutty.
-The development potential north of Steeles is at least as great as south of it, and arguably greater. Most crucially, the Yonge/7 growth node was very specifically developed around subway capacity (as well as the other transit there) instead of road capacity. Every degree by which you short change that, you are pre-limiting development. Really, I don't see the loss in spending $1B (give or take) to bring the subway from an invisible municipal boundary to the biggest suburban growth node in all of Places to Grow and one of Metrolinx's most significant anchor mobility hubs. Going through the major construction to take the subway just from Finch to Steeles, stopping 2km short of the node/hub strikes me as almost spiteful.
-I can see how LRT would work in that context (ignoring the stuff I just mentioned) but I also think that Yonge is Yonge and development will continue to march north there. Vaughan and Markham have been ahead in Toronto in increasing density along that strip so it seems counter-productive to inhibit that for short-term financial reasons.

That said, I appreciate you're doing something that seems well beyond the ken of Toronto City Council: namely, trying to look at a variety of modes and find the one that balances planning goals and "bang for the buck." It's just such a crazy notion, maybe it will happen in reality one day.

 

[ehlow]

I'm aware of how Skytrain differs...well, maybe not fully. I just mean 'flexibility' in how Vancouver manages to build extensively by being adaptive and using various combinations of elevated, ROW, and underground. Realistically I'd prefer a standard LRT mode.

The Scarborough LRT was pretty cool, it had elevated, some underground and some ROW parts, fully grade separated.

 

[salsa]

Really, I don't see the loss in spending $1B (give or take) to bring the subway from an invisible municipal boundary to the biggest suburban growth node in all of Places to Grow and one of Metrolinx's most significant anchor mobility hubs.

Sorry to nitpick, but isn't Mississauga Centre the biggest suburban growth node in all of Places to Grow? Interestingly, they are not asking for a subway extension.

 

[44 North]

It's a good looking map! I've said this 20X over on the Yonge thread so just to brief on the subway there:
-If you put an LRT there, you are asking people to take a subway to Steeles, LRT to 7 and then the BRT north from there. That's just obviously nutty.

Thanks. The map is odd in that it’s an anachronistic projection of a fantasy that can no longer exist. For one area at least.

In your scenario the theoretical northbound rider has the opportunity to take GO Richmond Hill north to Langstaff at Hwy 7, or Major Mack. That’s two transfers out of the way, and a long haul trip sped-up significantly. And the hypothetical LRT on Yonge could be built to Major Mack as well...or further. The savings by not extending Yonge would be significant and could easily cover this LRT.

Yonge is an important arterial, and I’m of the opinion that any Yonge North Subway Extension from Finch to Langstaff wouldn’t be its last extension. Sooner or later there will be demands for the subway to be extended all the way up to Elgin Mills. Instead of it doubling as a commuter-esque line, GO Richmond Hill should instead serve that purpose – with a realistic RT mode dealing with local demand along Yonge.

-The development potential north of Steeles is at least as great as south of it, and arguably greater. Most crucially, the Yonge/7 growth node was very specifically developed around subway capacity (as well as the other transit there) instead of road capacity. Every degree by which you short change that, you are pre-limiting development. Really, I don't see the loss in spending $1B (give or take) to bring the subway from an invisible municipal boundary to the biggest suburban growth node in all of Places to Grow and one of Metrolinx's most significant anchor mobility hubs. Going through the major construction to take the subway just from Finch to Steeles, stopping 2km short of the node/hub strikes me as almost spiteful.

Places To Grow seems pretty arbitrary and it’s not written in stone. Money talks, and as long as a municipality stays off the greenbelt, any number of new ‘places to grow’ can be identified as new or better hubs. Look at Toronto: our population is exactly where it was expected to be, but located nowhere near where it was expected to be. ECC, STC, NYCC didn’t experience explosive growth, and Old Toronto didn’t stagnate. We spent a lot on piecemeal extensions, yet the prognosticators and planners turned out to be wrong.

And so it goes with Vaughan, where the city of 290,000 has identified VMC as its key hub and CBD – but now wants to develop Vaughan Mills as a hub of its own. In a decade another report by the Prov may very well name it as a ‘place to grow’. Your logic of stopping the subway 2km short of VMC will be the same logic applied for not extending it 3km more to Vaughan Mills. On top of that, VMC is less reachable by a 407 Transitway than Pioneer Village (<- have trouble writing that station with a straight face).

Regardless, a Richmond Hill SBahn line is a realistic possibility. That would immediately take a chunk out of any subway-level ridership for an enormous area. Compounded with a local Yonge LRT trunk (with interlined spurs branching from a future 407 LRT Transitway), the Yonge corridor catchment would be served quite well for the next...millennium(?).

