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

[andrewpmk]

Since the Richmond Hill GO line only travels down to Union Station....I guess the answer is "Travel everywhere in the GTA that isn't Union Station."

This is the same conceptual problem: The idea that the entire region should be built around people getting to/from the financial district. More destinations=less congestion at a single point.

If I live in Richmond Hill and want to to Eglinton, I wouldn't take the GO train.
If I live in Markham and want to get to Sheppard, I wouldn't take the GO train.
If I live in Thornhill and want to get to Bloor or St. Clair or Wellesley or, indeed, anywhere other than Union Station, I wouldn't take the GO train.

(Oh, and this all works backwards as well, assuming we want to create more jobs in the "suburbs." So, the GO line is useless to go from Yonge/Eg to my shiny office job in Markham etc. etc. Or, hey, the new casino! )

Is there any point at all in upgrading the Richmond Hill line, as the Metrolinx Big Move proposes?

It is a very indirect alignment which avoids pretty much all the high density areas along Don Mills Road, and it is slower than the Yonge Line extension when going to Richmond Hill. Oriole Station is well served by the Sheppard subway. Furthermore the northern end of it has significant freight traffic and can't easily have service increased. The very south end of it is vulnerable to flooding as we found out a few weeks ago.

It probably just makes sense to extend the Yonge line to Major Mackenzie, and build the DRL, and then close the Richmond Hill line. Unlike other GO lines like Lakeshore, Georgetown or Milton where major upgrades make sense, I don't think there is any point in upgrading the Richmond Hill line because it is a poor alignment.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Is there any point at all in upgrading the Richmond Hill line, as the Metrolinx Big Move proposes?

IMHO, yes. First of all, as much as I think it's important to use transit to develop new centres, downtown is still downtown and there is still growth coming north of the city. In the long-long run I guess it will get electrified too but, generally, even though the RH-->Union travel time will be similar to subway, it's still a 'premium' or 'express' service.

Secondly, the density targets for the Langstaff and Richmond Hill Centre districts are specifically locked to all the planned transit coming online. Obviously the subway is the biggest piece but without the addition of all-day, two-way GO and the Transitway, they won't hit the targets. As it is, the slow progress means they likely won't by 2031 but they can be on their way if the Big Move is going forward.

 

[sixrings]

maybe 2 different types of services but both will have to be subsidized. Personally I think that one should suffice.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

maybe 2 different types of services but both will have to be subsidized. Personally I think that one should suffice.

Now we're evaluating transit routes based on whether they're subsidized? That's opening a can of worms.

Besides, you could probably open the subway to Highway 7 TODAY and not have to subsidize it. The current ridership - you know, all those people coming into Finch on the buses and filling those massive parking lots - are coming from the north anyway. Yonge is not Spadina.

As already pointed out, the GO effectively stops nowhere on its way downtown; you might as well take an airplane. There's something a bit ironic about some people saying, "The suburbs are so far away, it's crazy to build a subway out to there!" and other people dismissing the need for commuter rail to the same location. Certainly it's worth evaluating how transit is getting used there but - and again, I'm amazed the knowledgeable people on these boards fail to appreciate this - it's a designated provincial growth centre and a Metrolinx anchor mobility hub. You can not build an inter-modal transit hub with limited transit!

 

[xtremesniper]

It's like every day I come back to this thread only to see that there are more bumbling idiots wandering around ignoring the fact that we've already gone through 173 pages of the same damn conversation over and over again.

If you have something against this extension, then just go back and read the thread. I'm so tired of reading the same arguments being brought up by people who are too damn lazy to do their due diligence, and then reading the same dedicated people like TJ O'Pootertoot re-state again the rationale behind this extension.

Do your damn homework and maybe we'll have something new to talk about.

 

[Rainforest]

Is there any point at all in upgrading the Richmond Hill line, as the Metrolinx Big Move proposes?

It is a very indirect alignment which avoids pretty much all the high density areas along Don Mills Road, and it is slower than the Yonge Line extension when going to Richmond Hill. Oriole Station is well served by the Sheppard subway. Furthermore the northern end of it has significant freight traffic and can't easily have service increased. The very south end of it is vulnerable to flooding as we found out a few weeks ago.