-I can see how LRT would work in that context (ignoring the stuff I just mentioned) but I also think that Yonge is Yonge and development will continue to march north there. Vaughan and Markham have been ahead in Toronto in increasing density along that strip so it seems counter-productive to inhibit that for short-term financial reasons.

Nothing on Yonge is inhibited. The only thing inhibiting growth is the astronomical costs of going with subway-only solutions; particularly when this subway is owned and operated by another city’s dysfunctional government. A separate York Region railed transit system is an inevitability, and not extending Yonge north expedites this inevitability. Not to mention that it would allow for compatibility and interlining of any future 407 LRT Transitway. The Transitway report identified LRT as a mode choice, so naturally it wouldn’t be compatible with Toronto’s subway system. But it could be with a York Region LRT system.

To affirm my position on not extending Yonge north of Steeles, I’ve decided to have the line terminate at Bathurst and the Finch hydro corridor. One: it opens up the possibility of creating a YUS/Line 1 loop - while addressing a current density node and maybe negating a Sheppard West ext. And two: it seals the Yonge line off so that it doesn’t become some floozy being passed around to various municipalities and private developers in need of boosting property values. If York Region wants a York Region transit solution, they can use York Region Transit to achieve it. And push for RER. Again, nothing on Yonge is inhibited.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Bit late for that plan..

 

[44 North]

Bit late for that plan..

That's okay, the map doubles as a diagram on how to design a flux capacitor.
(Back to the Future/time travel reference).

 

[BurlOak]

How is SkyTrain particularly flexible? It's not any more flexible than heavy rail systems. The ultimate mode for flexibility is light rail. Light rail can be used for subway, elevated transit, 100% exclusive at-grade ROW, mainland rail, partially exclusive street median ROW and mixed traffic. Wherever you'd want to put rapid transit, light rail can go there. Skytrain is limited to subway, 100% exclusive at-grade ROW or elevated guideways.

SkyTrain needs smaller diameter tunnels than LRT or subway, curves can be much tighter than subway or commuter rail, smaller stations on higher frequency line, no collision requirements for cars, lower cost.

 

[44 North]

SkyTrain needs smaller diameter tunnels than LRT or subway, curves can be much tighter than subway or commuter rail, smaller stations on higher frequency line, no collision requirements for cars, lower cost.

Excellent points. The ICTS/Skytrain system isn't as oddball as it sounds with those attributes. The one advantage over LRT is like what you said, 'no collision requirements'. I'm sure that saves many tons. What I particularly like about both systems is their ability to handle steeper grades. It's just as much an advantage as ability to handle tight curves, and allows an exclusive in-median setup with the line dipping under (or rising over) intersections with ease. But on the whole I think standard LRT is a wiser choice.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

SkyTrain needs smaller diameter tunnels than LRT or subway, curves can be much tighter than subway or commuter rail, smaller stations on higher frequency line, no collision requirements for cars, lower cost.

There's nothing about SkyTrain, light rail or heavy rail that makes those benefits exclusive to SkyTrain:
Light Rail can have the same diamater tunnels as SkyTrain if the light rail is using third rail power collection.

The curves on a heavy rail system can be tighter with shorter trains. (Edit: I meant to say shorter cars, not trains).

Is what I've said correct?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Excellent points. The ICTS/Skytrain system isn't as oddball as it sounds with those attributes. The one advantage over LRT is like what you said, 'no collision requirements'. I'm sure that saves many tons. What I particularly like about both systems is their ability to handle steeper grades. It's just as much an advantage as ability to handle tight curves, and allows an exclusive in-median setup with the line dipping under (or rising over) intersections with ease. But on the whole I think standard LRT is a wiser choice.

Light rail vehicles should be able to be built without collision requirements, as long as the vehicles won't be using a partially exclusive right of way or operating in mixed traffic.

 

[44 North]

curves on a heavy rail system can be tighter with shorter trains.

I know NYC's subway system has two distinct trains (A and B division) that are incompatible with one another. One can handle tighter curves over the other. And it seems Chicago manages tight turns quite well. But Toronto's trains are mammoth in comparison. At least it seems that way. I'm sure our trains don't have the same turning radius. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

There's nothing about SkyTrain, light rail or heavy rail that makes those benefits exclusive to SkyTrain:
Light Rail can have the same diamater tunnels as SkyTrain if the light rail is using third rail power collection.

The curves on a heavy rail system can be tighter with shorter trains.

Is what I've said correct?

I know NYC's subway system has two distinct trains (A and B division) that are incompatible with one another. One can handle tighter curves over the other. And it seems Chicago manages tight turns quite well.

By the way, I meant to say that heavy rail systems can have tighter curve radius with shorter cars, not trains (I think you understood this). Logically the shorter the distance between wheels, the tighter the possible curve radius.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Excellent points. The ICTS/Skytrain system isn't as oddball as it sounds with those attributes. The one advantage over LRT is like what you said, 'no collision requirements'. I'm sure that saves many tons. What I particularly like about both systems is their ability to handle steeper grades. It's just as much an advantage as ability to handle tight curves, and allows an exclusive in-median setup with the line dipping under (or rising over) intersections with ease. But on the whole I think standard LRT is a wiser choice.

The handling of steeper grades made me think immediately of the proposed Jane LRT corridor. Can we use ICTS there without extensive tunneling?

 

[44 North]

By the way, I meant to say that heavy rail systems can have tighter curve radius with shorter cars, not trains (I think you understood this). Logically the shorter the distance between wheels, the tighter the possible curve radius.

Yeah I understood. And when I said Toronto's trains are mammoth, I meant in terms of width...but maybe we have longer cars as well.

The handling of steeper grades made me think immediately of the proposed Jane LRT corridor. Can we use ICTS there without extensive tunneling?

Which part of Jane; south of Steeles, or the line I drew north from Steeles to Rutherford? It can probably be done without tunneling. A lot of these younger roads along less built up areas have a large unused roadway allowance, which is evident with their grassy boulevards. This allows a system to run on either side, or down the middle without loss of lanes or property encroachment.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Yonge is an important arterial, and I’m of the opinion that any Yonge North Subway Extension from Finch to Langstaff wouldn’t be its last extension. Sooner or later there will be demands for the subway to be extended all the way up to Elgin Mills. Instead of it doubling as a commuter-esque line, GO Richmond Hill should instead serve that purpose – with a realistic RT mode dealing with local demand along Yonge.

Except GO is only good for 'express' trips to Union Station. It's useless for any other riders.

Places To Grow seems pretty arbitrary and it’s not written in stone. Money talks, and as long as a municipality stays off the greenbelt, any number of new ‘places to grow’ can be identified as new or better hubs. Look at Toronto: our population is exactly where it was expected to be, but located nowhere near where it was expected to be. ECC, STC, NYCC didn’t experience explosive growth, and Old Toronto didn’t stagnate. We spent a lot on piecemeal extensions, yet the prognosticators and planners turned out to be wrong.

It might seem arbitrary, but it's not. It's based on node-based plans dating back to the early 90s and even if new areas can develop, organically or otherwise, the ones that were designated have special planning designations the municipalities have to work with.

And the difference between Yonge/7 and Vaughan Mills still remains obvious: There's already local BRT and local bus service and GO at Yonge/7 with plans for the Transitway and RER/GO and the subway in the pipe. Highway 7 will remain the east/west artery and even if Vaughan Mills develops, it won't be a transit hub in remotely the same way. Yeah, there's a GO station kind of nearby and maybe Phase 3 Viva will run on Major Mack, maybe but it's the singular convergence of transit modes that makes Yonge/7 unique in the GTHA and yes, to answer someone else's Q, even compared to Mississauga Centre. Heck, as you point out, even VMC doesn't directly connect to the Transitway; RHC/Langstaff has all of that and, significantly was planned (particularly the Markham side) with all that in mind. So, it has advantages no other growth node does (well, except the ones in Toronto. The only thing VMC has that it doesn't is that its subway is actually being built already.

Nothing on Yonge is inhibited. The only thing inhibiting growth is the astronomical costs of going with subway-only solutions; particularly when this subway is owned and operated by another city’s dysfunctional government. A separate York Region railed transit system is an inevitability, and not extending Yonge north expedites this inevitability

Well, what inhibits growth is several factors including:
-different zoning regimes(i.e. multiple municipalities with uncoordinated planning)
-different transit modes
-uncertainty about transit timelines

We're talking hypotheticals but I think what's much more inevitable is a Metrolinx take-over of regional transit, in one form or another. I don't see how anything else can happen and a further division of rapid transit strikes me as unlikely and counter-productive to the regional economy and antithetical to the province's stated goals in regards to planning and transit. Given Toronto's dysfunction, they'd oppose any such thing but I think all these little fiefdoms (well, and one big one!) are a thing of the past. I could be wrong.

With Spadina we see all the "why should MY transit system go to THEIR city?!" complaints and that stuff has to be laid to rest given how people travel across boundaries every day, every way. It's not 1971 anymore and eventually governance will change to recognize that.

There's no such thing as the "York Region transit solution" you talk about, because Toronto residents work in Markham and Newmarket and vice versa. There's no such thing as a "Toronto transit solution" either: just a GTA solution.

Greater minds than I will have to figure out how that works.