It probably just makes sense to extend the Yonge line to Major Mackenzie, and build the DRL, and then close the Richmond Hill line. Unlike other GO lines like Lakeshore, Georgetown or Milton where major upgrades make sense, I don't think there is any point in upgrading the Richmond Hill line because it is a poor alignment.

If DRL and then Yonge North subways materialize (btw, I insist that they must go in that order, notwithstanding anybody's calls to extend Yonge first), then I would view Richmond Hill GO as a secondary line, but still would try to enhance it a little bit. Maybe, try to get half-hourly rush period service in the peak direction, and hourly all-day service in both directions.

I would not close it entirely just because it is a subsidized service. The subsidy per rider is not that large, given that the price is significantly higher than the TTC ride price.

The only potential reason to close RH GO is if the corridor is used by DRL, and there is no space for both services. This option is debatable for a number of reasons though; the RH line's route is not optimal for DRL, and it does not eliminate the high cost of tunneling through the CBD.

 

[diminutive]

Heck, allow easy travel to Dundas and Yonge. Travel time from Langstaff (future Richmond Hill subway station) to Union is 42 minutes in rush hour. Finch to Union is 28 minutes (or it was before they got those slower TR trains on - presumably they'll get that fixed). Additional travel time to Richmond Hill station is expected to be about 12 minutes, meaning the subway will be a bit faster than the GO Train. So even if your working at King/Yonge, the subway will be significantly faster.

Plus the subway will be much more frequent. Even with half the trains turning back at Steeles or Finch, peak frequency would probably be every three minutes or so. That's frequent enough that you wouldn't need to pad your trips. Hourly service would require significant padding, especially if there is a connection to a surface route involved.

Also, the potential mismatch between a given hourly schedule and when a rider actually demands transit would have to be considered. If you're supposed to meet your friends at 10:30 and the train arrives at 10 or 11, you'd either have to wait around for 30m or arrive 30m late. That's worst case scenario, but still.

It's like every day I come back to this thread only to see that there are more bumbling idiots wandering around ignoring the fact that we've already gone through 173 pages of the same damn conversation over and over again.

Yea, kind of surprising that the advantages of Yonge over RH keep having to be rehashed. There is a reason why the entire RH line sees ~8k daily riders while more and more people crowd onto Yonge.

 

[reaperexpress]

Is there any point at all in upgrading the Richmond Hill line, as the Metrolinx Big Move proposes?

It is a very indirect alignment which avoids pretty much all the high density areas along Don Mills Road, and it is slower than the Yonge Line extension when going to Richmond Hill. Oriole Station is well served by the Sheppard subway. Furthermore the northern end of it has significant freight traffic and can't easily have service increased. The very south end of it is vulnerable to flooding as we found out a few weeks ago.

It probably just makes sense to extend the Yonge line to Major Mackenzie, and build the DRL, and then close the Richmond Hill line.

I agree that upgrading the Richmond Hill line would not be a very good use of funds, for the reasons you state. I wouldn't go as far as to close it altogether though. I think it can continue in its current form as a bit of relief for the Yonge Line. After all, the trains are currently well-used, and I suspect that even with an extended Yonge Line we'll be able to fill the handful of trains into and out of downtown each day.

 

[GenerationW]

They approved starting the process in 2008. How can you have any conditions, if you haven't studied the issue yet! See http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2008.MM25.14

The approval itself came in January 2009, with many, many conditions, including prioritizing the DRL. See http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2009.EX28.1

That was an LRT plan. There was a separate Transit City report on buses, which wasn't included in the original Transit City as well. Giambrone was the chair when the current DRL study started ... which has been dragging it's feet for the last 2 years.

So Toronto went from "a co-proponent of the Yonge Subway northerly extension project" without any conditions or amendments in Oct/08 (a motion introduced by Adam Giambrone by the way) to many conditions in Jan/09 -- gung-ho to cautious in only three months. I'd love to read the two month study that led to this change.

Adam Giambrone on the DRL according to Torontoist, June 1, 2010

While the DRL is in the twenty-five-year funding plans, the last few months have shown there is little appetite financially at the Province for large projects, so it will be interesting to see if the DRL is ever built.

and NOW, January 29-February 5, 2009 issue:

...the TTC only has that line in its sights as a last resort, even though a DRL would divert 41 per cent of the riders from crowded sections of the Yonge line.

TTC chair Adam Giambrone says Transit City is the first priority, and the DRL might be examined in 2018.

The Jan/09 motion requested the DRL be put in the 15-year plan, but I guess Adam lost interest in even that by June/10. And a definite maybe of 2018 in transit years might as well be 2028, or never.

He effectively did not see a DRL as a priority, so let's stop pretending he did.

Here's the reality. There is no shovels in the ground for the RH extension. And there won't be until the DRL is approved. There will be no political BS on this.

You can never escape that. The DRL should be (and have always been) the clear priority but I think the politics favours Yonge going first. Hope I'm wrong but we'll see.

 

[sixrings]

I agree that upgrading the Richmond Hill line would not be a very good use of funds, for the reasons you state. I wouldn't go as far as to close it altogether though. I think it can continue in its current form as a bit of relief for the Yonge Line. After all, the trains are currently well-used, and I suspect that even with an extended Yonge Line we'll be able to fill the handful of trains into and out of downtown each day.

To be clear I never advocated for removal of the go service if a yonge extension was made. Rather i thought that york should vet either the upgraded go or the subway but not both a new subway and a new upgraded go.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

So Toronto went from "a co-proponent of the Yonge Subway northerly extension project" without any conditions or amendments in Oct/08 (a motion introduced by Adam Giambrone by the way) to many conditions in Jan/09 -- gung-ho to cautious in only three months. I'd love to read the two month study that led to this change.

Adam Giambrone on the DRL according to Torontoist, June 1, 2010

and NOW, January 29-February 5, 2009 issue:
The Jan/09 motion requested the DRL be put in the 15-year plan, but I guess Adam lost interest in even that by June/10. And a definite maybe of 2018 in transit years might as well be 2028, or never.

He effectively did not see a DRL as a priority, so let's stop pretending he did.

You can never escape that. The DRL should be (and have always been) the clear priority but I think the politics favours Yonge going first. Hope I'm wrong but we'll see.

I hope so too. Time for Toronto to be serious and stop squabbling.

 

[sixrings]

Which is why I am an advocate for building the transit city line as is with the exception of less stops. The other thing Toronto needs is a drl. I guess if we are going to debate anything is the alignment of the drl and bow far north it goes. Personally I think it should go from Fairview mall to the airport using the arl tracks.

 

[nfitz]

I'd love to read the two month study that led to this change.

We've discussed this here a couple of times, including early 2009. That was the time period when TTC and Metrolinx produced demand estimates for the future Yonge subway at Bloor, and transfer estimates from the Bloor to Yonge subway, both with and without a simple DRL from Pape station to Queen station. And it suddenly crystallized the impact of what would happen if you build the Yonge extension without a DRL.

 

[GenerationW]

No, what suddenly crystallized the impact of Yonge without a DRL was the fear that York Region's lobbying efforts were advancing quickly enough for Yonge to have a 2009 funding announcement. At the time the province was making transit announcements and throwing money around on a regular basis.

Yonge was fine when it seemed years away (Oct/08). Not so much when it appeared imminent (Jan/09).

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

No, what suddenly crystallized the impact of Yonge without a DRL was the fear that York Region's lobbying efforts were advancing quickly enough for Yonge to have a 2009 funding announcement. At the time the province was making transit announcements and throwing money around on a regular basis.

Yonge was fine when it seemed years away (Oct/08). Not so much when it appeared imminent (Jan/09).

I think it was pretty clear that no more money was coming after the initial $12-billion (especially with the recession hitting by then) but the point still stands; it was certainly positioned for whenever the next round of money came.

I can see how stunned Toronto council and TTC would have been by the idea a line was announced in 2007, planned and rushed into EA by the municipality and effectively shovel ready (minus the $, of course) less than two years later. I suspect they weren't even aware such a thing was possible. They like to do things a bit more, um, trepidatiously, down in the 416. [On a totally unrelated note, how IS that DRL coming?]